$3500 ruling......big mistake

[JamesJones]

Sometimes I read FIRST rulings and just shake my head. I am convinced that they just don't really understand how many teams work. Here's the new ruling:

There have been many questions on figuring the total cost of additional components,
particularly with regards to labor from a machine shop. If a machine shop is a team
partner, i.e., the shop’s name is part of the team’s name, their labor can be excluded from
the cost of the robot. Conversely, if the machine shop is not a team partner:
• You must include their labor charges;
• If they donate their labor, you must include the fair market value of their labor.

They better start getting ready to announce some awefully long team names because we have five machine shops helping us and I don't think we could even build our gearboxes for $3500 in fair market value machine shop labor. Looks like they are all going in our name along with our main sponsor who, though generous with money, in unable to help with manufacturing. My impression is that FIRST was thinking a $3500 limit wouldn't change the robot designs much. If you have to bookkeep market rates for machine shop labor, that changes things drasticaly and we can throw out a weeks worth of design work.

James Jones
Engineer/Coach
Team 180 SPAM

[Adam Y.]

Our team has no problem with it except for the fact that we have to count every nut on the robot. We only have 1500 dollars to spend.:D

[bigqueue]

You are right....they should make the teams that get FREE shop time from their sponsors count the cost of those hours.

It's only fair....it doesn't make it any more expensive for those teams....it only makes the playing field only slightly more level. (they still have the ability to do ALOT more work...proto or otherwise...for FREE)

-Quentin

[Adam Y.]

I would agree with you if every team had acess to a machine shop but not all of them do.

[JamesJones]

I'm guess I'm not making my point.

1. I'm still going to build the same robot, you just better get a good magazine when we go on stage because our name is going to contain our sponsor + five machine shops....hence free labor.

2. It is unfortunate that some teams don't have alot of machine shop resources....believe me I have been there. It is also unfortunate that some football teams don't have good quarterbacks. I think we should make the good quarterbacks sit out to give the lousy ones a chance.

3. Let me give an example. I worked at Motorola for two years and was on their team (267). Motorola had a model shop that did half or more of the machining on the robot. We built some pretty nice robots that would would have been very expensive had we paid fair market value. None of that labor would have counted toward the $3500 limit because motorola was the main sponsor, motorola did the machining so I could have spent $100000 on labor and it wouldn't matter. Now I'm on a team whose sponsor gives money but not machining. Now I can only bring a $3500 robot while Motorola (if they still exist) can bring a $100,000 robot. That's FIRST fairness?

4. Labor should not be tracked at all period. It's a hassle to the mentors and volunteers that adds no value to the experience or goals of FIRST. It does not make the game more fair it makes it more unfair. The teams with no machining resources have no machining resources. The game will always be stacked against them. It's part of building their team to go out and get those resources. Now FIRST has taken teams that might have parity in manufacturing capability and hamstrung the teams whose main sponsor doesn't have a machine shop.

James

[bigqueue]

But the idea of making everyone account for their fair market costs IS a way or leveling the field.

Heck, you still have the ACTUAL savings...and god knows you can make 50 revisions of each part because the time and labor is FREE.....so they still have a fantastic advantage.

The problem is that I think FIRST caved in to the Sponsors by allowing their labor to be free. I think FIRST is smart, knowing that without the big sponsors, FIRST would be nothing. (that's why I hate politics....it sometimes gets in the way of what is right)

-Quentin



Originally posted by JamesJones
I'm guess I'm not making my point.

1. I'm still going to build the same robot, you just better get a good magazine when we go on stage because our name is going to contain our sponsor + five machine shops....hence free labor.

2. It is unfortunate that some teams don't have alot of machine shop resources....believe me I have been there. It is also unfortunate that some football teams don't have good quarterbacks. I think we should make the good quarterbacks sit out to give the lousy ones a chance.

3. Let me give an example. I worked at Motorola for two years and was on their team (267). Motorola had a model shop that did half or more of the machining on the robot. We built some pretty nice robots that would would have been very expensive had we paid fair market value. None of that labor would have counted toward the $3500 limit because motorola was the main sponsor, motorola did the machining so I could have spent $100000 on labor and it wouldn't matter. Now I'm on a team whose sponsor gives money but not machining. Now I can only bring a $3500 robot while Motorola (if they still exist) can bring a $100,000 robot. That's FIRST fairness?

4. Labor should not be tracked at all period. It's a hassle to the mentors and volunteers that adds no value to the experience or goals of FIRST. It does not make the game more fair it makes it more unfair. The teams with no machining resources have no machining resources. The game will always be stacked against them. It's part of building their team to go out and get those resources. Now FIRST has taken teams that might have parity in manufacturing capability and hamstrung the teams whose main sponsor doesn't have a machine shop.

James

[Adam Y.]

Labor should not be tracked at all period. It's a hassle to the mentors and volunteers that adds no value to the experience or goals of FIRST. It does not make the game more fair it makes it more unfair. The teams with no machining resources have no machining resources. The game will always be stacked against them. It's part of building their team to go out and get those resources. Now FIRST has taken teams that might have parity in manufacturing capability and hamstrung the teams whose main sponsor doesn't have a machine shop.
The problem is that the team with machining resources still have only 3500 dollars to use on their robot including machining. Ahhh I see where your getting at but still it will never really be exactly level.

[JamesJones]

FIRST didn't cave to big name sponsors, they just made a bad rule. Look, for $3500 of fair market value machining and raw materials you get a drivable box. You do not get 4 wheel drive 4 wheel steering, shifting gearboxes, variable ratio transmissions, walking beam drives, crab drives or the fancy, amazing robots people like to watch. FIRST needs expensive, impressive robots so people will want to watch.

Let's look at this from the purpose of FIRST perspective. I want to get kids excited about manufacturing, engineering and technology. Should I show them what a nice machine shop can do with an aggressive, advanced design and let them see the possibilities? Or should I hand them a hacksaw and some tubing and say this is all we can afford, knock yourselves out. Both experiences have value. I guess it is a matter of opinion which is more inspiring.

By the way, it's not about politics. Dragging everybody down to the level of the least resourced teams is not fair and it is not right and it not good for FIRST.

James

[andy]

I get really mixed feelings reading this thread...

On one hand all we have to spend is $1000 but as NASA says "the check is in the mail" so right now we got squat. nothing. nada. nil.

We got some metal yards (about 5) to donate extruded AL, Northern Tools SAY they will help us w/ some tools and a machine shop will only charge us $30 an hour for work (welding etc) So how do we right that in. Do we still need to right fair market value for the machanists time? Are they sponsors?

For example, l I know we wont have a multi speed electric transmission (like some teams) but not because of cost but because of time, expertise and alot of people who believe in the KISS method (far too much stuff to go wrong in a complex design) and no one who knows how to design something like that much less build it. Cost comes into play later... But it still is a big expense.

Even better than that for a materials writeup what about our team bartering w/ the mechine shop w/ metal (we found about $1000 dollars worth of metal in our shop when we cleaned it out) and the mechanist says he will trade us. Go figure.

What I think of the rule? I'm not sure.

Go Falcons
-Andy

[Adam Y.]

Or should I hand them a hacksaw and some tubing and say this is all we can afford, knock yourselves out.
I believe this is the way to go. You can use all the fancy machines and tools but when it comes down to it you must know how to fix things using nothing but duct tape and a whatever supplies at hand. What happens if disaster strikes and you've got the wrong tools. That's where the tough get going and grab whatever tools and materials they can get. What do you think the engieers at apollo 13 did??? Machine the tool at there shop. Ductape engineering is the way to go.:D Hehe why not machine the stuff yourself. Then it would be free.

[Brett W]

I am a little upset to read that your gearbox couldn't be made with $3500. We make our gear boxes for free. use gears and material from stuff we find at our school then machine it. i can understand if you don't have a machine shop in your school and you have too pay labour; but going to FIVE machine shops that just is not right. you are claiming that you are leveling the playing field. I don't think so you are making it worse by having such a perfect robot while there are still teams with almost nothing. What exactly are you being inspired by or recognizing. (For INSPIRATION and RECOGNITION of Science and Technology) You are just paying a machine shop to build your robot for you. I can't see how some one would learn from this. These kits this year were designed for teams with no machine shop. so there is no need to go to 5 maching shops to get your robot built.

Just My Two cents.

[HolyMasamune]

And take into the consideration that some teams may be dishonest and not list everything that they received/spent money on. For example, if a team bought 100 feet of aluminum, messed up with 40 feet, and used 60 feet on the robot, they could write it as 60 feet of aluminum. Also, FIRST can't count all the nuts and bolts on the robot, which makes it more of a problem for the honest teams and let the dishonest teams get away with their deeds.

[Adam Y.]

For example, if a team bought 100 feet of aluminum, messed up with 40 feet, and used 60 feet on the robot, they could write it as 60 feet of aluminum.
That would be ok though.:) It's only the stuff thats on the robot. Remeber it's prorated.

[Jim Giacchi]

Originally posted by HolyMasamune
And take into the consideration that some teams may be dishonest and not list everything that they received/spent money on. For example, if a team bought 100 feet of aluminum, messed up with 40 feet, and used 60 feet on the robot, they could write it as 60 feet of aluminum.

Wrong, that's what you are supposed to do. If you only use 60 feet of it on your actual robot then you are only supposed to record the 60 feet you use. Same with plate or bolts. If you only use 12x12 of a 24x24 inch plate then you only have to charge yourself 1/4 of the purchase price. It clearly states that in the rules.

Also, FIRST can't count all the nuts and bolts on the robot, which makes it more of a problem for the honest teams and let the dishonest teams get away with their deeds.

This is true , but you just have to trust that they won't.

[bigqueue]

The thing about the real world is that there usually ARE hard limits on what you can spend to develop things.....and so why should that be different here?

In fact, this really ISN'T a limit on development costs is it....people can still go off and make tons of protos, and perhaps lots of tooling if they wanted.....no? (isn't the cost of parts just material and labor....all the NRE is left out)

Besides, in general, the winner in business isn't always the one with the "best" (highest performaing) design....there are all sorts of other issues, like time to market, development and MFG costs, etc....

No matter what we say or do, you have to admit that FIRST is a concocted enterprise. No where in business would you end up with 800 competitors for so many years....and continue to have that number GROWING!

If this were business, the best would surface, and the rest would go under.....but that's not what FIRST wants.....so there has to be some sort of "leveling" in order to keep EVERYONE in it.

Besides.....why not try and make some of your enhancements this year with electronics and software? There are plenty of opportunities for this with the custom circuit...and all of that will be very cheap by comparison. (bang for the buck....perhaps the biggest engineering challange, especially in an economy like this!)

-Quentin


Originally posted by Brett W
I am a little upset to read that your gearbox couldn't be made with $3500. We make our gear boxes for free. use gears and material from stuff we find at our school then machine it. i can understand if you don't have a machine shop in your school and you have too pay labour; but going to FIVE machine shops that just is not right. you are claiming that you are leveling the playing field. I don't think so you are making it worse by having such a perfect robot while there are still teams with almost nothing. What exactly are you being inspired by or recognizing. (For INSPIRATION and RECOGNITION of Science and Technology) You are just paying a machine shop to build your robot for you. I can't see how some one would learn from this. These kits this year were designed for teams with no machine shop. so there is no need to go to 5 maching shops to get your robot built.

Just My Two cents.

[MRL180YTL2002]

Originally posted by JamesJones
I'm guess I'm not making my point.

1. I'm still going to build the same robot, you just better get a good magazine when we go on stage because our name is going to contain our sponsor + five machine shops....hence free labor.

2. It is unfortunate that some teams don't have alot of machine shop resources....believe me I have been there. It is also unfortunate that some football teams don't have good quarterbacks. I think we should make the good quarterbacks sit out to give the lousy ones a chance.

3. Let me give an example. I worked at Motorola for two years and was on their team (267). Motorola had a model shop that did half or more of the machining on the robot. We built some pretty nice robots that would would have been very expensive had we paid fair market value. None of that labor would have counted toward the $3500 limit because motorola was the main sponsor, motorola did the machining so I could have spent $100000 on labor and it wouldn't matter. Now I'm on a team whose sponsor gives money but not machining. Now I can only bring a $3500 robot while Motorola (if they still exist) can bring a $100,000 robot. That's FIRST fairness?

4. Labor should not be tracked at all period. It's a hassle to the mentors and volunteers that adds no value to the experience or goals of FIRST. It does not make the game more fair it makes it more unfair. The teams with no machining resources have no machining resources. The game will always be stacked against them. It's part of building their team to go out and get those resources. Now FIRST has taken teams that might have parity in manufacturing capability and hamstrung the teams whose main sponsor doesn't have a machine shop.

James

I must quote my fellow teammate and adult mentor here. But its also not just this rule. There's also teams that have quarter million dollar budgets complaing about the two regional ruling. Instead of complaining, what about donating to other teams, setting up scholarships, etc.... that would be the true F.I.R.S.T. spirit (not to mention look good on the Chairman's Award). When I first started on S.P.A.M. we had a bunch of table top tools (drill press, band saw, really meant for hobby work, none of this heavy duty stuff), hand tools, and the Pratt and Whitney machines (whatever was available we had a machinist use), engineers donating their time, the like. Now these teams have engineers and machinists ASSIGNED to work for the company sponsored F.I.R.S.T. team, I found that out. This competition has NEVER BEEN FAIR but this $3500 limit for the robot with labor, with some of these designs, namely GEARBOXES and CHASSIS, a lot of time is spent simply machining the parts just to get a robot to move on the field. The increase of manufacturing was a move on our part to complete the robot way ahead of the ship date to debug the robot. This allows us obviously to correct problems (or repairing the occasional jumping off the shelf gearbox). I have spent hours (at least 3 at KSC and 6 at Epcot) repairing our gearboxes. If we found out these problems earlier, we could have never spent as much time on that endeavour. I've worked my way from simply hacksaws to bandsaws yes. We've built up our team in this way as well. Our team and sponsor benefits. But also I must add is that these sponsors and supporters contribute this as their donation, rather than money. Furthermore, these Machine Shops are a critical part of spreading the F.I.R.S.T. message as they have amongst many groups the most to benefit from F.I.R.S.T. activities. So don't tell me its not fair that you're working with a cordless drill, hacksaws, screw drivers, all starting teams begin there and you slowly add more and more equipment. I have not met a team that has been "properly supported" in the beginning with shops, engineers, etc.... other than the big name teams. This competition has never been fair.

In this whole rant if you've read it this far, the F.I.R.S.T. community is never even. If you want to talk money in the robot, what about money to go to competition. People complained about the two regional limit. So yeah, $3500 in the robot, great. All this work wasted. I've seen us grow and expand, part of this expansion includes machine shops (specifically those 5 who said they'd help). A lot of support was drummed up last year due to our success and also we owe our success to solid design and MANUFACTURING.

Michael Lee
International Baccalaureate Senior
South Fork High School
U.S. F.I.R.S.T. Robotics Competition Team 180, S.P.A.M.;
International Summit of Young Technology Leaders 2002
(YTL Summit) Network Delegate

[ChrisA]

All I have to say is that FIRST has good reasons for this ruling.

1) Playing field is leveled to be fair to all teams, so better funded teams don't completely womp less funded teams.

2) Your team is like a business producing a product. Guess what people in the real world have to do. Yes, that's right, they have to account for all the materials that are used to build their product.

3) Finance is now an important part of the game which means students can now experience first hand at what the actual companies do every day.

So welcome to the real world. You can complain all you want, but that's not going to change anything. The purpose of FIRST is to teach students about the real world, and I believe that this is a very good way of doing it.

And for those who have not read the most recent rules update... nuts, bolts, washers, screws, etc that are less than $1.00 each in cost do NOT have to be accounted for.

[Adam Y.]

So welcome to the real world. You can complain all you want, but that's not going to change anything. The purpose of FIRST is to teach students about the real world, and I believe that this is a very good way of doing it.
I agree.:) $3500 is more than enough to build an effective robot.

[Pat Chen]

My son joined SPAM four years ago. I have seen both he and the team mature. If you all think that the $3500 limit levels the playing field -my reply is -yeah right- who are you kidding! When he started with this team - all they had was table top tools -guess what - we still use them -but we lucked out - a nice person who was curious - understood that we needed help -- he owned a machine shop - allowed our students to go to his shop at night and weekends to work . The team did really well - because of our success - we were successful in lining up additional assistance - Some of you out there seem to think that since we are getting assistance - our students are not doing anything at all - well it is not the case -- our students will still be building the robot - what the difference is that this mom and other parents will not be in the pit -- machining lightening holes or other parts at the wee hours in the morning - go home catch a couple hours of sleep - and go to work.

[Martin]

The $3,500 limit, is anything but a mistake. Finally FIRST is doing something about monster teams gobbling up the competition. Last year our team built "tweety" probably the ugliest robot in the toronto regional...but since we spent $100 on it, that dosent come as a suprise. But along with spending so little money on it came the greatest experience ever. Trying to do things without the exact parts, modifying things to make tehm work for you, thats where you elarn, when u use your head. Quite some learning experience if a blueprint or parts go into a machine shop, and out comes half of your robot. DO things yourselves, LEARN !
I can already smell it coming, arguments aobut how im wrong, and thats not the point of FIRST and all that, but honestly i dont care. There is no one in this world who can tell me how i feel...and i feel that putting your hands on the bot only enhances the experience. So all you engeneers, start building those robots for the competition, but myself along with my team are gonna go and get dirty.

[Kristina]

I don't think that the spending limit will make the playing field completely level because of course some teams have more experience and connections. However, I do think its a great idea. 691's teacher/advisor was thinking of making spending caps for each subgroup last year anyway. Like Martin said, you become more resourceful and learn more. Of course fundraising is a great skill to learn but I think that FIRST should be about learning and thinking rather than seeing who can rack up the most sponsors, find the most connections, and spend the most money.

[redbeard0531]

Does noone remember the slide from kick off? Ya know, "This will not be fair. We annot make it fair. Acept it!"

now first is all about doing cool and inovative stuff, rite? now a team with a machine shop can do the coolest stuff. and the coolest stuff while very cool, doesnt realy make that much of a differance. 10 grand gearbox with aoutomatic transmition wont make a huge differance against a singlespeed, constant ratio system; its just cooler and more inovative.

Think of these bots as prototypes in a company. Imanine if Ford said that a the first pressing of an engine block must be near the cost of a full production engine.

Also, whats a better way to get people inspired about science and tech nologie, then to let the try out some of the latest tooles of the trade?

Now i could see if first said that it counted as the prorated fair market value of a 10,000 order, or the cost of a similar, noncustom part. most of the custom gearboxes could be made for under $300 this way. it would still count against the team, but it wouldn't stifle creativity, and coolness.

btw - Just for the record, im fully opposed to allowing profesional engineers desine these bots. teas should use them as a referance, not a substitute for coming up with a plan. It is a very valuble prosses to learn how to do the planning civily. My team haas spent all week on this, and there is still some bickering, but we all learned a lot for the prosses. with luck we will be build ing on tuesday or thurs.

team info - 3rd year team with a small machine shop donateing some spare machine time.

[Adam Y.]

Some of you out there seem to think that since we are getting assistance - our students are not doing anything at all - well it is not the case -- our students will still be building the robot - what the difference is that this mom and other parents will not be in the pit -- machining lightening holes or other parts at the wee hours in the morning - go home catch a couple hours of sleep - and go to work.
Errr if your machining the parts then what is the big deal about. It's free.:) Remeber the team from New York City I believe the little red engine that could. It doesn't have to be complicated for it to be effective.

[Bduggan04]

Originally posted by Martin
The $3,500 limit, is anything but a mistake. Finally FIRST is doing something about monster teams gobbling up the competition.

I'm pretty sure that last year was the first year there was no spending limit. I think that in 2001 we couldn't spend more than $1200. However, labor was not included in this. It was no deifferent then and it won't be different now, there will still be teams that have greater resources than others. FIRST cannot prevent this from happening.

[AJ Quick]

I sure hope student/parents machining doesn't count towards the cost. ;)

[Bduggan04]

Originally posted by AJ Quick
I sure hope student/parents machining doesn't count towards the cost. ;)

It sounds like only machining done by anyone other than a team partner, mentor, member, etc. They really are only limiting work that is contracted to machine shop.

[JLambert]

Originally posted by Bduggan04
It sounds like only machining done by anyone other than a team partner, mentor, member, etc. They really are only limiting work that is contracted to machine shop.

Great, so I can just do all the welding myself.

I wonder how much of a cost I would have to put down when I accidentally weld my finger to the chassis...

I think if machining was relatively easy, then students doing it would be a good alternative, but the same teams who don't have the sponsor resources to do the machining probably don't have the mentors to help with training for machining.

[MRL180YTL2002]

We do the machining...we've managed to acquire a few "new" industrial grade milling machine, lathe, drill press, bandsaw, and grinder for our pit. Stuff made there definately won't count. But also a few of us have had the opportunity to work on such machines (with adult supervision of course). I'm not whinig nor am I complaining. Yes in life there are budgets but the point is that the competition was never fair to begin with. Teams like S.P.A.M. have scrapped enough to get to competition, building the robot as best we can with whatever tools we have. We've grown to include these 5 machine shops as a basis of support. Rather than donate money like other area individuals and companies, they offered manufacturing support that was badly needed in previous years. In 2000, my first year...we sat around, 15 of us, waiting for parts being machined else where to arrive as we were prohibited to go to that site. This hindered our ability to accomplish our goals for that year. Increasing manufacturing support allows us to provide more opportunities to not only us students but also to expidite the process of building the robot. The more practice time you have the better knowledge of your robots problems and how to overcome them. We've never had this time for debugging the robot. This time is invaluable. Its better to break the robot prior to shipping but definately not the night before like we did last year. Correcting problems early also us the pit crew to well, take it easy. This doesn't mean we're lazy, rather we prefer not to have to build/add new parts at competition unless we're modifying the design. Having these machine shops allows our sponsors to work on contracts as they donate time, labor, and sometimes materials to do this after business hours. This $3500 limit hinders the development of teams to include all parts of engineering. This allows us to see the full spectrum and what a beautiful sight it is.

[Justin Stiltner]

I see it as only hurting more some teams... here is an example

A is sponsord by say acme manufacturing and they have a huge shop with lathe, mill, rapid prototyping, ect.

B is sponsored by say citibank corp. who only donates money.

well A uses the tools of their "sponsor" to make their robot
and B tryes to make the same thing that A made.. well their quote from the machene shop was 5K well B cannot get that part made... they cant make it themselves for lack of tools... but A has no diffulticy in making it because the shop is a "sponsor", B could have easily paied for the labor.. but this years rule forbids it.. so in this case little jhonny students great gearbox, or other device dident get made cause of that rule.. but if jhonny had been on team A it would have been made and used...

now how is that fair for anybody?

[srjjs]

Originally posted by Justin Stiltner
I see it as only hurting more some teams... here is an example

A is sponsord by say acme manufacturing and they have a huge shop with lathe, mill, rapid prototyping, ect.

B is sponsored by say citibank corp. who only donates money.

well A uses the tools of their "sponsor" to make their robot
and B tryes to make the same thing that A made.. well their quote from the machene shop was 5K well B cannot get that part made... they cant make it themselves for lack of tools... but A has no diffulticy in making it because the shop is a "sponsor", B could have easily paied for the labor.. but this years rule forbids it.. so in this case little jhonny students great gearbox, or other device dident get made cause of that rule.. but if jhonny had been on team A it would have been made and used...

now how is that fair for anybody?
How about team B buys the tools, then builds the part themselves?

[bigqueue]

You are 100% correct....
this is why I think that ALL machining hours should cost against the final assessed cost.

I'm not saying you have to pay for it....just that the hours of work get assigned.

Ok...I'd even be game to allowing the total value to rise up above $3500....but not so high that it would knock the teams that have to actually pay for it right out of the competition.

Cost control is a major aspect of Engineering a product.



Originally posted by Justin Stiltner
I see it as only hurting more some teams... here is an example

A is sponsord by say acme manufacturing and they have a huge shop with lathe, mill, rapid prototyping, ect.

B is sponsored by say citibank corp. who only donates money.

well A uses the tools of their "sponsor" to make their robot
and B tryes to make the same thing that A made.. well their quote from the machene shop was 5K well B cannot get that part made... they cant make it themselves for lack of tools... but A has no diffulticy in making it because the shop is a "sponsor", B could have easily paied for the labor.. but this years rule forbids it.. so in this case little jhonny students great gearbox, or other device dident get made cause of that rule.. but if jhonny had been on team A it would have been made and used...

now how is that fair for anybody?

[MRL180YTL2002]

A) THIS COMPETITION IS NOT FAIR - Woody only said that!
B) Read up on S.P.A.M. team history. We've worked our butts off (well some of us) to get this far.
C) I'd suggest you read a few of the posts. I'm not questioning fairness, we all know this competition has never been fair. When I started, there were teams with 5 machine shops (staffed) and 6 engineers assigned to this competition and a nice fat $250,000 budget....at S.P.A.M. it was whatever money we raised (being in Florida it was easier to go to Nationals and KSC Regionals), engineers and machinists donating their time...its still this way with one exception. We've grown, the team size has nearly quadrupled in my time so far on S.P.A.M. and those 5 machine shops we have lined up are apart of the growth, a part of our mission to spread the words of F.I.R.S.T. out to our community. You have to start somewhere and those machine shops and engineering facilities have a lot to benefit. Its a both win situation here.

[Justin Stiltner]

Well I was thinking the students, with the machenists help were making the parts on A anyway. So that could still be counted as free... I wasent thinking of the machenists getting paied to help the team.
When it comes down to it.. i think that material should have been the only cost thing, and like in 2001 some stuff is just free like fastners, and gears. and extruded AL up to a certain size.

[Adam Y.]

A is sponsord by say acme manufacturing and they have a huge shop with lathe, mill, rapid prototyping, ect.
The rule states is that you can get the service done at any price but has to have the street value on your robots bill or materials which rules out your scenario.

[MRL180YTL2002]

I was at one of our sponsors and primary machine shop (whose owner is a great man who also lined up the 4 other machine shops). He has a sign that shows the rate, $75 dollars an hour I believe. That's a lot of money.

[Justin Stiltner]

wusiwg, A has them as their SPONSOR.. they give them the use of their machenes, and the men come in on their own time.. and the parts are made by students under their supervision.. you dont have to count that in the 3500

[Adam Y.]

WOOPS I didn't read the message all the way. wow 75 dollars an hour. I know what I'm becoming.

[Pat Chen]

Justin:
The sponsor has to be a "named sponsor" -- not to have the labor cost included as part of the $3500 -- now there are teams out there who has companies that are willing to sponsor the team by the virtual of allowing the team to either use the machinery or even by helping with machining. These are the small shops that do not have the financial resources to dole out BIG BUCKS! In the old days -- Barter was a way of life -- in a sense -- when companies are willing to lend a hand -- it is in the concept of bartering -- they don't have the $$ to give -- but yet want to help the team -- when they work with the students -- especially the aspiring engineers that most of you are -- you may gain some insight as to why engineers should design something that is "machinist friendly" -- in lot of ways -- it is a learning experience -- aside from the big kahuna teams -- most teams do a lot of the work on their own -- this is my observation from speaking to various teams at competitons.

[Justin Stiltner]

In that senaro thats what I ment, those were the teams only sponsors. And what if a team has a bunch of sponsors, but they are greedy and the only way they will give the kids money is to have themselves in the name but the shop isnt like that.. so they registered without the shops name in theirs ... were going to have some big names this year if this rule stands as it is

[MRL180YTL2002]

Originally posted by JamesJones


1. I'm still going to build the same robot, you just better get a good magazine when we go on stage because our name is going to contain our sponsor + five machine shops....hence free labor.




I quoted my teammate and adult mentor once and I'll do it again.

[Pat Chen]

Most teams that are established now do not have machine shops in their name -- yes you are right -- now we are going to have teams with very long names -- but who force these teams to do so in the first place -- as an volunteer and a teacher -- I could not in good faith --tell the kids to ignore the rules -- we will have to adopt all these shops' names as part of our name -- by introducing this rule -- FIRST has made it difficult for a lot of teams -- I am sure that it was not their intent -- but in another thread relating to this dilemna -- it would have been a good idea if FIRST open the rule to discussion prior to implementation. Another thing -- if the teams were forced to paid the shops for services -- teams may not afford to go to competitions -- there goes the budget -- unless you are member of one the big kahuna teams with deep pockets.

[Lee]

This is our 4th year in the competition. The first year (2000) was with a minimal budget and support. Our robot was simple and straightforward. Its total cost (including the cost of registration and kit of parts) was about $10,000, including cost of "donated" labor. The 2001 robot was similar. The 2003 robot cost was about $13,000, including estimated cost for donated labor from "partner" machine shops. In all three years we were very competitive, with a simple but robust design. It IS possible to create a competitive robot with the $3500 cost of parts and labor. The REAL cost of a team is travel (and pizza)...

Team 343 - 2000 Kennedy - 2nd place alliance, 2001 Kennedy - 1st Place alliance, VCU - 1st place alliance, 2003 Kennedy - 1st place alliance, St Louis - 1st place alliance, Nationals - Curie Finalist alliance, 2003 ?????

[MRL180YTL2002]

Yes it is possible to create and manufacture a simple robot with $3500. But that is not the dispute in those terms. We are discussing the more advanced, complex, robots that many veteran teams will be constructing. Many robots will be brave little toasters (BLTs) that just run around on the field due to the number of teams who lack funds and/or are rookies. But we here accept the $3500, but we strongly and firmly believe what why should we be penalized for designing a complex, multi-system robot capable of doing many different things. Our gearbox design, the original one, was in the neighborhood of a couple grand and that was last years. the only reason we didn't choose it was because with one machine shop, the parts for all the things we needed would never have been done in time for shipping. Thus we asked for support from other area machine shops to not only alleviate this problem this year and obtain sponsors (through their assistence in machining parts) but spread the message of F.I.R.S.T.. This allows us to grow as a team as we gain experience with working with different designs that, yes it looks great on paper, but we never could really implement for various reason and the primary one outside of money was the machining involved. Read a few of the earlier posts.

Yes you are right, the greatest expense is going to the competition but that is not the dispute here.