Re: Carbon Fiber
 

The words commercially available carry allot of meaning when discussing composites. Commercial available manufacturing processes, materials and design services. The stuff going on at the skunk works, Boeing and some other aerospace companies can not be considered commercially common and available. Thats my point. The smallest purchasable amount should also be considered as others have pointed out. I want our team to go to a competition where the playing field is some what leveled and have a chance at winning. A competition that rewards ingenuity, planning and strategy of the students, not professionals. If First goes the direction of no limits anything goes then First will loose my support and I believe that the rest of the mentors and teachers on our team feel the same way. There are other competitions though right now I consider First the best. If First continues to grow there may be a time when a division system like the college sports would be needed. This has started already with FLL, VEX, and FRC. These threads have come up before and I don't think there is anything wrong with rehashing them each year. It's good to look at the past, present, and future directions. Remember we are doing this for the kids. After all they are going to be paying allot for our social security.

Re: Cost Determination, Section 5.3.4.4
 

rather than reverting to Dan Webster and his ilk Im going to plead to everyones common sense

any interpretation of a rule that causes a team to sit and stare at state of the art engineering, design and fabrication tools and NOT use them cannot possibly be in the intended spirit of the rule

because it is comletely against the intended goals of FIRST. We want HS students to experience the magic and wonder of modern science and technology. To tell them they cannot use something as incredible as an SLA machine, because the fluid does not come in one gallon containers, is absurd.

I searched for 'prorated' and 'materials' and found a thread from two years ago, that quoted the previous version of this rule:

Clearly prorated means calculating the proportional cost of the amount actually used, based on the cost of the whole piece of material you acquired (purchased, pulled from stock, received as a donation...).

I submit the addtions to this rule for this year are to address the issues of someone using very large bulk quantity prices to keep the prorated cost of the actual amount they used on the robot to a minimum.

ie, If SLA goop comes in one gallon containers and you only use 4 ounces you must prorate the expense based on the one gallon price. You cant use a 100 gallon price, or a 100,000 gallon price (which would be far lower per gallon). That is what the additions to the rule are addressing.

But if the materail only comes in 55 gallon drums, then that is price and quantity from which you should prorate your actual usage.

If you ran a small SLA fabrication job in a professsional shop, and put down the cost of 10,000 gallons of material as an expense, when you only used 4 ounces, you could end up in prison for accounting fraud when the auditors check your books. Would you charge a customer for 10,000 gallons, if you used 4 ounces, because that is the smallest container it comes in? Of course not. If you have an SLA machine you are using it 7 days a weeks, for hundreds of different projects.

If the word 'prorated' contradicts your interpretation of the rest of the rule, you cant cross out the word or redefine it. Prorated means proportional to what has been used. If you cancel your car insurance in the middle of the month your next bill will not be for a whole month, it will be prorated for the number of days you were covered.

What makes more sense in the spirit and the purpose of FIRST? To have a rule that takes state of the art technology away from teams who have access to it, and want to use it?

or instead, to have teams lean heavily on new technology to get the best performance from their robots, at the lowest possible cost, within the quickest time frame?

It is clear to me, if your sponsor has an SLA machine, the team is not required to purchase 10,000 gallons of SLA goop in order to use 4 ounces. The sponsor does not have to purchase 10,000 gallons either, because they already have it in stock. All that FIRST is looking for is a reasonable (and logical) accounting for the value of the amount of material used to build your robot - not the initial startup cost for a corporation to purchase the supplys needed for a $1,000,000 machine.

We need to clear this up. It would be tragic if teams are not taking advantage of the resources and technology at their disposal due to a misunderstanding of the rules!

Re: Cost Determination, Section 5.3.4.4
 

Ken,

Quoting an old version of the rule that's obviously different from the current version weakens your argument. You'll notice the key difference there:The underlined are clearly different, so the rules and their meanings can be expected to be different. The basis for the prorating has changed. The new rule prorates to the smallest unit that fits the need. The old rule prorated to the amount that you used.

Let's apply some more common sense to this example from the current rules:I expect FIRST to use sensible examples. Now, a 1'x1' aluminum square always costs more than a 4'x4' square, on a $ per sq. in. basis. So, by the percentage of use logic, this example is telling us to use the $ per sq. in. cost of a 1' x 1' square for this. Instead of the $ per sq. in. cost of a 4' x 4' square. So through the example, FIRST is telling us to use the MORE expensive cost for the part. This makes no sense.

As I read the current rule, this prevents a team from prorating the cost based on ton lots of aluminum that their sponsor gets to make whatever. Or titanium or what have you. The problem is especially for exotic materials like the SLA goop that you just can't get in small amounts for any price. If my sponsor buys unobtanium in bulk lots of ten tons for $1 million and that's the ONLY way you can get it, then my using 2 pounds of it for just $100 is patently unfair. The rules are, in fact, occasionally about fairness rather than encouraging the use of every exotic material and technique known to man.

Re: Cost Determination, Section 5.3.4.4
 

it would be unfair to whom? if it can only be purchased in lots of ten tons, then that is the only way anyone can purchase it. Anyone who has an SLA machine will have to buy it the same way as you, at the same price. That is fair.

If you go to ten different SLA modeling shops they will all quote you a fabrication price based on the amount of material you are going to use. They are not going to quote you a price based on ten tons if your job only needs 4 ounces.

what logic is there to this? I can have SLA parts fabbed by someone else if I pay for the 4 ounces of material and the labor, but I cant have them fabbed by my own team members (sponsor employees) unless I put down the cost for ten tons?!

I would like to be in the room when someone tells DK they did not allow the team to use their SLA machine, or their gear fab machine, or their CF molding machine, because of the way this rule was strangely worded.

If FIRST wanted us to put the cost of the smallest piece of stock available from which a part could be cut from, they would have said you must put the price of the whole piece on the BOM. The phrase "may be prorated " would have been dropped from the rule if the BOM cost was not proportional to the actual amount of material used.

It makes sense to me. I could tweak my BOM costs by prorating based on very large quanties of parts, when I only purchased one, or 5. The change to the rule from last year to this year put the Kibosh on accounting tricks, to keep the robot BOM realistic. If FIRST did not want teams to use SLA machines, CNC machines, gear fabrication machines.... they would come out and clearly say so. They would not bury a caviot in a rule about raw material prorating methods, so that teams would end up being disqualified because the raw materials their machine uses only comes in 55 gallon drums, or in railroad tanker cars, but a similar competitors machine has a supply chain with one gallon containers. When you end up in an absurd place like this its obvious you have taken a wrong turn interpreting the rules.

Re: Cost Determination, Section 5.3.4.4
 

Instead of focusing on the rules, what needs to be discussed is how does First allow and encourage new technology into the competition and at the same time keep a level playing field. Also how to incorporate technology that requires special facilities where the student can not be directly involved and hands on. How to prevent a disconnect between the sponsor mentors and the students. Today the subject is composites. Tomorrow it could be fiber reinforced injection molding. This issue will never go away, but how it is dealt with can either hurt or improve the competition. There is no black or white just shades of gray.

Re: Cost Determination, Section 5.3.4.4
 

This suggestion is similar to the one Andy made back in #17 of this thread.

I really would like to use the SLA machine, but I don't want to twist a rule to do it. If, as Ken and Andy have suggested, I can determine a fair market value for parts made on Emerson's SLA machine and donated to 931, then that value is a valid alternative to the much higher material cost calculated using the pro rata rule.

Re: Cost Determination, Section 5.3.4.4
 

Im with you on this. Its frustrating to see a small team with no big sponsors struggle to attach a gear to a drive shaft, when other teams are CNC'ing their frame from a block of aluminum (ok, Im exagerating a little).

One way to do what you propose is to get design firms and modeling shops to sign up as sponsors for your team. Your team can have more than one sponsor. If they are offically sponsors then their labor does not count against your robot BOM costs. If you are paying them for the work, then it does - and it could be exactly the same amount of work and involvement with the team.

I think the reason FIRST sets things up this way is to get more relationships established with local businesses in your area - its all about networking. If you have a small team this is the kind of thing that will get your students exposure to other aspects of engineering. It might also led to summer jobs, internships, coop positions.... as they progress through their education in HS and college.

Re: Cost Determination, Section 5.3.4.4
 

My understanding of the rule: suppose aluminium sheet in 1' x 1' pieces costs $y, and aluminium sheet of 4' x 4' costs $x
you use 10" x 10", and the smallest amount of aluminium sheet ANYONE can buy is 1' x 1'
generally, x<16y (4*4=16) due to economy of scale
The cost will be $x/16, instead of $y.

Is it unfair?
Yes, because some teams may not be able to afford the $x to buy that 4' x 4' sheet of aluminium and will have to put $y in the BOM
No, because any team that can afford it will be able to buy 4' x 4' aluminium at $x and put $x/16 in the BOM

Re: Cost Determination, Section 5.3.4.4
 

Ken, I'm pretty sure you're not on the GDC. It's absurd for you, or anyone else not on the GDC to claim to know the intent of the rules.

You definitively say that you are right, and you must be so, because Dean Kamen couldn't possibly be against teams taking advantage of all their resources. In reality, you have no idea what Dean thinks on the subject matter. Nor does it matter, because the rules are quite clear, regardless of what Dean does or does not think.

Passing your opinion off as fact is incredibly misleading to the average onlooker. None of us here are FIRST. None of us say what the rules are or aren't (except Dave:)). To pretend otherwise is detrimental to everyone. It's entirely possible that someone who doesn't know any better could believe every word you've said, and unknowingly violate the rules, because they thought they were told what the rule was, but in reality it was something completely different.

I won't even get started on how patently wrong it is that you try to cite previous years rules to prove your point.

Re: Cost Determination, Section 5.3.4.4
 

I dont agree. We are FIRST collectively, all of us, the students, the teachers and the mentors.

The purpose and the goals of this program have not changed. FIRST is not going to swing to extremes from one year to the next, to boost TV ratings, or to make more money, or to up the prizes, or for any other reason that is detrimental to getting HS students to pursue a career path in science and eningeering.

99% of the benefit that comes from FIRST comes from inside the teams themselves, not from FIRST officials. Teams dont get full scholarhips by winning the regional or the championship. Individual students are inspired to attend colleges and universitys based on what they experience with their mentors and team-mates, and those on other teams.

FIRST has been consistant in its purpose and goals since 1992. They are not going to pull the rug out from under us this year, or next year, and make rules that will prevent teams from using the technology they have at their disposal.

I feel highly confident in this. Someone show me indications from FIRST headquarters that lead you to feel otherwise.

I said we need to clear this up because it is important. Only a handfull of people have expressed their opinions in this thread, and Im interested in hearing how the other 990 teams did their BOM accounting for materials,

and whether any other teams let $1M machines/tools sit idle, because they though this rule implied they must not be used?

Its no big deal if a team put $1.00 on their BOM for a square foot of plywood, when they could have charged only 92¢

but if teams are not using their sponsors equipment, because of the wording of a rule about measuring plywood and sheetmetal, then its to their advantage if we straighten this out.

PS: over the past 9 years I heard DK speak about FIRST often enough to have some idea of what will make his head go Linda-Blair :^)