Cost Determination, Section 5.3.4.4
 

I'd be surprised if the cost of the resin and fabric was exceedingly high—fair market value for a couple of rolls of carbon fibre fabric and resin is only a few hundred dollars (maybe $800 USD for enough for a basic frame*). While not exactly cheap, it's a far cry from $3500. Most of the costs for custom composite work come from the labour and the tooling, both of which seem to be covered by the sponsor.

This is an interesting point, related to the relatively unknown, and to some degree, unpredictable failure characteristics of composite materials. Carbon fibre tends to exhibit a non-uniform response to stress; the material breaks unevenly as the plies delaminate and snap. And once it's broken, the piece is virtually always trash, because of the cracking and splintering that takes place along the material grain (it's highly anisotropic). Also, fatigue of composites is rather unpredictable—it's certainly not characterized in the same manner as steel or even aluminum. Boeing probably didn't want to take a risk with the tail, and ended up building it more strongly to withstand the significant fatigue associated with the application.

Now, given that FIRST robots are regularly subject to some pretty jarring impacts, from strange angles, I think you'd be hard-pressed to design a composite frame that could resist all manner of stresses with a very low probability of catastrophic failure. You'd certainly want to consult with an expert, in order to go this route.

Additionally, do not expose yourself to carbon fibre dust (e.g. from cutting). It can irritate mucous membranes (and to some degree, bare skin), and is rather worse when it gets in your lungs. Wear filter masks (and maybe coveralls) if you must cut it, and take measures to dispose of the dust.

*I haven't done the stress calculations to figure out if this "cheap" stuff is enough for your application. Maybe you'll need the aerospace-grade product, which will probably blow the bank.

Re: Carbon Fiber
 

Other teams don't have to be able to buy something that you make - they only need to be able to obtain the same raw materials (as you noted later in <R41>).

As I am certain you know Al, the rules can change from year to year. While I would be very surprised to see any change in <R41>(quoted above), it is possible. That being said, please note that rule applies to purchased parts, not something custom fabricated by a team or team sponsor. Also, could you please cite any recent rule that prohibits "exotic" materials? I know hazardous materials are prohibited, but I don't recall any recent ruling on (or definition of) exotics.

Re: Carbon Fiber
 

I believe Al is refering to the older rule that <R41> replaced. They relaxed it to the quoted version 3-4 years ago. Prior to that exotic materials were not allowed. Those included CF, Ti and Magnesium among others. Now as long as anyone can call a distributor and purchase it you can use it.

Also correction to my above post it was the 777 which was the first composite tail aircraft. And the reasons for the weight are as Tristan said, however do to the impacts from a FIRST game I too would tend to use thicker layups.

Also just for the fun of it a video of CF failure testing:
http://cervelo.tv/
Launch the player and watch "A crushing blow"

Re: Carbon Fiber
 

I strongly believe that composite construction has a place in First robotics and I have introduced them to our team and we have had great success with them. However, getting back to the original post I'm ready to throw out the red flag and cry foul. A team that has access to high grade materials, fabrication facilities and design resource can gain an advantage over other teams. These are resources that the rest of us can not acquire at any cost. Going forward I think composites need a close look by First to determine what is allowed based on availability to all teams and the cost issue. Aerospace composite manufactures have access to types of prepegs,cloth and resins that an individual team cannot get. Their performance specs are an order of magnitude better than what can be achieved with hand lay up and materials that could be acquired by any team. As to the valuation of materials , to account for 5 yards of cloth or prepeg at 1000yd price for 5 yards would be wrong as other teams could not receive that price if they could purchase the material in cut roll pricing at all. Then the subject of tooling,molds and set up and clean up cost needs to be looked at. There are many types of composite materials that are available of the shelf. Dry cloth, room temperature cure epoxy resins, FRP and vinyl ester pultrusions, composite tubes and rods, g10 11 and 12 sheets are all available off the shelf from many manufactures and distributors and should be allowed. These issues are not the same as a team water jetting a panel vs. a team cutting the panel by hand.

Re: Carbon Fiber
 

You can't do this. You have to list the value that any FIRST team would get if they called up the manufacturer and asked for the same item, so there's no shenanigans here.

Only if the company in question was not a sponsor of the FIRST team, per sec. 5.3.4.4 of the 2006 robot rules.

Re: Carbon Fiber
 

Cory made me go look it up, so there is no misunderstanding (quoted below).

I think we should create a counter that increments once each time the issue of "FIRST is a Competition vs FIRST is here to inspire students" comes up during the year.

It is absolutely true that a team with a large company with many engineers and lots of expensive equipment will be able to design and build a state of the art robot, that a HS-only team with nothing but hand tools could never possibly duplicate.

But we are here to show HS students all the incredible things that can be done with technology and state of the art engineering. If Lockheed-Martin is your sponsor, then any work done by Lockheed-Martin employess is considered work done by the team. This is what we want the students on that team to experience, to be blown away when they see what a good engineer can do with $50 in materials and $1,000,000 of equipment at their disposal.

Re: Carbon Fiber
 

My point is that for certain composite materials, most teams would not have access to them at all. This is especially true for preps. The overnight refrigerated shipping charges should also be included. I checked yesterday and I could find no vendors that would ship small quantity high grade carbon dry or prep. The materials should be available to all teams. If a sponsor does make a composite structure for a team then students should be involved from start to finish. This is hard for the good stuff because they are usually done in secure areas of the plant. First sponsors should not just bring a product to their team , but should bring the technology to the team. Over the years I've seen to many first mentors having second child hoods and forgetting the kids. Composite construction is prime for abuse and shutting the kids out. Look up the definition of mentor and let that be your guide. I feel a rant coming on so I'll stop now.

Re: Carbon Fiber
 

Gdeaver - I agree with you on one level. There is a real Zen thing in engineering when its just you and a piece of metal with a vice and a file in hand, or a couple wrenches and a box of gears and hardware, or a bunch of wires and connectors and a soldering iron

I love that aspect of engineering when I need to do those things. But in my experience over the years I spend 99% of my time doing drawings, schematics, specifications, writing and conducting tests

and its extreemly rare that I actually have to fabricate or assemble anything myself. I hand a drawing or send a file to someone else, and I get the fabricated part in a box a few days later. Most of the time, that is what engineers do.

In my experience as a mentor I always make sure the students have some hands-on time with some aspect of the robot build and parts fabrication, esp at the events, in the pits. I also make sure they get a realistic experience of what its like to be an engineer, where the real value of what we do happens between our ears, not fabricating and assembling things with our hands.

A good example is the capabilities of Gleason Works, the sponsor of team 578. They design and build the machines that make the gears used in most cars and trucks all over the world. They can literally hack a 1/2" slab off a one foot diameter steel 'log', put it in one of their machines, and fabricate a 12" diameter complex gear in less than 5 minutes.

It would be a crime if the team was not able to use that capability for their robot. Its great to be able to work with a student to create a drawing or cad file, and hand it off to the guys who operate those machines, then have this beautiful shiney metal gear that rings like a bell an hour later.

There are only a handfull of companies in the US that buy Gleasons $1M machines. Does that mean team 578 should not be able to utilize theirs?

Re: Carbon Fiber
 

Ken,
If on week 4 or 5 a box shows up with a fancy custom widget and there was no student involvement, that is wrong. If a core group of students sat in with the design process and then watched the tech do the set up and watch that custom widget being made and then sat with the QA person and validated it, That is good, real good. However, many times this is not the case. I did allot of the work on our composites, but I had some students there mixing epoxy and helping. While we were working I beat info and the whys into their brains. At our last meeting I had a student regurgitate that info back to me during a discussion with the new students. Thats the way it should work. Bring the Tech to the students.
As to your other point, I'm on the other end. I install and repair the stuff you engineers design. Too often I am repairing or replacing parts that are poorly designed and many times it is very apparent that the designers have have little experience with the physical world. They live in the virtual world of their software. Hands on in First is a good way to help these future designers. I'm am not an engineer , I'm a reverse engineer.

Re: Carbon Fiber
 

This is merely opinion. As far as FIRST is concerned, they don't care.

There are many avenues for inspiration. It is conceivable that this is one of them. Different methods work for different teams.

Re: Carbon Fiber
 

This is a really interesting topic (note to self: rate thread high).

Ken, in your 578 example above, I think the rules are clear: the gear made using Gleason's $1M machine is allowed because (1) the raw material is available to any team and it's cost won't cause the team to exceed the limit, and (2) Gleason is a recognized sponsor and its employees who fabricate the gear are considered team members.

Just as clearly, a composite frame made from raw materials that are not available to all teams at a cost that fits the rules would not be allowed.

As an analogy that fits my own team's situation: Emerson has two nice rapid prototyping machines that could be used to make parts for 931. The first is a laser cutter. My team makes good use of this because the sheet materials we cut, such as steel, acetal, and acrylic, are available to any team and not overly expensive.

The other is a 3D Systems Viper SLA machine. This beauty can make parts that are similar to Nylon 6:6 in any shape we could dream up and CAD. But we don't use it. Why? Because the parts would not be legal for FRC. That is because the the raw material is SI40 resin, which is only available in 10kg containers that cost $2500 each. So there is practically no way the team could correctly account for the material cost, even though the actual quantities used would be small.

Re: Carbon Fiber
 

We all could benefit from more experience.

I've never met an engineer who does not make mistakes. The ones who don't make many errors are not doing anything. The comments you said above about designers paints a poor picture of what they do. I would think that they would enjoy working with someone of your experience and they could learn from your efforts of making their designs better.

Now, as the case for fiberglass and usage on a FIRST robot... I don't see the big deal. What was the harm in making it legal? (as stated above, it is legal to use, if it is a commercially available product within the budgetary scope of FIRST's rules) Sure, some teams may have a very slight advantage over another team who does not have easy access to this stuff. It's not like they are using more powerful motors or they have a dramatic weight difference between their robots. When has a team with fiberglass materials on their robot had a decided advantage? There are a few teams who use it each year, and then there are teams like 71 who beat them with a PVC pipe - based design.

Also... if a team sees another team develop and use an exotic material and actually create an advantage with this usage, then LEARNING TAKES PLACE. The following year, all of those teams who were bested by the innovative team FIND A WAY to get this same resource. Either they raise money to get the same materials, or they find technical resources to keep competing with the other team.

Competition and inspiration go hand in hand. Those who inspire will be pushed to do it again and again by those who see this as a healthy competition. Those who are inspired will compete to be an inspiration to others. You can have your cake (competition) and eat it (inspire) too.

Andy B.

Re: Carbon Fiber
 

Richard - your SLA example is excellent. But I think you have reached the wrong conclusion.

Go back and read the rules I quoted from FIRST. You only have to account for the amount of material you actually use, whether it comes in 1Qt cans, 55 gallon drums, or 20,000 gallon tanker railroad cars.

My take on the availablity rule is to prevent a situation where some kids dad is a consultant, designs a custom transmission, and then 'sells' it to the team for $20 (when it cost him $2,000 to make). If he is willing to sell one for $20 he must be willing (and able) to sell 1000 for $20 each. Otherwise that team has a $2000 custom part on their robot, that was not fabricated by the team, and that $2000 must be included in the BOM total.

If the SLA goop is commercially available, then its commercially available. How big of a container it comes in, or how hard it is to transport -those are engineering issues. If you have a company that uses that material then you must be able to handle it.

Can 4 HS students buy SLA goop in a one quart can, and form parts using 3 laser pointers in a Pyrex measuring cup? No. Does that mean your team should not use it?

No.

Crank up that SLA machine this year - its one of the most awesome technologies on the face of this planet! If you can fabricate a complex plastic part with $5 worth the SLA goop, it doesnt get any more hi-tech than that.

Re: Carbon Fiber
 

This is just in reply to raw materials being available to all teams.
A company known as Aerosleeves does stock different sleeves of composites and also does sell epoxy and other materials to make your own composite pieces.
Carbon Fiber Sleeves
Fiberglass Sleeves
Epoxy Filler

Another place to get Laminating Epoxy

I'm not sure about whether or not the cost would fit a team's budget, but that still depends on their design, but it is available in raw form to teams.

Re: Carbon Fiber
 

I've been reading this part of the rules carefully for several years now. It does not say that you only have to account for the amount of material you actually use. It says that you have to account for the cost of the smallest commonly available unit that satisfies the need for the item. In the example above, the smallest commonly available unit is a 1' x 1' sheet, so the team must include the cost of that sheet, not just the 10" x 10" they actually used.

In the case of SI40 resin, the smallest commonly available unit is 10kg. When a smaller unit (e.g., one liter for $250) is commonly available, I'll gladly fire up the Viper to make parts for 931.

Re: Carbon Fiber
 

That's not how the rule reads at all, Ken.

If the smallest commonly available unit of resin that is available for the SLA machine is, as Richard says, 10kg and $2500, then the team must account for that whole cost on their BOM regardless of how much of that 10kg they use.

However, if a team buys an 8' long piece of aluminum tube and uses only 3', they can account for the price of a 3' piece instead as aluminum tube is commonly available at shorter lengths.

Our team has an SLA machine on its way to the lab we borrow, so now I'm curious what sort it is and what material it uses to see if it'll be at all helpful to us.

Re: Carbon Fiber
 

Another option for this example, Richard...

If a company who sells the service of making rapid prototypes can give you a quote for making 1 piece for under $400, and that is the commercially-accepted price, then a team could make a custom part on one of these machines.

For instance, I made our first plastic Omniwheel for AndyMark on a dimensions 3D printer that used ABS plastic as the material. The company who made this part for me charged me $250 for each side of the omni wheel. This cost covered their material usage, labor, and overhead costs. Anyone off the street could take a similar design, of similar size and get approximately the same price. As long as it's done during the build season, this would be legal, in my interpretation to the rules stated above.

Andy B.

Re: Carbon Fiber
 

Thanks, Andy. For the record, Emerson does account for actual material and labor used when we make SLA parts, so the costs can be allocated to the appropriate project. Others had suggested that 931 could use those calculated costs, maybe adding a profit margin, to account for SLA items on its robot BOM. I rejected that because Emerson is not a vendor of SLA parts as defined in the FRC rules.

I should start looking for a free-lance SLA operator that can fabricate with the same resin that Emerson uses, and is willing to quote parts.

Re: Carbon Fiber
 

Prorated on the basis.... it does not say the smallest unit cost is the cost

this is a very common issue with electronic parts. you can get the gyro sensors that many teams use from places like Digikey.

If you buy one they are $50. If you buy 10 they are $45 each. If you buy a thousand they are $20 each.

The rules are saying you cannot take adavantage 1 thousand quantity pricing and only charge $20 to your BOM, you have to use the lower quantity pricing if you only use one.

But its still pro-rated by the amount (number) you actually use. If they only come in a box of ten for $450, and you only use one, then you only used $45 worth the parts on your robot.

Re: Carbon Fiber
 

I don't see how you think this is correct. If the only way you can get them is to buy a box of 10 (ie: they don't sell them individually, then you have to account for the entire box of 10, even if you only use one.

This example is very clear:
Example: A team purchases a 4' x 4' sheet of aluminum, but only uses a piece 10” x 10” on their robot. The team identifies a source that sells aluminum sheet in 1’ x1’ pieces. The team may cost their part on the basis of a 1’ x 1’ piece, even though they cut the piece from a larger bulk purchase. They do not have to account for the entire 4’ x 4’ bulk purchase item.

I don't see any room for interpretation. If he uses one teaspon of his 10 kg drum, it doesn't matter. He can only get them in 10 kg drums, and therefore must account for an entire 1 kg drum.

That's not what it's saying at all. If it was, it would say so. It's saying that if I go out and buy a 4'x8' sheet of polycarbonate, and cut one part out of it that's 1'x1' and then use the rest for non FIRST stuff, as long as you can find someone who sells 1'x1' sheets of polycarb, you can put that as your cost, so that you do not end up "paying" for material you don't use.

Re: Carbon Fiber
 

I disagree completely. The rules add the words "prorated" and "on the basis".

If I have to buy a box of ten gyros, and I only use 1, I can sell the other 9 on ebay to get the money back, or I can sell them to other teams, or I can use them for spares, or I can use them next year.

The BOM represents the cost of building one robot, the one that is on the field. If I have to keep buying off the shelf parts to replace after every match, that cost is not accumulated into the BOM.

If wire only comes in 100 foot spools, and I use 1 foot of wire, then I dont have 100 feet of wire on my robot - why would have to account as if I did?

Prorated means the cost of the whole sheet times the percent used.

On the basis - means based on the price of the smaller sheet, not on the largest sheet you can find.

look at it this way: If gyros only come in boxes of ten, and I buy ten, but use one, but I have to put the cost of ten on my BOM, then why not use ten gyros on my robot?

accounting that way makes no sense from an engineering perspective - the value (cost) of having ten gyros on my robot is clearly ten times the value (and cost) of only having one. The fact that Digikey decides to sell them on cut tape with ten per order, or 100 per reel, has nothing to do with the functionality or value of that part, except for establishing the price per part.

Re: Carbon Fiber
 

Ken, the example FIRST gives exactly addresses this situation.

I really do not see where we're losing each other. It clearly says that you must use the smallest whole unit you can find. If a 100' spool is the smallest unit you can find, it doesn't matter if you use 99' or 1'. You still account for it like you used 100.

Re: Carbon Fiber
 

well, no. The word 'whole' is not in the rule. The words 'prorated' and 'basis' are.

I guess its time for some CD searching to clear this up.

Re: Carbon Fiber
 

I think the intent of the FRC cost accounting rules is to capture the cost of building one robot. That cost includes the cost of buying needed components at minimum order quantities.

If my boss tells me to build a motor tester, and that tester requires three inches of 3/4" diameter shaft stock, then I might have to buy a foot of shaft stock in order to get what I need. Will I then tell the boss I bought three inches so he can reimburse me for that, while I pay for the whole foot? No, I won't. The cost of completing the assignment included buying the minimum quantity of that material.

Re: Carbon Fiber
 

The way I see it is that most teams' cost accounting sheets are so poorly done that all this argument isn't even relevant. We need teams to actually do their accounting before we ask them to do it perfectly.

Re: Carbon Fiber
 

I agree. And I think FIRST inlcluded the prorating accounting method so that students would be able to use things like Gleasons Gear cutting machines, and your SLA machine, without having to add the cost for a 30 foot long, 12" diameter steel rod, when they cut off 1/2" length to make a 12" gear,

or to put the cost of 10,000 gallons of SLA GobblydeeGoop on their BOM, when they only used 4 ounces for one part.

Remember, FIRST wants us to show students all this neat technology. Why would they cripple us with a non-prorated rule for materials usage.

Prorated means only listing the actual amount used, not the size of the drum it comes in.

Re: Carbon Fiber
 

Prorated means accounting for the smallest quantity of a material available for sale that is larger than what you used on your robot.

Re: Carbon Fiber
 

That's obviously what you want it to mean. But reading the actual rule for what it says makes the indended meaning clear.

The cost of items purchased in bulk or large quantities may be prorated on the basis of the smallest commonly available unit that satisfies the need for the item.

Note that it doesn't say "on the basis of the quantity used".

You can list the amount used based on the cost of smallest amount commercially available, rather than the cost of the amount you purchased. You do not get to list it based on only the amount you used, if that amount is less than the minimum available.

Re: Carbon Fiber
 

The word prorated seems to contradict the rest of the rule really. Prorated would mean, I think, that you just divide the price by how much you use, but the rest of the rule, especially the example, make it pretty clear that they mean just substituting the price of another product that could've replaced the part on your robot for the price of the larger product.

Re: Carbon Fiber
 

Some arguments endure.

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 :^)