GM and Chrysler
 

After listening to the news this last couple of days and hearing about a potential merger between GM and Chrysler I searched around here wondering if anyone had opinions or ideas on what this could mean for the FIRST community. As well as the economy in general.

Here is a link to the Business Week article (http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/...pStories_ssi_5)

Personally I feel this could be beneficial to the economy and FIRST. If these companies feel that they need to merge and cut costs to stay around I would much rather have 1 company stand then have 2 fail. That being said, I think this will be devastating to the FRC community, especially those of us in the Michigan area sponsored by these companies. There have been talks of closing the Auburn Hills facility, this could be another blow to the already pained Michigan FRC community. (Obviously, I realize it will be a blow everywhere but I am from Michigan and don't feel like speaking on that which I don't know)

Also, if this is in the wrong area or gets too heated could a moderator please move and/or lock this thread? I know there are probably some very heated opinions about this and would like to keep it focused on how the FRC community will be affected and how we can make the best out of this.

Re: GM and Chrysler
 

It sounds as if reduced pricing for MI teams couldn't have come at a better time. As far as the econmy guessing the outcome of that would be like trying to hit a moving instead of stationary target in '06. I wish the best of luck for all teams loosing a sponsor this year and remeber that what you are doing is always worth fighting for.

Re: GM and Chrysler
 

sounds like a good idea, but i thought i would see a Ford and Chrysler LLC merger before GM and Chrysler LLC

Re: GM and Chrysler
 

The reason for GM + Chrysler is twofold. First, GM still retains something like 49% of GMAC, and Cerberus has the other 51%. This well could be a swap - GM gives up the rest of GMAC and Cerberus hands over Chrysler + a good chuck of cash to keep GM afloat (something like 11 bil).

People don't think about it much, but GM is actually in serious trouble when it comes to paying the bills - they're using too much cash to run operations and not enough is coming back in from sales.

If this happens it's going to be incredibly bad for Michigan. GM will likely keep the product that fill holes in their line-up: namely Jeep and the minivan business. I'd guess the rest, including factories etc. get sold off to foriegn companies like Tata in India just for the Chrysler name (similar to the Land Rover and Jag sale).

The Chrysler Foundation (note - NOT Chrysler) is one of our sponsors as well. They already cut funding this year. With Ford being one of our other major sponsor, we could be in trouble as well.

Re: GM and Chrysler
 

Ford has a promising lineup in 2010 or 2011. With the Euro Focus and Euro Fiesta, as well as some of their other Euro cars. As long as Ford keeps their word that there will be NO difference (other then where the steering is) between the Euro ones and the American ones. Also with the 2010 Mustang maybe having a SVO (Inline 4 with a turbocharger) trim package.

But anyways I hope this works well for both GM and Chrysler LLC.

Re: GM and Chrysler
 

Tom is correct, Chrysler is sitting on 11 billion in cash and GM is burning through cash at (according to several news sources) about 1 billion a month. A while back a GM+Ford Merger was rumored for this same reason. But from the sounds of it this isn't so much a merger as it is a trade. Cerberus takes GMAC and GM gets Chrysler's brands and the cash it needs to run for another year. Without some sort of cash infusion GM will most likely be out of cash and be unable to pay payroll. I hope this can go through because nothing would signal the utter collapse of America like seeing GM die.

And Erich, hitting a moving target would of been the same as hitting a target while moving, and we did that ^_^.

EDIT::
Tom, I recall hearing that the reason Ford has money in the bank is because of selling off brands like you think GM would do. Is my mind just making stuff up?

Re: GM and Chrysler
 

I'll be the first to agree with you - I'm the Ford mentor for 1718 :).

Wait till you see the 2010 Shelby. Mmmmmm.

Damien - that's part of it. We sold Jaguar and Land Rover to Tata motors of India. We also, essentially, mortgaged every asset in the company to secure loans (including the Ford "Blue Oval").

Re: GM and Chrysler
 

Jeez, didn't know that. Also didnt know you could mortgage your logo.

Re: GM and Chrysler
 

[quote=Damien1247;771298]
And Erich, hitting a moving target would of been the same as hitting a target while moving, and we did that ^_^.
QUOTE]

We also hit a target while moving however the added complexity of us moving as well as the target moving was not there. ;)

Re: GM and Chrysler
 

30,000 or 40,000 people also stand to lose their jobs, including a significant number of engineers. Teams won't be losing only money, but also mentors.

Re: GM and Chrysler
 

Money almost always has a way of being found when worked on it hard enough. However good Mentors and Engineers willing to doante their time is not always easy to come by. I hope the best for MI teams as well as anyother teams in the community in the same situation.

Re: GM and Chrysler
 

The future does seem to be very scary for Michigan. All the more reason for Americans to buy American.

Re: GM and Chrysler
 

The next couple years might be hard for FIRST, but once the US economy gets back on it's feet and the American Auto Industry starts making and selling cars people wanna buy I'm sure things will get better. We have to hold together, not as just a team, not as US FIRST, but as a Country and as it's proud people. The world is feeling the Economical pinch.

Re: GM and Chrysler
 

I can't even believe the two are thinking about merging. On one hand, you have GM, a failing company, then on the other, Chrysler, another failing company.

Last time I checked, when 2 failing companies merge, they just end up forming 1 bigger failure of a company.

The talks of merging have to stop now.

Re: GM and Chrysler
 

In the auto world, buying and or selling brands is a good way to save a company. I mean when AMC (American Motor Company) went under Jeep (owned by AMC) was bought by Chrysler (maybe it was GM bought it, then sold it to Chrysler). Which for a while was very good for Chrysler cause for a while they sold more Jeeps then almost any other car they owned. Now buy companies can also be bad like the 90's then Ford bought Jag, Land Rover, and Volvo; Jag and Land Rover where spending more money then they where making. Which caused Ford to sell them for a fraction of what they bought them for. Sometimes the gamble pays off, other times it doesn't. I mean the 2 companies wont become one, they are just merging stocks (from what I understand). But if it doesn't work out I think Chrysler is done for, GM might be around, but badly hurt.

Re: GM and Chrysler
 

It would be a little difficult to merge stocks considering Chrysler is a privately funded company

Re: GM and Chrysler
 

(edited). If domestic car companies are to survive, they'll need to step up their designs, quality, and reputation to that of foreign car companies.

For GM, I think the real mistake was made when they let the vice chairman Robert Lutz speak on 60 minutes. The reporter asked about the upcoming "Volt" that supposedly will be revolutionizing the automotive market as we know it. Here is what Lutz said, in my own words/interpretation:

"We wanted to make an electric car. It can only go 1/4 as far as the electric car we made a decade ago, but that's okay, because after that far (40 miles) then it uses a gasoline engine. (errrr????). I said 'this needs to be a car every family can afford. We need to sell it for $20,000.' The engineers said I was crazy, because they couldn't build it for less than $40,000. This is a problem because people won't spend that much on it (because it only goes 40 miles without gas). So, since we've spent so much on it already, we'll keep going, and we'll sell it for $30,000 (which most families can afford) and take a $10,000 loss on each one."

Then he was on MSNBC later in the evening explaining how they're burning through mountains of money every day, and getting back little.

Their stock fell 31% two days later. And they wonder why...

I don't think the Camaro will save them either. It only suits a very small portion of the market.

Re: GM and Chrysler
 

The Volt wont hurt them any as long as people will pay the high price tag, which i think a lot of people who can afford it will buy it. If they can keep it on the production lines for a few years prices will go down as cheaper ways to make the technology become available, just like with the Prius. But compared to 10 years ago the Volt is a huge leap forward in Electric cars. People that love the Camaro will buy it. It's going to be a car that people who love V8 Muscle cars will buy (like me, but I'm a Ford guy, So im Mustang all the way).

Re: GM and Chrysler
 

They're releasing cars at a completely idiotic time...when nobody can get a loan for one!

Re: GM and Chrysler
 

The "merged" company might end up being the Penn Central of the auto industry. :ahh:

Re: GM and Chrysler
 

Through my line of work, I spent the better part of a half-hour today driving a 2009 Buick Enclave. CXL, Gold Mist Metallic, as I recall. Church quiet, beautiful looks (though I prefer the look of the White Diamond one I shot today), and pulled 23.9 MPG in spite of my uncanny ability to catch every red light on a 45-mile-an-hour road. In every measurement I can think of, it blows the doors off its predecessor, the Buick Rainier. I can't speak for the other auto makers, but I do know that GM's product has improved dramatically over the past four or five years. By 2010, its roster should be even stronger*. (That's coming from someone who's driven Hondas for 5.5 of the last six years, and rode in them for the sixteen before that!)

Were GM to join up with Chrysler, I think anyone connected to the automotive industry would be in for some hurt in the near term. GM does have a product hole since pulling out of the minivan segment at the end of 2007**; the Lambda crossovers*** filled some of the gap, but not all of it. The Jeep brand has some allure, particularly as gas starts to come back down to sane levels. The Chrysler's GEM and ENVI divisions may also prove fruitful in helping along alternative methods of propulsion; the latter recently released a trio of prototype plug-in hybrids, one each for Chrysler, Dodge, and Jeep. Almost everything else clashes, which results in tough decisions. I would not want to be in that boardroom.

Were I not employed by a company who has to live with the decisions made in Detroit, I'd say it's time to pop some popcorn and watch the show. Because I am employed by such a company, I'll forgo the popcorn and just watch closely.

*For 2010, the Buick Lacrosse (Allure for you Canadians) is getting an all-new model, the GMC Terrain replaces the Pontiac Torrent and GMC Envoy, the Saab 9-4X replaces the Envoy-based 9-7X. Before then, Pontiac dealers will receive the G3 (cousin to the Chevy Aveo), Solstice Coupe (for those opposed to the wind in their hair), G8 GXP (what's Australian English for yeeeeeeeee-haw?), and the G8 ST (which is the closest I think we'll get to the El Camino in our lifetimes).

**Alright, to most people; they sold the Chevy Uplander to fleets as a 2008 and exported some as 2009 models.

***Buick Enclave, GMC Acadia, Saturn Outlook, Chevy Traverse. Full-size crossovers with three-row seating and V6 engines.

Re: GM and Chrysler
 

Unfortunately, I think the biggest hurdle that the U.S. auto companies have to over come isn't one of quality, technology, or product line. Ford's quality is now on par with Acura and Toyota by every important industry measure. Ford's sync, sound systems, gps navigation, smart key etc. are all industry firsts or industry leaders. Ford's 2010 product line is unbelievable - the new Taurus actually got gasps from the plant guys when we saw it. Ford will be the leader in fuel economy in every segment by 2010.

Ford did a bunch of very interesting market research when the new Fusion came out. They took the car, unbranded, to the west coast and east coast and let people drive it. The vast majority of people said they would buy it. Those people were shocked when the found out it was a Ford.

That's what the Big 3 have to contend with. The perception that they can do nothing right: that they can't build a good car no matter how hard they try. The fact that their cars are world class right now doesn't matter - it's the perception that has to change. And that takes time we simply don't have anymore. We let our reputations sink, and it takes a long time to get them back.

Re: GM and Chrysler
 

He was referring to the cars, not the companies.

In my opinion, though, any car that gets you where you need to go, is reliable, and has some "extras" like AC and stereo is a good car.

Re: GM and Chrysler
 

Perhaps my above comment was a bit crude. I apologize. What I mean is that it is no secret that foreign cars often take the lead in numerous categories.

I think the main problem in the auto industry is a vast discontinuity between what auto makers think people want, and what people actually want. More extensive market research programs must be implemented.

Re: GM and Chrysler
 

Unions are right up there too, but that's neither here nor there.

Re: GM and Chrysler
 

Well, unions ARE a huge part of why the auto industry is failing. It's the reason why Delphi went under. Their whole idea revolved around this idea that they could rip up the UAW contract if they went into bankruptcy, so that's exactly what they did. However, Delphi has never been able to pull OUT of bankruptcy.

Unions inherently create an inefficiency in the workforce. If some new guy starts on the factory line, wants to impress his boss, so he works extra hard and pumps out a few more units than most others, he WILL be approached by other union workers and tell him to cut it out.

Re: GM and Chrysler
 

You didn't watch the whole entire show. The right interpretation was that building an electric car that people would want to buy is still expensive, hard to do, and something that companies like Tesla are going to find reality biting them hard. Unfortunately, people who aren't engineers would not get the concept of using gasoline engines in a electric car.

Re: GM and Chrysler
 

I hate to see this happen because it will inevitably result in some losses; however, what's the alternative? If they DON'T merge, is it possible that they could both independently fail, resulting in ALL loss of sponsorship?* It seems unlikely that they would merge unless it was absolutely necessary. I just hope that all the teams fare well, get funding, and retain mentors.

I guess that's the price we pay for unions, but without unions, we'd be far worse off. It's not guaranteed that it would be the same, but the industrial revolution is evidence of what bad comes from unions. Sure, we would possibly have a more successful industry without unions, but we may have less mentors due to an increased necessity to work and less compensation for said work.

*that's a genuine question: I haven't researched it.

Re: GM and Chrysler
 

You bring up another failing car company, Tesla Motors is closing their Michigan facility.

I would have to disagree with the statements about the UAW being needed. I would rather see a company cut half of its employees and survive so those 50% can still have a job than see a company TRY to cut half its work force have the Union strike and kill the whole company. Yeah it sucks for those people who are out a job but it is overall better because more people stay employed. I almost blame the unions for the problems that the companies have been having. Its not all their fault but a good deal of the damage was done when the unions wanted more and didnt realize that the companies couldnt give them that. Granted, I dont work for these companies and this is just my personal observations.

Re: GM and Chrysler
 

That mentality isn't restricted to only unions; at every job I've had so far other employees (even supervisors) have told me to slow down, except if some urgent emergency or a tight deadline looms.

Why? The reason why supervisors have repeatedly told me to slow down can literally be summed up as "inertia". All companies usually know how long it takes to get something done, so managers allocate time accordingly. When I come to them finished with a project revision in a day that they expected to take a week, they kind of get mad, since now they have to take time out of their schedule to find another project for me to work on, or just watch me sit around and play Solitaire/take long lunches/leave early/etc for four days. To still come out ahead, I usually just hand in the work a day or so early; the managers don't seem to mind that as much, and usually take note, which is how I got an unsolicited $2/hr raise at my summer job two weeks after I was hired. ;-)

Yeah, it seems weird, since getting things done quicker on paper is cheaper for them. But people in general don't seem to like abrupt change (especially if they have to change themselves), and would much rather have everyone else "go with the flow" and "do it like it's always been done"...

Re: GM and Chrysler
 

To clarify, my comment was intended to be less of a blanket statement against unions, and more specifically the fact that unions allow unskilled workers in the auto industry to make 4-5x the amount of money their job should pay. It's just not feasible for GM to be paying line workers $80-100+/hr and expect to remain solvent, let alone competitive with Japanese makers.

This probably isn't the best place for a debate about any of this though.

Re: GM and Chrysler
 

where you get your numbers from? That is ridiclously high.

Re: GM and Chrysler
 

Alex - when you include benefits, his numbers aren't high at all.

http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/421350

The Big Three calculated the labour cost for workers here had risen to $81.40 an hour including benefits and pension liabilities, which was $33.90 more than the amount for Honda, Toyota and Nissan workers in the U.S.

Re: GM and Chrysler
 

[quote=artdutra04;771491]That mentality isn't restricted to only unions; at every job I've had so far other employees (even supervisors) have told me to slow down, except if some urgent emergency or a tight deadline looms.

Why? The reason why supervisors have repeatedly told me to slow down can literally be summed up as "inertia". All companies usually know how long it takes to get something done, so managers allocate time accordingly. When I come to them finished with a project revision in a day that they expected to take a week, they kind of get mad, since now they have to take time out of their schedule to find another project for me to work on, or just watch me sit around and play Solitaire/take long lunches/leave early/etc for four days. To still come out ahead, I usually just hand in the work a day or so early; the managers don't seem to mind that as much, and usually take note, which is how I got an unsolicited $2/hr raise at my summer job two weeks after I was hired. ;-)

Interesting read because I have been fighting and now I think been finally defeated in the same battle in working in news, I'd always be going at twice the speed of sound and getting stuff done and going the extra mile and not missing anything and that was frowned upon by everyone else in the newsroom except for one equally hyper reporter, I'd work on stuff on my own time when off duty and that wouldn't be appreciated, apparently I was "making work for people", I think the hard part is to have people that treat their work/job as if it's their own business and care vs, those for whom it's just a job and a paycheque.

That's the tough part, I want to wake up and go to work but not feel like it's work because I love this business and then you end up with everyone else who is dragging their feet and YES I too had a supervisor that gets all stressed out when all of a sudden I did good work on a story because now my good work or luck whatever you call it just made him have to change his plans for the newscast.

It's frustrating that's for sure.

Re: GM and Chrysler
 

See failed British Motor Industry.

Mergers > Government support > Nationalization > Sold off to the Germans

Ours is taking place in a bit different order but you see what's happening.

Re: GM and Chrysler
 

True, this does look similar.

In Ford's case though, it was a 'Perfect Storm' that brought them to their knees. In 1998 / 1999 they had record profits. Then they made several questionable acquisitions (recyling, auto salvage yards, jaguar, land rover). Then the Firestone debacle hit. Then the price of raw materials went through the roof, followed immediately by gasoline. That hurt twice as much because Ford had been a truck company for the 10 years prior, ever since they decided cars just weren't profitable enough.

There were some other issues tied into all that - but even now if you look at Ford, they're making money everywhere but North America. They've adopted a new model roll out system that cuts time to market in half (used on the Flex, the Edge, the MKS, and other new models) and their cars are finally starting to sell.

I can't speak to that level of detail in what GM has or hasn't changed - but I think Ford's going to pull through just fine. They're doing the right things, and they've completely changed a their business model. Go drive a Fusion, or and Edge and see what I mean. Perhaps one of the smartest things they did was get a non-car guy in Allan Mulally as CEO and president - he's not set into the "car" paradigms, and he knows silly group-think decisions when he sees them (like dumping the Taurus name).

Re: GM and Chrysler
 

Giving this thread a bump in the hopes that a good, sound conversation will be continued. As the U.S. and Canadian governments have offered/given bailouts to the Big Three, let's see what the future brings for our sponsorships and mentors.

(Bump.)

Re: GM and Chrysler
 

Thanks, i was hoping this conversation would continue.

So, now that kickoff is approaching, have any teams been given word in terms of if they are receiving money this year? or worse...no mentors from GM :( Layoffs suck...'nuff said.

Re: GM and Chrysler
 

If a company fails to innovate, fails to push efficiency hard enough, fails to cater to the market, fails to build a product that people will actually buy, fails to develop newer technology at a rate comparable to other players in the field, then they should expect to either drastically downsize, or die off.

This bailout makes me sick, I don't buy their cars, so instead I have to pay taxes to keep them afloat? How about they make a car that I'd actually consider buying, instead?

What's that system of government called where the government owns a stake in/controls the major companies? Oh yeah, Facism and Socialism!

Seriously, my opinions here may be harsh, but a FAILING company desvers to FAIL. Yes, many people will face hard times as a result of losing their jobs. Yes, there will be suffering. But a better, newer, and more economically minded company will rise out of the ashes, maybe bringing some cars with them that Americans will actually buy.

Re: GM and Chrysler
 

Craig, I have to disagree one one point, American's can't buy any cars right now. No one can get credit and very few people have 20k handy to just buy a car. Foreign automakers, while not in as bad a condition as American automakers, are also having hard years. While I am generally not a fan of any policies handing out taxpayer money to people I think that something needed to be done.

I would also like to point out that we are using incorrect terminology, what was given to the automakers was a loan, a loan with specific criteria and requirements. Calling this a bailout would be like saying that getting a loan on your car is a bailout.

Re: GM and Chrysler
 

Understood. Most Americans can't get credit because we abused credit as a country. The moment the Usery laws were struck down, and credit cards started becoming common, we started the downhill trend for the general populous. What a credit card really is is a loan system, minus the approval process. Without approval, Americans are tempted to follow the Instant gratification complex that we seem to have going on, and buy things they won't be able to pay off. From here, we end up in a cycle, and the only way out is down. Bring back the Usery laws, and I'll be our economy will start climbing again.

Re: GM and Chrysler
 

Is there any way that FIRST teams could possibly help out families who are being affected by massive layoffs? I mean, the companies themselves are being saved by the government and what the employees receive is a meager amount through unemployment checks and any pension they get from their employers.

I wouldn't want to make it sound like a total charity case, but anyone think that FIRST teams not just in Michigan but in the country could help out in some way? I really do feel for the families being affected.:(

Re: GM and Chrysler
 

Sorry Andrew, but I have to agree with Craig. People buy stuff that they don't have money for. People are earning less and spending more. How is the loan gonna help GM. They need Billions and Billions of dollars to stay affloat and how long are they going to last? A month, four months, a year? Companies that build fuel efficient cars are going to stay. Thatz just how life is, the weak die while the strongest survive. I do not mean to offend anyone here.

Re: GM and Chrysler
 

According to the CEO of GM himself, the "loan" will last them through the month. He said that at best it will provide for more action plans that will last 3 months (that's with the money + MASSIVE closures and layoffs). Source was a CNN interview in the Situation Room (yes I'm one of those weird 16 year olds who watches CNN and Comedy Central all day >.>)

Re: GM and Chrysler
 

Im a firm believer in Darwinism just so you know but the myth that GM doesn't make fuel efficient cars is just plain wrong. My 2008 Saturn Aura gets roughly 30 MPG, not in lab tests, in actual driving. I am not disagreeing that this loan won't actually do anything but prop up the companies though. However, like Bush said, the purpose isn't to save them, it is to keep them from failing NOW. Basically we have a dying horse, would you prefer to have it die when you are riding it or when you can control its death? Just some food for thought.

Just as a disclaimer, I work for a company that provides ERP services to manufacturing companies, many of our customers are suppliers to various automakers.

Re: GM and Chrysler
 

Is it better to give the company money rather than helping the employees that depend on GM. Why not just end GM's Rain now and have other companies take over. I understand that Michigan depends on GM. This whole thing is a mess no matter what point you look at it. Everyone is right in their spot. This is a hard time and hopefully we get through it with minimal damage.

I do believe that Akash has a point. Is there anything that we as FIRST Participants can do for the GM employees that work hard day and night. Doesn't FIRST teach us to give back to the community. This would be a perfect HW assignment from Dean. Who knows what Dean Kamen is thinking.

-RC

Re: GM and Chrysler
 

Before I start ranting, just let me say that the country will go into a deeper hurt if we don't support the auto makers. If they go down, so will the economy (more such than it all ready has). The automakers support so much of this country that you won't even realize until they actually go down. With that said, I am from an Auto Town, the 3rd fastest-dying town in America in fact.

[one sided rant] Let's pick this statment apart, and I will try to show why we are in this mess in the first place. Now I am using you as an example, however you have a lot of the very thoughts that some Americans have that make me sick to my stomach.
"This bailout makes me sick": Sorry to hear that, I would much rather see the auto industry bailed out than the credit industry, which used that money to create more credit and hurt the economy more.
"I don't buy their cars": Really now? Well I can only assume two reasons this could be, either A) You are really fit from running/biking everywhere, or B) You would rather spend your money on foreign imports sending it away from your country (as if it wasn't bad enough all ready with outsourcing) to support a company that may put as much as 0% back into America helping worsen the economy.
"I have to pay taxes to keep them afloat?": Assuming that part B above is true, should have put your money into American companies in the first place.
"How about they make a car that I'd actually consider buying, instead?": I agree with this, I wish that the cars that come from the big 3 were better in different ways, however I would much rather put my money into an American company.
[/one sided rant]

Re: GM and Chrysler
 

GM is a big supporter of my team, 904. I don't know if they have cut off funding yet, but if they do it's not the end of the world. We will just have to step up fund raising, and get more sponsors. It might get to the point where we have to find 20 sponsors to donate $1000 each, but we won't die off like GM might. It's not the end of the world.

Re: GM and Chrysler
 

Arguably, they do. GM (maybe not Chrysler) makes several cars that are widely praised for their fuel economy (Cobalt XFE), performance (Corvette ZR1), or practicality (Malibu). GM does genuinely make good cars and has more good cars on the way (Cruze), the problem is that many people do not perceive that to be the case due to their experiences in the 80s and 90s. Further, although GM was in trouble before, they were in the middle of a long-term restructuring away from SUVs that got interrupted by this financial crisis.

I don't know if you supported the TARP bailout, but these bailouts demonstrate an immense double standard:
-One historically-profitable industry made extremely poor products that don't really exist (sub-prime mortgages and all derivatives) and are mathematically unsound (at its peak, the value of the sub-prime mortgage market was greater than the GDP of the planet) which end up getting it into a world of hurt, and they get a $700 billion bailout with very few strings attached
-Another industry which is suffering from past poor product offerings is in the middle of restructuring to meet demand more properly, but the financial crisis removes its ability to run its business of no fault of its own. After much, much fighting, they get a <$20 billion loan with all kinds of strings attached restricting what kind of cars they can make and inserting all kinds of government oversight into their decision making process.

Which of these seems more fair? The industry that got into trouble of its own accord getting a bailout, or the industry that was recovering but got hit by the side-effects of the first industry?
I just want to point out that outside of the US, the Socialism = disaster axiom is not recognized. Canada has several companies that are explicitly run by the government (called Crown Corporations), and we are still a free country (and remaining free, not a slippery slope to anything). Fascism is still bad, but I don't think government ownership of companies was the only thing that made it unpleasant.

But how can you? If I buy a Camry, it'll come out of a plant in Kentucky. Whether or not the profit heads to Japan, much of the labour, material and building costs support jobs in the states. If you buy many GM products, their component parts will come from Mexico, Canada, and further afield. There are very few 100% made-in-USA vehicles nowadays. When Ford brings the Fiesta over in 2010, it will be being manufactured in Germany (unless they build a new plant for it). If I buy a Pontiac Vibe, then I'm buying a car made in the USA, but using a Japanese design and a GM/Toyota shared plant.

I support it, but it is still a subsidy, because the private market would not supply it. Just like flood insurance is a subsidy to live in flood zones, because the private market will not. Although in this case, the private market would've supplied it if the private market wasn't so frozen up due to their own stupidity.

Re: GM and Chrysler
 

I would just like to add that government ownership of companies was one of the few elements of fascism that worked, that did not cause massive harm; you know how Volkswagen is a major car company and thrived in Germany for many, many years? Hitler founded it with Porsche and the German government owned it. They were trying to make cars available to everyone, trying to help out the "common people." Apparently, government ownership of companies is an element of fascism and socialism that we could do with adding to our own mixed economy.

Re: GM and Chrysler
 

how many teams are in some way sponsored by the auto industry, suppliers included? I'm guessing that in michigan it's somewhere around 70-80%
Just some food for thought.

Re: GM and Chrysler
 

I thought most of the teams in Michigan were government-sponsored, hence why there's a separate 'michigan district' section of the FRC schedule.

The auto industry going bankrupt might not be the end of those teams though: Delphi has been in bankruptcy proceedings for years, and yet here we are discussing it on a ChiefDelphi site. How many Delphi teams disappeared when Delphi went under?

Re: GM and Chrysler
 

Well, many Michigan teams are sponsored by the Auto industry but i believe that they chose Michigan for the District pilot program because we have the second highest number of teams in the world (Take that California!) and we also tend to be good at working around restructuring of the system. i don't know about how many Delphi teams died but i do know that many GM teams are struggling, ours included. I do agree that if the Auto industry goes under, many teams will hurt but i don't think that they will all go under. i know that in my team's case, we earn WAY more through fundraisers than all of our sponsorships put together. If teams can just keep up the good work, they wont go under financially. on the situation of mentors, that might be a little harder. our team leader, a skilled worker for GM with 33 years of seniority was laid off on Friday. i don't know if he can still keep mentoring us but i know if we keep working hard, we will pull through it.

Re: GM and Chrysler
 

Warning, this is a bit of a long winded response.

One thing people need to keep in mind is that the main portion of this issue is a cash flow issue. The auto industry is a very mature industry. From your economics courses, you will learn that the actual total margins grow very small in a mature industry. I worked at Chrysler (recently left to pursue other interests), and they took in about $65 Billion in revenues. A good year yeilds about $1 Billion net profit (1.5%). This extremely low margin is very common in a large mature industry. Back the cash flow issue, if you bring in $65 a year, and you turn very little profit, that means you spend about $65 a year. If you have a fairly stable production schedule (suppliers, workers.... really like this), that means you are spending over $5.5 Billion dollars a month in wages, parts, utilities... If you have a month where you have a 40% reduction in car sales, this is means you have a -$2 Billion dollar cash flow. If you have several of these in a row because speculators raise oil prices to record highs thus reducing your most profitable vehilce sales, and then banks collapse and clamp down on credit to where few can buy a car, and leases are no longer available, you might see 7 of those months in a row. That's a $14 Billion dollar whole. Now come the lay-offs because you have burned through all your reserves. GM is a lot bigger than Chrysler, so Double all those numbers for them. The 34 Billion dollar loan should have been submitted as a 50% return of the taxes their workers and suppliers already paid this past year.

One reason that the government is extending these loans is that the auto-industry pays huge amounts of taxes. With an average Auto-worker paying $15K or more in taxes (often way more), this means that Chrysler with its 66,000 direct employees generates between 1 and 2 billion dollars a year in taxes and medicare revenues. And it is the smallest of the 3. Once you include contractors, suppliers, and acillaries, the american auto-industry is responsible for $70 Billion dollars of tax revenues every year from salaries.

Item number two. Those great Japanese cars you are talking about were helped out by the Japanese government doing currency manipulation in the late 90's through early 2000's. It is easy to make a nicer car when your government allows for an extra $2000 of content to be in your car through currency manipulation. Even those guys are hurting after having record profits during the first 2 quarters of the year, Toyota will be posting a $1.7 Billion dollar loss for 2008 (and their company is perfect right?).

Korean cars are highly subsidized by their governments too. Chinese car makers are having trouble this year and their government threw them a billion dollars to keep them going. Anybody catching a trend yet?

Let's do a little devil's advocate. Let's let them file chapter 11. Unlike Delphi (where OEMs still bought their parts), few will buy a car from a bankrupt OEM (would you?). So that is a garuantee that they will go under. If they go under, so will many of their suppliers. Suppliers work to the same low margin mature industry model mentioned above. When they go under they stop delivering parts to the other OEMs. When those OEMs can't build their cars, they have to lay off their workers.

Maybe we should just screw the Union. Legacy costs are huge, let's just get rid of them. If you do that you will end up throwing a ton retired workers into the medicare system. Guess what that will do to the already underfunded medicare system (the same system that those guys funded through their taxes, but were not using due to their Union medical benefits).

I don't like propping up un-profitable businesses producing poor products, but I hate even more having to pay more in taxes because some short-sightedness ran some big companies into the ground.

In the 80's Chrysler recieved a loan of $1 Billion dollars and returned all of that plus $300 million in interest about 7 years later. While the $300 million may not sound like a lot of return, remember that the government also was getting a lot of tax revenue from the workers, and then a lot of tax revenue from the workers and Chrysler when it returned to profitability.

Sorry for the extremely long winded answer, but it is a very complicated topic. Partial answers (while technically correct) can lead to the wrong conclusions due to not enough info.

******************************************

People asked what can you do to help. I will ask the CD community to do the smae thing I asked of my family an friends. I think buying a foreign car is fine (many are more American than some American cars as mentioned above), but please at least look at the American cars. This is essentially a free thing that only requires some time. Take them for test drives, and let a American Car engineer know what you liked and did not like about them. Feedback like this car is crappy doesn't help. Feedback like: I like the camry interior, the Nissan has better residual value and I want to sell my car after 3 years, the dealers were mean at XXXX, is very helpful info. Make sure that you give both positive and negative feedback to ensure that they keep doing the things that are good. The biggest reason I ask for you to check out these other cars is because there are a lot of nice American cars out there. The perception difference is much larger than the actual difference (or inverted on many products). Also, don't buy crappy cars just because. This only re-affirms that they American Car buyer is an idiot, and will keep the companies making cappy cars. Buy cars you like and buy American if you find the right car.

(Also, don't be haters like the senators from the South. Those same senators helped work out deals that gave free land and 0 state taxes to foreign Auto-Companies to build in their states, but are against helping out domestics).

Feel free to PM me any opinions on Chrysler cars. I worked there 8 years and can forward info on to the people I know. I personally worked on SRT products so any direct feedback on those would be appreciated.

Re: GM and Chrysler
 

397 is a Delphi team. They have been fighting to survive for a couple years now. The Auto Industry sponsored teams are going to have to realize that their large budgets may soon be disappearing. Teams will survive, Michiganders are tough people (we have to be the weather here sucks!) It won't be easy

Michigan was probably chosen because we have a lot of teams but we also have a massive volunteer system and some crazy amazing mentors. We also have experience running low cost regionals (Rookie Regional 2008)

And IKE, thank you for your insight. I highly suggest everyone read IKE's book ;) It makes some very good points.

Re: GM and Chrysler
 

Wise advice.

My family has a "foreign" car and an "American" car and we like both. Decent gas mileage (or really good--on a recent trip, the American car--a 1999 Saturn sedan, manual transmission--got about 40 MPG highway), comfortable, and not too bad in terms of reliability. We got both of them used, and haven't had to do too much maintenance so far. (The other car is a 1991 Toyota sedan.)

In the long run, it's not whether the car is foreign or domestic, it's whether or not it's a good fit for you and whoever will use it.

As for the loan/bailout/whatever you want to call it-- I have mixed feelings. The main question is, is it going to have its intended effect (keep the automakers afloat until they can do it themselves), or is it going to hurt them worse? I've heard both points of view; I take neither right now.

Re: GM and Chrysler
 

Never said the credit industry should be bailed out. It's my opinion that no one should get a handout, but I'm a little bit of a romantic for the American "dream" of hauling your own self up.

About buying foreign cars: They aren't made in Japan and shipped here. Toyotas are made in Kentucky, by those hard working Americans that I am currently training to fight for. My dollars all end up in America, I don't like international business if it can be avoided. However, I am a slight utilitarian when it comes down to performance, and currently the USA is being smashed in these. There is no American company that owns as much of the performance and efficiency leader boards right now. Instead, the best in each category is owned by Europe and Asia.

I don't have anything against a specific company, and I hope nothing I say leans towards that. I simply want the best product for the best price, and currently American car companies aren't bringing me that.

Re: GM and Chrysler
 

....and West Virginia and Alabama....

Not to mention Honda's are produced in Ohio.

In fact, Toyota has tons of subsidiaries right here in the states that provide jobs and help OUR economy http://company.monster.com/toymot/

Re: GM and Chrysler
 

That's a great idea. I just purchases a car two weeks ago and I would love to tell the US automakers why I didn't go with them. Who do i need to send a letter to? Ford needs to know that they lost out on Interior finish (read that as cheap materials), lack of road performance and the overall 'feel' of the car. Reliability and owner costs were comparable across the board. With everything being equal would I buy American? Absolutely. For example, I'd be first in line if Jeep came out the with 40+ MPG Wrangler (I own a 1999 Wrangler myself). Sadly, all things are not equal. I will continue to purchase the best car I can afford. Maybe one day it will be American.

Re: GM and Chrysler
 

FIRST in Michigan is an organizational model, not a government sponsorship. Two or three years ago the Governor proposed funding of FIRST teams. It was cut in committee in favor of funding K-12 education - which no one can argue with. That year the rookies got some funding; even that has since been cut.

So would I, even though I like the styling of other products better. Do you know any manufacturer of a 40 mpg SUV?

We can't lose sight of the fact that the domestic makers were building things that would sell and make money doing it. Long, long ago Lee Iacocca was quoted, saying that Chrysler lost $600 per engine by buying a 1.6 liter for the old Omni/Horizon line, as compared to the 2.2 liter in-house engine. He added, "You can't make that up on volume." Maybe that 1.6 was better and got better fuel economy. But the company couldn't afford to continue to buy it instead of the 2.2. 20 years after the Omni/Horizon, Chrysler brought out the Dodge Intepid, a full size sedan with a V-8 engine. Guess what? It got better fuel economy than that old Omni! Other makers, both domestic and imports, brought out similar products. The better efficiency of the engines was used to upgrade the products - make them bigger, safer, faster. As long as gas was $1.50-$2.50, no one really cared what the fuel economy of their vehicle was. When gas spiked at $4.50, everyone was caught flat-footed. Because of some of the business relationships the importers have with their own governments, they are better able to withstand the temporary credit/finance/cashflow crunch Ike has so aptly described. Now that gas is back in the $1.50-$2.00 range, people are interested in trucks and SUV's again - except they can't get financing for them. And the dealerships can't get loans to stock the vehicles on their lots.

Points have been brought up that a century ago the buggy whip makers, harness makers, carriage makers, etc were going out of business and no one suggested they should get a government bailout, or even a loan, to keep them in business against the new auto companies. That is not a fair comparison. There is no current viable alternative to the internal combustion gasoline/diesel automobile engine. None. It just doesn't yet exist. It's not a case of the car companies and oil companies being in cahoots to crush any potential rivals. The science just isn't to the level that all those on the outside looking in think it should be. Companies are researching the next generation of transportation. Perhaps it will be electric/battery/hybrid/fuel cell. But the technology just doesn't yet exist to change over the entire fleet. Automakers themselves are in the forefront of change - at least they were until they could no longer afford it. For example, GM recently announced it is cutting back on the Chevy Volt project. If the car companies go under, who is going to fund the research into the future?

Re: GM and Chrysler
 

no one that i know of yet. Here is a list of the current Hybrids and fuel efficiency (from www.hybridSUV.com)
Hybrid Vehicle Gas Mileage Estimates (city/hwy)
(2007 & 2008 Hybrid SUV models)

34/30 mpg: 2008 Mazda Tribute (AWD)
34/30 mpg: 2008 Ford Escape (AWD)
34/30 mpg: 2008 Mercury Mariner (4WD)
27/32 mpg: 2007 Saturn Vue Green Line (2WD)
27/25 mpg: 2008 Toyota Highlander (AWD)
26/24 mpg: 2008 Lexus 400h (AWD)
21/22 mpg: 2008 Chevrolet Tahoe (2WD)
20/20 mpg: 2008 GMC Yukon (4WD)

IF Chevy is really cutting back on the Volt line, they are more short sighted than I originally thought. The Volt was the one thing i thought they were going to do right. 40 miles before burning any gas would mean most folks wouldn't burn gas on a typical day of driving. That's something I can buy into.

Re: GM and Chrysler
 

After spending a little time stewing over the issue, I think it might be better if we keep this thread relating to the impact the economy and the auto company issues will have on FIRST. I can see this getting nasty if we keep it political, especially with my own knee-jerk responses that some of us may remember...


That being said, I wish Michigan teams the best, and hope they make it through the hard times we have.

Re: GM and Chrysler
 

I also feel that the terms socialism and fascism should not be lumped together so quickly. They are two different things that while often found together are not always a pair. Take much of Europe for example, while more socialist than any thing we in the US are used to they are for the most part definitely not fascist governments.

Carry on

Re: GM and Chrysler
 

If you don't have the money and can't borrow the money, you can't spend the money. GM had to decide to run the plants they have, or shut them down to build the Volt plant. A product, I might note, which is still in the pilot state. They don't know for sure what the reaction to it would be in the marketplace. Can they build it at a cost that will make it profitable to them, and still attractive to the buyers? Going slower on a new unproven product, when you don't know if you can finance it or not, is being fiscally responsible. That's the kind of dilemma the automakers find themselves in. They don't even have enough money in hand for day to day operations; how can they develop new products at the same time?

Re: GM and Chrysler
 

Fun fact:

If New England (Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine) was a single state, it would have roughly the same geographic size and population as Michigan, and would also have about 130+ FRC teams.

Re: GM and Chrysler
 

You think the CEO's have learned their lesson and are now "fiscally responsible?" That's something the best used car salesman would have a hard time unloading. I think there are other reasons for the change in Chevy's plans, but they are far too cynical to post here.

Re: GM and Chrysler
 

I honestly think that GM and Ford would be fiscally sound in a few years if this financial collapse hadn't hurt their ability to do day-to-day business. Both of them have recently managed to develop cars that were or are actually competitive in their class, and have more cars coming. The 2010 Fusion hybrid will be the same size as the Camry Hybrid, but will get substantially improved mileage (5mpg more) on both city and highway. The Cruze will (hopefully) be a practical small car with reasonable power that gets 40mpg through use of direct injection (increases efficiency at part-throttle, which is where cars almost always operate) and turbocharging (increases thermal efficiency overall). The 2010 Equinox, which is going on sale in the new year, manages to do 30mpg highway, which is actually competitive with the HYBRID fuel economy specs posted above.

The idea that the American car companies are the only ones that have done stupid things with a lack of foresight isn't true either: Last year, Toyota finished building a very expensive, all-new plant in Texas. What was this plant producing? The all-new, full-size, Toyota Tundra. What is this plant doing now? It's running at half capacity, producing trucks that nobody wants to buy. So Toyota, lured by the same high-margin trucks that ensnared Detroit, spent years developing the Tundra and building a plant for it, only to get nailed by the gas price spike and subsequent economic collapse.

Re: GM and Chrysler
 

Craig, on most topics I would agree with you but this isnt foreign affairs, this isnt some overly politicized discussion about religion. This is something that immediately affects every single one of us. I dont care where you work if the auto companies fail catastrophically the entire economy will ripple. Plus, open discussion should always be encouraged. Perhaps a mod should watch this thread so that if people start getting too passionate we can close it down before feelings get hurt though.

Re: GM and Chrysler
 

My wife bought a new Chevy truck today, so I guess we did our part...

Re: GM and Chrysler
 

I know this is a little off topic but i find this hilarious because according to the FIRST website, there are 133 FRC teams in Michigan!!! California has 146.

Re: GM and Chrysler
 

Well, there is one built.:)
https://www.chryslerllc.com/en/innov...FRIfDQod-AJhCw

In the combined cycle it is calculated that this Wrangler would get approximately: 40-50mpg averaging. Not bad for the aero-dynamics of a brick.

Unfortunately it will be difficult to turn a profit on it until the price of its components come down.:(

Re: GM and Chrysler
 

DUDE!:yikes: could you imagine rock crawling with electric motors?!?!? Where does the front of the line start? :D

Re: GM and Chrysler
 

[quote=Bongle;786382]
Delphi has been in bankruptcy proceedings for years, and yet here we are discussing it on a ChiefDelphi site.QUOTE]

Bongle - In case you hadn't noticed, a couple of years ago we (the leadership team) of ChiefDelphi robotics decided to seek funding in the form of banner ads and donations, in order to continue this website. This site is funded and sponsored by Innovation FIRST Inc. For which, we are ever so much thankful. The money that most Delphi sponsored teams recieve is pretty modest now, and it goes directly to FIRST in an account for the teams to use for registration purposes.

Delphi (while still trying to get out of Chapter 11) has graciously decided to continue sponsoring FIRST robotics, as part of their overall community involvement. They have substantially reduced spending in many other programs. Thankfully, they continue to support FIRST in these difficult times.

Now, back to the topic at hand.
GM and Chrysler - 2 of my favorite companies to provide components to.
I wish both well, and hope they keep buying our power access systems.

Mike Aubry
(previously Delphi, now STRATTEC Power Access)

Re: GM and Chrysler
 

What Mike refers to is Delphi's contribution to its FIRST teams on a corporate level. I believe this funding actually comes from their charitable foundation, and it has been a welcome help to our team! For Team 48 anyway, this is the 2nd year we've received such funding. Throughout our entire existence, though, we've been funded by Delphi at the local divisional level. This funding has steadily decreased over the years as well, but it's still there, and we continue to be most appreciative of our local leadership for continuing to fund the program through even the roughest of economic times. I think some other Delphi teams have not been as fortunate in retaining local support.

My "book" is much longer than IKE's. :rolleyes:

I want to provide a few comments on your statements here. I do not want the FIRST community to lump all "auto industry sponsored teams", a group that is quite a bit larger than merely the Big Three-sponsored teams, into a single generalized characterization - I feel that is unfair. Each team is funded by its own unique combination of corporate, school, fundraising, and other sources.

Let's remember that the potential collapse of the American auto industry has a much farther reaching impact than simply the residents of the state of Michigan. While I know you are only speaking on behalf of your local brethren, we shouldn't characterize the problem as being confined to a single state. The economies of dozens of cities and towns nationwide, as well as a large percentage of the families resident within them, depend in large part on the auto industry presence within their communities. Warren, home of Team 48, is one such town. GM Lordstown (producer of the Chevy Cobalt) and, to a lesser degree, the Delphi Packard E/EA facilities here contribute a giant chunk to the local economy. Without the worker wages and salaries paid by these auto industry companies, people lose jobs, lose homes, go on unemployment, stop spending money at local businesses - grocery stores, restaurants, car dealerships, entertainment venues, etc. It's a vicious downward spiral I'd rather not have my community experience, and I'm sure the millions of others living in similar communities across the nation agree with me. So let's call it what it is - a truly nationwide crisis, and a truly nationwide threat if people of influence don't work together to stabilize and reform this industry.

Here in my neck of the woods, Delphi has been in a long term restructuring phase for many years now. This has led to a significant reduction in the local hourly and salaried workforce. The community has absorbed these losses up til now, but you can still see the effects - people moving away - more homes, cars, etc. up for sale. More closed storefronts. Increased unemployment. These problems have only increased in the past year as Delphi has had to react to the struggles of the Big Three - this is all placing quite an added strain on the affected communities and the employees who remain.

Team 48 has not been immune to these budgetary cutbacks locally, and we're ok with that - we're just happy Delphi officially continues to support the team. We don't have to worry about any "large auto industry-sponsored budget" disappearing, because we haven't had one of those since the last millenium, as we've seen double-digit percentage point cutbacks for years, even before the initial days of Delphi bankruptcy. Our local school district is actually the team's primary sponsor and has been for most of my tenure on the team. Our local executive leadership, the ones responsible for setting our corporate team sponsorship levels, could have chosen to hack us completely to save more money; instead, they saw the value of Team 48 to the local educational community and merely asked us to share in the same burden of reductions all other areas of the local company have been facing. We gladly obliged and, like most FRC teams, have worked hard to make the most of the money we are fortunate to receive. We attend more events now and extend more outreach to other local teams now than we ever did back in the days of bigger budgets. We also are far more successful at fundraising than we ever were in the "days of yore". I like to think that despite all the cuts the team has faced over the years, we've still found ways to become more efficient and productive as the seasons roll by.

But enough about money - an FRC team's success is not primarily fueled by a team's bankroll; moreso, it is the efforts of its HUMAN capital that generates a return on student investment in the program. It is the threat of a devastating loss of dozens of auto industry FIRST mentors that concerns me far more than the loss of corporate-sponsored funding. It's relatively easy for a company to donate $1000 at a team - just write a check. Ask them to identify an engineer willing to mentor your team for 4+ months out of the season during these hard economic times, however, and a positive response is far less likely.

I'd suggest that a dwindling mentor base has been a trend that has been a part of many (but not all) auto industry teams for years. It is definitely something that has touched Team 48. Companies that are restructuring - that cannot afford to hire to bring in new, eager young engineering mentors, that have had to suspend the majority of their intern/co-op program, that have asked those employees who haven't left to take on even more responsibilities at work - these are not companies that have a large pool of eager, willing volunteer employees for their sponsored robotics teams. Add in the many team mentors who get older, start families, have more to do at work, and have to conserve gas and money and time formerly devoted to volunteer work, and what you often see is a team mentorship group that slowly evaporates due to attrition, with those still willing to fight the good fight piling up added stress as they attempt to keep their team pointed in the right direction.

A complete auto industry collapse could deal a crushing blow to the employee mentor support that remains on auto industry-sponsored teams. Mentors losing jobs, forced relocations, etc. - it would be extremely difficult and painful for many to continue mentoring. Let's be realistic - regardless of how much one has invested in this program, supporting the local FRC team would be pretty far down the list of priorities for any employees displaced by an industry collapse and facing life-changing events.

In the face of this uncertainty, I think the potentially-affected FRC teams must challenge themselves to "diversify" their funding and mentorship base - to identify funding support and fundraising efforts that supplement the existing budget, to seek out mentors from additional community businesses - to not leave all their funding and mentorship eggs in a single basket. Many auto industry mentors, including those on Team 48, have been suggesting this to their schools and teams for years now. Those who have not yet taken these steps risk taking a huge blow to their team operations should the worst occur.

No one wants to think about these "what ifs"; many unfortunately avoid dealing with them until it is too late. Some wish that students not be exposed to these "real world" matters and all the "blah" surrounding them. I say that is folly. To all teams potentially affected by "the worst case scenario" actually happening, please be proactive in addressing the sustainability of your team now. In the best case, you will retain the auto industry mentors you have, but you will have diversified both your funding and your mentoring sources - I think that is a goal that every FRC team should strive for.

And to those students mentored by auto industry volunteers (and perhaps this applies to all FIRST students and their mentors in general) - please keep in mind that many of your mentors may be dealing with a lot of additional background stress you do not know about because they keep it close to the vest - consider taking a bit of additional time each day and spend it on making their mentoring jobs just a wee bit easier. Be sure to involve your classmates and remind them of this, too. Brainstorm on ways to make the team more efficient and self-reliant in the absence of the mentors - surprise them with just how much more the team accomplished on its own since the last time they were in the shop. Find new and creative ways to thank them for their efforts. Show them you care about what they do. Do more to give your mentors a greater return on their investment in your lives.

Many mentors view our FIRST activities and our time with our student teammates as an oasis where we can temporarily escape from the stresses of the workplace. I don't expect students to fan us mentors with palm fronds and feed us grapes one at a time, but I think you get the picture - please help make our time with our teams as enjoyable and meaningful as possible - help us forget all the "ick" we have to deal with elsewhere. FIRST is ideally an "ick"-free zone - let's try to keep it that way!

Thank you for enduring my encyclopedic post. Best of luck to all auto industry brethren as we attempt to ride out this storm together.

Re: GM and Chrysler
 

The views of Travis Hoffman do not reflect the views of all mentors.