Team 221 LLC. Universal Chassis In Stock

[DarkFlame145]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

Anthony, it looks nice but the cost seems prohibitive. If you don't mind me asking, what is causing the price to be so high compared to IFI's chassis metal?

Not only that, but aren't we allowed to only spend 400 on one piece. Yes i know the full chassis is more then one piece, but it's a kit.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by DarkFlame145

Not only that, but aren't we allowed to only spend 400 on one piece. Yes i know the full chassis is more then one piece, but it's a kit.

It's been discussed in this thread. A)rules can change, b) see the first page of the thread.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by AndyB

Thanks for the information Anthony. I'm excited to see what else comes out of 221 in the future.

Warning: The rest is all in regards to rules stated in the 2008 manual, and may or may not be the same for the 2009 manual.

So say TeamX wants to buy a Rolling Chassis Package (an assembly, not a part) for $900

TeamX must take into account this purchase on their Bill of Materials.

Rolling Chassis Package: $900

can also be written:

UC Side Rail Package: $400
UC Ladder Bar Kit: $100
FIRST Wheel Adapter Kit: $400

FIRST rules say no components over $400.



Theoretically, if AndyMark sold a gearbox for $600, the BOM could be broken down into individual gears, shafts, side plates, etc...

From my interpretation of the rule, Team 221's Rolling Chassis Package could be recorded on a Bill of Materials in the form of each part in the package. That would mean breaking down the package into individual rails, blocks, etc... (Fasteners don't count if under $1.00 a piece)

FIRST would consider the package a "Mechanism" and not a "Component". Would the same be true for a gearbox? Should teams be recording gearboxes in their most unassembled broken states?

Obviously, any non KOP items you purchase should be taken into consideration of the $3,500 total limit.

Originally Posted by DarkFlame145

Not only that, but aren't we allowed to only spend 400 on one piece. Yes i know the full chassis is more then one piece, but it's a kit.

Kit or not, you can buy separate parts so you could break it down on the BOM. This leads to a question though, Team A buys a gearbox from Company B but they find the components to the gearbox cheaper from a different supplier. Team A is somehow over the 3500 budget, could they list the components from the suppliers instead of the gearbox from Company B? Just curious.

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

Kit or not, you can buy separate parts so you could break it down on the BOM. This leads to a question though, Team A buys a gearbox from Company B but they find the components to the gearbox cheaper from a different supplier. Team A is somehow over the 3500 budget, could they list the components from the suppliers instead of the gearbox from Company B? Just curious.

Per 2008's <R21>, it's the cost of the things "used in the construction" of the robot. If you bought B's gearbox, you can't quote C's price for the same thing. Raw materials, however, may be prorated based on other suppliers' prices, due to <R22> via 8.3.3.1.

This got me thinking about the Team 221 chassis in general. Based upon 8.3.3.1 and the requirements for recording costs on the BOM, I can't see any legitimate way to claim that the $900 chassis is not a single item. We can't claim that every little piece (nut, bolt, plate, sprocket, etc.) of a COTS assembly is an item for BOM purposes, because the rules stipulate that we use "the purchase price" (not the price that we could have paid for a subpart alone). And the same goes for subassemblies: if the purchase price was $900 for the kit, then it wasn't (separately) $400 for the frame rails, and an additional $100 for the crossmembers, plus $400 for the wheel kits. (<R22>, via the last bullet of 8.3.3.1, reinforces this.)

My suggestion is simple: instead of adding a single $900 item to the invoice, just add the three constituent subassemblies to the invoice instead. Then you've got an <R21>- and <R22>-compliant modular system, with individual modules bought separately.

I also realize that at inspection, this would probably be treated leniently, for the sake of the team showing up with the chassis. That doesn't change the fact that the current price structure is a fundamentally incorrect way to account for the parts, according to the 2008 rules, and that offering the entire kit like this may violate some of the (debatably appropriate) philosophical principles described in the rules.

Now, with all of that said, there's an alternative that might work instead (though I certainly don't recommend it). Instead of making it a COTS part, make it a custom order. I don't think a team is prohibited from making a custom order for a box of potentially-COTS parts, under non-COTS terms. They are, after all, shipped unassembled, and many of the individual parts are not available separately from Team 221 LLC. This is a violation of the same principles as above, but is apparently not prohibited by the letter of the rules: it's therefore up to you whether you think it's appropriate. If you were to do this, you would charge whatever you wanted (with no part individually over $400), and the team would list your cost for materials, plus the price of your labour. The most perverse part of this is that by offering something on custom rather than COTS terms, there are no vendor requirements.

I hope that FIRST is revising the parts usage rules for next year, to simplify and clarify these and other issues....