SPI Requirement To Purchase

[archiver]

Posted by rob kelly at 2/9/2001 12:38 PM EST


Coach on team #367, Delaware Destroyers, from Seaford Senior High School and Dupont, NASA, JRM High Performance Machine, Trigli.



We are a second year team, located in a very rural area. We have very limited machining capabilities. We have one engineer volunteering about 1-2 hrs. per week. The team is run by myself with another teachers assistance. This requirement has cost us time and we have no alternative. In addition this arrangement is more costly than for example buying bearings or sprockets from McMaster Carr. I don't believe this practice is reflective of commercial enertprize either. My partner believes as has been mentioned here that this is a scheme to prop up small parts. Teams similar to ours in composition are the ones footing the bill along with the rookie teams. This detracts from the positive elements of FIRST. If they were that concerned why not package all legal parts in the kits and make only those parts illegal. My team should not be penalized because we lack the facilities or hands on sponsorship of an engineering giant. I'll get off the soap box now.
Thanks
Rob

[archiver]

Posted by Patrick Dingle at 2/9/2001 10:59 PM EST


Coach on team #639, Red B^2, from Ithaca High School and Cornell University.


In Reply to: SPI Requirement To Purchase
Posted by rob kelly on 2/9/2001 12:38 PM EST:



Of course it is a "scheme" (i hate to use that word) to help out small parts. Just because it benefits a company (gasp!), why should we frown upon it? Keep in mind Small Parts is giving $200 catalog value worth of parts to each team, and the next $1000 is half price. Their partnership with FIRST is extremely beneficial to all parties involved, and I would hate to see it disappear.

Consider the ramificiations of allowing teams to purchase parts from anywhere. It would become virtually impossible for FIRST to enforce caps on the amount of money that can be spent (such as $1200 for this season). Some teams would be able to "buy" parts from their sponsoring companies or through other connections at extremely discounted prices. Teams with huge 6-figure budgets to easily win by simply outspending other teams with only 4- and 5-figure budgets. Additionally, there would be no limit on types of materials that could be purchased, so teams could in theory purchase entire drive systems or major components of robots.

I don't mean to minimize your point, but I think the Small Parts deal is more of a bargain than you could get anywhere else. Our team also is on a very tight budget, but the $200 and half price deal is saving us a lot! If this disappeared there would be no way we would have been able to afford some of the parts we got from Small Parts.

Although this may benefit Small Parts and take business away from competitors, I think Small Parts and FIRST make an extremely good partnership. I applaud FIRST for rules such as these, which make sure that all teams have minimal advantages over others as possible.

Patrick


: We are a second year team, located in a very rural area. We have very limited machining capabilities. We have one engineer volunteering about 1-2 hrs. per week. The team is run by myself with another teachers assistance. This requirement has cost us time and we have no alternative. In addition this arrangement is more costly than for example buying bearings or sprockets from McMaster Carr. I don't believe this practice is reflective of commercial enertprize either. My partner believes as has been mentioned here that this is a scheme to prop up small parts. Teams similar to ours in composition are the ones footing the bill along with the rookie teams. This detracts from the positive elements of FIRST. If they were that concerned why not package all legal parts in the kits and make only those parts illegal. My team should not be penalized because we lack the facilities or hands on sponsorship of an engineering giant. I'll get off the soap box now.
: Thanks
: Rob

[archiver]

Posted by nick237 at 2/10/2001 12:37 AM EST


Engineer on team #237, sie h2o bots, from Watertown high school ct and sieman co.


In Reply to: Re: SPI Requirement To Purchase
Posted by Patrick Dingle on 2/9/2001 10:59 PM EST:



"Me thinks thou doest protect to much"
You failed to address any of Robs concerns or problems. How does he and other small teams work under the F.I.R.S.T. and SPI rules.
Why do we have great parts that we "BOUGHT" last year and are identical to this year and yet we cant use them, seems like a terrible waste of materials and a drain on the eco-system.
Why does SPI run out of critical parts at a time when they know there is going to be a drain on their stock in a very short period of time, And why doesnt SPI and F.I.R.S.T. have a solution to help the situation.
Remember Patrick, this competition is not free, we all pay a high cost to be the best. Some pay money and some like me put in huhdreds and hundreds of hours of our valuable time and expertise. I work a full time job running a business and then work 4 to 10 hours every day helping our team build a robot.
When we see a problem we as fare paying clients are entitled to critisize any situation that we believe will rectify a wrong.
When you fail to stand and be counted for your convictions then you are giving your permission to be abused.
A harsh statement but true.
nick237



: Of course it is a "scheme" (i hate to use that word) to help out small parts. Just because it benefits a company (gasp!), why should we frown upon it? Keep in mind Small Parts is giving $200 catalog value worth of parts to each team, and the next $1000 is half price. Their partnership with FIRST is extremely beneficial to all parties involved, and I would hate to see it disappear.

: Consider the ramificiations of allowing teams to purchase parts from anywhere. It would become virtually impossible for FIRST to enforce caps on the amount of money that can be spent (such as $1200 for this season). Some teams would be able to "buy" parts from their sponsoring companies or through other connections at extremely discounted prices. Teams with huge 6-figure budgets to easily win by simply outspending other teams with only 4- and 5-figure budgets. Additionally, there would be no limit on types of materials that could be purchased, so teams could in theory purchase entire drive systems or major components of robots.

: I don't mean to minimize your point, but I think the Small Parts deal is more of a bargain than you could get anywhere else. Our team also is on a very tight budget, but the $200 and half price deal is saving us a lot! If this disappeared there would be no way we would have been able to afford some of the parts we got from Small Parts.

: Although this may benefit Small Parts and take business away from competitors, I think Small Parts and FIRST make an extremely good partnership. I applaud FIRST for rules such as these, which make sure that all teams have minimal advantages over others as possible.

: Patrick

:
: : We are a second year team, located in a very rural area. We have very limited machining capabilities. We have one engineer volunteering about 1-2 hrs. per week. The team is run by myself with another teachers assistance. This requirement has cost us time and we have no alternative. In addition this arrangement is more costly than for example buying bearings or sprockets from McMaster Carr. I don't believe this practice is reflective of commercial enertprize either. My partner believes as has been mentioned here that this is a scheme to prop up small parts. Teams similar to ours in composition are the ones footing the bill along with the rookie teams. This detracts from the positive elements of FIRST. If they were that concerned why not package all legal parts in the kits and make only those parts illegal. My team should not be penalized because we lack the facilities or hands on sponsorship of an engineering giant. I'll get off the soap box now.
: : Thanks
: : Rob

[archiver]

Posted by Andy Baker at 2/10/2001 7:57 AM EST


Engineer on team #45, TechnoKats, from Kokomo High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.


In Reply to: Re: SPI Requirement To Purchase
Posted by nick237 on 2/10/2001 12:37 AM EST:



Nick,

I second your points exactly.

Patrick,

Not to gang up on you... but...

The way that FIRST is leveling the playing field on this issue is to make it costly for all teams. Sure, everyone is in the same boat, but that boat's name is "Miss Waste-a-lot".

Andy B.