 |
 |
|
|
|
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
|
Member |
I have read the rules and to me it sounds as though the cost software this year is also optional. Is this correct or did I miss something big?
|
|||
|
|
New Member |
I have started working on the Cost report and I just imputed a simple Steel Alloy.
The unit cost of 2.25 comes up, then I add a quantity. I am creating the Top A-Arm. What am I to put for Size1 and Unit1 along with size2 and unit2. For Area Name I input Rnd 0.625 x 0.049. Area was calculated to be 18.75292620375 and we input the length to be 8.25. Density comes up as 0.00E+00. Then the Subtotal is automatic at $2.25. Could you help me fill in the blanks? |
|||
|
|
Member |
George,
I think you are wrong. C.3.6.1.a says The Cost Report must use the standardized Cost Tables. You can't use the tables unless you use the software! C.3.8.1.a says you need to turn in an electronic version and a hard copy version, at least for the US events. |
|||
|
|
Member |
I didn't had the courage to go through all 27 pages so my question might have been asked already. Here it is. Can we quote processes as if we were in a serial production mode instead of a prototype fabrication mode? Here's the example I'm thinking about. Our mold for our composite chassis is made out of fiberglass, since it is the cheapest way for us to do it. In the tooling tables, for lamination tools, steel molds are cheaper than aluminum ones which are also cheaper than composite ones (fiberglass in our case). This is true because when you're going to make multiple cars, the steel mold will last longer hence the lowest price per car made, but in the context of FSAE, no one is going to make a steel mold in order to build one car. Therefore, can I cost our mold as being steel (as if we were in serial production) instead of fiberglass?
|
|||
|
|
Member |
1. Why not? Read from the tables, put it into Excel. What's the problem? 2. You can make a PDF from Excel and send that, then print it and send that. What's the problem? EPMAI, my experience with the tooling costs last year was that they're negligibly small, so it doesn't make a big difference if you use CFRP or steel. But I'd say you have to cost what you're using, that's the point of the cost report! If I remember correctly, we were using MDF ("wood") and cost them as composite. BTW: B3.6.1.d. "Be based on the actual manufacturing technique used on the prototype, e.g. cast parts on the prototype must be cost as cast, and fabricated parts as fabricated, etc." |
|||
|
|
Member |
Mr. Riley,
I understand that modifications internal to the engine are not costed. However, we have modified our oil pan - we milled it down and welded on a box to make the whole pan shorter. We also welded some piano hinges inside the pan to act as baffles and modified the oil strainer. Do these machining/welding processes or the materials need to be costed? When we bought our tach, its wires were already stripped and tinned. Do we need to cost the wire stripping and tinning? Or did we "luck out" that our part we bought came like that? Lastly, do we cost the labor involved with internal engine modifications (cams, trigger wheel, etc.)? Thanks. This message has been edited. Last edited by: scottbob, |
|||
|
|
Member |
Fabiola: We will be putting out an announcement in the next few days with the deadlines for Michigan and California along with some more information on the Cost Event. The software on the website is the latest, but the next version is in the works.
CFS_Maria: The website has the latest Appendices. Most (all?) haven't been updated since last year as we're trying for consistency in the rules. George_4: The announcement that will be made soon will cover the requirements for using the software (it will be optional). Obviously you have to use the costs in the tables which may involve looking them up in the software. RayFSR: Please see this link for information about raw materials. We're going to be changing the way we handle raw materials because it is too confusing and complicated. No more areas and densities. You'll just put in the mass like other items. Make sure you're using materials that end in '(per kg)'. http://www.fsaeonline.com/Down.../Bug_Workarounds.pdf So if you change "Steel" to "Steel (per kg)" you can enter the mass and it should work. Tech Guy: The announcement will cover this. The goal is to get to 100% electronic submission where the judges log in and view your data. But as we're still working out the software it seems best to give you an option. We're discussing with the event captains what they need as well for reviewing the data. EPMAI: 1st, please read/search the forum. 2nd, I think you should look at the tooling table again. Composite tools are much cheaper. Remember tooling isn't cost from the materials table but from the tooling table. And Thrainer's reply is correct and quotes the rules. scottbob: The pan changes, including new pan, old pan removal and new pan installation are required. The baffle changes are not (fully internal). Please see the comments field of the materials table (in the software or Excel), for example: High tech engines, 3-5 valves per cylinder, etc. Engine cost includes tranmission (whether integral or not by design) and all components necessary to run including spark plugs, coils, wires, oil filter, etc. with the exception of the air induction and fuel system components. Cost includes engine as received by manufacturer but not custom parts such as dry sump pans, PCV changes, etc. Fully Internal engine changes are free. If covers or other parts are removed disassembly labor must be included in labor cost. |
|||
|
|
Member |
Mr. Riley,
While we appreciate your team's effort in creating easy to use software for doing our Cost Report (god knows that would make this event so much better), having used the software i don't trust it at this point to depend on it for the report. As such, we will continue to rely on our method of an excel workbook that our members can complete their BOM's and links to the SAE provided cost tables. This worked great last year and allowed me to push the updated tables to our team members and they could see the updates. Will you continue to update the excel versions of the materials, fasteners, process, and tooling tables located at fsaeonline.com during this process? Just checking because i see they have not been updated for a while and i want to make sure all updates will not just be in the software. Looking forward to that 2010 Cost Report announcement  Thank you, Ryan Trickett Administrative Director, University of Washington Formula SAE, Team 19, 20, 21 |
|||
|
|
Member |
I have a few questions about damper pricing.
I have looked at the real (or MSRP) price vs FSAE Cost event price for several dampers. As indicated in the rules most of the parts prices are about 50% of the purchase price, while the Penske 7800 is significantly more. Is there a reason for this? Our team uses the 7800, and a primary reason is the cost. It seems strange that the significant cost savings is not reflected in the cost tables. Penske 7800 - 180 vs 117.50 FSAE 65% Penske 8300 - 825 vs 412.00 FSAE 50% Penske 8760 - 1320 vs 660.00 FSAE 50% Cane Creek DB - 610 vs 300.00 FSAE 49% Penske 7800 FSAE - 675 vs ??? Also I am curious about the Kaz Technologies "Penskee 7800" damper. It has the same part number as the old Penske 7800 but it is a completely new and different part, and both are still available for purchase. How will this be handled in the cost report/tables? Thanks, Price Sources Penske http://www.penskeshocks.com/files/2009_Price_List.pdf Cane Creek http://www.motorsportsspares.com/fsae.html Kaz Technologies http://kaztechnologies.com/fsae.html Chris Patton Global Formula Racing Vehicle Dynamics |
|||
|
|
Member |
Since there is still no thread for the 2010 event, i'm going to post this here.
I reviewed the expectations for the 2010 cost events and i'm very disappointed to see that SAE will be phasing out the excel versions of the cost tables. I hope that won't be this year. I would hope that before you do that, you ensure that this poor and unusable cost software actually works correctly first. I thought we might be able to use it this year, but having it popup 5 errors in 5 minutes, calculations not be performed correctly, parts and assemblies disappear, and the sync take FOREVER to complete, i gave up. Our team came up with an excellent way of using the excel spreadsheets to distribute the workload over our entire team and there's no way i'm going to expect everyone to move back and forth between access and excel copying and pasting data. Just as i thought Cost Report was getting better you've gone and done this. On another note, it really should be clarified what exactly the cost report event at competition will entail. For those teams that attended 2009 Michigan and California, i think you can agree with me that the two events were night and day. At Michigan, our Technical Director and I spent 15 minutes showing the judge where items in the report were that they penalized us for not having. They claimed we didn't have master cylinders and various other items when they were in plain site in the report and took me all of 3 seconds to point out. The list was quite long... We then did our cost scenario and aced that no problem. I felt this was a great way of running the event as that actual report and the months making it is really the point. Since it has already been graded, there is really no sense in rehashing things (aside from clarifications). In California though, completely opposite story. We rolled the car into the garage and it was like a tech inspection/design event. We were asked to thoroughly explain manufacturing processes for parts on the car, remove parts from the car, and demonstrate we had memorized what we put in the report for those items. When our TD and i looked at them in surprise (after expecting an event like Michigan a month prior) they took that to mean we were poorly prepared and deducted points. I told them at one point "this is nothing like Michigan, what's the deal guys?" and i was told quite rudely "well, this isn't Michigan." Needless to say, we really were not prepared for what they asked us nor did we have the people on hand to maximize that event. Had we been told what to expect, we would have aced it. We never had an opportunity to correct the judges on missing items as was the case in Michigan. If the same people looked at the report, i'm sure we were penalized for missing items that were actually there. In closing, working on cost report for 3 years with both this and the old system, i am happy to see the new system. I see that SAE is making an effort to improve the event, but it's hard to take this event seriously when we have the experiences like the above. My recommendation last year to the team was disregard the event entirely and find the points elsewhere. Turn in a mediocre report that we put a week's worth of effort into and be done with it. With last year's cost report challenge being the sh** show that it was, i was frustrated. DO NOT phase out the excel tables unless you are confident of the functionality of the software and PLEASE tell us what to expect at competition. I don't feel that these requests are unreasonable. I hope this feedback helps... Ryan Trickett Administrative Director, University of Washington Formula SAE, Team 19, 20, 21 |
|||
|
|
Member |
Hello Mr. Riley,
is it still the right way to submit the Add Item Requets on the fsaeonline website with the AIR online form? Because the last edited AIR there was in Oktober 2009. Are the Tables on the fsaeonline website not updated any more? Because the last update there was in May 2009! Julia |
|||
|
|
Member |
Hi Mr. Riley,
I'd like to know if we will be able to send you the Cost inputs tables full complete without use the Cost Software for the California event for sure. We haven't received any announcements about it so far. Tks, Fabiola. |
|||
|
|
Member |
Hi everyone,
Just to let you know I'm still reading this forum and will catch up on questions this weekend. We're assembling a team to start working on the AIR's and get the tables updated. I am still looking for volunteers to help, so please encourage your team alums to volunteer (email katklauz@aol.com). We'll maintain the Excel versions of the tables for 2010 based on your feedback. I'll also start a new area for 2010 so please in the future post in that area. |
|||
|
|
Member |
The Kaz damper will be listed at $337.50. As for the 7800, whatever MSRP I pulled last year showed the table price was about 1/2. We may update it for 2011 but won't change it now as people have already made decisions based on the table cost.
|
|||
|
|
Member |
We apparently had a different MSRP when we calculated the table cost for the 7800 damper last year. We don't like changing costs this close to the competition as people have made decisions but can revise it for 2011.
The Kaz dampers will be listed as a separate damper with a cost of $337.50.
|
|||
|
|
Member |
Ryan, we're reviewing your feedback for some lessons learned. I will keep updating the Excel tables.
|
|||
|
|
Member |
You can review the AIR's that have been submitted and their status on the FSAE Cost website to avoid duplication. We've got the new team assembled and will be working to update the tables.
|
|||
|
|
Member |
You do not need to use the software for either Michigan or California. This announcement covered both:
http://www.sae.org/images/cds/...pectations%20210.doc
|
|||
|
|
Member |
Sheet metal stamping and punching have the same cost so the short answer is use interchangeably.
Stamping can form a panel without cutting. It can also cut/trim the part, often using a single die. Punching involves shearing the material and will often use small shapes hitting multiple times to create the final shape. Again, you can use either depending on if you have a different definition, as the cost is the same. "Saw or tubing cuts" and "Tube Cut" are pretty interchangeable. "Tube Cut" uses diameter and the other is based on the length of cut. I would say since it's pretty confusing which is which just use whichever is cheaper for your specific item.
|
|||
|
|
Member |
Thank you for the answers Mr. Riley. And also thank you for updating the tables.
Julia |
|||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 ... 24 25 26 27 28 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|