cost report

[Aditya Duggal]

well if somebody is willing to sell their cost report them mail me at adityaduggal@hotmail.com

[Lyn Labahn UW-Madison]

Just our of curiosity, why would you want to buy someone elses cost report? It would be completely worthless for you car, not to mention it was due a few weeks ago....

2002/2003 Team Leader
Best overall average finish of the new millenium http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Michael Jones]

Would be a good idea to read others for competitive intelligence reasons...which is also why you're not likely to have many sellers. A good cost report has a lot of information in it - not only cost. Ours is the closest thing to a full plan on how to build our car that we have.

You'll be better suited asking for specific input on how to prepare a cost report vs. asking for a full and complete one.

---
Cornell Racing
http://fsae.mae.cornell.edu

[Frank]

Ours is "online"

http://www.uq.edu.au/fsae/

[Brent Howard]

I was just wondering what everyone's thoughts were on the cost report rules? I think that the major thing that the judges should set out are a few more rules on the cost of certian items. For example...assembly time, how long does it take to install a screw? How do you really determine how long your suspension takes to assemble? I know that if we actually charged for how long it takes us to install everything the first time it would be enormous....mainly due to the large amount of time devoted to discussions (aka: bullshitting). The other thing is charging for milling and lathe work. I think that it should be a certian charge based on the amount of material removed, because the facilities at each univeristy are so different. At the U of C we use a spreadsheet that has all of the recommended cutting speeds, feed rates, MRR, etc......for our machines, but it seemed to give really unrealistic results. I realize that carbide cutters are very high speed, but tou have to charge something for facing operations etc.... As well, how much do teams charge per set-up or toolchange (Or do other teams?)? Anyway, what is everyones thoughts on this. I think that more cost rules would result in a much more even comparision.

Brent

www.ucalgary.ca/fsae (http://www.ucalgary.ca/fsae)

[woollymoof]

Frank, gotta luv those indy pics

[Michael Jones]

Agreed with the Indy pics. http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

As for material removal rates, an excellent idea. Standardizes the process. We do this implicitly anyway.

---
Cornell Racing
http://fsae.mae.cornell.edu

[Brent Howard]

I really think standardiztion of MRR is a key idea, because right now it is very unstanderdized. What is everyones currnet position on set-up charges? we charged about $1 US per set-up needed, and our total cost was abouyt 15000 US. How many other teams charge for this?

Brent

www.ucalgary.ca/fsae (http://www.ucalgary.ca/fsae)

[Michael Jones]

$1 per setup is understandable, but 15,000 setups?

---
Cornell Racing
http://fsae.mae.cornell.edu

[Kevin Hall]

Thats what the car cost out as Jonesy

Kevin Hall
University of Saskatchewan
Engine Guy in Need of Help

[Michael Jones]

Ah, that makes more sense. Sorry about that, I read it as 15,000 CNC setups, $1 per. Certainly a fair ballpark figure total cost wise.

---
Cornell Racing
http://fsae.mae.cornell.edu

[Brent Howard]

so.....what do other teams charge for set-ups and other operations that are not really based on a MRR? No one really answered that yet.

brent

www.ucalgary.ca/fsae (http://www.ucalgary.ca/fsae)

[Michael Jones]

OUrs is a best-case analysis of the event. So, no fiddling with sketchy makeshift solutions on the fly, no distractions, no searching for missing tools or supplies, all screwups done with lessons being learned integrated, etc.

The design is proper from the start, the execution planned out and the implementation done by qualified team members.

Abstraction, yes, but otherwise all these cars would cost at least ten times the cutoff value. I know people whose boned parts alone total $25K at $35/hr.

---
Cornell Racing
http://fsae.mae.cornell.edu

[MikeWaggoner at UW]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Jones:
Ah, that makes more sense. Sorry about that, I read it as 15,000 CNC setups, $1 per. Certainly a fair ballpark figure total cost wise.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Since the cost for fixtures and pre-manufacturing items is zero (see rules), I assumed we'd have softjaws or quickjaws (locate the vice corners, have tabs that stick out against which the stock is butted). In either case, setups are almost nil for time (~20 sec if you hurry).

The problem with using material removal as a benchmark is that small parts that need to be cut with small endmills (and then can't be run fast) are more expensive in runtime than big parts where you can cut fast (300 in./min, .200+ depth of cut...).

Western Washington University FSAE
dot.etec.wwu.edu/fsae

[Michael Jones]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The problem with using material removal as a benchmark is that small parts that need to be cut with small endmills (and then can't be run fast) are more expensive in runtime than big parts where you can cut fast (300 in./min, .200+ depth of cut...).
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, there are quite a few variables to consider in any standard material removal operation - material selection, size of stock, tool selection, cut speed, tool path complexity, tool changes, limits and features of the CNC machine itself, etc...and of course many of these variables are covariant.

A simple MRR equation ($X per cu. in. material) is not feasible for all situations as a result, and building a multivariate model might be too complex to expect in this situation.

That noted, you can certainly derive decent estimates that could be applied. And the approach to other minimum pricings (especially in CF) is so out of whack with reality than even a basic MRR equation would be closer to correct than not, comparatively speaking.

---
Cornell Racing
http://fsae.mae.cornell.edu

[Brent Howard]

I agree micheal that the simplistic pricing is quite a bit out of touch with reality, but look at what we pay for material based on the set-values....find me 1" bar stock that costs $0.10 per foot. That is why I think that the approach should be all one way..with real recipts for material and machining submitted, or all the other way with set values for each type of operation. As it stands right now there is far too much variance between different teams and it ends up comparing apples to oranges. I would prefer to see the actual cost approach, but this may be difficult due to differing geographical regions, etc. So for that reason I think that a more specific standard price table is needed. I don't think that a set MRR for everything is the best way at all because some operations, as stated earlier, take more time than others. But if you look at an operation that every team must do is cut diff splines, and i wonder what the varience in prices are for every teams output splines? Anyway, gotta cram....damn finals.

Brent

www.ucalgary.ca/fsae (http://www.ucalgary.ca/fsae)

[MercerFSAE C. Burch]

Frank, I looked over your cost report and I didn't find your rotors listed anywhere? Are you running calipers with no rotors this year? Do they work on the wheels like a bicycle?

Chris

Mercer University - Drive!
Coming to an Auto-X course near you, May 2004!

[Frank]

http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

it was last year's....

now see how many other missing parts you can spot...

your better than the judges!!

http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Frank

"These cars feel great.. SIDEWAYS"

[Michael Jones]

Agreed on that part of standardization. I love how the cost report rules implicitly suggest that you can "find" metal in your lab, from old cars, on eBay, etc, and it's $X/lb, regardless. And some metals (e.g. Ti) aren't included, which means actually pricing properly.

Some similar thing for manufacturing would be handy, and return the whole exercise to its roots in manufacturing philosophy and design to boot. It really isn't how much/little time you wasted building the prototype, but how you would build that car properly in an acceptably capitalized plant given specific product output expectations. Building one car is different from building 1000 which is different from building 1000000.

And Frank, glad to see that we're not the only people to completely goof on things. Even last year's report which I considered to be completely vetted and bulletproof had five or six omissions and weirdness bits in there, each around $100 or so, positive or negative. (e.g. costing $75 u-joints that don't exist.)

---
Cornell Racing
http://fsae.mae.cornell.edu

[Frank]

hey, who said it was a stuffup? http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[Michael Jones]

...one year we almost handed in something with one wheel and tire. Fastest unicycle ever.

---
Cornell Racing
http://fsae.mae.cornell.edu

[Devin Johnson]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Frank:
Ours is "online"

http://www.uq.edu.au/fsae/ <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How about that report? Did you take it off of your website, or did I miss it?

[MN]

hi
I have a question about FASTENERS.
Does FASTENER contain all of cap screws, washers, nuts, pins and clips?