Cost Rules - Discussion of New 2009 Rules

[umbro]

Are many teams having any success with this software?
I have been at it for a few months now and seem to be getting nowhere.

[Chrisreich]

Hello everyone,

I’ve worked with that during the last days and now I have reached a point where I no longer know how to go. Maybe I am stupid user. So I hope there is somebody who can help me.

1. I start with a secondarily issue. To get run the Software you have to enter the team and event information. In both “windows” you have to select your university. Now I have a Problem with our university name. The list is very long. Because of that I wrote the first capital form the Name “UA” (for UAS Aachen) and it appeared “AUS Aachen”. Even if I correct this, write with die keyboard “UAS Aachen” and press enter, the program changes the name into “AUS Aachen”. As result to that (and that is correct) an error appear, with the message (translated):
“The entered text is not an element of the list”
I can handle this, by searching our university in the “Button-down-menu”.

2. Also another secondarily problem (it is not really important), our team logo will not be completely loaded.

3. Now I will describe my main problems. In the window “View/Edit BOM” you could enter our parts for your vehicle. Exactly on that point I have the one of the main problems. The first assembly and the first part I could enter. But if I would like to enter a second assembly or a second part, an error with number 3075 appears. And it is regardless of which way (press the plus-button or write the title in the line with the “star”) I enter the next assembly or part.

4. Also the same error pop up if I would like to enter more data in the tables for Materials, Processes, Fastener and Tooling than fit in on line. Anyway you should press “plus-button” to define one and more Materials and something else. Each time (press the “plus-button”) the error (3075) appears. Additional in the first moment you cannot see same changes or what you have done. Only after I updated the whole program or click to the assembly or part I get a visible return what’s happened.

5. After I add a new process and I entered the information for an “Assemble, 1 Kg, Line-on-Line” (in order of the split: 1; Assemble, 1 kg, Line-onLine; None; $0,13; unit;1;None;1; $0,00; some cells information are from the table) following error appear:
“Necessary formula data is missing. Please check your data.” But all cells are filled. I don’t know which information is missing. Additional to that the SubTotal will not be calculated.

6. Another problem is connected with the material input of fittings. After I add two Fittings (“Fitting/L.P./Cap//Al./Anod”), the second fitting will not be calculated. In the first fitting I wrote in the cell “Size1” 18,9 (Unit: mm). For the second fitting I choose one with 22,1 mm. For the last one the SuTotal is 0,00$.

7. Now I will come to the end. If I need row material, e.g. aluminum, steel etc., how I must fill the cell. Finally the SubTotal must be entered by the user? I thought the row material will be calculated by mass or volume. But if I add “Steel, Alloy”, the cost will not be calculated. It doesn’t matter what kind of row material and which shape (e.g. plate or tube). Anyway, is it correct, that I have to define for example tubes in the “Section Browser”? After this definition, could I connect these to every row material? And will be the cost automatically calculated? If I’m right, my computer doesn’t want to work with this program.

I hope I wrote my problems understandable. And I hope here is somebody who can help me. Maybe the solution of these points is very easy. Connect to the motto: Most of the time, the error is sitting in front of the screen http://fsae.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Best regards,
Christian

PS: I used the Costapplication- release: 06052009, the current release for downloading

[Bill Riley]

Couple of comments:

danielparsons: If you are having problems with reports make sure that you have one and only one team active and one and only one event active. You can check by going to "Add/Edit Team" and "Add/Edit Event" off the switchboard screen. Also, check for orphaned records by going to tools and after backing up your database, try deleing orphaned records for each of the boxes listed. In my experience this usually makes the reports work and also the costs agree, as the orphaned records can popup as costs that aren't real in certain reports/screens. If this doesn't work send yoru fcadata.accdb and fcakey file to katklauz@aol.com to my attention and reference this discussion.

umbo: If you have specefic questions/comments I will try to help. See the above suggestion for things to try.

Chrisreich:
1) We will alphabetize the list on the next software release to fix this issue.
2) I have seen several logos not display correctly. Make sure it's a small jpg.
3) Try the fixes listed above for orphaned parts and if this error is still there send me your fcadata.accdb and fcakey file.
4) better send me your file
5) ok
6) Did you follow the instructions in the setup guide to change your region to not use a comma as a dollars/cents seperater? This can give you lots of problems and is going to be fixed in phase 2 of the project, but hasn't yet. Make sure you do that, and you may have to reselet your data to store it with a period instead of a comma. Or I can try to fix it.
7) If you use raw materials you need to select an cross section, length and density. It will calculate the cost. Don't type the cost manually, as everytime you reselect the material it will change back to zero, and probably won't calculate right in the reports. If you want to just input kg then use materials ending in "per kg". This was added because there were a lot of problems using area/length/density for cost calculations.

If you have more comments please post and we will try to work through the issues.

My understanding of the Australian requirements is anything that can't be included through the cost software for whatever reason (either AIR's not entered into the software or bugs) you can include on a separate hard copy table and adjust your cost manually.

Regards,

Bill Riley

[umbro]

Cost application issues

-The total assembly cost in the top right
hand corner of my application software is missing (white box).

-I can’t seem to attach any files to the software. When I click the file attachment rows they just beep when I try and type.

-When I try and get reports from the software it gives back 8 pages of standard area sections (rptSections), and the rest of the reports have no values (rpt summary chart, rpt assembly by system, rpt cover sheet).

Cheers
Any help will be greatly appreciated so close to the due date ?

[danielparsons]

Umbro, I was getting the same thing when I was trying the 'print preview' command if you actually try and print you will likely get an 'error 2103' warning but you will get better reports generated. I dont know if these reports are correct and there is no way to actually print them but they're better than blank ones I guess.

If you find a way to actually print what we generate please let me know. Due date for Australasia is only hours away.

[umbro]

Danielparsons, I tried the PRINT REPORT button and yes it does give actual reports that look correct. This is only after the 2103 error you mentioned which must introduce some error in the UI that doesn’t allow printing.

Yes the Australasian competition is very close, and I am sad to say that at this rate we may have to kiss the 100 cost points goodbye. I just wish we had found out about this cost application earlier on in the year.

I think that a more in depth training type of package needs to be developed for this UI and how data is to be added. The tutorial videos are helpful but are a little vague.

[danielparsons]

Umbro, I still have no idea on the 2103 error but once the reports have generated press alt+F a menu will drop down where you can select print.

[umbro]

Danielparsons, yes this works but my software will only generate 2/4 reports before the error occurs.

[danielparsons]

Umbro, Yeah we only get 2 reports as well. I have sent an email with our files and a description of the problem but still no reply. If it comes down to it we will just submit what we have and see how we go.

[umbro]

danielparsons, Yes we will have to do the same.
Are you able to add attachments to the cost report software in the form of picture and drawings?

[danielparsons]

Umbro, Yeah my team has been able to attach pdf's and jpeg's to the software. Pretty much for us the major problem is the generating of the reports.

[Bill Riley]

Please make sure you have one and only one team active and one and only one event active. Use the left right arrows to check this on the team and event setup screens. If you have only one of each the reports should generate. You can print or output to pdf, and print from pdf.

[Bill Riley]

If you are having problems with the reports, such as error 2103, make sure you have a two digit year (09) not a one digit year (9) under the event setup screen. This has been a problem with several teams I have seen in the last few days. Once I changed the year over the reports generated with no problem.

[Julia - Running Snail]

Hello Mr. Riley,

I have two questions:

1. What is the difference between "Saw or tubing cuts" under the category material removal and "Tube cut" under the category Tubing?
When do I have to use which?

2. What exactly means "sheet metal punching" and "sheet metal stamping"? What is the difference?

Julia

[Chrisreich]

Hello Mr. Riley,
I have still a problem with the Costaplikation. After I change the computer Setup the Problem Nr.5 (listed above) is done. Thank you for that.
But the Issue connects with the Processes, still exist. I tried all listed Processes to separate which work and which doesn’t work.
I used following “test setup” in an Assembly window:
(In the Order: ItemOrder, Process, Use, UnitCost, Unit, Quantity, Multiplier, Mult.Val.,SubTotal)2, X,None,[System], Unit, 2, Repeat 2, 2, [System].
X = Different Process
[System] = will be calculated or is given by the System

Following list shows which Process worked and which Process brings an error:
(I know, some Processes doesn’t make sense in an Assembly. But I random control this in the Part-view. It was the same result.)

Work:
<UL TYPE=SQUARE>
<LI>Riveting
<LI>Broach, Internal
<LI>Broach, External
<LI>Adjustment, Misc.
<LI>Breake Bleed – Per Bleeder Valve
<LI>Suspension Setup – Soild Axle (per corner)
<LI>Laser Powder Deposition
<LI>Lamination, Filament Winding
<LI>Annodize
<LI>Heat Treatment
<LI>Liquid Apply – Pour Expanding Foam
<LI>Exhaust system Ceramic Coating
<LI>Die Casting
<LI>Investment Casting
<LI>Plastic, injection molding
<LI>Powder Metal Forming
<LI>Rapid Protoybe – Stereo Lith.
<LI>Sand Casting
<LI>Cure, Autoclave
<LI>Cure, Oven
<LI>Lamination, Manual
<LI>Potting
<LI>Resin application, Infusion Molding
<LI>Resin application, Manual
<LI>Cure, Room Temperature
<LI>Attach Wire Fork
<LI>Wire Dressing (Install and route)
<LI>Connector Install, Square, Screw (x2)
<LI>Hand, Loose <= 6.35 mm
<LI>Hand, Loose <= 25.4 mm
<LI>Hand, Loose > 25.4 mm
<LI>Hand, Tight <= 6.35 mm
<LI>Power Tool <= 6.35 mm
<LI>Power Tool <= 25,4 mm
<LI>Power Tool > 25.4 mm
<LI>Ratchet <= 6.35 mm
<LI>Ratchet <= 25.4 mm
<LI>Ratchet > 25.4 mm
<LI>Reaction tool <= 6.35 mm
<LI>Reaction Tool <25.4 mm
<LI>Reaction tool > 25.4 mm
<LI>Screwdriver > 1 Turn
<LI>Wrench <= 6.35 mm
<LI>Wrench <= 25.4 mm
<LI>Wrench > 25.4 mm
<LI>Assemble, > 20 kg, Line on Line
<LI>Assemble, 10 kg Line on Line
<LI>Assemble, 20 kg Interference
<LI>Assemble, 20 kg Line on Line
<LI>Assemble, 20 kg Loose
<LI>Sheet metal shearing
<LI>Tube bends
<LI>Tube end preparation for welding
[/list]


Dosn't Work:
<UL TYPE=SQUARE>
<LI>Sheet Metal Sow Cut
<LI>Safety Wire Install
<LI>Threading, Internal (Machining)
<LI>Threading, External (Machining)
<LI>Hand Finish, Material Removal
<LI>Suspension Setup-Independent Susp.(per corner)
<LI>Lathe – Face, Rough & Finish
<LI>Lathe – Turn, Rough & Finish
<LI>Mill – End, Rough & Finish
<LI>Mill – Face, Rough & Finish
<LI>Machinig
<LI>Hand Finish – Surface Preparation
<LI>Braze
<LI>Spinning, Metal
<LI>Tube Flare/Bead
<LI>Knurling
<LI>Attach Wire, Quick connect terminal
<LI>Attach Wire, Ring
<LI>Attach Wire, Solder wire, bent
<LI>Attach Wire, Solder wire, not bent
<LI>Attach Wire, Terminated wire with screw
<LI>Attach Wire, Terminated wire with screw and nut
<LI>Attach Wire, Wire to screw
<LI>Attach Wire, Wire to screw with nut
<LI>Attach Wire, Wire to terminal block
<LI>Attach Wire, Wire wrap around terminal post
<LI>Install Tire Wrap (Zip Tie, Cable Clamp)
<LI>Insert Bundle Into Tube or Sleeve
<LI>Install Adhesive Cable Clamp
<LI>Lace
<LI>Shrink Tube
<LI>Taping Wire Bundle
<LI>Connector Install, Circular, Bayonet
<LI>Connector Install, Circular, Friction
<LI>Connector istall, Circulat, Screw Thread
<LI>Connector Install, Square, Friction
<LI>Connector install, Square, Latch/Snap-on Type
<LI>Connector Install, Square, Spring Clip
<LI>Lay Wire – Control
<LI>Lay Wire – Power
<LI>Lay Wire – Signal
<LI>Crimp Wire
<LI>Cut wire
<LI>Strip Multi-Conductor
<LI>Strip Wire
<LI>Tin Wire
<LI>Connector Assemble, Crimp
<LI>Connector Assemble, Solder
<LI>Hand - Start Only
<LI>Screwdriver < 1 Turn
<LI>Sewing
<LI>Weld
<LI>Aerosol Apply
<LI>Assemble, > 20 kg, Interference
<LI>Assemble, > 20 kg, Loose
<LI>Assemble, 1kg, Interference
<LI>Assemble, 1kg, Line on Line
<LI>Assemble,1 kg, Loose
<LI>Assemble,10 kg, Interference
<LI>Assemble,10 kg, Loose
<LI>Assemble, 15 kg Interference
<LI>Assemble, 15 kg, Line on Line
<LI>Assemble, 15 kg, Loose
<LI>Assemble, 3 kg, Line on Line
<LI>Assemble, 3 kg, Interference
<LI>Assemble, 3 kg, Loose
<LI>Assemble, 5 kg, Interference
<LI>Assemble, 5 kg, Line on Line
<LI>Assemble,5 kg, Loose
<LI>Brush Apply
<LI>Cut (scissors, knife)
<LI>Liquid Applicator Gun
<LI>Liquid Apply – Spot
<LI>Machining Setup, Change
<LI>Machining Setup, Install and remove
<LI>Tape
<LI>Drilled hole < 50.8 mm dia.
<LI>Drilled holes < 25.4 mm dia.
<LI>EDM – Plunge
<LI>EDM – Wire
<LI>Grind, Cylindrical
<LI>Grind, Flat
<LI>Grind, Profile
<LI>Laser Cut
<LI>Lathe – Face, Finish
<LI>Lathe – Face, Rough
<LI>Lathe – Turn, Finish
<LI>Lathe – Turn, Rough
<LI>Mill – End, Finish
<LI>Mill – End, Rough
<LI>Mill – Face, Finish
<LI>Mill – Face, Rough
<LI>Mill – Form Cutter
<LI>Non – metallic cutting <= 25.4 mm
<LI>Non – metallic cutting <= 50.8 mm
<LI>Non – metallic cutting <= 76.3 mm
<LI>Non – metallic cutting >76.2 mm
<LI>Plasma Cutting
<LI>Reemed hole
<LI>Saw or tubing cuts
<LI>Tapping holes
<LI>Waterjet Cut
<LI>Sheet metal bends
<LI>Sheet metal punching
<LI>Sheet metal stamping
<LI>Tube cut
<LI>Weld – Round Tubing
<LI> Sheet Metal Sow Cut
<LI>Safety Wire Install
<LI>Threading, Internal (Machining)
<LI>Threading, External (Machining)
<LI>Hand Finish, Material Removal
<LI>Suspension Setup-Independent Susp.(per corner)
<LI>Lathe – Face, Rough & Finish
<LI>Lathe – Turn, Rough & Finish
<LI>Mill – End, Rough & Finish
<LI>Mill – Face, Rough & Finish
<LI>Machinig
<LI>Hand Finish – Surface Preparation
<LI>Braze
<LI>Spinning, Metal
<LI>Tube Flare/Bead
<LI>Knurling
<LI>Attach Wire, Quick connect terminal
<LI>Attach Wire, Ring
<LI>Attach Wire, Solder wire, bent
<LI>Attach Wire, Solder wire, not bent
<LI>Attach Wire, Terminated wire with screw
<LI>Attach Wire, Terminated wire with screw and nut
<LI>Attach Wire, Wire to screw
<LI>Attach Wire, Wire to screw with nut
<LI>Attach Wire, Wire to terminal block
<LI>Attach Wire, Wire wrap around terminal post
<LI>Install Tire Wrap (Zip Tie, Cable Clamp)
<LI>Insert Bundle Into Tube or Sleeve
<LI>Install Adhesive Cable Clamp
<LI>Lace
<LI>Shrink Tube
<LI>Taping Wire Bundle
<LI>Connector Install, Circular, Bayonet
<LI>Connector Install, Circular, Friction
<LI>Connector istall, Circulat, Screw Thread
<LI>Connector Install, Square, Friction
<LI>Connector install, Square, Latch/Snap-on Type
<LI>Connector Install, Square, Spring Clip
<LI>Lay Wire – Control
<LI>Lay Wire – Power
<LI>Lay Wire – Signal
<LI>Crimp Wire
<LI>Cut wire
<LI>Strip Multi-Conductor
<LI>Strip Wire
<LI>Tin Wire
<LI>Connector Assemble, Crimp
<LI>Connector Assemble, Solder
<LI>Hand - Start Only
<LI>Screwdriver < 1 Turn
<LI>Sewing
<LI>Weld
<LI>Aerosol Apply
<LI>Assemble, > 20 kg, Interference
<LI>Assemble, > 20 kg, Loose
<LI>Assemble, 1kg, Interference
<LI>Assemble, 1kg, Line on Line
<LI>Assemble,1 kg, Loose
<LI>Assemble,10 kg, Interference
<LI>Assemble,10 kg, Loose
<LI>Assemble, 15 kg Interference
<LI>Assemble, 15 kg, Line on Line
<LI>Assemble, 15 kg, Loose
<LI>Assemble, 3 kg, Line on Line
<LI>Assemble, 3 kg, Interference
<LI>Assemble, 3 kg, Loose
<LI>Assemble, 5 kg, Interference
<LI>Assemble, 5 kg, Line on Line
<LI>Assemble,5 kg, Loose
<LI>Brush Apply
<LI>Cut (scissors, knife)
<LI>Liquid Applicator Gun
<LI>Liquid Apply – Spot
<LI>Machining Setup, Change
<LI>Machining Setup, Install and remove
<LI>Tape
<LI>Drilled hole < 50.8 mm dia.
<LI>Drilled holes < 25.4 mm dia.
<LI>EDM – Plunge
<LI>EDM – Wire
<LI>Grind, Cylindrical
<LI>Grind, Flat
<LI>Grind, Profile
<LI>Laser Cut
<LI>Lathe – Face, Finish
<LI>Lathe – Face, Rough
<LI>Lathe – Turn, Finish
<LI>Lathe – Turn, Rough
<LI>Mill – End, Finish
<LI>Mill – End, Rough
<LI>Mill – Face, Finish
<LI>Mill – Face, Rough
<LI>Mill – Form Cutter
<LI>Non – metallic cutting <= 25.4 mm
<LI>Non – metallic cutting <= 50.8 mm
<LI>Non – metallic cutting <= 76.3 mm
<LI>Non – metallic cutting >76.2 mm
<LI>Plasma Cutting
<LI>Reemed hole
<LI>Saw or tubing cuts
<LI>Tapping holes
<LI>Waterjet Cut
<LI>Sheet metal bends
<LI>Sheet metal punching
<LI>Sheet metal stamping
<LI>Tube cut
<LI>Weld – Round Tubing
[/list]

By the way, I wish you a Merry Christmas and a happy New Year.

Christian

[CFS_Maria]

Hello Mr Riley

I'm just getting started with the cost event application. I have two questions:

1. We have two teams right now, one that is going for FSUK 2010 and one that is going for FS California 2010. Can we use the cost application for both teams at the same time?

2. If we are several people working on the BOM, how does the synchronization work? If one does one subsystem and the other one does another one, will the synchronization replace or add it?

/Maria

[D Collins Jr]

Am I doing something wrong, or has anyone else had issues with the software adding costs together wrong? It's like it's ignoring quantity entries to multiply by, but only in certain spots.

[Julia - Running Snail]

Hello Mr. Riley,

I have a few questions concerning the Cost Report.

1. I connect several parts by bonding them together with a adhesive:

- therefore I'm using a bonding calibre as tooling. But in the Tooling-table there is nothing like this (only a welding fixture). So what do I have to use for Tooling?

- then the adhesive has to be cured in an oven/by room temperature. These processes are listed under the category "composite". Can I use them for curing a bonding as well?
And if yes: They are costed by m^2; so what area do I have to use? the bonding area? The floor space my parts need when lying in the oven/ on the table? Or something else?
(And what area do I have to use when I'm using the curing processes for laminating a composite?)

2. When I weld a tube onto the frame, is it enough to use the process "weld - round tubing", or do I also have to use first the process "assemble - loose"?

Best regards

Julia Schröder
Running Snail Racing Team
UAS Amberg-Weiden, Germany

[Bill Riley]

Julia: I will have to check with the Cost Judges on how they interpret these two different processes.

Chrisreich: I received your official email through Kathleen and will investigate your issue.

CFS_Maria: Yes, you can setup both teams and use the 'active' setting to swtich back and forth. Honestly, I don't know of any team doing this and would recommend you use seperate fca_data files for the two teams and switch back and forth by copying the file. Again, the system is designed to work by switching back and forth using the 'active' check box from the event setup screen. But if you forget to check active or change it from team to team your entries will be added to the wrong event. If you do this please let me know how it works out for you by emailing katklauz@aol.com

D Collins Jr: I've seen where people will try to use area, length and density for things other than raw materials and that will calculate incorrectly. I've also seen 'phantom' entries throw off the the car cost. You can check for this by going to Tools and then selecting 'View Orpohaned Entires' and deleting them. I highly recommend backuping up your fca_data.accdb file before cleaning orphaned entries to make sure you don't hurt your real data.

Julia: Bonding doesn't require tooling. If you look in column 'F' of the processes table in Excel format you will see that it indicates which processes require tooling. We have tried to standardize this so there was not doubt with the students and judges. You can use the oven cure processes for your bonding. Use the total surface area of the part, not just bond area. Same for composites. The idea is the cost scales with the 'wetted' mold surface area as the size of the oven or autoclave is a function of the part size and volume that needs to be thermally cycled. I will have to owe you a response on the frame assembly labor as well after checking with the rest of the team.

[Fabiola]

Hello Mr. Riley,

I`d like to know when is the dead line to submit an AIR for the West competition. Also, if the software available at fsaeonline.com is the latest version of it.

Thanks in advance,

Fabiola Gradela.
Solid Edge EESC USP Formula SAE team
University of Sao Paulo - Sao Carlos - Brazil.

[CFS_Maria]

Hi Mr Riley

I've looked at last years' assembly and systems list. (http://www.fsaeonline.com/Downloads/Appendix_C3.pdf). In this the deadlines are for 2009, and seems to be updated in Sept 2008, is there going to be a new version of this or can I count on the one that is there right now?

Thanks

/Maria

[George 4]

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?

[RayFSR]

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?

[Tech Guy]

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.

[EPMAl]

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?

[Thrainer]

Originally posted by Tech Guy:
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.

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."

[scottbob]

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.

[Bill Riley]

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 (http://www.fsaeonline.com/Downloads/Documentation/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.

[R.Trickett]

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

Thank you,

[Crispy]

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

[R.Trickett]

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...

[Julia - Running Snail]

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

[Fabiola]

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.

[Bill Riley]

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.

[Bill Riley]

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.


Originally posted by Crispy:
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

[Bill Riley]

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.


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
Beaver Racing
Vehicle Dynamics

[Bill Riley]

Ryan, we're reviewing your feedback for some lessons learned. I will keep updating the Excel tables.


Originally posted by R.Trickett:
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...

[Bill Riley]

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.


Originally posted by Julia - Running Snail:
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

[Bill Riley]

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 (http://www.sae.org/images/cds/selfservice/265641009_FSAE%202010%20Cost%20Expectations%20210. doc)


Originally posted by Fabiola:
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.

[Bill Riley]

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.



Originally posted by Julia - Running Snail:
Hello Mr. Riley,

I have two questions:

1. What is the difference between "Saw or tubing cuts" under the category material removal and "Tube cut" under the category Tubing?
When do I have to use which?

2. What exactly means "sheet metal punching" and "sheet metal stamping"? What is the difference?

Julia

[Julia - Running Snail]

Thank you for the answers Mr. Riley. And also thank you for updating the tables.
Julia

[Tobias]

Hi Mr Riley,

we are in the final phase of our cost report and this questions arose:

1. The "Weld - Round Tubing" process does not have a "Tooling required" indicator. As we were penalized for not using a tooling with that process last year we expect the table is wrong - meaning the tooling is required.

2. Process "Sheet metal punching": the unit used is cm^2. Is that the area of the final part, of the raw material or the lateral area (cross section of the cut, (lenght of cut*depth)). If it is the finished part, it's a little strange the part gets cheaper, the more holes you punch into it.

3. Material "Hose, rubber": Is listed twice, with one of the entries only taking into consideration the diameter and not the lenght of the Hose, which we think is quite clearly wrong but in terms of cost far cheaper for us to use. May or may not we use clearly wrong entries?

4. Rims/Process "Spinning, Metal": We were very proud to have developed and built special 2-piece alumnium hollow rims. However when we cost these the total cost just for spinning the wheel shells sums up to approx 900 usd per Wheel. For example the Inner Wheel Shell:
Process Use UnitCost Unit Quantity Multiplier Mult. Val. Sub Total
Spinning, Metal Forming inner wheel shell $0,02 cm^3 17738 1 1 $354,76

We'd like to add pictures for prove of quantity but don't want to reveal too much right now. Mabe we can send them directly to you? We calculated the volume between the material start and end position.
The cost of the final wheel (approx 1000 USD) does not at all match the prices of the bought alumnium (3-piece) wheels in the materials table. This is a little bit strange as spinning is a quite usual process for manufacturing wheel shells and made parts usually are cheaper in the CR than bought parts.

Spinning is a very efficient process so we beg you to adjust this process cost or we would have to show up with Braid Rims at the Cost-event...

Thank you!
Tobi

UAS Kiel
Raceyard

[Tobias]

Hi again,

5. We encountered some dificulties costing CFK parts: There are for us 3 possible ways to determine the weight of the cfk used:
a) We look up the density for cfk-parts in the internet and let Solidworks calculate. The weight calculated is 2 times the weight of the finished parts - so this is obviously wrong but I included it so you know we took it into cosideration.
b) We know our ply weights e.g. 200g/m^2 we know the area and the number of plies. This gives a conveniently low weight/price, as the weight of the resin is not included.
c) We take the laminated parts and put them on a scale. The weight of the resin kicks in and our total cost is about twice what we got with method b.

Hope to hear from you soon,

Tobi

UAS Kiel
Raceyard

[Thrainer]

Hi Tobi,

"Carbon Fiber, 1 Ply" in line 167 of the Materials table has the comment "Dry or Pre-Preg. Both include resin. Hand trimming allowed."

So it's clear that the complete weight of the part including the resin has to be priced with 200$/kg.

If you use a density of 1.5-1.6, your calculation with the volume should be correct, as long as the thickness and shape are like in the CAD.

900$ per wheel is indeed quite expensive, I would guess you can get one pair of TUG CFRP wheels for that.

For further questions, I suggest you use the 2010 thread.

Regards,
Thomas