+ Reply to Thread
Page 7 of 55 FirstFirst ... 5 6 7 8 9 17 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 544

Thread: Cost Rules - Discussion of New 2009 Rules

  1. #61
    In response to your question, it is cam and pawl style diff.
    Nick Gilkey
    2005-Present
    Co-Captian
    University of Louisville

  2. #62
    Mr Riley,
    I have one quick question on machining. If a machined cnc part has drilled and taped holes and of course, we do these hole as part of the machining sequence. Is the material removal cost as machined, or we have to cost as a drilled hole?
    FSAE ETS

  3. #63
    Adam: Thank you for pointing out the broken link. I'm glad you found the file. The website is updated so the link works now.

    U of Louisville: I will add this generally to the tables based on a representative cost for this style.

    Ben: You can cost the holes as machined, I would do whatever is cheaper. Obviously if they're tapped holes you would have to include that on top of the machining cost.

  4. #64
    Anodizing

    Anodizing does not need to be included in the cost report. I am adding it to the cost tables with a cost of $0 and note to this effect (so people in the future will not wonder if they need to cost it).

  5. #65
    This is a message from Luke a few days ago:

    Hi Mr. Riley,

    I noticed that in your tutorial the example process description of an A-Arm does not include steps for seting up a part onto a mill, lathe or jig. However, machining setup and changes are included in the processes cost tables. Can you please clarify what is expected.

    Many Thanks,
    Luke

    Answer: My proposed response is that the setup labor should be included with every part. Having any other rules creates a huge gray zone where some parts will have this labor and some won't. To fix the problem of automation, however, I propose that the quantity value for this line item can be scaled to represent the number of parts produced from each fixture setup. So an upright machined out of billet aluminum would have a a quantity of 1, since one block of aluminum makes 1 part. The a-arm inserts from the example might have a quantity of 0.1 since you could chuck up a bar of steel and machine 10 of them out of a bar. This reduces the cost per part to a reasonable level. However, you would need to be able to proove this is possible. I don't want to see a 6 foot x 6 foot block of aluminum and then you say you machined every aluminum part on your car out of if it with one setup fee. You would need a picture of the mill setup or a layout drawing showing how you could fit all the welded on frame tabs out of a single sheet of steel and where you would clamp it down. If you create that layout drawing and then show that 8 tabs fit in a sheet of steel then you could claim 0.125 for the quantity of the setup fee for each tab. This seems fair and something judges can confirm in your report if you include the documentation. Quantity values of 1 would not need any documentation.

    I open this up to comments from team members before making a final decision to hear compelling arguments for or against.

    Bill Riley

  6. #66
    Mr. Riley,
    I just notice that our dampers on not on the list either. They are Koni 3012. The approximate cost to us last year was ~$450/piece. Should we just take that cost and the penalty or can that still be added? Thanks in advance.
    Nick Gilkey
    2005-Present
    Co-Captian
    University of Louisville

  7. #67
    Mr. Riley,

    I would like some clairifaction on the purpose of the process "Attach wire, ring" in the 'Electrical-Attach Wire' category.

    Is this the cost of attaching the connector to the wire, or the cost of installing the connector (and the attached wire) onto a part/terminal?

    If it is for connecting the ring to a wire, would this cost replace the need for crimping?
    If this cost is for installing to a terminal, does this replace assembly labor (loose fit or line-on-line)?

    Your help is appreciated.
    -Luke

  8. #68
    Mr. Riley,

    I noticed that there is no cost for brake fluid in the materials table. Will there be a standardized cost or are we to use the cost it takes to obtain it?

    The other question I have is the excel template that is available, are we only allowed to use that or can we use one we made ourselves?

    George

  9. #69
    MrSwa: The Koni 3012 will be in the next update for the tables (probably later today).

    Luke: The "attach wire, ring" can puts the ring on to a terminal block, screw, etc. Crimp puts the ring on the wire. You don't need to double book labor so the electrical labor replaces the general labor. So in this case if you crimp and use the ring attach you don't need any "1 kg, loose" etc. labor codes.

    George 4: The comments under oil notes that this includes hydraulic (brake) fluid.

    I would like to make an important point about the second part of your question, and I'm paraphrasing "or do we just use the cost we paid for it". The answer to that question is always no, the cost must come from the tables and if it isn't in the tables you need an AIR submitted and approved. We want everyone to use the same cost for the same material for fairness.

    You may use any format/template you want. The Excel file was a suggestion.

  10. #70
    This is a message from Luke a few days ago:

    Hi Mr. Riley,

    I noticed that in your tutorial the example process description of an A-Arm does not include steps for seting up a part onto a mill, lathe or jig. However, machining setup and changes are included in the processes cost tables. Can you please clarify what is expected.

    Many Thanks,
    Luke

    Answer: My proposed response is that the setup labor should be included with every part. Having any other rules creates a huge gray zone where some parts will have this labor and some won't. To fix the problem of automation, however, I propose that the quantity value for this line item can be scaled to represent the number of parts produced from each fixture setup. So an upright machined out of billet aluminum would have a a quantity of 1, since one block of aluminum makes 1 part. The a-arm inserts from the example might have a quantity of 0.1 since you could chuck up a bar of steel and machine 10 of them out of a bar. This reduces the cost per part to a reasonable level. However, you would need to be able to proove this is possible. I don't want to see a 6 foot x 6 foot block of aluminum and then you say you machined every aluminum part on your car out of if it with one setup fee. You would need a picture of the mill setup or a layout drawing showing how you could fit all the welded on frame tabs out of a single sheet of steel and where you would clamp it down. If you create that layout drawing and then show that 8 tabs fit in a sheet of steel then you could claim 0.125 for the quantity of the setup fee for each tab. This seems fair and something judges can confirm in your report if you include the documentation. Quantity values of 1 would not need any documentation.

    I open this up to comments from team members before making a final decision to hear compelling arguments for or against.

    Bill Riley
    This idea can now be considered rules compliant and the next process table update will include a note to this effect.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 7 of 55 FirstFirst ... 5 6 7 8 9 17 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts