Originally posted by gsbaker:
Yeah, it's probably lower. (I'm talking materials and labor w/o allocations, i.e. what an economist would call marginal cost.)
I was talking about the same thing. Direct variable cost. I would wager my next paycheck that it costs considerably more than $100 of direct variable cost. Now, marginal cost is not quite the same thing because it does not account for the cost of setting up the operations (a very real cost). But, none the less, I would even wager that marginal cost is well over $100. Sure I'm not a materials engineer, but I have a long history in manufacturing cost accounting and I have significant experience in this subject.

First of all, not only do you have to figure in the prepreg CF and FG, but I'd wager there is a form of some sort that the FG and CF is laid up over. It only makes sense that this would be molded or CNC machined since laying up that much FG and CF would be time consuming and thus expensive. Then there is the fact all that prepreg must be cut to size, most likely with some sort of automated cutting machine since it would still be cheaper than cutting it by hand. We haven't even gotten into all of the labor to produce a finished part.

Not a chance this thing has less than $100 in marginal cost. I'd be surprised if it's less than $200, but it might be a bit below that. All before overhead allocation including amortization of development costs and patent costs, depreciation of equipment, etc.

Let's not be too misleading here. That would be like saying an Isaac is a little aluminum, some dashpots and a few bolts. We both know that's not true either.



------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com