Duncan Louttit wrote

The rule about a prize for the lowest cost mouse seems unworkable. How can you work out the cost of a mouse? Is 3 hours of work on a CNC mill to make posh wheels cheaper than wheels from the shop at GBP2.00 each?

 Some American car and motorcycle events used to control the costs of entrants by making it compulsary for the winning machines to be offered for sale after the race at a fixed maximum price to whoever asked for it first. This stopped the works teams building vehicles out of unobtainium!

 It may be possible to have a rule that mice must be offered for sale at GBP100.00 after the event. It might make it more competitive to have a time advantage if the mouse is offered more cheaply. For example a 10% time deduction if you will sell it for GBP50.00 and 20% for GBP25.00. Apart from limiting the cost of the mouse, it also gives an opportunity for the technology to be disseminated more widely.

 There is no need to have any other rule about the cost of the mouse. If someone wants to spend GBP10,000.00 building a mouse that they must then sell to another school for GBP100.00 then that is a very generous gesture!

 I would only propose this for schools events as there should be no limitations in the open class. Perhaps it would be best if it only applied to schools formula 3.

Wayne Allen wrote

Surely this also changes peoples attitudes to the event itself. I for one would not enter an event if I had to sell my mouse afterwards. The other problem is now do you cater for mice that are built from scavenged parts? My first mouse had a chassis made from a video casette case.. You would also have to cope with sponsorships, and parents donating parts and time.

 John Wright wrote

While I agree with Wayne, it would change attitudes of the entrants and it would not be very practical to implement (I do not know a clearing house or specialty auctioneer for used mechanical rodents), I would be careful not to penalize or exclude mice that had a willing buyer prearranged.

I left my mouse at my school, on the basis it be used for learning purposes, but not reused in further competitions. The next year someone had used my chassis (aluminum frame) and sensors with a new processor, new PCB, ... I am aware of several prearranged donations, but not of people selling their mice. A few creative souls have sold kits, but those are not encouraged to be used in California.

 Nick Smith wrote

If you want a level playing field then you have to have rules that make it easier for people to compete rather than harder.

The most obvious rule would be to specify a minimum weight, for example 1.5lbs (or 750 grams). Everyone can achieve a minimum weight. This removes the incentive for fancy materials and manufacturing.

Whilst I wouldn't propose a minimum size, I would remove the maximum size constraint. Making a mouse smaller can involve more complex and/or more expensive components.

Modifying the competition to allow mechanical sensors would also enable more people to compete. The senior maze can be solved with magnets and reed switches, the Bilby maze by a bent paperclip(?!). Electronic sensors are difficult and/or expensive.

Jerry Niman wrote

This was a prize in the draft rules I inherited from the IEE. I think it has some merit, but not if it involves having to sell your mouse ! One compromise might be that you have to produce a costed schedule of parts to build an equivalent mouse. If you can't do this because your mouse includes parts which are not readily available (eg cannibalise from a cruise missile, or fabricated from solid titanium on an NC milling machine), then you can't enter. Only mice built from commercially available components and materials, and capable of being fabricated using hand tools only would qualify.

John Wright wrote

I agree MicroMouse should be a competition that is accessible by all and not cost prohibitive. One of the rules I have seen was a line that stated the total cost of all material, commercial list price not actual out of pocket expense, needed to be below $500US. Correspondingly, I have tried to ensure the winners at our local competition receive something close to $500, to ensure they get the majority of their money back out of the project. The IEEE appears to have heartburn about giving more than $501 to a student, plus we have a hard time raising that much in prize money. I have also seen the UC Long Beach team use a pair of space rated motors donated from TRW. They were designed for rolling out solar panels for a satellite, but did not meet specs for that use. The list price was $10,000 each, and they had two of them on their mouse. They were very compact and extremely efficient, but a little pricey for our friendly competition.

A concept I favor is to use a standard parts catalog, like Digikey, and price the Bill of Material, with a bonus for the lowest price mouse. You could rank the competitors by cost, and deduct no time for the most expensive, one seconds for the next and so on. If there are too many competitors, rank them in categories, with three or four groups, each getting a one second differentiator from the others. The competitors should also be able to provide receipts for all of the things they bought, or show list price for the things they scrounged, and tally up the total cost of their rodent. I can assure you every student knows exactly how much out of pocket they were for their design, but when it affects the points in the contest they become very forgetful. You need some independent way to verify this.

 Duncan Louttit wrote

The problem as I see it is not whether people can build cheap mice but how the judges can decide which mouse is cheapest. I can't see how it can readily be done so I propose that this prize be dropped in favour of a prize that can be judged.

My proposal is for "Most completely described mouse".

What everyone wants to know is "what makes that mouse so good/bad?". If the builders had encouragement to produce parts lists, circuit diagrams,mechanical drawings and software listings, the information can be passed around the community and everyone benefits. Of course, secretive mouse builders need not enter for this prize, but it would encourage a good standard of documentation which may be no bad thing, especially for the schools classes.

Apart from the completeness and accuracy of the documentation, the judges could take into consideration how the information is presented. Documentation on a website is much more desirable than documentation on paper.

Incidentally, simple mice would have a better chance as complete documentation might just be a mechanical drawing, or a drawing and a circuit diagram.

 Steve wrote

I think you have a good idea Duncan. I think it's a bit subjective to judge based on price alone.

As a suggestion. What about weighing in factors such as parts ? Fewer parts increases points. Processor used ? # of processors ? Speed of processor ? Memory ?

Chris Walker wrote

I like this idea, Duncan. I think that many mouse-builders would welcome the chance to present some technical info on their designs, and web-based presentations sound a great way of sharing info. Such info could also be built into an archive to which future 'how do I get started?' mouse-building questions could be directed.

Also, from a school point of view, producing a project report (including initial design ideas, design development and final drawings etc.) is a natural part of a project design process. Therefore, this could encourage schools to build mice as part of Design and Technology curriculum work, including GCSE and A-level projects etc.

Jerry Niman wrote

I love the idea of the most completely described mouse !

It would be even better if we could find some way to ensure that it was the young engineers that do the describing. I have always had some concerns about the extent to which the mouse has been built by the students, as against being built by the teachers / adults. If the team had to talk the judges through the design document, it would demonstrate that at least they understand how the mice works.