💰 Budget & Funding · Notebook · Intermediate
Budget Section of Your Engineering Notebook
Four specific entries, each written at the right moment in the season. Copy the templates, fill in your numbers, and your notebook will satisfy the Criteria & Constraints rubric row at Expert level.
The RECF Engineering Notebook rubric scores teams on how well they documented the Engineering Design Process. Budget documentation directly impacts two rubric rows:
| Rubric Row | Developing | Proficient | Expert |
|---|
| Identify the Problem |
Problem listed, no constraints defined |
Constraints listed (size, time) |
Constraints include cost; cost limit quantified and sourced |
| Criteria & Constraints |
Criteria exist; no tradeoff analysis |
Tradeoffs noted; cost mentioned |
Cost tradeoffs documented per decision; alternatives evaluated and rejected on cost grounds |
| Team & Program |
Team structure described |
Roles and some program management |
Budget sources, sponsorship, and financial sustainability documented |
Timing is everything. Budget entries only count toward Criteria & Constraints if they appear before the design decisions they constrained. A BOM at the back of the notebook is a record, not evidence of engineering. Write the budget entries first.
📅 The Four Required Budget Entries
Season Budget — [Season Name] [Year]
Purpose: Establish cost as a hard constraint before any design work begins.
The Spartan Design program budget for the [Year] season allocates the following to [Team Number]:
District-provided (not from team budget):
• Team registration: ~$150
• V5 Brain, Controller, 2× Battery: ~$500 combined
• Structural starter parts: ~$200
• Total district value: ~$850
Team self-fund target: $[X]
This covers additional motors, sensors, mechanism-specific parts, and replacement components through the season.
Championship goal: $[Y] additional
If we qualify for [Signature Event / Regional / Worlds], travel and lodging will require approximately $[amount] for [X] team members. This funding does not exist today and requires sponsorship or fundraising to activate.
Hard constraints established by this budget:
1. Drivetrain motor count: maximum [X] motors (exceeding this requires reallocation from another subsystem)
2. No pneumatics unless build budget exceeds $[threshold]
3. Championship participation is contingent on securing [specific sponsorship target]
Any design decision that adds more than $[threshold] per component requires full team sign-off.
Drivetrain Design — Cost Constraints
This entry must appear before your mechanism selection matrix.
Available budget for the drivetrain subsystem: $[amount]
Remaining budget for intake + arm + sensors after drivetrain: $[amount]
Options eliminated by cost constraint:
• 6-motor drivetrain — would cost $[amount], leaving insufficient budget for intake mechanism
• Pneumatic ring indexer — $[amount] kit cost, exceeds subsystem allocation
• [Other option] — [reason eliminated]
Decision: Proceeding with [selected configuration] at cost $[amount].
Rationale for cost-constrained choice:
[Explain why the lower-cost option is acceptable — e.g., "A well-tuned 4-motor 450 RPM drivetrain achieves competitive top speed; the $80 saved is redirected to the intake mechanism which creates more scoring opportunities in this game."]
See Decision Matrix on next page for full weighted scoring including Cost criterion (weight: [X]%).
Bill of Materials — [Team Number] · [Date]
Exported from Onshape assembly BOM (Structured Multi-Level view) and priced from vexrobotics.com as of [date]. See attached cost table.
Subsystem Summary:
• Drivetrain: [X parts] — $[subtotal]
• Intake: [X parts] — $[subtotal]
• [Other subsystem]: [X parts] — $[subtotal]
• Electronics: [X parts] — $[subtotal] (district-provided items noted at full price, excluded from team budget total)
• Hardware (screws, collars, wire): ~$[estimate]
Team budget total (excl. district items): $[total]
Remaining from build allocation: $[remainder] — reserved for mid-season replacements.
Alternatives considered and rejected:
[Table of alternatives — copy from Onshape BOM notebook guide]
The full BOM spreadsheet is exported from Onshape and included on the following pages.
Season Budget Reconciliation — [Year]
Build budget — Planned vs. Actual:
• Planned: $[X] | Actual: $[Y] | Variance: $[Z over/under]
• Primary variance: [e.g., replaced 2 motors mid-season after stall damage — $80 unplanned]
Championship funding — Planned vs. Actual:
• Target: $[X] from sponsorship + $[Y] from fundraising
• Secured: $[amount] from [source] + $[amount] from [source]
• Total raised: $[total] | Shortfall/surplus: $[amount]
Lessons for next season's budget planning:
1. [Specific lesson — e.g., "Budget $120 for motor replacement attrition, not $40"]
2. [Specific lesson — e.g., "Start sponsor outreach 8 weeks before first event, not 4"]
3. [Specific lesson]
Next season target budget: $[X build] + $[Y championships] = $[total]. Sponsorship outreach will begin [date].
Mistake 1 — BOM appears after the build section. A cost table at the end of the notebook doesn't satisfy Criteria & Constraints. The constraint must precede the decision. Write entry 1 on kickoff day and entry 2 before your mechanism selection matrix.
Mistake 2 — No alternatives considered. "Here is our parts list" is accounting. Listing three alternatives you evaluated and rejected on cost grounds is engineering. Without alternatives, you have no evidence the constraint changed any decision.
Mistake 3 — Vague numbers. "We had a limited budget" scores Developing. "$680 build budget, $250 drivetrain allocation" scores Expert. Judges read hundreds of notebooks — they know the difference between planning and post-hoc rationalization.
Mistake 4 — District items not separated. Include the Brain and Controller at their real cost, but clearly label them "district-provided — not from team budget." This shows awareness of the full program cost and builds credibility with judges who know what things cost.
Budget notebook entries apply cost engineering — the systematic documentation of cost decisions as engineering decisions. In professional engineering, every significant procurement is documented with rationale: what was purchased, at what cost, and why this option was selected over alternatives. This traceability allows budget audits and demonstrates that cost was a conscious design input.
🎤 Interview line: “Every significant parts order generates a budget notebook entry: item, supplier, cost, and one sentence explaining the engineering rationale. "Chose 11W motor cartridge over 5.5W to reduce stall risk on the intake mechanism, accepting an $8 cost increase" is a cost engineering entry. Judges can trace every dollar to a documented design decision.”
Which budget entry best demonstrates engineering judgment to a judge?
⬛ "Spent $45 on polycarbonate sheets."
⬛ "Ordered 3 sheets of 1/8" polycarbonate ($45, Robosource) for custom intake guards. Chose poly over aluminum: absorbs impact without cracking and saves 60g — accepted higher material cost for weight reduction."
⬛ "Parts ordered this week: poly sheets, screws, bearing flats."
📝Notebook entry tip: Appendix — Grey slide — Every parts order should generate a notebook entry: item, quantity, source, cost, and one sentence explaining the engineering reason for the choice. Teams that justify purchases — not just list them — demonstrate cost-conscious design thinking. Over a season this becomes a complete procurement record that judges can trace to specific design decisions.