I can't compare our two gearbox-housing transfer offers from part mass alone, because both leave extended fingers, adapter and hose fittings outside the suitability claim; what complete-assembly information should I request before the FR5 choice goes into purchasing?
Ask for the identified loaded assembly, including its mass distribution and the intended movements, assessed against the robot and gripper limits. Does either offer show the actual extended fingers and hose arrangement rather than a standard gripper picture?
One has an extended-finger sketch but quotes the standard gripper data, the other has only an outline; neither defines the adapter and fittings in the load assessment
I'd also involve the person who will replace those fittings. A routing drawn for the load assessment needs to be a maintainable arrangement, not a line that works only until somebody fits the nearest available elbow.
Both suppliers now have the same housing and movement requirements, with requests for complete assemblies; one returned a shorter-finger proposal that changes pickup access, so I've kept that change visible instead of comparing it as the original offer
That needs the fixture-access check alongside the load assessment, Aaron. Shorter fingers may improve one constraint while losing the reason the longer ones were proposed; neither result should be assumed from length alone.
No, Bruno, it cannot reach them without changing the fixture, and that change is outside our current budget; we've rejected that offer while the other supplier completes its assembly assessment, so there is no arm or tooling approval yet