How are we approving this FR10 approach with half the tool missing?

Ash_Bailey · 2 Jul 2025, 11:30 UTC

Closed
AS
Ash_Bailey
I'm reviewing a polymer-blank loading proposal. The FR10 sketch puts the blank in the fixture but leaves out the gripper body and open machine door. What should the access review contain before we start choosing a mounting position?

16 replies

AM
AmaraBrooks0861
Replying to Ash_Bailey

Is there a quoted tool assembly drawing yet? I would want the adapter, fingers and held blank in the same model before judging the route through the opening.

13 points
AS
Ash_Bailey
Replying to AmaraBrooks0861

Toolmaker has an assembly drawing, but supplier used only its pickup point in the robot layout. I've asked for that assembly and the machine's open-door details to be combined.

3 points
NI
NickBailey
Replying to Ash_Bailey

A full-size envelope can reject a bad candidate cheaply while the model is updated. It won't establish the arm's whole motion or safe application, but it can expose obvious doorway conflicts.

17 points
AS
Ash_Bailey
Replying to Ash_Bailey

The combined model catches the adapter at the inner door fitting. Designer is comparing another approach orientation. No base chosen yet.

13 points
CA
CallumBell0621
Replying to Ash_Bailey

Check which adapter revision is in that comparison. A collision result only helps if the model actually matches the proposed assembly, rather than an earlier tool option

9 points
JA
JamieAllen0295
Replying to Ash_Bailey

If moving the base is an option, give the setter that location before everyone falls in love with it; one of ours cleared the robot beautifully by occupying the fixture trolley's parking space

0 points
JA
JaneBaker0510
Replying to JamieAllen0295

And draw where the setter stands. A trolley outline isn't the whole changeover.

14 points
EL
ElliotBennett0770
Replying to Ash_Bailey

We got a toolmaker involved when a changed approach affected finger entry. I'd explore that before spending all the free floor space moving the base. Though it may create another awkward tool.

3 points
MA
MayaParts
Replying to ElliotBennett0770

I'd compare the costs of both options, with the final tool still subject to review; a pricier adapter could be worthwhile if it avoids an expensive layout change, but don't price only the adapter.

1 points
JA
JamieCarter0991
Replying to MayaParts

Moving the base has costs too. Cable routes and service access won't move themselves.

19 points
NA
NathanBarnes0547
Replying to ElliotBennett0770

Elliot, did the changed approach work on your earlier layout, or is that still a proposal?

13 points
EL
ElliotBennett0770
Replying to NathanBarnes0547

Still a proposal in the review I mentioned. We held the base decision. I was suggesting something to compare, not offering a finished arrangement you can borrow.

15 points
HA
HarishCarter1011
Replying to Ash_Bailey

Include the return route to the incoming tray in either comparison, because moving the base can improve machine entry and make the rest of the transfer awkward for the operator.

18 points
AS
Ash_Bailey
Replying to CallumBell0621

Adapter revision C confirmed against the quote. Two arrangements remain under review, including tool orientation, service routes and setter access. Thanks, Callum, for asking the revision instead of assuming the model was current.

11 points
JA
JaneBaker0510
Replying to Ash_Bailey

Has the setter seen both now?

10 points
AM
AmaraBrooks0861
Replying to Ash_Bailey

And did either one get through the complete entry, placement and empty-tool withdrawal check? I'm interested whether the door fitting still controls the decision after those other constraints are included.

11 points

Discussion closed

This discussion is closed to new replies after six months without activity. Last activity: .