ImranCarter1001 · 13 Jun 2026, 04:15 UTC
I have seen a load sheet name the part while omitting almost everything attached to the wrist. Ask for the complete loaded assembly's mass properties and geometry, assessed against the robot's applicable limits for the proposed orientations and motion.
19 pointsOne proposal includes a gripper mass in an appendix, but neither gives the loaded centre of gravity or inertia. The longer fingers are shown without a material specification.
8 pointsAsk which drawing revision those figures describe. Maintenance will need the same assembly definition when ordering replacement fingers, not a weight copied from a standard gripper catalogue.
12 pointsAnd don't pay for a polished simulation while the assembly is still undefined. Get the supplier to finish the basic load information first. A moving picture won't weigh the missing adapter.
6 pointsI agree about the missing information, Mei, but an early layout model can still expose a bad concept; I'd call it provisional instead of refusing any modelling until every fitting is selected.
22 pointsWould both suppliers assess the same housing orientation, Imran? Otherwise their load cases may differ.
11 pointsOur assembly layout once gained a longer adapter to clear a fixture, then nobody updated the original load review. Include the actual transfer and fixture access assumptions; they can change the tool you're buying.
22 pointsPavel, their proposed orientations differ. Emma, the longer fingers in one proposal are intended to clear our fixture lip; that drawing is still provisional.
7 pointsAre you asking them to achieve the same placement and release, or comparing each supplier's preferred task? Worth pinning down before purchasing calls the two prices alternatives.
17 pointsWe had a cheaper tool that assumed the part would arrive already turned. Its load review was fine for that condition. The extra presentation work was real too, so I would keep input orientation in Imran's comparison.
13 pointsWho will review changes after selection? Fingers and adapters often get revised during installation, and the original calculation can remain in the handover after it stops describing the equipment.
3 pointsI would price a simple handling comparison before deciding the longest fingers are necessary. Not a live workaround. Have the tool designer compare the proposed geometry and requirements first, including any preparation the shorter tool would need.
15 pointsIs the hose arrangement fixed in either drawing? I ask because its fittings are mentioned, but I can't tell whether the service route has been considered at all.
-2 pointsRachel and Ian, incoming orientation is now explicit in the request. Fiona, our integrator owns revision review. Oliver, neither service route is final; both suppliers must identify their assumptions.
23 pointsMia's point about provisional modelling is fair. The boundary I would keep is between exploring a layout and using an incomplete load assessment to declare either tool suitable for purchase.
14 pointsHave either supplied the missing mass properties yet, or only agreed to provide them?
8 pointsOnly one has supplied a complete proposed assembly sheet, and the integrator has not reviewed it yet. The second is still missing figures. Thank you, Pavel; I won't mark both technically comparable.
12 pointsBy creating an account, you agree to our Terms and Conditions and community guidelines. Read our Privacy Policy for how your information is handled.