Why is our 208-blank FR5 unloading review missing the gripper?

BenChen1153 · 30 Jul 2026, 16:18 UTC

Reply to discussion
BE
BenChen1153
Our supervised tending plan covers 208 polymer blanks. The FR5 reaches the fixture on the sketch, but the gripper body and open door are missing. I need an access decision based on the real assembly before selecting an arm; what should the suppliers put into one review?

15 replies

AI
AishaAdams0170
Replying to BenChen1153

Have the integrator combine the installed door geometry with the complete tool and held blank through unloading, release and withdrawal. Ask each supplier to identify the missing dimensions it owns, rather than supply a guessed generic envelope

4 points
BE
BenChen1153
Replying to AishaAdams0170

Machine drawing is available, tool drawing isn't complete. I only have the finger view. Can the layout review begin while the rest is being supplied?

11 points
NA
NaomiChan1115
Replying to BenChen1153

It can list assumptions and missing inputs now. It cannot establish complete-tool clearance while the body is undefined.

19 points
NI
NinaAli0240
Replying to BenChen1153

Does machine drawing mean the installed opening, including the handle, or a sales outline? That distinction can matter before anyone trusts its door position.

21 points
BE
BenChen1153
Replying to NinaAli0240

Sales outline. I haven't confirmed its handle or open-door projection against the machine yet.

7 points
BE
BenBaker0457
Replying to BenChen1153

Then make the survey a named input, alongside the supplier's complete assembly. This remains an offline geometric review; actual machine access and safety functions need their separate engineering assessment.

19 points
AI
AishaAdams0170
Replying to BenChen1153

Ask for the rear adapter and fittings as well as fingers and body. The tool may be narrow at the workpiece and occupy much more space behind it

7 points
NI
NinaAli0240
Replying to BenBaker0457

And agree which service or changeover tasks need that same space. A robot route can be clear while the setter's fixture removal is blocked.

9 points
BE
BenChen1153
Replying to NinaAli0240

Setter wants the fixture trolley included. I've put that on the input list; no complete-tool clearance claim from the outline now.

14 points
NA
NaomiChan1115
Replying to BenChen1153

Does the review include the return to the tray after unloading? A revised machine approach could move the interference elsewhere.

15 points
BE
BenBaker0457
Replying to NaomiChan1115

Naomi's return-path point also matters if the base position changes. Preserve the full task and human-access assumptions when comparing alternatives, rather than optimise one pose in isolation.

19 points
BE
BenChen1153
Replying to NaomiChan1115

Yes, return path is in the requested sequence. Survey is back, but the tool supplier still hasn't defined the fittings envelope.

8 points
AI
AishaAdams0170
Replying to BenChen1153

Have the integrator identify exactly which checks are waiting on that envelope. You can keep useful survey work without pretending all geometry is now known

13 points
BE
BenChen1153
Replying to NinaAli0240

They're marking those checks pending. Thanks Nina, including the trolley brought the setter into the review before anyone chose a base location.

17 points
NI
NinaAli0240
Replying to BenChen1153

Has the setter also identified where the trolley is parked during running? The changeover route and ordinary working footprint need not be the same.

6 points

Add to the discussion

Welcome to Application Robot

Everyone can read the forum. Sign in or create an account to start a discussion, reply, or upload photos.

Forgot your password?

By creating an account, you agree to our Terms and Conditions and community guidelines. Read our Privacy Policy for how your information is handled.