Our FR10 proposal gets more cartons on a pallet by rotating the second layer, but that moves the supported ends above gaps; how do I compare that with the lower-count pattern without making up a value for carton strength?
I can't choose a pallet pattern from the carton count alone
GabrielChen1149 · 3 Jun 2025, 02:42 UTC
18 replies
Replying to GabrielChen1149
Don't invent one, let packaging assess the real filled cases in each arrangement and give you the conditions their answer applies to, because a high score in your spreadsheet won't hold a carton up
3pointsReplying to FelixAdams0110
Packaging wants sample stacks, which I can arrange, but the tool supplier wants one pattern chosen before they'll check the fingers
9pointsReplying to GabrielChen1149
They can surely flag an obvious access clash on two sketches without designing the whole gripper twice? I'd ask what they actually need paid for at this stage.
16pointsReplying to ElliotBaker0509
They'll do an outline review of both, not a detailed tool design, which is enough to stop us picking something they already know won't work
2pointsReplying to GabrielChen1149
Put pallet and transport costs beside each option. Fewer cartons may cost more to ship. I would leave packaging approval as a requirement, not convert it into points.
12pointsReplying to GabrielChen1149
We found our comparison had different incoming conditions attached to each proposal. Do both patterns use the same carton and packing revision?
7pointsReplying to OwenAbbott0051
Yes, same current carton and insert, and packaging has confirmed the samples match; I've kept empty display cases away from the review this time
17pointsReplying to GabrielChen1149
Bring whoever actually dispatches the part-filled pallets too, they may be more interested in your awkward final few boxes than the perfect full stack on the front page
10pointsReplying to GabrielChen1149
Also, can either option use the pallets you already buy? A special pallet can turn a small layout win into a regular purchasing nuisance.
1pointsReplying to ElliotBaker0509
Both fit the current pallet footprint, though I haven't checked how the carton supports line up with its deck boards
4pointsReplying to GabrielChen1149
Footprint alone leaves that unanswered. Include the actual board layout in the support drawing.
4pointsReplying to AaronArcher0349
And don't solve the upper layer then forget the first layer, the pallet itself seems to vanish from these discussions remarkably often
17pointsReplying to AaronArcher0349
Our first-layer pads line up on one pallet type in stores but not the other, so I'm glad I hadn't circulated the cost comparison as finished
13pointsReplying to GabrielChen1149
How are the two pallet types identified when they reach packing? I'm wondering whether the operator could tell which one your approved drawing expects.
23pointsReplying to ElliotBaker0509
Different stock references, but no clear distinction on the packing screen, so the packing lead wants that sorted before either arrangement is introduced
19pointsReplying to GabrielChen1149
I would include the actual pallets in the sample review, with those references attached. It is easy for a correct stock code to accompany the wrong physical example.
18pointsReplying to GabrielChen1149
Update the cost for the specified pallet only. Using the cheaper mixed-stock average would understate the arrangement you are actually considering.
13pointsReplying to AaronArcher0349
Thanks, Aaron, that average was exactly what I had used; I've changed the comparison and left both patterns pending the packaging and tool reviews
7pointsDiscussion closed
This discussion is closed to new replies after six months without activity. Last activity: .