Cannot choose FR5 tooling from the gearbox housing mass alone
JuliaBrown0935 · 17 Feb 2026, 04:11 UTC
21 replies
Ask for the complete assembly drawing and load data, including where that load acts.
6pointsOne supplier has a drawing, but the housing is shown at the wrist rather than at the end of the proposed fingers. Other offer has no assembly drawing yet.
17pointsThen the first drawing doesn't represent the held load. Ask them to put the actual housing at its intended contacts, with the adapter and fittings included.
24pointsInclude the proposed motion and orientations in the assessment request. A complete mass total is useful, but it does not by itself address the offset load, inertia or how the tool holds and releases this housing.
21pointsAnd show how the fingers leave the inspection nest. We had a tool proposed from its carrying view that could not open where the drawing said release.
25pointsIs either supplier responsible for the adapter, or is that left to your installer?
-7pointsBoth originally left it to us. Our integrator has now supplied the intended adapter drawing so the offers can use the same arrangement.
13pointsThank you, that closes one easy source of variation. Make sure the fittings are similarly identified; a later elbow change can alter the space the assessed tool occupies.
8pointsDid the corrected held-housing drawing arrive?
14pointsYes. First supplier corrected the position and added the adapter and fittings. Their original fingers need redesign for the assessed duty, according to their engineer. Second supplier is still working on its complete model.
15pointsThat is a real consequence of the missing information. Are they retaining the same gripping surfaces on the housing?
11pointsNo. Proposed shorter fingers use another permitted contact area. Inspection is checking that area against the finish requirement, and the integrator is checking the new approach.
4pointsKeep that as a new candidate with its own holding and release assessment. Shorter fingers might help the load case while introducing a different contact or access problem.
22pointsHas the second offer become comparable yet?
16pointsSecond supplier returned the full model and assessment. It retains the original contact area with a different finger body. Both now include the adapter, fittings and our proposed duty. Prices changed on both.
19pointsWhat did inspection say about the first supplier's alternative contact?
12pointsNot acceptable on that finish. We rejected that candidate rather than asking the operator to inspect around marks we'd deliberately introduced. Second candidate's sample work is complete with acceptable appearance.
4pointsAnd the exit from the nest? Still interested in that bit.
23pointsDemonstrated with the represented receiving nest, including opening and withdrawal. Full range of our identified sample housings included. No contact with the nest during the assessed sequence.
13pointsThat gives purchasing a specific offered arrangement to select. Retain the assembly revision with the assessment and quote so a later cheaper substitution does not inherit the result.
21pointsDiscussion closed
This discussion is closed to new replies after six months without activity. Last activity: .