Both UR5e tooling quotes reassure me about the cast housing's mass. One drawing has extended fingers on a customer-supplied adapter; the other includes its own adapter and different connections. Neither total describes everything being carried. I want the complete assemblies compared before we argue about which quote is cheaper, not another reassuring line about the housing.
Ask each supplier for its identified complete assembly and the loaded mass, centre of gravity and inertia information for the intended motion. The customer-supplied adapter still belongs in the assessment; paying somebody else for it does not make it disappear.
Who assembles that customer adapter into the final tool, Theo? Included on a parts list can mean supplied loose, which leaves a rather useful bit of work between the boxes.
Separate supply can be perfectly workable. I'd want one designer responsible for the assembled result, though, rather than assume the supplier selling the most expensive box owns everything around it.
Our integrator owns the assembled design and would fit the customer adapter. We already have its drawing and assessed intended interface from the fixture designer. I mean assessed for that interface, not a completed load assessment with either proposed gripper.
And have the inspection-nest owner confirm the final housing position for each proposal. A supplier could provide a complete load assessment for a tool that leaves the housing somewhere your next check cannot use it.
Are both quoted tools meant to use the same housing range, or has one priced only your lightest example? That would be another difference worth exposing before comparing the totals.
Adrian, both have the current housing range. Priya, both now show the agreed final nest position. First supplier has accepted our adapter drawing; second has finally identified its own assembly, including rear fittings.
Include replacement identities in the eventual handover. The person changing a contact or fitting needs to know which assembled configuration they are restoring, not only which supplier originally sold it.
Elena, yes. Our travelling kit labels mattered as much as the stores shelf labels; a correct part can leave stores in a container named for yesterday's job.
I'd still compare the included-adapter option seriously, even with a responsible integrator. Less coordination can be worth paying for, provided that option really supplies the complete answer.
Julia, agreed, but the included adapter still needs assessment and access work. I would not award it a technical advantage merely because its invoice has fewer lines.
Both complete assemblies are now with the integrator. The included-adapter tool's rear connection conflicts with our nest surround during withdrawal. The customer-adapter candidate clears that view; its complete load review is not finished.
Theo, does the clear view for the first candidate include the open fingers after release? The accepted housing position should remain the same while that is checked.
Yes, Priya. Complete receiving release and return are included with that position. Integrator is finishing its load assessment. Second supplier has offered a revised connection arrangement, but neither its full geometry nor revised price has arrived.
Keep those outstanding items against their own candidates in the handover to purchasing. One supplier being further along should not make the other supplier's unpriced revision look like the original complete offer.
Buying comparison now does that. We haven't selected a tool. Julia and Anil, the single-supplier discussion helped: I can price coordination without pretending it substitutes for the actual assembly review.