Our proposed use for Fairino FR5 is machining fixture exchange with a cylindrical aluminum blank in a production cell beside an enclosed mill, with 80 planned. The reach sketch suggests the fixture is accessible, but it includes neither the gripper body nor the open machine door.
I need a fuller access check to inform our choice of arm.
After comparing the outlines, I found that the proposed approach overlaps the door handle even though the workpiece itself clears. That explains the misleadingly comfortable result in my initial sketch.
@RobinChan1121 Use that measured layout to review the complete approach and retreat offline. Include the tool, cables and service access, then ask the integrator to assess a revised mounting arrangement.
The buyer has suggested choosing a larger arm. I'm unsure whether that would address the access issue or simply increase our purchase while leaving the obstruction unresolved.
@OmarBennett0752 Yes, I made that sound more certain than it's. Compare candidate geometry in the measured layout; a larger arm is only useful if the complete approach improves.
@OliverBrooks0798 We had a different machine application where a good transfer layout put the pedestal across a service panel. Maintenance spotted the catch immediately.
@ChloeChen1179 Restoring location and checking the installation would become part of that proposal. Ask the integrator to compare it with a layout that preserves routine service access.
The fixture requires a straight approach segment. Should we establish that constraint in the model before exploring alternative positions for the robot base?
Yes. Include the required entry direction and withdrawal conditions, not just an end pose. A reachable point can still have no usable approach with the proposed tool.
@OliverBrooks0798 For our machine, withdrawal with a held workpiece needed a different route from entry. The empty-tool model made the clearance look much better than it was.