I'm not ordering a stronger clamp yet. Our proposed FR5 nest touches several surfaces on the drilled aluminium angle bracket, and the real samples don't settle alike. How do we work out whether the locating scheme is fighting itself before somebody makes force the answer?
Observe the samples without clamping first, with their identities kept. Note which contacts engage and where seating stops, then compare their measured features with the drawing. A sample sitting differently is evidence to investigate, not yet proof the nest is overconstrained
Julia, refusing to go fully down over the two hole locators. Rocking was my loose description. Leo, I've numbered the samples and kept the unclamped observations; no measurements against the drawing yet.
That helps, Noah. Are both locators intended to locate sideways in both directions, or does the tool drawing give one clearance in a direction? I'd want its intended function before anyone diagnoses it from the top view.
I've inherited nests where the spare locator looked right but belonged to another revision. Compare the fitted pair with the tool drawing as well as measuring the brackets. It could be an assembly mistake rather than the intended scheme.
Aisha's distinction matters. No point redesigning a sound scheme around the wrong installed component. Noah, ask the tool designer to identify which variation each locator is meant to accommodate
Luca and Aisha, the fitted pair matches the drawing: two full round locators, both close to the hole size. The designer is checking that scheme against the permitted hole-spacing variation. The bench sample inspection is underway too.
Julia, no, they had only seen the overhead photo. I've shown the side gap. Nobody is pursuing that clamp now. Easier to agree once we stopped talking about a vaguely wobbly bracket.
When inspection returns, keep the actual hole and spacing results linked to each seating observation. That will help the designer and the next person asked to replace a locator.
The samples are within the relevant hole and spacing limits. Our designer has identified the two-round-locator scheme as conflicting across that permitted spacing range and specified a relieved second locator with the required direction retained. A revised bench nest is being made, not an instruction for us to file the existing one.
Repeat removal and reseating with those identified samples after the change. Also check the resulting location against the intended datum requirements; easy loading alone isn't the acceptance criterion
Would like to hear whether the measured location repeats, Noah. Your original issue is more specific now, but a comfortable fit can still conceal a fixture that locates inconsistently.
Revised nest is back. The same checked samples seat without forcing, and inspection's repeated removal-and-reseat checks meet the agreed location requirement on that sample set. We've retained the results by sample, including the original failed seating observations.
Aisha, the issued nest drawing and spare list identify the relieved locator. The old pair is segregated with the trial hardware. Automated loading hasn't been assessed yet, so I've recorded this as the bench-location result only.
That answers the stronger-clamp question with something better than another opinion. Keep the automatic handling check separate; the robot still has to present and release the bracket appropriately.
Thanks for returning with the reseating results, Noah. Knowing the samples were within their limits and the locator pair changed is the useful part for me, not just that the bracket now fits.