Cannot choose a layer while the carton supports sit over gaps

ReeceArcher0384 · 23 Sept 2025, 23:29 UTC

Closed
RE
ReeceArcher0384
Our FR10 carton drawing fits the footprint. Rotated positions miss the support below. Can't approve that view.

18 replies

OL
OliverArcher0363
Replying to ReeceArcher0384

Have packaging rejected those positions, or have you found a gap they haven't assessed? I wouldn't call every gap a failure without their carton support requirements.

12points
HE
HenryBennett0699
Replying to ReeceArcher0384

We lost a changeover sheet after revising a pattern. Whatever gets agreed here, make the operator's layer picture part of the same update.

18points
RE
ReeceArcher0384
Replying to OliverArcher0363

Oliver, not assessed. The support direction is specified; allowance across these gaps isn't.

5points
PR
PriyaBennett0742
Replying to ReeceArcher0384

Then the next decision belongs with packaging. I would not fill that gap in the requirement with a visual judgement

-6points
OL
OliverArcher0363
Replying to ReeceArcher0384

Exactly. Reece, are the fingers the reason for leaving those spaces, or did the pattern already have them?

2points
EM
EmmaBarnes0550
Replying to HenryBennett0699

Henry, who updates the operator picture on your jobs? We've had three departments each assume the other one printed it.

2points
HE
HenryBennett0699
Replying to EmmaBarnes0550

Production engineering owns ours now. Trainer checks the issued picture against the approved pattern during handover. It used to be whoever noticed the old copy first.

3points
PR
PriyaBennett0742
Replying to OliverArcher0363

Oliver, even if the fingers need the gap, that does not settle how much support the carton needs. Both people have to work on the same arrangement

7points
OL
OliverArcher0363
Replying to PriyaBennett0742

I know. I'm asking what can change. If the gaps are arbitrary, packaging may have an easier starting point than if the whole tool relies on them.

-1points
RE
ReeceArcher0384
Replying to OliverArcher0363

The proposed fingers need them. Tooling also offered fewer cartons per layer as an alternative, not assessed yet.

15points
EM
EmmaBarnes0550
Replying to HenryBennett0699

Henry, thanks. A named owner is the missing bit for us, not another printer. Reece, have dispatch priced the extra pallet handling for that alternative?

10points
HE
HenryBennett0699
Replying to ReeceArcher0384

I'd keep the lower-count option alive even before that price comes back. A tool that's awkward to maintain has a cost too, though I can't tell which proposal wins here.

3points
OL
OliverArcher0363
Replying to HenryBennett0699

Henry, I'd price both together. Dispatch can have very little spare floor space even when an extra pallet looks cheap on a sheet.

13points
PR
PriyaBennett0742
Replying to HenryBennett0699

And the lower-count arrangement still needs its own support assessment. Fewer cartons does not automatically improve every contact underneath

9points
EM
EmmaBarnes0550
Replying to OliverArcher0363

Oliver, agreed. Our workstation review once gained an extra pallet and lost the operator's turning space. Neither change appeared in the robot drawing.

13points
HE
HenryBennett0699
Replying to OliverArcher0363

I meant keep it available for comparison, not order it. Your floor-space point is fair, Oliver. Maintenance isn't the only person who has to live around it.

6points
OL
OliverArcher0363
Replying to ReeceArcher0384

Reece, has anyone considered the short-order case in either option? A partial pallet may be a routine job rather than an exception in your department.

15points
RE
ReeceArcher0384
Replying to OliverArcher0363

Short orders are common. No answer on those yet, or Emma's handling-cost question. Both alternatives remain open.

15points

Discussion closed

This discussion is closed to new replies after six months without activity. Last activity: .