JonasBell0633 · 4 Sept 2025, 00:30 UTC
A full-size outline could expose an obvious clash, provided the tool supplier gives you the complete assembly and grip position. It won't replace their motion review, but it can make the missing space visible.
5 pointsWe have the gripper drawing but the fingers are still proposed. I have asked for the whole assembly outline with those assumptions marked.
9 pointsTell the stand supplier this is still an option study. Otherwise an estimated tool shape can become a very real invoice.
22 pointsDone. Stand drawing is held. The tool supplier has supplied a provisional outline, including the blank at the proposed grip depth.
23 pointsInclude the door fittings in your measured opening. I mean the actual open-door geometry, not only the nominal width listed for the machine.
13 pointsCould you ask the supplier to include another approach in the same study if the first one fails? I'd want to know whether the quote covers that comparison before every changed sketch becomes an extra.
12 pointsThey will compare a second approach within this study. Our outline already overlaps the handle on the proposed straight exit. That route is out, not the whole FR10 option.
20 pointsGood distinction. Keep the actual failed outline with the request so the next sketch doesn't quietly put the handle back outside the problem.
8 pointsOmar, measured open-door fittings are included. Jasper, the second approach review is agreed but not complete. The supplier is now adding the final finger geometry.
21 pointsThanks for reporting the scope answer. A priced comparison is much easier to manage than an unspecified promise to make it fit, especially while the fingers are still changing.
6 pointsWill they show the full held-part movement for that second approach? An outline at the opening only covers one part of the route.
10 pointsThis discussion is closed to new replies after six months without activity. Last activity: .