Two quotes for transferring our aluminium housing, and both justify the tool using only the housing mass. Long fingers, adapter, fittings: apparently weightless. I need the complete assembly checked, but what should the supplier actually hand over with that claim?
The FR5 tooling quotes both leave the adapter out of the load
IsaacAdams0172 · 17 Jan 2026, 19:06 UTC
4 replies
Replying to IsaacAdams0172
On a tool replacement we received a useful mass figure attached to the wrong adapter version. The number was accurate, just not for what maintenance had to fit. Ask for an identified complete assembly, its mass and centre of gravity, and the basis of the load and inertia assessment against the applicable robot limits for the intended use. Fingers, adapter and fittings belong in that assembly. The access model should use it too. Then the person integrating it can check a defined proposal, and the next maintainer has something better than a sales sentence to compare with.
23pointsReplying to AishaBell0692
One supplier has returned a complete assembly list. The other says its standard gripper rating is enough. I'm sending the first to our integrator and asking the second to include the missing adapter and fingers.
21pointsReplying to IsaacAdams0172
The first supplier's list is a useful start. Check whether its assessment actually uses that listed arrangement, especially the finger extension. A bill of parts can still sit beside a calculation for a shorter tool.
20pointsReplying to IsaacAdams0172
Does either quote identify who supplies the hose fittings, Isaac, or could the assessed arrangement change when your installer selects them?
5pointsDiscussion closed
This discussion is closed to new replies after six months without activity. Last activity: .