Two quotes justify the FR10 tool from housing mass. Neither includes the adapter or fittings in its load information. Long fingers shown, no agreed grip depth. What exactly should come back before purchasing decides?
Ask for the complete proposed assembly, with total mass and load geometry including the held housing at its intended grip position. The supplier should assess that configuration for your required movement, not just compare the housing weight with a headline capacity.
Does your workshop already have the adapter they mean, Daniel? Customer supplied could identify a real component, but the quotation needs to say which one.
Get that missing route into the request too, including release and withdrawal, so the tool choice is reviewed against what it actually has to do. Loading the part and getting the tool out are both part of the job.
Zara, yes, though I would not wait for a final route before asking them to identify the assembly assumptions. Daniel needs to know what their existing price actually buys.
Agreed. Send the scope questions now. I meant the complete movement must be part of the suitability decision, not that purchasing should sit quietly until everyone finishes drawing.
A separate option price for the adapter could be useful, provided responsibility for confirming the combined assembly stays explicit. Otherwise two suppliers can each deliver their own perfectly adequate half.
Include the housing drawing and proposed grip depth with those endpoints. A picture of the nest alone will not tell them where the held load sits relative to their adapter.
Who from maintenance will review replacing those fingers and fittings once the assembly is defined? A workable transfer can still leave an awkward service job around the nest.
And ask each supplier to name what remains unassessed in its revised offer. An honest provisional price is usable; a complete-looking price assembled from different assumptions is a pain.