HarishBennett0750 · 1 Jul 2026, 16:21 UTC
Ask for the complete loaded assembly and its assessed limits. Part mass is only one input.
6 pointsInclude the actual grip position on the housing. Extended fingers change where the load acts, and their allowable loading matters as well as the robot's limits.
10 pointsAnd don't let the answer be a single bigger weight number. The location of that mass and the intended movement matter; I'd want the person responsible for integration to connect the tool proposal to the job being quoted.
5 pointsAre both suppliers proposing the same held orientation and destination access, or are their suitability statements based on different ways of presenting the housing?
22 pointsLeah, different orientations. One holds the housing farther out to reach around the fixture wall. I hadn't noticed that the shorter-looking offer assumes the wall isn't there in its release view. Sofia, neither has given me a finger-load assessment.
22 pointsCan the integrator issue one fixture geometry and required presentation description to both? The tool designs may still differ, but the comparison needs a common task before the numbers mean anything.
2 pointsThat geometry check is worth doing before paying for either tool. One omitted wall is already material.
6 pointsDifferent tools aren't a problem by themselves. A closer grip may suit the load better but still need another access method. I would not rank them from finger length alone.
15 pointsWho supports the complete assembly after purchase? I would ask that while the drawings are being corrected. A supplier supporting the gripper body does not necessarily support somebody else's extended fingers and adapter.
6 pointsTheo, the integrator has now issued the actual fixture model and required housing position to both. Toby, one offers complete-tool support; the other only its standard gripper. That difference wasn't in my comparison sheet either.
13 pointsI've found the support scope useful in teaching-cell purchases. Does it identify replacement finger references too?
24 pointsToby, yes, though I wouldn't reject separate support automatically. It needs a named owner for diagnosing the assembled tool, not three people each telling Harish their own bit looks fine.
12 pointsIs either proposal now assessed against the required movement, or have the updated drawings only arrived?
23 pointsNora's distinction is fair. Split supply can be workable, but responsibility for the interface has to be bought or assigned somewhere, rather than treated as free because it has no line price.
13 pointsAlistair, the integration review has returned. The long-offset proposal exceeds the applicable wrist load envelope for the submitted assembly and movement. The shorter tool can meet the assessed limits, but its supplier now proposes a different release approach for the real wall. Access review is unfinished. Luca, replacement references are supplied for both.
23 pointsKeep the long-offset finding tied to that submitted configuration; a redesigned assembly would need another assessment, while the shorter tool still needs its proposed release route demonstrated in the layout
8 pointsHas the complete-tool support question been assigned for the shorter proposal? It would be a shame to improve the load comparison and buy the same unresolved handover problem.
11 pointsToby, the integrator has offered that role with a separate cost, including the custom fingers. It's in the comparison now. I'm keeping the shorter proposal under review and declining the long-offset configuration as submitted; no order until the route and total scope are settled.
18 pointsThat is a defensible distinction. The shorter tool has passed a defined load review, not proved the whole housing-transfer job merely because its numbers fit.
13 pointsAgreed. Thanks Sofia for keeping the finger loading separate from the robot limit. I now have two actual assessment questions and named owners, instead of two quotations that both said the housing was light enough.
8 pointsBy creating an account, you agree to our Terms and Conditions and community guidelines. Read our Privacy Policy for how your information is handled.