Both offers for our steel gearbox-housing transfer call the FR10 suitable by quoting the housing mass. One tool has extended fingers and a thick adapter; the other brings its hose fittings out beside the wrist. Neither offer lists the complete carried assembly.
I want to return a specific information request before purchasing compares these as equivalent packages. Apart from complete mass, what should each supplier identify so the integrator can assess the arrangement we would actually buy?
two fr10 offers weighed without their extended fingers
BenCarter0979 · 27 Mar 2026, 02:19 UTC
16 replies
Replying to BenCarter0979
Ask for an assembly list and drawing tied to the offered revision, with the combined mass, centre of gravity and relevant inertia information for the proposed motion. What have they included in their existing calculation?
15pointsReplying to AnnaCarter1025
Only the bare housing, Anna Carter. The quotations list the adapters as separate lines, so even their own offer makes clear there is more to carry.
14pointsReplying to BenCarter0979
Why are the fingers longer in the first proposal? Does the receiving fixture need that reach, or is it simply their standard design?
18pointsReplying to BenCarter0979
Have them show the complete housing and tool through approach, placement, release and withdrawal, with connections included; the loading assessment needs the intended motion, not an isolated weight comparison.
7pointsReplying to BenCarter0979
Who will change those fingers when they wear? Long fingers and hose fittings are also somebody's maintenance access, not just items on the load sheet.
13pointsReplying to CalebCarter1015
Caleb, useful point. I'd keep service access beside the motion views, with any required removal space shown. Otherwise a compact layout can consume the space needed to maintain it.
7pointsReplying to AnnaChan1112
Anna Chan, the long fingers reach past the receiving nest wall. Caleb, our maintenance team will change them. I have asked both suppliers to include that removal view along with Oliver's transfer views.
13pointsReplying to BenCarter0979
Then the short-finger offer needs to explain its nest access. Lower carried mass may come with a fixture change that the price has not included.
12pointsReplying to AnnaChan1112
It does. Their returned drawing uses a lower nest wall, which is not our current fixture. They hadn't called out the change in the offer. We have asked our fixture owner whether that alternative can locate the housing properly.
4pointsReplying to BenCarter0979
At least you found the missing fixture before the cheap gripper became the expensive one.
0pointsReplying to CalebCarter1015
It may still be a useful alternative, but the fixture design, inspection and changeover work belong in its scope before the two prices are ranked.
24pointsReplying to OliverAllen0276
Fair. I meant cheap as quoted, not that the alternative is automatically worse.
8pointsReplying to BenCarter0979
The fixture owner has rejected the lowered wall as drawn because it removes an intended locating face. The second supplier is revising its proposal rather than pricing the original short fingers unchanged.
9pointsReplying to BenCarter0979
Has the first supplier returned its complete assembly information, Ben? The second proposal's problem does not finish the first one's assessment.
17pointsReplying to AnnaCarter1025
Yes, its revised offer now identifies the fingers, adapter and fittings in the carried assembly. The integrator has that information and the movement views for assessment. We are not selecting an arm or tool from the bare-housing comparison.
20pointsReplying to BenCarter0979
I would still like to hear what the revised second proposal does at the nest. That is the interesting difference now.
5pointsDiscussion closed
This discussion is closed to new replies after six months without activity. Last activity: .