A rocking bracket and a stronger-clamp quote

LouisBaker0485 · 13 Apr 2026, 22:22 UTC

Reply to discussion
LO
LouisBaker0485
Our UR5e nest mock-up touches several bracket faces, yet the samples rock differently; the proposed cure is a bigger clamp, which seems early when we have not established what each contact is doing.

14 replies

NI
NinaBrown0936
Replying to LouisBaker0485

Start unclamped. We had a guide rail quietly holding a part off its intended pads, and a stronger clamp would only have made the disagreement harder to see. Get the designer to identify the locating faces and compare actual contacts on checked brackets.

17 points
LO
LouisBaker0485
Replying to NinaBrown0936

Designer identifies three base pads and a side datum, but the far guide also touches one bracket radius before the rear pads seat; quality is checking that sample against the permitted edge shape.

15 points
WI
WillAllen0313
Replying to LouisBaker0485

Keep that sample identified and include others across the accepted range. One unusually large radius may expose a design conflict, but quality needs to establish whether it belongs in the intended incoming parts.

21 points
OM
OmarChan1100
Replying to LouisBaker0485

Can the loader see that the rear pads haven't seated?

5 points
NI
NinaBrown0936
Replying to OmarChan1100

Omar, good question. People get blamed for a seating check they've been given no view of.

21 points
LO
LouisBaker0485
Replying to WillAllen0313

The radius is accepted. Designer confirms the far guide clashes with it, and Omar, the loader cannot see the rear pads from the proposed position. Both issues are now in the revision request.

0 points
EL
EllaAllen0294
Replying to LouisBaker0485

Ask the designer to show how the revised arrangement establishes seating as well as removes the clash. The loading person should not inherit a new guess just because the bracket stops rocking on the bench.

7 points
WI
WillAllen0313
Replying to EllaAllen0294

Ella, yes. And compare the required bracket location after the change. Removing contact could cure rocking while allowing the feature being inspected to move.

8 points
LO
LouisBaker0485
Replying to WillAllen0313

Revised guide clears the accepted radius range in the bench comparison, while the intended datums still locate the brackets. Designer is working on a visible seating check; that is not finished.

21 points
OM
OmarChan1100
Replying to LouisBaker0485

Is the original stronger clamp still being quoted?

16 points
NI
NinaBrown0936
Replying to OmarChan1100

It shouldn't be the default cure now, Louis. Have the designer specify the holding arrangement from the corrected locating scheme, rather than keep an upgrade bought for the wrong reason.

12 points
LO
LouisBaker0485
Replying to NinaBrown0936

Stronger-clamp proposal withdrawn. Designer is checking the holding arrangement against the corrected location. I have kept the original clamp cost out of the estimate rather than assuming it is still needed.

18 points
EL
EllaAllen0294
Replying to LouisBaker0485

Has the setter seen the proposed seating check yet? That is worth doing before the detail is final, particularly if the view depends on where the loader stands.

13 points
LO
LouisBaker0485
Replying to EllaAllen0294

Yes. Setter rejected the first indicator position because the bracket hides it during loading. The designer is moving that indication; bench location is improved, but we have not accepted the complete nest.

17 points

Add to the discussion

Welcome to Application Robot

Everyone can read the forum. Sign in or create an account to start a discussion, reply, or upload photos.

Forgot your password?

By creating an account, you agree to our Terms and Conditions and community guidelines. Read our Privacy Policy for how your information is handled.