Which torch and holder are actually proposed? Start there.
FR10 torch body missing at the inside corner
HarishBrooks0837 · 4 Oct 2025, 06:00 UTC
18 replies
A full torch outline against the current clamp geometry would answer the obvious clash question cheaply. It still needs the welding lead's required approach, not whichever angle happens to fit the picture.
11 pointsTorch model is named on the quote. Holder isn't. The line drawing also uses low clamps, but our fixture sketch has taller handles. So even the scenery has changed.
7 pointsWe had a service connector missing from a tool model once and it spoiled the only sensible approach, so I'd want the fittings and line route included before anybody celebrates a gap.
1 pointsGet the welding person to pick the awkward corner for that first comparison. I can spot a body hitting a clamp, but I can't tell you whether the clear angle is a usable welding angle.
25 pointsI would expect the integrator to identify the holder before charging for a detailed clearance review. Otherwise you may pay for a model that becomes obsolete when they choose the missing component.
11 pointsPat, they might need a small design stage to choose it. I'd distinguish that from charging for clearance on an unspecified holder. Sometimes the decision is the work, not an answer someone forgot to email.
20 pointsThat's fair, Zara. A defined selection stage would be understandable. I wouldn't want a complete-access fee with the selection still excluded.
13 pointsThe quote includes concept layout, with detailed tooling separate. I don't mind paying for the next stage. I mind not knowing whether it includes the holder or assumes I'll turn up with one.
8 pointsThen ask for that stage's deliverables: selected assembly, the process constraints supplied by welding, and a comparison at the restrictive corners. Not just a nicer screenshot of the same line.
3 pointsWho supplied the tall-clamp sketch?
19 pointsOur fixture designer. It's the current proposal, revision D. The integrator has revision B with the low clamps. I'll get those aligned before their next comparison.
9 pointsThat explains one mismatch. Give both designers the same bracket revision too. A familiar part name can hide a gusset change that matters exactly where you're trying to get the torch in.
15 pointsTheo, thanks for that reminder, our connector problem had us staring at the tool while the part drawing quietly changed underneath it.
4 pointsHarish, include how the torch enters and leaves the corner. A complete model at the weld position can look convincing while its approach still passes through a clamp.
12 pointsWelding lead has marked two restrictive corners on the current bracket and fixture drawings. Holder selection and full approach check are now in the proposed next stage. Not approved yet, but I can finally tell what we'd be buying.
4 pointsDoes that stage include comparing a clamp change if neither corner works? Worth agreeing the boundary before a failed access check turns into a second surprise quote.
12 pointsAnd keep any clamp alternative tied to its locating and restraint job. Lower handles might help access, but nobody here has established that simply lowering this fixture hardware is acceptable.
3 pointsDiscussion closed
This discussion is closed to new replies after six months without activity. Last activity: .