GabrielBell0627 · 26 Jun 2026, 08:51 UTC
Our first layout looked generous until somebody added the back of the tool. What grip depth does this sketch assume? The same short blank can leave very different amounts of tool outside the fixture.
21 pointsNo grip depth stated. Just the blank endpoint. The tool supplier has an outline, but it hasn't been placed into the machine drawing.
20 pointsThen there is useful work before comparing arms. Get the intended held assembly onto that drawing, with the actual parked door. Ask the integrator to follow entry and withdrawal too. I wouldn't ask a reach diagram to answer those for me.
8 pointsInclude the open fingers where release happens. Closed-tool clearance doesn't answer withdrawal.
13 pointsWho changes the fixture in this bay, Gabriel? I'd have them mark the space they need while you are collecting the door measurements, so the access comparison doesn't only describe the robot's turn at the machine.
8 pointsOur setter does the change. He's marked his trolley position and the working space at the opening. Tool supplier has now given a grip depth and the adapter with rear fittings.
9 pointsTheo and Jo, I'd want those tool states identified on the same revision. Otherwise Gabriel could end up comparing closed fingers from the quote with open fingers from an older model that was shorter.
14 pointsRosa, agreed. It sounds fussy until you have two plausible drawings and nobody knows which one purchasing priced. The connection fittings should keep their identity through that comparison too.
6 pointsCombined review is back. The rear fitting conflicts with the door handle during the proposed withdrawal. Not a nominal reach problem. Integrator proposes a different tool orientation, still using this base position.
19 pointsDoes that orientation still grip and release the blank as intended?
8 pointsAnd does the proposed park still leave the setter's marked area available? A different wrist orientation may be harmless there, but I'd like it checked rather than assume the human part of the drawing survived.
8 pointsJo, tooling has accepted the revised grip orientation in the concept review. Carla, the revised park occupies part of the setter's marked space, so we haven't accepted the combined arrangement.
9 pointsThat is a sensible reason to keep it provisional. Solving the handle clash has exposed another requirement, not made the first review wasted work.
23 pointsCould they offer another park within the same layout, or would it need a base change? I'm asking about their options, not suggesting the setter should squeeze round it.
17 pointsThey've proposed another park without moving the base. Route checking isn't complete yet. The setter says its shown position would leave his working area clear, but that's only his part of the review.
14 pointsGood. Keep his answer separate from approval of the robot route.
10 pointsRosa, thanks for wording that as an option for the integrator. I've been in meetings where could the trolley move became the new layout before the person pushing it had even been asked.
8 pointsHas the integrator checked approach from that new park as well as the return to it? The fixture endpoint can remain unchanged while the route into it becomes a different review.
21 pointsYes. Their completed concept study includes approach, exchange and return with the identified tool assembly and measured door. It clears the flagged handle area and preserves the setter's agreed space. We've accepted that layout for detailed engineering and selected the FR5 on that basis.
5 pointsThat answers your selection question much better than the first sketch. Keep the accepted concept revision with the order, so a later tool substitution triggers another review instead of inheriting clearances it wasn't assessed with.
9 pointsBy creating an account, you agree to our Terms and Conditions and community guidelines. Read our Privacy Policy for how your information is handled.