Our proposed use for Fairino FR5 is machining fixture exchange with a machined brass blank in a production cell beside an enclosed mill, with 115 planned.
The reach sketch suggests the fixture is accessible, but it includes neither the gripper body nor the open machine door.
I need a fuller access check to inform our choice of arm.
@LucyAdams0132 Can you compare measured door geometry with the proposed gripper envelope? An offline layout including both may expose access issues that the reach sketch doesn't represent.
@LucyAdams0132 Start from those measurements and review approach and withdrawal offline with the full tool, cables and maintenance access included. A revised mount then needs the integrator's assessment.
The buyer has suggested choosing a larger arm. I'm unsure whether that would address the access issue or simply increase our purchase while leaving the obstruction unresolved.
A different arm geometry may introduce its own clearance problems. Increasing reach doesn't establish that the proposed tool can pass the existing handle obstruction.
Yes, I made that sound more certain than it's. Compare candidate geometry in the measured layout; a larger arm is only useful if the complete approach improves.
@VictorAli0185 We had a different machine application where a good transfer layout put the pedestal across a service panel. Maintenance spotted the catch immediately.
A removable base adds relocation and installation checks to the work. Have the integrator weigh that against keeping normal service access clear in the layout.
The fixture requires a straight approach segment. Should we establish that constraint in the model before exploring alternative positions for the robot base?
Yes, model the entry direction and retreat requirements as constraints. Reaching the final point doesn't establish that the full tool can approach it usefully.
For our machine, withdrawal with a held workpiece needed a different route from entry. The empty-tool model made the clearance look much better than it was.