PavelBell0614 · 1 Jul 2026, 11:34 UTC
The held assembly needs to be shown in the installed opening. Blank, fingers, adapter and connections, through entry and return. The fixture point being reachable won't show where the back of the tool goes when the blank is presented.
13 pointsIs the grip orientation agreed with the toolmaker? I've seen a convenient sketch put the part somewhere the actual fingers weren't intended to hold it. Worth settling that before anyone spends a day tracing the wrong assembly.
19 pointsNot agreed yet. The sketch just shows the blank at the fixture, Daniel.
16 pointsMy FR10 removal enquiry also has generic opening geometry. I am still waiting for the installed survey, so I would name who supplies that here. Otherwise each reviewer can assume the other drawing is the accurate one.
9 pointsWhere does the setter take the fixture out, Pavel, and is that task included in the proposed base footprint?
9 pointsLuis, that's a separate access task but absolutely part of the arm choice. Don't let a successful automatic path be used as the answer to the setter's route.
24 pointsLuis, through that same opening. The base sketch doesn't show the setter or fixture removal space.
20 pointsThen ask for the two tasks explicitly in the review. Machine owner supplies installed geometry and the setter's task; toolmaker confirms held orientation; integrator brings them together for the proposed robot arrangement. Nobody has to guess the missing hand.
25 pointsSurvey returned. The parked door projects further than the sketch, and the toolmaker has supplied a held orientation.
2 pointsHas the integrator combined those inputs yet? Having both is useful, but mine still need joining before anyone can answer the route question.
8 pointsAnd retain the tool revision beside that orientation. A later shorter adapter proposal would be a different assessed assembly, not a harmless tidy-up of this picture.
14 pointsCombined view shows the tool's rear connection occupying the parked-door space at the proposed exchange orientation.
15 pointsThat rules out this depicted arrangement, not every possible FR5 arrangement; who is deciding whether an alternative is worth investigating?
8 pointsI'd like the setter's finding kept alongside it. There's little value in solving the tool clash and only then discovering the proposed base prevents the fixture change.
14 pointsOur production lead wants alternatives reviewed, with setter access included. No arm order authorised.
19 pointsGood place to pause the selection. You've identified a real obstruction in the combined view. Any changed grip, door arrangement or base position needs its own responsible assessment, not an assumption that the line can bend round it.
23 pointsLeo, the setter assessment remains outstanding. I've put it beside the tool clash in the buying note.
11 pointsThat's the outcome I needed to hear, Pavel. More complete inputs changed the question before money went out. Would be interested which alternative they actually choose to assess, when there is one.
16 pointsBy creating an account, you agree to our Terms and Conditions and community guidelines. Read our Privacy Policy for how your information is handled.