Stop the comparison until they identify the intended fingers.
How do I get the actual fingers into this FR5 access review?
AdaArcher0390 · 10 Jun 2025, 15:13 UTC
20 replies
Toolmaker says long. Robot supplier says the short model was just for the reach study. That study is attached to the purchase recommendation
18 pointsThen take it out of the recommendation. Or mark it clearly as an incomplete study, rather than delete the trail. Someone will otherwise remember the green tick and forget the missing fingers.
18 pointsMarked incomplete. Asked for the long fingers holding the actual blank, with the door open. No green tick on that page now
13 pointsInclude the adapter too. A correct finger model on the wrong adapter can still place the entire tool in the wrong position.
11 pointsDoes the toolmaker explain why the fingers need to be longer?
15 pointsThey need to reach past the fixture lip while the body stays outside it. Short ones were from a different sample tray, not this mill fixture
12 pointsSo the short tool was never an option here.
2 pointsCould changing the fixture lip make the shorter tool practical? I'm not saying machine it away. Just wondering whether the fixture designer has an alternative before you settle on the long tool.
12 pointsMaybe, but it's the machining fixture and not ours to alter casually. The machine team is looking at whether a different loading face is possible
18 pointsAsk them to include manual loading and inspection access in that option. It would be awkward to solve the robot approach by hiding the clamp the setter needs.
19 pointsCan the existing fixture still be used while they compare that?
16 pointsYes, existing manual route stays as it is. We're comparing drawings, no fixture modifications made
3 pointsGood, that buys a proper comparison. I would put the fixture-change cost beside the revised tool cost, because either team can make its own item look cheaper by borrowing work from the other.
11 pointsAnd charge the design time somewhere. It is happening.
17 pointsDo both options still use the same adapter, Ada? I asked earlier because that drawing can get left out when everyone focuses on finger length.
12 pointsSame approved adapter revision B in both. Toolmaker has supplied the full assemblies now. Thanks, Grace, the original short-finger model had a different adapter as well
17 pointsThat would have been a confusing comparison.
18 pointsMachine team has kept the current fixture for the first proposal. The long-tool access review is booked, but we don't have its result or an arm decision yet
17 pointsWho is checking the loaded tool assessment alongside that access review? Longer fingers affect more than fit.
10 pointsDiscussion closed
This discussion is closed to new replies after six months without activity. Last activity: .