How do I get the actual fingers into this FR5 access review?

AdaArcher0390 · 10 Jun 2025, 15:13 UTC

Closed
AD
AdaArcher0390
Different mill from my FR10 sketch: the FR5 proposal uses short fingers, but our tooling quote has longer ones for the aluminium blank. Which version are we supposedly choosing the arm around?

20 replies

PR
PriyaBarnes0568
Replying to AdaArcher0390

Stop the comparison until they identify the intended fingers.

6 points
AD
AdaArcher0390
Replying to PriyaBarnes0568

Toolmaker says long. Robot supplier says the short model was just for the reach study. That study is attached to the purchase recommendation

18 points
OS
OscarAbbott0010
Replying to AdaArcher0390

Then 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 points
AD
AdaArcher0390
Replying to OscarAbbott0010

Marked incomplete. Asked for the long fingers holding the actual blank, with the door open. No green tick on that page now

13 points
GR
GraceAllen0320
Replying to AdaArcher0390

Include the adapter too. A correct finger model on the wrong adapter can still place the entire tool in the wrong position.

11 points
ZA
ZaraArcher0395
Replying to AdaArcher0390

Does the toolmaker explain why the fingers need to be longer?

15 points
AD
AdaArcher0390
Replying to ZaraArcher0395

They 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 points
PR
PriyaBarnes0568
Replying to AdaArcher0390

So the short tool was never an option here.

2 points
OS
OscarAbbott0010
Replying to AdaArcher0390

Could 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 points
AD
AdaArcher0390
Replying to OscarAbbott0010

Maybe, 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 points
GR
GraceAllen0320
Replying to AdaArcher0390

Ask 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 points
ZA
ZaraArcher0395
Replying to AdaArcher0390

Can the existing fixture still be used while they compare that?

16 points
AD
AdaArcher0390
Replying to ZaraArcher0395

Yes, existing manual route stays as it is. We're comparing drawings, no fixture modifications made

3 points
OS
OscarAbbott0010
Replying to AdaArcher0390

Good, 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 points
PR
PriyaBarnes0568
Replying to OscarAbbott0010

And charge the design time somewhere. It is happening.

17 points
GR
GraceAllen0320
Replying to AdaArcher0390

Do 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 points
AD
AdaArcher0390
Replying to GraceAllen0320

Same 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 points
ZA
ZaraArcher0395
Replying to AdaArcher0390

That would have been a confusing comparison.

18 points
AD
AdaArcher0390
Replying to AdaArcher0390

Machine 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 points
PR
PriyaBarnes0568
Replying to AdaArcher0390

Who is checking the loaded tool assessment alongside that access review? Longer fingers affect more than fit.

10 points

Discussion closed

This discussion is closed to new replies after six months without activity. Last activity: .