We're picking a gripper for Universal Robots UR5e to handle a polished cylindrical bezel during planning gentle handling of cylindrical components in a finished-parts handling station. Our bench samples have marks on the visible cylindrical surface. The supplier says softer pads; we haven't even agreed how to judge the marks.
I need holding and release covered too.
@OscarBarnes0532 Does the customer have an appearance inspection method? Get that and the cosmetic zones on the drawing beside the samples before comparing pad materials.
The drawing marks the outside cylinder as visible. Our pictures are just phone shots under workshop lights; nobody has linked them to the customer's inspection method.
I'd qualify the softer-pad suggestion. Debris retention and dragging during release can matter, so softness alone could lead the comparison in the wrong direction.
@HenryBarnes0525 Fair point; I gave softness too much emphasis. Compare geometry, actual surface condition and release as well. Softer is a candidate, not the expected winner.
@DineshCarter0995 The agreed customer method decides appearance acceptance. Extra views can help investigate a contact problem, but they shouldn't silently replace that method.
The customer procedure is available in the quality pack. It specifies lighting and viewing, and our phone shots don't follow it. I'll use that for the comparison.
On a separate finished-sleeve job, an edge imprint mattered more than the broad contact haze. The accepted viewing method stopped us arguing over dramatic photos
Our samples also have a repeated line near the finger edge. I haven't compared them under the specified lighting yet, so it's a lead rather than a rejection.
The comparison method is clear now: customer appearance criteria plus handling assessment. My selection-planning question is answered; the gripper choice will depend on those results.