Both housing-transfer quotes omit fingers, adapter and fittings from their load argument. What should complete the comparison?
I cannot compare FR5 loads from the housing mass alone
EllaBaker0468 · 5 Apr 2026, 22:19 UTC
7 replies
Replying to EllaBaker0468
Ask for the offered assembly identities and combined mass, centre of gravity and relevant inertia information for the intended movement. Have each supplier include the complete carried arrangement, rather than adding a loose-tool total to an unrelated part calculation.
21pointsReplying to TobyChen1188
One supplier has an assembly list. The other calls the adapter customer supplied without identifying it.
12pointsReplying to EllaBaker0468
Then the second has not defined the assembly it is claiming suitable. Who chooses and assesses that customer-supplied adapter, and is its cost included anywhere in your comparison?
8pointsReplying to EllaBaker0468
Also ask why the finger lengths differ. They may be solving different fixture-access problems, so a lighter total will not necessarily describe an equivalent transfer.
20pointsReplying to TobyChen1188
Longer fingers clear the receiving wall. Shorter set assumes a revised insert, which inspection has not accepted.
12pointsReplying to EllaBaker0468
Include that proposed insert and its assessment in the second scope. It may still be useful, but it is not the same job with a smaller gripper.
13pointsReplying to EllaBaker0468
Has either supplier shown release and withdrawal at the receiving fixture, Ella? The complete movement views should accompany the complete load information before you choose.
21pointsDiscussion closed
This discussion is closed to new replies after six months without activity. Last activity: .