Our UR5e pad comparison includes a housing photographed only after handling. I can see a similar stripe on a fresh housing in the incoming tray. Before choosing the proposed softer pads, I want to establish which marks the trial actually added and how quality judges them.
Coated housings with a mark before the gripper trial
HazelAllen0310 · 14 Feb 2026, 08:11 UTC
17 replies
Replying to HazelAllen0310
Get a before view of each identified housing through the same appearance check. Otherwise you can buy a softer pad to cure a mark it never made, which is a fairly expensive photography mistake.
11pointsReplying to HazelAllen0310
Are the fresh housings touching a divider where that stripe appears? I would keep the incoming tray with the samples, though the similar position does not establish its cause.
7pointsReplying to HazelAllen0310
Keep the original after-only sample as an unassigned example. It can still help explain the concern, but do not put it opposite a new clean sample and call that a pad comparison.
5pointsReplying to HazelAllen0310
Has quality actually rejected the stripe, or only noticed it?
-4pointsReplying to NoraAli0235
Nora: quality has not judged it yet. Jack: the stripe lines up with a divider, so we are checking before and after that tray contact separately from the gripper.
17pointsReplying to HazelAllen0310
While quality defines the appearance check, include movement within the pads in the handling comparison. A housing can arrive in the tray yet have shifted enough to make the next placement unreliable.
19pointsReplying to AnikaArcher0421
And release. Softer material can look kind to the coating and still make the operator wait for a part that will not let go cleanly. I would watch the complete handoff, not just inspect the samples afterwards.
2pointsReplying to OwenBrooks0834
Owen, yes, but Hazel may find there isn't an appearance problem for softer pads to solve. I'd settle the existing stripe before paying for a whole new tool trial.
3pointsReplying to HarishBrooks0837
Fair. I mean if the candidate proceeds, not buy the trial regardless.
20pointsReplying to HazelAllen0310
Quality judged the stripe unacceptable under the agreed viewing method. The linked check shows it appearing at a damaged divider before gripping. We have taken that tray out for repair.
11pointsReplying to HazelAllen0310
Was the divider replaced or only proposed for replacement? Stores needs to know whether that tray can be issued again.
14pointsReplying to JackAbbott0080
Still held for repair, Jack. It is marked unavailable in stores. The pad purchase is paused until we have a clean baseline through the current handling arrangement.
18pointsReplying to HazelAllen0310
That makes sense for the comparison. Keep the actual damaged-tray example distinct from the later baseline so the current pads do not get credit for a repair either.
22pointsReplying to CallumBrooks0795
Good point. Attribution can be wrong in both directions.
5pointsReplying to HazelAllen0310
Tray repaired and inspected. New linked samples stay acceptable through the current grip, transfer and release under quality's method. No remaining appearance failure identified in that comparison, so we are not buying softer pads for this case.
13pointsReplying to HazelAllen0310
Were the housings stable within the pads through that transfer as well, Hazel?
9pointsReplying to AnikaArcher0421
Yes, observed throughout the assessed sequence, with the same housing range used for the appearance checks. We have closed the tray fault and declined the pad proposal. Thank you for the incoming-tray question, Jack.
23pointsDiscussion closed
This discussion is closed to new replies after six months without activity. Last activity: .