Two UR5e tooling offers account for the housing, not the tool

NoahBaker0455 · 15 Aug 2026, 06:11 UTC

Reply to discussion
NO
NoahBaker0455
Both quotes justify our steel-housing loader using part mass. What should their comparison include for the extended fingers, adapter and hose fittings before I buy?

5 replies

EL
EllaBarnes0555
Replying to NoahBaker0455

Request the complete loaded assembly data and geometry, with its mass distribution and the proposed motion assessed against applicable manufacturer limits. A housing weight is not that assessment.

8 points
NO
NoahBaker0455
Replying to EllaBarnes0555

I asked both. One supplied an assembly list but no centre-of-gravity information. The other asked for our proposed orientations.

14 points
EL
EllaBarnes0555
Replying to NoahBaker0455

Send the orientations consistently to both. And clarify whether their assembly data includes the fittings; do not quietly add omitted hardware after they assess it.

17 points
NO
NoahBaker0455
Replying to EllaBarnes0555

First supplier confirmed the hose fittings were omitted. Their suitability statement is being revised against the complete assembly. Neither quote is accepted yet.

8 points
EL
EllaBarnes0555
Replying to NoahBaker0455

An identified omission, then. Ask which assembly revision the replacement assessment covers when it arrives.

24 points

Add to the discussion

Welcome to Application Robot

Everyone can read the forum. Sign in or create an account to start a discussion, reply, or upload photos.

Forgot your password?

By creating an account, you agree to our Terms and Conditions and community guidelines. Read our Privacy Policy for how your information is handled.