our ur5e layer drawing assumes a carton bottom we do not pack

LeoChan1058 · 11 Dec 2025, 20:39 UTC

Closed
LE
LeoChan1058
The proposed UR5e pattern uses the dimensions of our product box, but its support sketch shows a flat bottom. Our packed box has two reinforced strips. One turned position places a strip above a gap. I have withheld the pattern approval pending a joint review.

7 replies

AD
AdaAbbott0042
Replying to LeoChan1058

Give packaging and tooling the same packed sample and a section through that position. The top-view dimensions can be correct while the support assumption underneath is wrong.

13 points
LE
LeoChan1058
Replying to AdaAbbott0042

They have the packed sample now. Packaging has rejected the unsupported strip in the turned row. Tooling says the gap was reserved for finger withdrawal, so closing it is not an agreed fix.

5 points
AN
AnnaAli0242
Replying to LeoChan1058

Then compare a different arrangement too. No point making the last carton comfortable if the fingers cannot get out.

16 points
AD
AdaAbbott0042
Replying to AnnaAli0242

Anna, yes, but keep the incomplete orders in the comparison. A lovely full layer can still leave the operator with an awkward partial pallet and no described next step.

9 points
AN
AnnaAli0242
Replying to AdaAbbott0042

Agreed. Full pallets aren't the only pallets.

24 points
LE
LeoChan1058
Replying to AdaAbbott0042

Dispatch has supplied the partial-order cases. The lower-count alternative keeps the support strips over cartons below, but tooling has not finished checking release and withdrawal. Added pallet movements are being costed as well.

0 points
AD
AdaAbbott0042
Replying to LeoChan1058

Will dispatch see that cost comparison with the actual partial-order layouts? The extra work should be recognisable to the people doing it, not only an allowance in a spreadsheet.

24 points

Discussion closed

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