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.
our ur5e layer drawing assumes a carton bottom we do not pack
LeoChan1058 · 11 Dec 2025, 20:39 UTC
7 replies
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.
13pointsReplying 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.
5pointsReplying to LeoChan1058
Then compare a different arrangement too. No point making the last carton comfortable if the fingers cannot get out.
16pointsReplying 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.
9pointsReplying to AdaAbbott0042
Agreed. Full pallets aren't the only pallets.
24pointsReplying 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.
0pointsReplying 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.
24pointsDiscussion closed
This discussion is closed to new replies after six months without activity. Last activity: .