Show both layer outlines with the carton support areas marked, then the opening and withdrawal space for the proposed tool. Have packaging assess that same filled-carton arrangement before anyone treats the neat footprint as an approval.
Rotated cartons with their end strips over gaps
JoBarnes0592 · 6 Jul 2025, 16:10 UTC
16 replies
Overlay done, two ends cross gaps and one of those gaps is the one the fingers need, so closing it isn't the easy answer I hoped for
13 pointsCould a different order leave an open side for the last placement? Cheap thing to draw before anybody buys narrower fingers.
21 pointsTry the full order, not only a different first case. Another enclosed final position may remain. Include the tool retreat after release as well as the fingers opening.
1 pointsWould a lower-count pattern give enough support and access? I would include it in the comparison even if dispatch prefers the original quantity, with its costs shown rather than dismissed as inefficient.
21 pointsDispatch says fewer cartons means more pallets and handling, which is true, but they haven't priced that against another tool concept yet
12 pointsThat's the comparison I'd want. Less efficient by box count can still be cheaper than the device needed to preserve the box count.
14 pointsWhat pallet and transport arrangement is packaging assessing? The support discussion needs the intended handling conditions, not just the stack sitting on a bench.
9 pointsActual pallet type is identified, but the transport restraint wasn't in the review pack; I've asked dispatch to add their intended arrangement before packaging responds
5 pointsInclude partial pallets too, if you ship them. The lower-count option might affect how often those occur, and a complete-stack assessment cannot automatically cover every unfinished arrangement.
12 pointsAnd use current filled cartons for the assessment. The internal packing determines where those end strips are useful; an empty carton with the same printing is not the same sample.
1 pointsPackaging has rejected the original gap pattern for the current packed carton and proposed a lower-count candidate; tool supplier is checking its placement order, including partial pallets
7 pointsDid dispatch price that candidate yet? Or are they still mourning the missing row?
12 pointsThey're pricing it, fairly enough; no one has agreed that the extra handling is negligible, and another tool concept is still in the comparison
12 pointsKeep the rejection tied to the original pattern revision. That should prevent it reappearing as an already approved option when the cost sheet circulates.
10 pointsWho will own the final combined arrangement? With packaging, tooling and dispatch contributing changes, somebody needs to make sure the costed candidate is the one all three actually reviewed.
8 pointsDiscussion closed
This discussion is closed to new replies after six months without activity. Last activity: .