HazelAli0223 · 9 May 2026, 20:24 UTC
Ask the integrator for one assembly with the loaded tool, fingers in their relevant open states, fixture and installed door. And the exchange sequence. A reachable point isn't a usable route.
12 pointsThe toolmaker and integrator have separate drawings. Neither includes the other assembly. I will ask who is combining them.
17 pointsGet the actual door position measured too. I had assumptions wander between supplier drawings on a different review, and each drawing looked reasonable in isolation. Then everyone was very surprised when they were put together.
7 pointsIs the proposed approach from the front or the side of the mill? That would help us understand which access you are trying to preserve, even before the complete model is available.
16 pointsFront approach currently. Integrator is combining the drawings. We have asked them to show a side approach as an alternative too.
7 pointsWhere does the setter stand for changeover in each option? Put a person in that drawing.
10 pointsJo, yes. Also the tool-removal route for maintenance. Don't just check whether it can be assembled once and then assume it'll never need to come apart.
23 pointsI'd keep the alternatives at rough-layout level until those bits are answered. No point paying for two polished proposals while the basic access assumptions are still moving.
16 pointsCombined model is back. Front position conflicts with the parked door in the proposed removal sequence. Side position avoids that conflict but takes part of the changeover space.
17 pointsThere it is. The robot fits and the setter doesn't. What do they propose changing?
13 pointsIs all of that space required during changeover, Hazel, or only a particular access route? I would ask the setter to show the actual work before deciding whether the side option is lost.
6 pointsAda is right. 'Changeover space' can mean a working position, a trolley route or somewhere people store things. They have different consequences. Get the real task into the review.
10 pointsSetter walked through it with us. The side layout blocks removal of a changeover trolley. It isn't just storage space.
24 pointsCould the side candidate move enough to preserve that route, or would the loaded tool then lose access? That's a comparison for the combined model now, not a guess from the reach figure.
21 pointsAnd no, moving the trolley into the aisle isn't an answer. We still need it.
6 pointsJo, nobody has suggested removing the trolley. Zara is asking whether the equipment position can change while keeping its route. Those are different proposals.
2 pointsFair. I've had the trolley disappear in drawings before. Jumped ahead of this one.
4 pointsThe shifted side candidate keeps the trolley route, but only with a different tool arrangement. The integrator and toolmaker are comparing that explicitly now. Thank you Ada for asking what the changeover actually involved.
14 pointsGet the altered tool identified in the proposal, not just its outline pasted into the layout. Mass, connections and access all change with it. This is where cheap arm comparisons quietly turn into different complete jobs.
8 pointsDoes the new price include that arrangement, Hazel? Worth asking before anyone compares it with the original bare-tool number.
12 pointsBy creating an account, you agree to our Terms and Conditions and community guidelines. Read our Privacy Policy for how your information is handled.