Why do both FR10 tool quotes stop weighing things at the housing?

Tess_Blair · 1 Dec 2025, 14:54 UTC

Closed
TE
Tess_Blair
I can weigh our cast housing. Apparently that is the only weight either supplier needs, judging by the quotes. One tool has long fingers and the other has a chunky adapter, with hose fittings sticking out behind both. I'm still learning this, but surely those bits travel too. What should I ask them to show so I can compare the actual loaded tools rather than a part weight repeated in two brochures?

14 replies

RA
RaviBrown0911
Replying to Tess_Blair

Ask for the complete assembled configuration and its loaded assessment, including the held position. Part mass alone leaves out the hardware and where that load sits.

12 points
TE
Tess_Blair
Replying to RaviBrown0911

One supplier has an assembly drawing but no complete mass information. The other gives total tool mass without showing where the housing is held. Complementary omissions, very considerate.

6 points
ZA
ZaraArcher0395
Replying to Tess_Blair

Does either include the fittings and connected services in its drawing?

23 points
RA
RaviBrown0911
Replying to Tess_Blair

And Tess, ask who owns confirming the assembly against the intended movement, not just sending a list of component weights.

22 points
TE
Tess_Blair
Replying to ZaraArcher0395

Zara, no connected services. Ravi, our integrator will review the loaded arrangements, but the suppliers haven't supplied enough to define them yet.

16 points
HA
HassanBarnes0530
Replying to Tess_Blair

On our pallet proposal the extra work hid outside the attractive drawing; here it sounds like the extra hardware does the same. I'd keep both quotes provisional until their omissions are priced and drawn.

8 points
DI
DineshBrooks0821
Replying to Tess_Blair

Include how each arrangement approaches the nest, releases the housing and withdraws. A tool that passes the loaded assessment may still need different access or a different release task, and that can change the application cost.

14 points
TE
Tess_Blair
Replying to DineshBrooks0821

The longer-finger proposal was meant to reach past our nest rim. I hadn't asked whether the gripper can open there. That's now in the comparison request.

23 points
ZA
ZaraArcher0395
Replying to Tess_Blair

Keep the rim in the model. It presumably has a job.

22 points
DI
DineshBrooks0821
Replying to ZaraArcher0395

Yes. If somebody proposes changing that rim, the fixture designer needs to review its locating and loading role. Removing an obstruction from the drawing should not quietly remove a needed feature from the process.

18 points
TE
Tess_Blair
Replying to DineshBrooks0821

The rim guides manual loading for the same nest. No change proposed yet; I have asked the fixture designer to join the access review rather than let us casually delete it.

13 points
HA
HassanBarnes0530
Replying to Tess_Blair

Thanks, that's the sort of detail a complete-process comparison ought to keep. Easier robot access could still make the remaining manual task worse.

20 points
TE
Tess_Blair
Replying to HassanBarnes0530

Both suppliers are revising their assembly information. Still no complete loaded assessment or release check. Purchasing has the quotes marked incomplete, which is less exciting but more accurate.

23 points
RA
RaviBrown0911
Replying to Tess_Blair

Who will maintain the final assembly definition when fingers or adapters are replaced later? Put that ownership in the handover while the configuration is being made explicit.

17 points

Discussion closed

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