I'm comparing FR5 tooling for our aluminium housings. Both summaries list the housing weight, but neither includes the long fingers or adapter. What complete loading information should I request?
Both quotes omit the adapter from the weight
EmmaCarter0985 · 22 Jun 2025, 09:03 UTC
15 replies
Replying to EmmaCarter0985
Ask for the mass and loading details of everything carried at the flange, with and without the housing. Then have the integrator check the proposed assembly and motion against the robot guidance. Include the fittings they expect you to add later
17pointsReplying to JuliaBrown0935
One supplier says their gripper is light enough that the adapter won't matter. They haven't given me the adapter dimensions. Is a preliminary estimate useful at this stage?
10pointsReplying to EmmaCarter0985
Useful for screening, provided it includes an allowance based on a real proposed design. I wouldn't release the tool order with the adapter still missing from the calculation
11pointsReplying to EmmaCarter0985
Ask what adapter they estimated. They may have assumed a short plate while your fixture requires a stand-off. That could explain the casual answer.
22pointsReplying to HarishAbbott0054
And ask whose job it is to supply it. We once had two quotes which each expected the other contractor to provide the same small but rather necessary bracket
7pointsReplying to EmmaCarter0985
The flange loading also depends on where the mass sits. Request centre-of-gravity information and the other loading information required for the manufacturer's assessment. Long fingers deserve more attention than a total mass entry.
9pointsReplying to LiamBrooks0838
But don't turn the first quote into a demand for finished drawings of a tool they haven't designed yet. Ask them to state the assumed arrangement and price the design work. Otherwise you get a beautifully precise guess.
18pointsReplying to HarishAbbott0054
Thanks. Harish was right: the first supplier assumed a flat adapter, while our sketch shows a stand-off. I've sent both suppliers the same fixture section.
12pointsReplying to DavidArcher0432
That should make the comparison less slippery. David, I agree on paying for design, but I still want a clear point when those estimates must be replaced before we commit to manufacture
13pointsReplying to JuliaBrown0935
Yes, a design review before manufacture. I just wouldn't reject a supplier for not knowing the final centre of gravity before there's a final tool. Reject the one pretending it can never matter.
4pointsReplying to DavidArcher0432
The second supplier has offered a paid layout stage. The first is revising the estimate. I'm comparing those stages now, not just the two hardware prices.
15pointsReplying to EmmaCarter0985
Include the empty-tool state in that review as well. And identify who updates the robot's load configuration after the tool design is confirmed or later modified.
0pointsReplying to LiamBrooks0838
Our integrator will own the configuration. They also want the hose arrangement shown because it changes the available space near the nest.
15pointsReplying to EmmaCarter0985
We have agreed a layout review before either tooling design goes to manufacture. Purchase decision is still open. Both suppliers now have the same stand-off requirement.
5pointsReplying to EmmaCarter0985
Useful progress for a few emails and one section drawing. Please let us know whether the stand-off changes which proposal looks better.
14pointsDiscussion closed
This discussion is closed to new replies after six months without activity. Last activity: .