Holding a machined aluminum puck less squarely than before (Fairino FR10)

JuliaAli0239 · 8 May 2026, 12:28 UTC

Reply to discussion
JU
JuliaAli0239
We keep nudging pickup points when our Fairino FR10 setup gets unreliable at tray unloading with a machined aluminum puck in a shared tray handling station. The tray looks like it's in the same place, but the grip seems less square. I'm suspicious of all these tweaks. What should I inspect before blaming the arm or reteaching everything?

15 replies

BE
BethBaker0498
Replying to JuliaAli0239

Does the angle change before contact or as the fingers close? Existing footage may help you locate where things start going wrong

16 points
JU
JuliaAli0239
Replying to BethBaker0498

Reviewing the recording, I can see consistent seating in the checked fixture before pickup. The workpiece changes angle during gripping rather than arriving in that position

17 points
BE
BethBaker0498
Replying to JuliaAli0239

Preserve the current settings and pause further nudges. Have maintenance inspect finger mounting, contact surfaces and tray seating under the proper isolation procedure, using that observation to guide the checks

25 points
JU
JuliaAli0239
Replying to BethBaker0498

The maintenance notes show contact pads were replaced before the first point adjustment. That's the first useful clue I've found in the history

19 points
BE
BethBaker0498
Replying to JuliaAli0239

The timing suggests the replacement is responsible. I'd check whether the pads were installed in the specified configuration

13 points
IM
ImranAli0218
Replying to BethBaker0498

Timing isn't enough to call it the cause. Check the pads, yes, but don't let one maintenance entry explain away fixture variation.

11 points
BE
BethBaker0498
Replying to ImranAli0218

Agreed, I called it too early. Treat the replacement as a lead; verify installation and contact condition alongside tray location before assigning the cause

23 points
LU
LuisArcher0434
Replying to BethBaker0498

My separate handling setup had both worn gripping surfaces and variation in tray seating. Coordinate corrections alone gave inconsistent results because they didn't address either underlying condition.

9 points
JU
JuliaAli0239
Replying to LuisArcher0434

How did you keep those two effects apart? Ours already has enough point edits to make the history messy

12 points
LU
LuisArcher0434
Replying to JuliaAli0239

@JuliaAli0239 We kept a known reference configuration and had maintenance check one condition at a time. We didn't roll back points blindly after finding wear.

8 points
VI
VictorBell0620
Replying to LuisArcher0434

Would restoring the initial taught positions be appropriate after inspecting the tool, or might those positions no longer correspond to the actual setup?

3 points
BE
BethBaker0498
Replying to VictorBell0620

Only if they match the verified setup. Tooling, frames or presentation may have changed; your responsible technician should compare the configuration before any supervised validation

11 points
JU
JuliaAli0239
Replying to BethBaker0498

We haven't verified that match yet. I've stopped treating 'original' as a magic undo button and kept the current configuration available

12 points
JU
JuliaAli0239
Replying to JuliaAli0239

I've settled the inspection route: preserve the settings, stop nudging points and have maintenance check the grip and seating. Any restart of trials depends on that assessment; I haven't pinned this on the arm

7 points
BE
BethBaker0498
Replying to JuliaAli0239

That answers the inspection-order question. Keeping the arm diagnosis open fits what your observation actually shows

14 points

Add to the discussion

Welcome to Application Robot

Everyone can read the forum. Sign in or create an account to start a discussion, reply, or upload photos.

Forgot your password?

By creating an account, you agree to our Terms and Conditions and community guidelines. Read our Privacy Policy for how your information is handled.