I'm reviewing two UR5e tooling offers for a cast housing. One holds it close to the flange; the other uses long fingers and an adapter. Both suitability notes quote only the housing mass.
What information should be in the review before we compare prices? I don't want to ask the supplier a question so broad they just resend the brochure.
Request the complete loaded tool's mass and centre of gravity relative to the flange, with the geometry that produced those values; the bare housing isn't the assembly
That gives me a concrete request, thanks. Their totals don't include hose fittings either. I'll ask for an itemised assembly and the held-part position.
Have the integrator check the assembly against the manufacturer's applicable load guidance, including moments and inertia where required. Long fingers can matter even when the total mass looks comfortable.
The longer fingers clear a lip on our receiving nest. The short tool would need a nest alteration. That's in a footnote I hadn't connected to the comparison.
Then price that alteration and have its locating function reviewed, otherwise the short tool's apparent saving excludes work required to make it usable
Check service access to the tool connections too. More precisely, ask maintenance whether either arrangement can be inspected and replaced as intended. A fitting trapped behind the adapter can make a minor cable fault a much longer interruption.
Maintenance has the drawings now. I've added the nest change and connection access to our questions. Neither supplier has yet assessed the complete loaded arrangement against the intended job.
Purchasing has separated commercial comparison from the outstanding technical review. We still need the suppliers' assembly data. I can explain the hold now without claiming one tool is unsuitable.
Ask them to identify any assumptions in those data, especially the housing orientation; a centre-of-gravity figure without its reference frame is a pain to use
A labelled assembly drawing helps there. It should show the flange reference and the held housing location so the reviewer can reproduce the supplier's calculation basis.
Yes, and keep the tool-only and tool-with-part configurations explicit if both are relevant to the robot setup; don't leave somebody guessing which total to enter
Make the accepted assembly information part of the replacement process. Otherwise a future adapter or finger change can leave the documented load configuration describing tooling that is no longer installed.