Two suppliers have priced tooling for our aluminium housings and both justify suitability from the housing mass. The extended fingers, adapter and hose fittings seem to become weightless in the explanation. What should I ask for so we can judge the complete inspection-nest transfer arrangement?
Ask each supplier to identify its complete loaded assembly and the mass properties used in the assessment. Fingers, adapter, fittings and held housing all included. Part mass by itself does not establish suitability for the proposed orientations and motion.
Their finger designs differ, so I don't expect identical figures. I do want the same task assessed. Neither has supplied a loaded-assembly centre of gravity or identified the adapter in its calculation.
That is a fair comparison, Leah: different solutions can be assessed against the same job, provided each assessment describes what is actually proposed rather than a shared bare-part figure.
I'd also ask which contact pieces you will be expected to stock, once either proposal is technically credible; a custom finger can be inexpensive until the first worn pair becomes a new design enquiry.
Jonas, that is familiar from our teaching equipment. We could name the gripper but not the fitted contact revision. The supplier could sell us a replacement body immediately, which was very efficient at answering the wrong question.
Aisha, did you eventually identify the contacts from the drawings or the fitted pieces? I'm asking because our handover folders often contain a lovely assembly picture and no individual spare references.
We reconciled the fitted pieces with the supplier's drawing before ordering. A photograph alone was not enough to establish the revision; I would not want Leah to inherit that uncertainty as a standard spares method.
On one inspection transfer, the part stayed held but arrived at a different angle when we changed the contacts. I would include the nest presentation and release in this assessment, not end the application description at holding the mass.
Elena, that is useful context for the software handover too. Our recipe once kept its old name through a tooling change, which made comparing runs a mess. I would want the tool revision recorded with the approved job, not inferred from the program name.
Elena and Quinn, the target nest and job stay the same in our request, but the tool proposals differ. I'll keep each proposed grip position and assembly revision attached to its own assessment instead of merging the two into one summary.
Include the applicable FR10 load limits and the motion assumptions behind each conclusion. A complete mass total still leaves a gap if nobody considers the load distribution and the intended orientations.
Have either of them stated who updates that assessment if the fingers change after ordering? I would rather settle that responsibility while there are still two offers on the table.
Jonas, that responsibility should cover a supplied substitute too, because a replacement part is not necessarily the same geometry merely because the seller calls it compatible.
Leah, has either supplier started filling in those missing details yet? Interested whether the first answer changes the proposed fingers or only the documentation around them.
One has agreed to assess its complete assembly; the other has repeated the housing mass. No new assessment or geometry change yet. Thanks Jonas for the revision-owner question, which wasn't in my request at all.
Then neither offer has established the job on the information here. I would keep the unanswered application and ownership questions beside the prices, so the more responsive email does not become an accidental technical approval.