HazelAdams0136 · 28 Feb 2025, 02:38 UTC
First check that both drawings show the same tool pose. I have seen a plan of one pose married to a section of another. The resulting robot was remarkably flexible on paper.
21 pointsDifferent adapter revisions. Plan uses the short one; section uses an earlier long one.
13 pointsThat explains the disagreement between drawings, not necessarily the access. Get one complete current assembly checked through the required approach and exit before choosing where the base goes.
8 pointsRequested. Loaded exit needs reviewing too; the blank projects beyond the fingers.
22 pointsWhich adapter has the tooling supplier actually offered? Your current drawing should describe a buildable assembly, not whichever version gives the more encouraging gap.
16 pointsShort adapter is confirmed in the revised offer. Integrator has a plausible path now, with cable routing still outstanding. Base decision stays provisional.
4 pointsThen mark that dependency on the layout approval. Otherwise 'plausible, pending cable review' can become 'approved' when someone copies it into the purchasing summary.
12 pointsThis discussion is closed to new replies after six months without activity. Last activity: .