The fixture looks accessible in our proposed FR5 steel-blank exchange, which would be encouraging if the sketch included the gripper body or the open machine door. It includes neither. This is a supervised tending bay, and I want the access question answered before we choose the arm, not after somebody discovers the hand is wider than the dot representing it.
I'd ask the tool supplier for the loaded assembly first, including where the short blank sits in the grip. You can't choose the arm from reach alone, though a complete drawing may still show the proposed arm is perfectly usable from a different base position.
What door position does the machine supplier permit during exchange? If the sketch assumes a position the installation cannot use, you could spend a lot improving the gripper model around the wrong opening.
And show the exit. Everyone likes a picture of a part at the fixture. I want to see where the loaded hand goes next, with the opening fingers and rear connections included where they affect clearance.
Machine supplier has confirmed the intended exchange position for the door. Their outline is available, but the tool supplier has only sent the machined body so far. I've asked for the assembly with its fittings and held blank.
Does that body-only outline already overlap the door, Vera? I agree you need the full assembly, but you may have a definite clash to send them now rather than only a list of missing dimensions.
It does. The body clips the door outline on the straight withdrawal shown in the proposal. I sent the overlaid view with the two source revisions, and the integrator agrees that particular route isn't usable.
That's worth separating from the arm decision. You've ruled out the drawn withdrawal, not proved that every route with the FR5 fails. What alternative are they offering to assess?
Emma, a different route may help, but don't let it consume the access people need for setting the fixture. The proposed base can be clear of the door and still be a nuisance every changeover.
They've proposed turning the base arrangement and changing the withdrawal direction, with no change to the permitted door position. That's a revised concept, not a checked route yet. I've added setter access to the comparison.
I'd keep the first clash visible as a rejected route too. Someone costing the alternatives later may otherwise reuse the attractive original sketch and not know why it disappeared from the review.
The assembly is in now. The revised geometric review shows a clear loaded withdrawal at the documented door position, while the original route still intersects it. The new base position reduces setter space, so we haven't accepted the layout.
Thanks for the detail, Vera. Is there room to assess a different tool arrangement against that setter-space loss, rather than treating the base move as the only remaining option?
Yes, tooling has agreed to price and draw that alternative. We've kept the arm provisional. At least we now have a specific trade to compare: tool changes against the space the new base takes from setting work.