Checked them. The approach clips the handle; the workpiece clears. No wonder my first sketch looked so reassuring.

@DineshAllen0299 Use that measured layout to review the complete approach and retreat offline. Include the tool, cables and service access, then ask the integrator to assess a revised mounting arrangement.

Our buyer says go bigger. Does that help, or just buy the same problem in a larger arm?

@DineshAllen0299 A larger arm should give you more mounting freedom, so that could be the easiest route to investigate.

A different arm geometry may introduce its own clearance problems. Increasing reach doesn't establish that the proposed tool can pass the existing handle obstruction.

Yes, I made that sound more certain than it's. Compare candidate geometry in the measured layout; a larger arm is only useful if the complete approach improves.

@AnilBarnes0549 We had a different machine application where a good transfer layout put the pedestal across a service panel. Maintenance spotted the catch immediately.

Checked ours. The suggested pedestal overlaps a panel opening too. More red pen for the drawing.

@DineshAllen0299 Would making the pedestal removable address service access, or would restoring its position introduce a further setup requirement to evaluate?

Restoring location and checking the installation would become part of that proposal. Ask the integrator to compare it with a layout that preserves routine service access.

Our fixture needs straight entry. Put that constraint in before moving the base around?

@DineshAllen0299 Yes, model the entry direction and retreat requirements as constraints. Reaching the final point doesn't establish that the full tool can approach it usefully.

For our machine, withdrawal with a held workpiece needed a different route from entry. The empty-tool model made the clearance look much better than it was.

I'll include empty and loaded tool outlines. We also need to agree who owns the machine signals; that part of the quote is vague.

Measured access review first, then an arm decision. I've settled on that route; choosing Fairino FR5 depends on a workable full-tool layout and qualified assessment.

@DineshAllen0299 That puts the access question in the right place in the decision. A conditional selection fits the limits of the sketch.