Our proposed use for Fairino FR10 is machining fixture exchange with a short steel blank in an enclosed machining cell, with 28 planned. The reach sketch suggests the fixture is accessible, but it includes neither the gripper body nor the open machine door. I need a fuller access check to inform our choice of arm.
Can you compare measured door geometry with the proposed gripper envelope? An offline layout including both may expose access issues that the reach sketch doesn't represent
After comparing the outlines, I found that the proposed approach overlaps the door handle even though the workpiece itself clears. That explains the misleadingly comfortable result in my initial sketch.
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
The buyer has suggested choosing a larger arm. I'm unsure whether that would address the access issue or simply increase our purchase while leaving the obstruction unresolved.
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
@JaneAdams0162 We had a different machine application where a good transfer layout put the pedestal across a service panel. Maintenance spotted the catch immediately
Identifying the handle obstruction has helped, but we still need an assessed layout that addresses it. We're keeping the arm under consideration without making a purchase decision.