Our proposed use for Fairino FR5 is machining fixture exchange with a cylindrical aluminum blank in a compact machining workshop, with 128 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.
@NathanAdams0112 Start from those measurements and review approach and withdrawal offline with the full tool, cables and maintenance access included. A revised mount then needs the integrator's assessment.
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.
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.
You're right; more mounting freedom isn't guaranteed. Check each candidate in the measured layout and only favour a larger arm if its full approach works better.
@SamCarter1029 We had a different machine application where a good transfer layout put the pedestal across a service panel. Maintenance spotted the catch immediately.
I've decided to base our arm selection on a measured access review. A workable layout for the complete tool and a qualified assessment will be conditions of choosing Fairino FR5.