One proposal has long fingers to reach into our housing nest. The other uses a shorter tool with an adapter. Both suitability notes quote only the cast housing's mass, leaving out the stuff that carries it.
What complete assembly information should I ask for before our integrator compares them? I don't want to guess a load model from two photographs.
Request each complete loaded assembly, with mass, centre of gravity and the other load information your integrator requires for the intended motion. Include the fingers, adapter and fittings. Both proposals need to describe the same pickup and release job.
The short-tool supplier has now said its price assumes moving the receiving nest nearer. That wasn't in the original quote. I've asked it to show the changed layout, not just the tool.
And keep the held housing in both models. Bare-tool geometry can look harmless right up to the point where the part meets the fixture. Ask for the connections to follow the complete sequence too.
Farah, setter says the proposed location occupies her fixture removal space. The supplier is checking another approach. Felix, the long-tool model includes the housing but not the hose fittings yet.
Thomas's question is useful. A rectangle labelled access can mean room for a person, while the real job needs the fixture and its handling equipment to pass through. That could decide the short-tool layout before further modelling.
She demonstrated removal at the bench with the normal handling aid. That space really is needed. The short-tool supplier has withdrawn the relocation and is proposing a different finger arrangement at the existing nest.
Toby, did the long-tool supplier finish its assembly information? It would be easy to spend the whole review chasing the changed proposal and forget the other one is incomplete.
Yes, Felix. Integrator has its complete loaded assembly and has raised a concern about the planned motion with that geometry. Farah, the revised short-tool option has only reached the model stage; release is still to be demonstrated.
We are taking neither offer as it stands. Long-tool supplier has proposed a changed sequence for assessment; short-tool supplier has a complete revised quote but no handling demonstration yet. The setter's space remains in both briefs.