简体中文界面。帖子、指南及政策正文保留原文;未对原文作自动翻译。

Cannot choose FR5 tooling from the gearbox housing mass alone

JuliaBrown0935 · 2026年2月17日 04:11 UTC

已关闭
JU
JuliaBrown0935
Both FR5 tooling offers repeat the steel gearbox housing's mass. Neither includes the long fingers, mounting adapter or hose fittings in the load description. Need the complete held assembly assessed for our nest-loading job before purchasing chooses the cheaper line.

21 条回复

PA
PavelArcher0353

Ask for the complete assembly drawing and load data, including where that load acts.

6
JU
JuliaBrown0935

One supplier has a drawing, but the housing is shown at the wrist rather than at the end of the proposed fingers. Other offer has no assembly drawing yet.

17
LI
LinBennett0705

Then the first drawing doesn't represent the held load. Ask them to put the actual housing at its intended contacts, with the adapter and fittings included.

24
AD
AdaAbbott0042

Include the proposed motion and orientations in the assessment request. A complete mass total is useful, but it does not by itself address the offset load, inertia or how the tool holds and releases this housing.

21
EL
ElliotChan1118

And show how the fingers leave the inspection nest. We had a tool proposed from its carrying view that could not open where the drawing said release.

25
PA
PavelArcher0353

Is either supplier responsible for the adapter, or is that left to your installer?

-7
JU
JuliaBrown0935

Both originally left it to us. Our integrator has now supplied the intended adapter drawing so the offers can use the same arrangement.

13
AD
AdaAbbott0042

Thank you, that closes one easy source of variation. Make sure the fittings are similarly identified; a later elbow change can alter the space the assessed tool occupies.

8
LI
LinBennett0705

Did the corrected held-housing drawing arrive?

14
JU
JuliaBrown0935

Yes. First supplier corrected the position and added the adapter and fittings. Their original fingers need redesign for the assessed duty, according to their engineer. Second supplier is still working on its complete model.

15
EL
ElliotChan1118

That is a real consequence of the missing information. Are they retaining the same gripping surfaces on the housing?

11
JU
JuliaBrown0935

No. Proposed shorter fingers use another permitted contact area. Inspection is checking that area against the finish requirement, and the integrator is checking the new approach.

4
AD
AdaAbbott0042

Keep that as a new candidate with its own holding and release assessment. Shorter fingers might help the load case while introducing a different contact or access problem.

22
PA
PavelArcher0353

Has the second offer become comparable yet?

16
JU
JuliaBrown0935

Second supplier returned the full model and assessment. It retains the original contact area with a different finger body. Both now include the adapter, fittings and our proposed duty. Prices changed on both.

19
LI
LinBennett0705

What did inspection say about the first supplier's alternative contact?

12
JU
JuliaBrown0935

Not acceptable on that finish. We rejected that candidate rather than asking the operator to inspect around marks we'd deliberately introduced. Second candidate's sample work is complete with acceptable appearance.

4
EL
ElliotChan1118

And the exit from the nest? Still interested in that bit.

23
JU
JuliaBrown0935

Demonstrated with the represented receiving nest, including opening and withdrawal. Full range of our identified sample housings included. No contact with the nest during the assessed sequence.

13
AD
AdaAbbott0042

That gives purchasing a specific offered arrangement to select. Retain the assembly revision with the assessment and quote so a later cheaper substitution does not inherit the result.

21

讨论已关闭

此讨论已连续六个月没有活动,现已关闭新回复。 最后活动: .