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。

two promising puck-loading demos, two different trays

RosaBennett0727 · 2026年6月30日 15:07 UTC

回复讨论
RO
RosaBennett0727
I'm shortlisting the FR5 for sorted puck loading, but one demo used a tidy tray and the other used our awkward workshop tray; both looked good, and I need a comparison that includes the preparation and support we'd actually inherit

16 条回复

JO
JoAbbott0070

I've watched a demonstration improve enormously after somebody spent ten minutes presenting the parts. Perfectly legitimate work, but it belongs in the comparison. What did each operator do before the timed motion began, Rosa?

19
RO
RosaBennett0727

The tidy-tray demo started with every puck centred by hand, while our workshop tray arrived as normally loaded; I didn't record the centring time, and neither clip includes a tray change

2
AN
AnilArcher0375

Then retain both as demonstrations of their stated conditions. Neither is a like-for-like throughput comparison. I'd ask for the same incoming tray condition before ranking them.

11
MI
MiaChan1079

Include who prepares and changes the trays. A supplier can offer a different presentation method, but your comparison needs its labour, tooling and handover scope. A clean transfer is only part of the work your shift will own

25
JO
JoAbbott0070

Mia, agreed, though I wouldn't force identical trays if one complete proposal genuinely benefits from a different fixture. I'd force an honest common starting condition and include the change needed to reach its preferred tray.

6
MI
MiaChan1079

That's what I mean by including the preparation method. Rosa can compare different complete proposals, provided neither gets its preferred presentation delivered by an invisible person before the assessment starts

15
RO
RosaBennett0727

We've requested both routes from the same incoming pucks and workshop trays, allowing a proposed transfer to another fixture if its work and cost are included; the FR5 supplier proposes staying with our existing tray

20
LI
LinAdams0096

What should happen on an empty or misloaded pocket in that comparison, Rosa, rather than having the demonstrator quietly fix it off camera?

12
AN
AnilArcher0375

And record any reduced motion needed for the awkward tray. I mean the complete assessed cycle, not a request to make it faster for the video.

4
JO
JoAbbott0070

Lin's interruption point could change the support cost more than a small motion-time difference. I'd include a covering operator in the agreed handover check instead of letting both suppliers remain part of their own demonstration.

2
RO
RosaBennett0727

Empty and misloaded pockets are in the agreed supervised assessment, with defined stops and escalation rather than improvised recovery; both suppliers have named their training and support scope, and preparation time will be recorded separately from motion

3
MI
MiaChan1079

Have the complete-order comparisons happened now? I would be interested in which part of the workload actually distinguishes them once preparation is visible

10
RO
RosaBennett0727

They have: the tidy-fixture route has a faster transfer but needs manual re-presentation, while the FR5 route is slower in motion and lower in total labour on the assessed order; both used their reviewed movement limits, with all help logged

15
LI
LinAdams0096

And the FR5 interruption and covering-operator checks, Rosa, did those pass or are they still outstanding?

15
RO
RosaBennett0727

Completed within the agreed scope, Lin; the covering operator recognised the empty-pocket and misload cases and used the specified escalation, without the demonstrator correcting the tray invisibly, so we've shortlisted the FR5 proposal for detailed integration costing

5
AN
AnilArcher0375

That is a shortlist supported by a defined comparison, not a claim that one arm wins every puck job. Keep the workload and preparation records with the next cost review.

11

参与讨论

欢迎来到 Application Robot

所有人都可以阅读论坛。登录或注册后即可发起讨论、回复或上传照片。

忘记密码?

注册账号即表示你同意我们的 使用条款 社区准则。请阅读我们的 隐私政策 ,了解我们如何处理你的信息。