Our proposed use for Fairino FR10 is machine fixture unloading with a short steel blank in an enclosed machining cell, with 96 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.
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.
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.
@OmarChen1187 On our separate machine job, the first pedestal position blocked a maintenance panel. The transfer looked excellent until the maintenance person asked how they'd open it.
A removable base adds relocation and installation checks to the work. Have the integrator weigh that against keeping normal service access clear in the layout.
The fixture requires a straight approach segment. Should we establish that constraint in the model before exploring alternative positions for the robot base?
Yes, model the entry direction and retreat requirements as constraints. Reaching the final point doesn't establish that the full tool can approach it usefully.
For our machine, withdrawal with a held workpiece needed a different route from entry. The empty-tool model made the clearance look much better than it was.