Checked them. The approach clips the handle; the workpiece clears. No wonder my first sketch looked so reassuring.

@WillBrooks0835 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.

Our buyer says go bigger. Does that help, or just buy the same problem in a larger arm?

Going larger should open up mounting options. It might be the most straightforward option to explore.

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.

@NaomiChan1115 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.

@NoraBell0670 We had a different machine application where a good transfer layout put the pedestal across a service panel. Maintenance spotted the catch immediately.

@IsaacAbbott0085 Your example prompted me to compare our proposed pedestal with the service panel opening. That revealed another overlap to correct in the layout.

Could you move the pedestal for service? Or is putting it back a whole other job?

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 handle overlap gives us something concrete to fix. No assessed layout yet, so the arm stays on the shortlist.

@WillBrooks0835 Having a specific access issue to resolve is progress; it doesn't require choosing the arm yet.