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。
HarishBennett0750 · 2026年7月1日 16:21 UTC
Ask for the complete loaded assembly and its assessed limits. Part mass is only one input.
6分Include the actual grip position on the housing. Extended fingers change where the load acts, and their allowable loading matters as well as the robot's limits.
10分And don't let the answer be a single bigger weight number. The location of that mass and the intended movement matter; I'd want the person responsible for integration to connect the tool proposal to the job being quoted.
5分Are both suppliers proposing the same held orientation and destination access, or are their suitability statements based on different ways of presenting the housing?
22分Leah, different orientations. One holds the housing farther out to reach around the fixture wall. I hadn't noticed that the shorter-looking offer assumes the wall isn't there in its release view. Sofia, neither has given me a finger-load assessment.
22分Can the integrator issue one fixture geometry and required presentation description to both? The tool designs may still differ, but the comparison needs a common task before the numbers mean anything.
2分That geometry check is worth doing before paying for either tool. One omitted wall is already material.
6分Different tools aren't a problem by themselves. A closer grip may suit the load better but still need another access method. I would not rank them from finger length alone.
15分Who supports the complete assembly after purchase? I would ask that while the drawings are being corrected. A supplier supporting the gripper body does not necessarily support somebody else's extended fingers and adapter.
6分Theo, the integrator has now issued the actual fixture model and required housing position to both. Toby, one offers complete-tool support; the other only its standard gripper. That difference wasn't in my comparison sheet either.
13分I've found the support scope useful in teaching-cell purchases. Does it identify replacement finger references too?
24分Toby, yes, though I wouldn't reject separate support automatically. It needs a named owner for diagnosing the assembled tool, not three people each telling Harish their own bit looks fine.
12分Is either proposal now assessed against the required movement, or have the updated drawings only arrived?
23分Nora's distinction is fair. Split supply can be workable, but responsibility for the interface has to be bought or assigned somewhere, rather than treated as free because it has no line price.
13分Alistair, the integration review has returned. The long-offset proposal exceeds the applicable wrist load envelope for the submitted assembly and movement. The shorter tool can meet the assessed limits, but its supplier now proposes a different release approach for the real wall. Access review is unfinished. Luca, replacement references are supplied for both.
23分Keep the long-offset finding tied to that submitted configuration; a redesigned assembly would need another assessment, while the shorter tool still needs its proposed release route demonstrated in the layout
8分Has the complete-tool support question been assigned for the shorter proposal? It would be a shame to improve the load comparison and buy the same unresolved handover problem.
11分Toby, the integrator has offered that role with a separate cost, including the custom fingers. It's in the comparison now. I'm keeping the shorter proposal under review and declining the long-offset configuration as submitted; no order until the route and total scope are settled.
18分That is a defensible distinction. The shorter tool has passed a defined load review, not proved the whole housing-transfer job merely because its numbers fit.
13分Agreed. Thanks Sofia for keeping the finger loading separate from the robot limit. I now have two actual assessment questions and named owners, instead of two quotations that both said the housing was light enough.
8分