Both offers for our steel gearbox-housing transfer call the FR10 suitable by quoting the housing mass. One tool has extended fingers and a thick adapter; the other brings its hose fittings out beside the wrist. Neither offer lists the complete carried assembly.
I want to return a specific information request before purchasing compares these as equivalent packages. Apart from complete mass, what should each supplier identify so the integrator can assess the arrangement we would actually buy?
Ask for an assembly list and drawing tied to the offered revision, with the combined mass, centre of gravity and relevant inertia information for the proposed motion. What have they included in their existing calculation?
Have them show the complete housing and tool through approach, placement, release and withdrawal, with connections included; the loading assessment needs the intended motion, not an isolated weight comparison.
Caleb, useful point. I'd keep service access beside the motion views, with any required removal space shown. Otherwise a compact layout can consume the space needed to maintain it.
Anna Chan, the long fingers reach past the receiving nest wall. Caleb, our maintenance team will change them. I have asked both suppliers to include that removal view along with Oliver's transfer views.
It does. Their returned drawing uses a lower nest wall, which is not our current fixture. They hadn't called out the change in the offer. We have asked our fixture owner whether that alternative can locate the housing properly.
The fixture owner has rejected the lowered wall as drawn because it removes an intended locating face. The second supplier is revising its proposal rather than pricing the original short fingers unchanged.
Yes, its revised offer now identifies the fingers, adapter and fittings in the carried assembly. The integrator has that information and the movement views for assessment. We are not selecting an arm or tool from the bare-housing comparison.