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。

Cannot assess our delivered UR5e fingers from an equivalence claim

CarlaAllen0314 · 2026年6月17日 06:15 UTC

回复讨论
CA
CarlaAllen0314
The arm arrived, but the supplied finger set differs from the sample trial for our molded housings. Seller calls it equivalent without showing these fingers handle our parts. Twelve days waiting, tooling review paused before installation. What should I ask them to establish before we consider the substitute?

18 条回复

PA
PavelBrown0875

Ask for an identified comparison with the demonstrated assembly and evidence for the same housing task, including grip, transfer and release; the word equivalent doesn't tell you which features changed or which application conditions they assessed.

5
CA
CarlaAllen0314

The delivered contact faces look flatter than those in the trial. I can show the visible difference, but we haven't measured them against a supplied drawing because we don't have one.

9
GR
GraceChan1103

Can the seller identify the delivered finger revision and the trial revision, Carla, so the comparison isn't just between your photograph and a picture they choose from a catalogue?

22
CA
CarlaAllen0314

I've asked for both. Their reply names the gripper body only, not either finger set. The tooling is still unfitted.

7
NA
NadiaBarnes0552

I'd ask whether they can supply the demonstrated fingers as an alternative too, because proving an undocumented substitute can become a project of its own; I'm not saying reject it unseen, just keep the original supply question alive

-1
WI
WillBarnes0574

Nadia, agreed as an option. I would want availability and any cost responsibility stated before comparing it with assessing the delivered set.

16
PA
PavelBrown0875

And if they demonstrate the substitute, keep the housing samples and task conditions identifiable. A different part that happens to sit nicely in the new faces would answer a different question.

20
GR
GraceChan1103

Will, have you seen an original-component offer become a real supply arrangement quickly, or is that another uncertainty Carla should keep visible?

15
WI
WillBarnes0574

I cannot predict that here. I mean ask for the actual terms, not assume the demonstrated set is sitting ready for dispatch.

12
NA
NadiaBarnes0552

Grace, that's why I want both questions asked, not two invented good options on a comparison sheet; one might turn out unavailable and the other might need work nobody has priced

22
CA
CarlaAllen0314

Seller has now sent a drawing for the delivered fingers, but says the trial set was custom. No availability answer for that set and no sample demonstration with the delivered one.

21
PA
PavelBrown0875

That identifies one side of the comparison, not the equivalence. Ask what reference they are using for the custom trial contacts and how the delivered geometry meets the same application requirements.

-1
GR
GraceChan1103

Does the drawing actually match the pieces delivered, including the contact detail that looked flatter?

12
CA
CarlaAllen0314

Our toolmaker is comparing them. I won't call the drawing a match just because its title is the seller's new part number.

11
WI
WillBarnes0574

Is the tooling review still paused while that comparison is open? I would not schedule installation from receipt of the drawing alone.

6
CA
CarlaAllen0314

Yes, paused. No installation booked and neither the substitute nor a return to the demonstrated set is agreed.

15
CA
CarlaAllen0314

Thanks Nadia and Will for separating technical assessment from availability. I've put those as distinct open questions in the supplier reply, not ranked the options as if either were ready.

14
PA
PavelBrown0875

Keep the outcome stated that narrowly: delivered fingers identified on paper, physical comparison ongoing, application equivalence unproved; the arm's arrival hasn't settled the tooling acceptance.

19

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。