I'm reviewing two UR5e tooling offers for a cast housing. One holds it close to the flange; the other uses long fingers and an adapter. Both suitability notes quote only the housing mass.
What information should be in the review before we compare prices? I don't want to ask the supplier a question so broad they just resend the brochure.
Two grippers, same part mass, very different overhang
RachelBarnes0609 · 2025年3月26日 23:18 UTC
主帖中文翻译暂不可用，以下显示英文原文；回复保留原文。 查看英文原文
17 条回复
Request the complete loaded tool's mass and centre of gravity relative to the flange, with the geometry that produced those values; the bare housing isn't the assembly
23分That gives me a concrete request, thanks. Their totals don't include hose fittings either. I'll ask for an itemised assembly and the held-part position.
9分Include the proposed operating movement in the assessment too, since a static mass comparison won't cover every load the robot and tooling see
11分Have the integrator check the assembly against the manufacturer's applicable load guidance, including moments and inertia where required. Long fingers can matter even when the total mass looks comfortable.
15分And ask who owns that check in the quote; a tool supplier's yes and a robot supplier's maybe don't add up to one responsible acceptance
25分Can the close-in tool release the housing where you need it? Geometry isn't automatically better because it's shorter
0分Good point, I was concentrating on loading; reach and release access need checking for both complete proposals as well
18分The longer fingers clear a lip on our receiving nest. The short tool would need a nest alteration. That's in a footnote I hadn't connected to the comparison.
12分Then price that alteration and have its locating function reviewed, otherwise the short tool's apparent saving excludes work required to make it usable
19分Check service access to the tool connections too. More precisely, ask maintenance whether either arrangement can be inspected and replaced as intended. A fitting trapped behind the adapter can make a minor cable fault a much longer interruption.
21分Maintenance has the drawings now. I've added the nest change and connection access to our questions. Neither supplier has yet assessed the complete loaded arrangement against the intended job.
2分Then neither offer is ready for a technical sign-off, however tidy the part-mass comparison looks
16分Purchasing has separated commercial comparison from the outstanding technical review. We still need the suppliers' assembly data. I can explain the hold now without claiming one tool is unsuitable.
4分Ask them to identify any assumptions in those data, especially the housing orientation; a centre-of-gravity figure without its reference frame is a pain to use
16分A labelled assembly drawing helps there. It should show the flange reference and the held housing location so the reviewer can reproduce the supplier's calculation basis.
15分Yes, and keep the tool-only and tool-with-part configurations explicit if both are relevant to the robot setup; don't leave somebody guessing which total to enter
12分Make the accepted assembly information part of the replacement process. Otherwise a future adapter or finger change can leave the documented load configuration describing tooling that is no longer installed.
20分讨论已关闭
此讨论已连续六个月没有活动，现已关闭新回复。 最后活动： .