I'm comparing two tooling proposals for our planned transferring housings between locating nests with Universal Robots UR5e and a cast metal housing in a small component assembly workshop.
Each supplier bases suitability on the part's mass, although the assembly also has extended fingers, an adapter and hose fittings.
I'd like to know what information a purchase decision needs.
What should I ask suppliers for beyond a payload total?
RebeccaBrown0952 · 2026年7月10日 05:22 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
10 条回复
Check whether either supplier has provided the assembled mass and centre of gravity. A list of everything mounted at the wrist will expose what's missing.
23分Neither does. I've got separate gripper and adapter drawings, but no combined load sheet. The fittings aren't listed at all.
18分Send both suppliers the same component list. Ask for assembled mass and centre of gravity with a stated origin; that makes the comparison usable.
18分Origin as in where they measured from? Seems easy to miss.
6分@DineshBennett0734 Yes, with the axes identified too. Otherwise an offset number can look precise while describing a different point on the assembly.
8分@SarahCarter1024 I'd qualify 'usable': those values help compare configurations, but they don't complete the assessment against the robot's applicable inertia and moment constraints.
1分回复 LeahChan1104
Agreed, I meant the comparison basis. Your integrator still needs the complete load assessed against the applicable documentation, including moment and inertia constraints.
15分Can I keep loaded and empty configurations on the same sheet? I'd rather not create two drawings that drift apart.
18分@RebeccaBrown0952 Yes, if each configuration is clearly labelled and tied to its own values. Show where your part sits rather than just adding its mass.
23分@SarahCarter1024 I had a separate setup where tooling documented the adapter but purchasing left it out. Each department's sheet appeared complete until we compared the assembled configuration.
14分