An adapter substitution on another job made me more wary of these drawings. For our FR10 inspection-loading proposal, both quotes justify long fingers from the gearbox housing mass alone. Neither shows the complete loaded tool's mass or balance, despite the adapter and fittings being drawn. What should I request as a comparable assessment?
Can both suppliers give you the complete loaded assembly definition, including mass, centre of gravity and the geometry used in their suitability assessment?
Include replacement contact pieces in the comparison too, once the design is identified; stores will need to know what wears, what can be replaced and which drawing the delivered bits should match
Supplier says standard assembly. They haven't reviewed a shorter option. The other supplier's sketch is shorter but leaves the hose connection as a note, which could spoil that apparent advantage.
Henry, not yet. Both have agreed to assess the same nest drawing, N6, and intended grip position. Amara, I have asked for replaceable contact details separately from the whole tool price.
Who explains a tool change to your setter after delivery? On paper all our parts were replaceable. In practice the instructions stopped just before the check that told you they'd gone back correctly.
Harish, integrator will own the setup instruction, but the offers only include fitting the initial tool. I've asked them to price a change-and-check handover. No winner yet; the complete assembly assessments are still outstanding.
Thanks for including the contact details, Will, and have the integrator use those same references in the change instruction so purchasing and the setter don't end up naming different pieces