Payload and reach are the start. Not the answer.

Use specifications to open the discussion.

Fairino publishes nominal payload and reach for its robot models. Those figures make a useful first comparison, but they do not describe every condition of a finished application.

Treat a shortlist as a set of models to investigate, not an automatic recommendation. Book a consultation to review the exact configuration and your application requirements.

List everything the robot will carry.

Record the workpiece and the proposed tooling: gripper, adapter, sensor, tool changer, and other carried components. Label unknown tool weights rather than silently treating them as zero.

Ask the supplier to review the complete load arrangement, including the applicable load limits, center of gravity, and inertia. An arithmetic sum alone is not an engineering validation.

Map positions, orientations, and the path.

Identify pickup, processing, inspection, placement, and recovery positions. Include the tool orientation at each step and surrounding equipment that constrains the route.

The furthest point matters, but so do the intermediate moves and access requirements. Request a review of the actual layout instead of assuming that a published reach dimension guarantees a usable path.

Compare only consistent, confirmed figures.

Our comparison uses the payload and reach figures in our product specifications. It omits the FR20 repeatability figure because the public page contains conflicting values.

That omission is intentional. For help matching the specifications to your process, book a consultation.

Bring a better shortlist to the conversation.

• List each carried component and its estimated or confirmed weight.
• Sketch the required positions and orientations.
• Identify part variation, obstacles, and unusual operating conditions.
• Book a consultation to review the application and select the right configuration.