Choose a welding robot against the work that will use it, not a single sample. A portfolio comparison weights representative parts by their recurring welding demand and required access. It helps distinguish capability that matters every week from a feature demonstrated on rarely produced work.
In this Article
- Choose a representative group of assemblies
- Keep specifications separate from suitability
- A weighted portfolio example
- Weight coverage rather than demonstrations won
- Protect the primary workload
Choose a representative group of assemblies
Select a straightforward repeat part, a common assembly, and a more difficult but commercially important weldment. The purpose is not to test every drawing in the business. It is to expose the different access demands hidden inside the intended workload.
Include parts that differ in geometry rather than merely choosing several sizes of the same open bracket. Ask which assemblies account for meaningful recurring welding hours.
Keep specifications separate from suitability
The Kassow range offers seven-axis arms with different reach and payload specifications. Selecting an axis configuration does not remove the need to choose the appropriate model and cell arrangement.
Evaluate a proposed six-axis solution by the same standard. It may suit a large portion of the portfolio. The useful comparison is where each arrangement supports the intended work and where it introduces additional handling or leaves welds manual.
A weighted portfolio example
These figures are hypothetical and represent current welding effort, not predicted robotic savings.
| Part family | Current welding hours per week | Share of this candidate portfolio | Review priority |
|---|---|---|---|
| Open brackets | 8 | 20% | Confirm straightforward recurring coverage |
| Obstructed frame subassemblies | 24 | 60% | Examine the difficult required approaches |
| Occasional large fabrications | 8 | 20% | Decide whether they belong in the first scope |
A robot demonstration on the open bracket does not resolve the purchasing decision when the obstructed frame represents most of the intended work. Equally, an occasional oversized part should not automatically dictate the whole cell.
Weight coverage rather than demonstrations won
For each family, record which work is included, which remains manual, and which requires another setup. Avoid translating the current hours directly into savings: they only show why one family deserves more attention.
Two suppliers might each demonstrate two of the three families, yet cover very different amounts of useful work. A simple count of successful samples would miss that difference. This is why the portfolio should remain visible alongside the robot specifications.
Protect the primary workload
Size the initial application around the parts that justify it. Additional models or variants can be reviewed as defined extensions, but should not be counted as established capacity before they have been assessed.
For Spartan, seven-axis articulation earns its place where it improves the important approaches in that portfolio. The decision is stronger when the shop can explain which recurring family needs the capability and what work a proposed cell would actually complete.
Related Reading
- Cobot Welding Part Families: How Job Shops Can Find More Than One Good Application
- 7-Axis vs 6-Axis Cobot Welding: Which Is Better for Fabrication Shops?
Discuss Your Welding Application
Works Cited
Kassow Robots. "7 Axis Collaborative Robot Arm: KR Series." Kassow Robots, https://www.kassowrobots.com/products/7-axis-collaborative-robot-arm-kr-series. Accessed 14 Sept. 2026.