Robot Cycle Time Calculator

Approach speed applies to the slower, more careful moves near the pick and place positions, where precision matters to avoid collisions or missed grips, while travel speed applies to the faster, longer moves through open space between stations where there's nothing nearby to hit. Real robot programs are typically tuned this same way, trading some cycle time near parts for reliability, while running as fast as safely possible during the open travel segments.

Place distance factors into both the direct travel phase (moving from pick to place) and the return phase (moving back from place to the starting position for the next cycle), since the robot has to cover that same distance again on the way back. This is why lengthening the place-to-pick travel distance has roughly double the cycle-time impact you might expect from thinking about only the outbound travel leg.

It means the calculated total cycle time is longer than the target cycle time your required parts-per-hour figure demands, so the current setup physically cannot hit that throughput target as configured. Closing the gap requires reducing cycle time somewhere — faster approach or travel speeds, shorter distances via better cell layout, reduced grip or release dwell time, or eliminating unnecessary vision inspection time — or accepting a lower realistic throughput target.

Vision time adds directly to total cycle time and therefore reduces maximum throughput, but it exists to catch misaligned parts, verify correct placement, or handle position variation that a blind pick-and-place sequence would miss entirely — a fast cycle that regularly drops or misplaces parts due to skipped inspection isn't actually more productive once rework, scrap, and downtime from failures are factored in. The right tradeoff depends on how much part-position variation your application actually has.