Used Robot Listings: Which Component Does an IP Rating Cover?

A used robot listing may describe a component as “dust resistant” or show an ingress-protection rating. Before relying on that description, a buyer needs to know which part was rated, which model and configuration the source covers, and whether the condition of the offered equipment has been assessed. One component’s rating is not automatically the rating of an entire installation.

Identify the component named in the claim

Separate the robot arm, control box, teach pendant, gripper, cabling and any added enclosure in the buyer’s record. Ask the seller which item a stated rating describes and which manufacturer document supports it. If the seller cannot identify the model or the source, mark the claim as unverified rather than assigning the rating to the whole system.

Universal Robots’ frequently asked questions discuss environmental ratings for specified robot families and explain that the control box and teach pendant have their own ratings. This is manufacturer information for its stated products; the applicable manual and exact configuration should be confirmed for the unit under consideration.

Keep the rating and its test context together

The Robotiq Hand-E manual includes an ingress-protection certificate concerning tested Hand-E units. It is a product-specific example, not a substitute for the correct manual or test evidence for a different robot, attachment or used unit.

A rating is a technical classification under defined conditions; it should not be rewritten as a promise that a machine can be washed, submerged or exposed to any chemical in every installation. Ask a qualified integrator and the manufacturer about the actual environment, installed configuration and applicable instructions.

Retain the manual title, revision and the section used to interpret the claim. A listing may quote a brochure for one generation while the offered unit has another controller or attachment. If the evidence does not identify the delivered configuration, ask the seller for the appropriate documentation instead of selecting the closest-looking document.

Distinguish original specifications from present condition

A document describing a new component does not independently establish the condition of an offered used unit. Ask for the model, relevant history, visible condition and any permitted inspection or service records. A photograph can show an exterior feature, but it cannot by itself demonstrate the integrity of internal seals or establish the result of a test.

In a hypothetical listing, the seller quotes a rating from a manufacturer’s arm specification but includes a controller and third-party tool whose documentation has not been provided. The buyer can record the arm claim and list the missing controller and tool information separately. This example does not describe a real transaction or determine whether the equipment is suitable.

Ask about the actual environment

Describe the intended workspace to the manufacturer or qualified integrator, including the presence of dust, moisture, cleaning practices or other relevant conditions. Preserve the supplier’s response and any conditions attached to it. A rating claim does not answer every question about temperature, chemical compatibility, electrical installation or safeguarding.

Do not conduct improvised water, dust or electrical tests on a robot to check a listing. A real inspection should follow the equipment documentation, site procedures and instructions from qualified personnel. If the condition or intended environment cannot be verified, keep suitability unresolved.

Keep the seller’s claim and independent evidence distinct

Record the exact listing language, the date observed, the source document, the component identity and any response from the manufacturer or seller. A vendor statement may be useful context; it should not be labelled an independent test report unless it is actually one. Where a test report is supplied, identify its subject, date, issuing organisation and stated scope.

The site’s article on file hashes and robot condition explains another evidence boundary: verifying that a document is unchanged does not prove the condition of the robot it describes. Both source identity and physical condition need appropriate, separate checks.

Document the open questions before purchase

A buyer’s comparison can include each component, claimed rating, source, known configuration and unanswered questions. Assign follow-up to the relevant supplier or integrator and retain the original wording of any qualification. Record whether the answer concerns an original specification or an inspection of the particular used unit. Where the documentation covers a different configuration, retain that limitation with the comparison. Do not turn “suitable subject to review” into an unconditional approval.

The industry information section offers background. This guide helps organise evidence for a transaction; it does not certify a used robot, interpret every ingress-protection test or guarantee safe operation in a particular environment.