Author Topic: Do we need a Sys Generation 4?  (Read 4963 times)

Samo and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline jronman

  • Posts: 15
Do we need a Sys Generation 4?
« on: January 10, 2021, 09:44 PM »
There was another thread with some complaints/concerns of the new Sys Generation 3. It got me thinking. Do we already need a Generation 4?
It sounds like it would need to fix the sizing problem. The problem is the new boxes have slightly different heights when compared to the generation 2 Systainers. I read the old stack combinations don't work. I think the easiest solution is all boxes go to their generation 2 sizing. I like the idea of having more size options but I don't know how a sixth one would fit in. I heard the front handle tends to get in the way on the smallest box when you try to lock a box below it. I think the handle could still be included on the smallest box but it could be slightly redesigned such that when a box is locked below it will still be able to secure the handle from rattling in travel.

Are there any other improvements you would want in a 4th Generation?

Offline six-point socket II

  • Posts: 1607
  • formerly @the_black_tie_diyer - 22/02/21 inactive.
Re: Do we need a Sys Generation 4?
« Reply #1 on: January 11, 2021, 03:01 AM »
I'm all set with, work with and my basement workshop was built around T-Loc - and as they will remain available in the meantime - I don't "need" the SYS3, and sure don't need a SYS4.

What others want is a different story and I'd support any idea that makes sense - however, personally, I'd just swap them for a T-Loc after the purchase and sell the Gen. 3, 4, (...). ;)

This is as long as my personal situation remains unchanged. If my needs change, I might re-think and change my position on this.

Kind regards,
Oliver
« Last Edit: January 11, 2021, 03:41 AM by six-point socket II »
Kind regards,
Oliver

"... . Say yes to stuff, and it will take you interesting places." - Anne Richards, CEO Fidelity International

Offline demographic

  • Posts: 670
Re: Do we need a Sys Generation 4?
« Reply #2 on: January 11, 2021, 04:08 AM »
The competition is getting a lot better nowadays with stronger more water resistant boxes coming out all the time.

I totally get the way the get 3 boxes have the drawer slides built in and because of that the handles on the front make sense but other than the slides and the handle I feel they have gone backwards a bit.

I feel like my old style T-Loc boxes could do with being stronger cos they're a bit "Waffy" and by what Ive read the Gen 3s are more waffy again.

That doesn't mean I'm going to take a girly strop and hoy all my Festool tools off Workington harbour wall but it is chipping away slightly as the Festool advantage and companies like Milwaukee's Packout system are getting closer and in some situations overtaking Festools boxes.

For years I've been buying other companies drills, rattle guns, electric planers and putting them into T-Loc boxes, because that system has worked the best for me.
As soon as someone elses system works better my T-Loc boxes will be relegated to the shed and I'll be putting my Festool tools into another companies boxes.

I really couldn't care less about that wall of festool boxes thing some people seem to thinks important and I actually prefer to have a few different manufacturers T-Loc boxes in my kit so I don't look to be such an "I buy everything they make" Fanboi. T-loc boxes are still just the one that makes most sense to me right now but not by a big margin.

No doubt some non tradesman will come onto this thread and tell me how wrong I am and what works far better for me in my own van toolsafe but til that happens I remain slightly unconvinced about the new boxes.

I can see that if I had a shelf system in my van the new boxes might be a lot better.
That would mean I'd have a much less secure set of tools though cos an entire van is harder to secure than a large toolsafe within a van.

Offline mrB

  • Posts: 833
Re: Do we need a Sys Generation 4?
« Reply #3 on: January 11, 2021, 05:18 AM »
Got 3 of the new style now, from tools purchased last year. I don’t understand people commenting that ‘you can just swap them’. That’s 100% costing me time and more MONEY!

They are Stronger than t-Loc I’d say. Not sure where you read they are weaker.
They’re fine really, just really should have kept the sizes the same!!! :(

Size of the sys the impact came in is moronic! It’s like a frickin small suitcase for a drill (palm-face)
there's nothing like the right tool for the job

Offline JimH2

  • Posts: 1023
Re: Do we need a Sys Generation 4?
« Reply #4 on: January 11, 2021, 11:51 AM »
The competition is getting a lot better nowadays with stronger more water resistant boxes coming out all the time.

That doesn't mean I'm going to take a girly strop and hoy all my Festool tools off Workington harbour wall but it is chipping away slightly as the Festool advantage and companies like Milwaukee's Packout system are getting closer and in some situations overtaking Festools boxes.

Can we have an example?


I have a few Milwaukee tools and bought some of the Packout cases when they came out. They are functional, watertight/waterproof and way more durable than the Tanos system. I like them and have bought more as they have grown the product line. They have filled a need that many in the construction trades did not know they had. That said they do not have molded inserts for their tools or anyone else's. They are basically boxes to throw your stuff in to move to a from a job site. You still have accessories rolling around, but at least they are in the same container. Given they make so many varieties of the same tool and so many different tools I doubt we will ever see inserts, which are what make the Systainer System great. I can glance and see that I have the tool and accessories without having to dig around to check that I have everything.

Packout and the Dewalt equivalent are targeted at a completely different customer base with completely different use cases. The Milwaukee cases are far more durable, but less precise in terms of fit and finish. This is important on a construction site, but not so much when trimming a house out or install cabinets or builtins.

Online DeformedTree

  • Posts: 1280
Re: Do we need a Sys Generation 4?
« Reply #5 on: January 11, 2021, 12:38 PM »
of course there will be a Systainer 4,  but it could be 10-15years.

I think Tanos/Festool may find themselves needing to re-consider plans they have now based on feedback, I would expect more of a fork in design, with Bott units, and Festool units, but that is probably overly optimistic.

Competition is good, but if they are not the same form factor (primarily the same footprint), and they don't interlock, or at least stack well with each other, it doesn't matter.  If company X makes a container system that is not of the Euro Norm footprint, then it just doesn't have much point.   If company X containers can't stack well with Tanos units, and Company Y and Z containers, again, the benefit is lost.  The patents on the interface should have or are near expiring. So others could start making the general interface an informal standard.  Ideally, other companies latch in all the same, but if they can at least stack in a stable way with each other, then that would largely work.

Auer has some stuff that gets pretty close. But you can only get it in the EU, so not much use to those of us not there.

Folks shouldn't expect the heights to be common though.  Just look at Euro Norm stuff, same footprints, but various heights.

Offline ben_r_

  • Posts: 1329
Re: Do we need a Sys Generation 4?
« Reply #6 on: January 11, 2021, 01:38 PM »
Ha, we didnt need a SYS3!
If at first you don't succeed, redefine success!

Offline Crazyraceguy

  • Posts: 226
Re: Do we need a Sys Generation 4?
« Reply #7 on: January 11, 2021, 07:39 PM »
I don't "mind" the slots for the rack system, they don't affect me at all. The sizing thing is what bugs me about it. They had a system based on specific units and screwed it up.
The racks are only good for guys who are mobile though, in a static situation that doesn't work.
CSX
DF500 + assortment set
PS420 + Base kit
OF1010
OF1400
MFK700
TS55, FS1080, FS1400 holey, FS1900, FS3000
CT26E + Workshop cleaning set
RO90
RO125
ETS EC 125
RAS115
ETS 125 (2)

Offline Coen

  • Posts: 809
Re: Do we need a Sys Generation 4?
« Reply #8 on: January 11, 2021, 10:49 PM »
Yes, fix the heights to the same as they always were.

If more different heights are needed... add something in between SYS-III and SYS-IV and SYS-IV and SYS-V. Those can still be used for making same-height stacks...

Offline jronman

  • Posts: 15
Re: Do we need a Sys Generation 4?
« Reply #9 on: January 15, 2021, 05:25 PM »
The gen 2 systainers increase by multiple of 52.5mm. The gen 3 M increase by a multiple of 50mm. I prefer the old sizes for stacking purposes, but I would rather remember something increases by 50mm than 52.5 mm. If we add more sizes, a 262.5mm (5x52.5) and a 367.5mm (7x52.5) would fit nicely as a III.5 and a IV.5 systainer. The increase in height between 3-4 and 4-5 is twice that of the height between the 1-2 and 2-3.
I would like to see the L and XXL sizes include all the heights that the M sizes have. I want to go back to the Roman numeral naming scheme. To me it is easier than remembering the actual mm size. We would have I, II, III, IV, V, VI, and VII. then there would be an M, L, or XXL after the Roman numeral to indicate the width.

Offline Coen

  • Posts: 809
Re: Do we need a Sys Generation 4?
« Reply #10 on: January 16, 2021, 05:30 AM »
The gen 2 systainers increase by multiple of 52.5mm. The gen 3 M increase by a multiple of 50mm.

But the base height is not divisible by 50, contrary to the previous generation, where it was divisble by 52.5

Because of that... you can't make equal-height stacks with different sized Systainers with the Sys3.

Eg... if I want to put something on four stacks of Systainers, I can do a Sys-IV in one corner, three Sys-I in the next corner, two Sys-II in the 3rd corner and in the 4th corner a Sys-III with a Sys-I. Good luck achieving that with the Sys3

Offline bidn

  • Posts: 12
  • hobbyist
Re: Do we need a Sys Generation 4?
« Reply #11 on: January 16, 2021, 03:41 PM »
This is a question I find very important.

I think that the fundamental, general problem is that companies will bring in new features to make people buy products of a newer generation, BUT (sadly) at the same time to get the maximum financial gain they will drop some features and assets of the previous generation.

BTW, Festool, and then Tanos (they split the company to have competing power tool companies adopt systainers, creating Tanos to deal specially with systainers, putting Festool and Tanos under the TTS umbrella) don't make the systainers. They have offices for the design, marketing, sales, but the production is outsourced to Gardena, a Germany company known for making plastic connectors, etc. for garden hoses. If I remember correctly, the kind of plastic used in systainers is ABS.

Now going from the first Systainer generation (Classic) to the second (T-Loc), the manner of connecting the T-Loc boxes allowed to gain a huge amount of time and ease in connecting and disconnecting boxes. BUT they saved on the material, decreasing the plastic thickness by 0.5 mm; what you gained in time and ease you lost in solidity.

Going from the second generation to the third one (Systainer3), they brought several improvements:
+ lower side adaptation for attachement to the sliding rack system in trucks;
+ new heights not previously used;
+ hinge(s) in the back.
BUT:
- they saved again on the material, decreasing again the thickness of the plastic by 0.5 compared to gen 2 (for me their sides are the least solid of all systainer generations)
- they dropped some of the previously used heights, messing with some advantages of the common, established height system of gen 1 and 2.

I am copying a table I made in another post, re. the thickness of the most usual surfaces in M-sized systainers:

Generation:           Majority of flat areas:  Minority of flat areas:
1 (Classic)3.0 mm3.5 mm
2 (T-Loc)2.5 mm3.0 mm
3 (Systainer3)2.0 mm2.5 mm

The frustration comes from assets they are dropping: decreasing each time the thickness of the plastic, dropping some established heights.

Similar frustrating evolution are well documented re. smartphones. While each generation brought some improvements, some features were dropped. At some point they dropped the Infra-Red light (with this, some people were using their smartphone to control their TV and about anything). Later they removed the tiny 3,5 mm audio out jack (most people need at some point to connect a cabled audio device...) to force people to buy bluetooth headphones (Apple had purchased the Beats company. Samsung was ridiculing Apple for removing the jack connector, but they did the same after buying the AKG company and trying to sell AKG bluetooth earphones...). And they removed the slot for micro sdxc storage card to force people to buy the more expensive models with more onboard storage...

The ideal systainer (gen 4) should keep all assets and have none removed:
- keep the original plastic thickness of the Classic gen 1
- use the T-Loc System of gen 2
- use the hinge of gen 3
- keep the heights of gen 1 and 2, if adding newer heights (gen 3).

But the world of managers is not ideal but one driven only by profit, so I sadly don't expect them to keep all the features that their users love, i.e. not to do better than what we see with smartphones, etc.

We could think that they would do something ideal if challenged by a company selling systainers compatible with Tanos'.
But I am cynical, I suspect this may precisely be a reason why they keep changing the systainers by dropping some features: to maintain their market dominance. Patents expire after 20 years, after which any competitor can make and sell products based on the same inventions and designs. By renewing product systems with newer generations, they impose the new generation as the standard, which they can legally protect for 20 years, making thereby the previous generations partially obsolete so less interesting for competitors...
« Last Edit: January 16, 2021, 03:45 PM by bidn »
BS 75 set, HKC 55 Li EB+ SCA, TS 75 EBQ+, Erika 85 Ec + options, KS 120 EB, OF 1400 EBQ+, OF 1010 EBQ+,  Carvex  PSC 420+, ZH-SYS-PS-420, P1 cc, RO 90 DX FEQ+, RO 150 FEQ+, Deros 5650cv, Deos Delta 663CV, CTL 22 E SG, CTL 26 E, PDC 18/4 set XL, Ti 18+3, C15 Li 4,2 Set, Sys 1 CE-Sort, many Milwaukee and a few Metabo 18V.

Offline Coen

  • Posts: 809
Re: Do we need a Sys Generation 4?
« Reply #12 on: January 17, 2021, 07:46 AM »
You can use less material if you use it smarter. The Classic suffered way more from broken corners.

Offline mino

  • Posts: 221
Re: Do we need a Sys Generation 4?
« Reply #13 on: January 17, 2021, 06:57 PM »
There was another thread with some complaints/concerns of the new Sys Generation 3. It got me thinking. Do we already need a Generation 4?
It sounds like it would need to fix the sizing problem. The problem is the new boxes have slightly different heights when compared to the generation 2 Systainers. I read the old stack combinations don't work. I think the easiest solution is all boxes go to their generation 2 sizing. I like the idea of having more size options but I don't know how a sixth one would fit in. I heard the front handle tends to get in the way on the smallest box when you try to lock a box below it. I think the handle could still be included on the smallest box but it could be slightly redesigned such that when a box is locked below it will still be able to secure the handle from rattling in travel.

Are there any other improvements you would want in a 4th Generation?
No, we do not.

It would be sufficient for Festool to either/and:
A) carry both the T-Loc snd SYS3 long term with T-Loc as the "more civil and space efficiency-focused" solution
B) add M210 and M315, (possibly M157.5 and M420) versions of SYS3 to the portfolio (we all know these would outsell the Bott-height ones)
AGC 18(@AGC 125 flange), BHC 18, C 12, CTM 36, DRC 18/4, PSC 420, RS 200, TSC 55
Narex: EDH 82, EFH 36(fixed@LR32), EVP 13 H-2CA
My Precious FS/2: 376, 376, 376 holy, 632, 1016 holy, 2520

Offline demographic

  • Posts: 670
Re: Do we need a Sys Generation 4?
« Reply #14 on: January 17, 2021, 08:34 PM »
Eg... if I want to put something on four stacks of Systainers, I can do a Sys-IV in one corner, three Sys-I in the next corner, two Sys-II in the 3rd corner and in the 4th corner a Sys-III with a Sys-I. Good luck achieving that with the Sys3

That pretty much describes the layout inside my toolsafe and is the main reason why I'm not over the moon about the new box dimensions.
Yes I can sell off the new boxes that dont fit with that size pattern and buy new gen 2 T-loc boxes but one advantage Festool had was that their system just worked.
If I'm buying other boxes then I might well think harder about buying another companies tools as well.

There are some Festool tools that I will not compromise on and if my HKC dies I'll just buy another but those boxes were like fifty quids worth of box with each tool.

Personally I like the idea of the drawer slide things even though I doubt I'll use them but the new dimensions are a failure as far as I'm concerned and goes against decades of Festools advertising and thinking.

Offline Coen

  • Posts: 809
Re: Do we need a Sys Generation 4?
« Reply #15 on: January 18, 2021, 04:09 AM »
It's not a slide and you cannot get to your tool without completely removing the box from the rack.

Offline Cheese

  • Posts: 8171
Re: Do we need a Sys Generation 4?
« Reply #16 on: January 18, 2021, 10:01 AM »
Personally I like the idea of the drawer slide things even though I doubt I'll use them but the new dimensions are a failure as far as I'm concerned and goes against decades of Festools advertising and thinking.

As Coen mentioned, the slides allow for some partial forward movement however, the Systainer cover can only be opened like 15º-20º. Enough to check on the contents but not enough to remove any items.  [sad]

Offline demographic

  • Posts: 670
Re: Do we need a Sys Generation 4?
« Reply #17 on: January 18, 2021, 11:17 AM »
As Coen mentioned, the slides allow for some partial forward movement however, the Systainer cover can only be opened like 15º-20º. Enough to check on the contents but not enough to remove any items.  [sad]

So basically it tells you the same as the label.

Oh...erm...the front handle looks nice though. Ahem.

Offline Imemiter

  • Posts: 139
Re: Do we need a Sys Generation 4?
« Reply #18 on: January 18, 2021, 12:41 PM »
So basically it tells you the same as the label.

Oh...erm...the front handle looks nice though. Ahem.

I could grouse about the front handle for a paragraph or two!
Fortunately for us all I have to go to work.  [laughing]
CSX, TID 18, HKC 55, OSC 18, OF 1010, Domino XL, DTS 400, ETS 125, RAS 115, LR32, CTSys, CTMidi, CT-VA-20

Offline Coen

  • Posts: 809
Re: Do we need a Sys Generation 4?
« Reply #19 on: January 18, 2021, 05:00 PM »
As Coen mentioned, the slides allow for some partial forward movement however, the Systainer cover can only be opened like 15º-20º. Enough to check on the contents but not enough to remove any items.  [sad]

So basically it tells you the same as the label.

Oh...erm...the front handle looks nice though. Ahem.

The front handle is not designed to carry the box like on the Sortimo L-boxx, but only to pull it out of the rack.

Offline Northwoodsman

  • Posts: 3
Re: Do we need a Sys Generation 4?
« Reply #20 on: January 28, 2021, 05:16 PM »
After reading this it's all coming together for me now.  I purchased my first Festool product last August.  I have since purchased 6 more Festool tools and some empty Systainers to keep everything uniform and organized.  I'm designing a cabinet to store them in with shelves connected to full extension drawer slides.  I found the dimensions on this forum and then I noticed when I was out in my shop that the heights were slightly on a few of them.  Then I noticed that some of them had grooves in the side where it looks like they could perhaps slide onto a track.  I guess I have at least two generations.  This thread helped a lot.
DF500 Q-SET, RO125 FEQ-PLUS, ETS 125 REQ-PLUS, DTS400, MFT/3, FS 1400/2, FS 1400/2-LR 32, SYS-RB, Edge Sanding Guide, Clamping Elements

Offline Coen

  • Posts: 809
Re: Do we need a Sys Generation 4?
« Reply #21 on: January 28, 2021, 09:34 PM »
After reading this it's all coming together for me now.  I purchased my first Festool product last August.  I have since purchased 6 more Festool tools and some empty Systainers to keep everything uniform and organized.  I'm designing a cabinet to store them in with shelves connected to full extension drawer slides.  I found the dimensions on this forum and then I noticed when I was out in my shop that the heights were slightly on a few of them.  Then I noticed that some of them had grooves in the side where it looks like they could perhaps slide onto a track.  I guess I have at least two generations.  This thread helped a lot.

Ouch. Sometimes not knowing is better  [tongue]

Offline Wood_Slice

  • Posts: 63
Re: Do we need a Sys Generation 4?
« Reply #22 on: January 29, 2021, 12:11 AM »
Yup definitelly should have kept sizes same (Sys1,2,3, and 4) and added different ones but still kept dimensions of the T-locks with the new improvements. Not a fan as a matter of fact I dislike the front handle on the small gen 3 boxes. Imagine the amount of people that have built their shops to the sizes of the T-lock size and are in such a way that they can be interchanged. A superb example is that of Timithy Wilmots workshop built with the T-lock arangement. I dont see how we can do this if we had some T-locks and Gen3. It would throw the entire built out of proportions.

New shop cabinet builds- what do I do? I have T-locks and Gen3 M136856463636. Very frustrating imo. Rarely do improvements bother me with the exception where improvements are going in wrong direction for me personally.

Additionaly the new gen3 drawer slides (saw on YT) do NOT let u open the lid when the drawer is fully out (festool drawer slides for gen3).
DF 500 + Assortments | ETS EC 125/3 EQ | CT MIDI + CT-Fi| MFT3 + Elements| Installer's Set |

Offline mkasdin

  • Posts: 474
Re: Do we need a Sys Generation 4?
« Reply #23 on: January 29, 2021, 01:46 AM »
I’m guessing Bott had a lot of direction into the design. Festool need to redesign the boxes to house larger battery sizes and put a center hinge, make the boxes stronger? They’ve also gone away from the junky polyethylene vacuum formed inserts to that rigid foam. Personally, I like the front handle and the top handle that folds forward. I’m thinking it better suited the dimensions of a van buildout so the redesign is progress. I’m also wondering if Tanos had a patent(s) expiring so that caused the “new look.”

Offline mino

  • Posts: 221
Re: Do we need a Sys Generation 4?
« Reply #24 on: January 29, 2021, 01:14 PM »
Yup definitelly should have kept sizes same (Sys1,2,3, and 4) and added different ones but still kept dimensions of the T-locks with the new improvements. Not a fan as a matter of fact I dislike the front handle on the small gen 3 boxes. Imagine the amount of people that have built their shops to the sizes of the T-lock size and are in such a way that they can be interchanged. A superb example is that of Timithy Wilmots workshop built with the T-lock arangement. I dont see how we can do this if we had some T-locks and Gen3. It would throw the entire built out of proportions.

New shop cabinet builds- what do I do? I have T-locks and Gen3 M136856463636. Very frustrating imo. Rarely do improvements bother me with the exception where improvements are going in wrong direction for me personally.

Additionaly the new gen3 drawer slides (saw on YT) do NOT let u open the lid when the drawer is fully out (festool drawer slides for gen3).
The really only "good" solution is to stick to T-Locs and sell any SYS3 that come along to spoil your party.

They will be available at least next 10+ (likely 20+) years from Tanos. And who knows, Festool may still come to their senses.
AGC 18(@AGC 125 flange), BHC 18, C 12, CTM 36, DRC 18/4, PSC 420, RS 200, TSC 55
Narex: EDH 82, EFH 36(fixed@LR32), EVP 13 H-2CA
My Precious FS/2: 376, 376, 376 holy, 632, 1016 holy, 2520

Offline Svirre

  • Posts: 16
Re: Do we need a Sys Generation 4?
« Reply #25 on: February 20, 2021, 06:08 PM »
Rarely does a product change bother me as much as this one.
I have based a lot of storage around the T-Loc and now festool comes with a new bin system as well as new boxes but without the really nice combined lid and drawer versions

I just sent and email to festool about it with a complaint.
This is not a backward compatible system, not environmentally sound, not financially sound.
It is just different, and I am currently reconsidering my storage due to this.
I am a huge fan of festool tools but this was very arrogant of a change to the consumer from festool. I have to say: “shame on you for this one festool”.

Offline Coen

  • Posts: 809
Re: Do we need a Sys Generation 4?
« Reply #26 on: February 20, 2021, 06:43 PM »
Also note the new Systainer trolley is not compatible with the classic Systainers and the previous one is already sold out everywhere.

Besides the fact it's huuuuge, wasting a massive amount of space, but that seems to be the theme of the whole Sys3.... same tool in ~20mm bigger box.

Online DeformedTree

  • Posts: 1280
Re: Do we need a Sys Generation 4?
« Reply #27 on: February 20, 2021, 09:20 PM »
The sys cart changes might be the dumbest part of all of it.  How hard is it to understand the concept of keeping the footprint the same. They could have changed it all they want, just keep the footprint, height, wheel setup the same so people can add without issue.

That is something where you can tell who ever was working this just didn't care or think at all. It's not hard to have an early planning meeting and agree to not change the form factor, just update the plastic as needed, but stick to the same shape.

Offline Coen

  • Posts: 809
Re: Do we need a Sys Generation 4?
« Reply #28 on: February 20, 2021, 09:57 PM »
The sys cart changes might be the dumbest part of all of it.  How hard is it to understand the concept of keeping the footprint the same. They could have changed it all they want, just keep the footprint, height, wheel setup the same so people can add without issue.

That is something where you can tell who ever was working this just didn't care or think at all. It's not hard to have an early planning meeting and agree to not change the form factor, just update the plastic as needed, but stick to the same shape.

Classic compatibility was sacrificed to accomodate the Midi Systainers. And they probably definitely wanted it to be rackmountable and having it only as wide as a regular systainer would make it unstable (and still break compatibility with the classic sys).

It's definitely nice for those that fall in the category of using Midi Systainers + not having classic systainers.. and a loss for everyone else

But Makita still sells a classic-compatible trolley..

I see the Festool 495020 is already selling used at collector's prices....
« Last Edit: February 20, 2021, 10:01 PM by Coen »

Online DeformedTree

  • Posts: 1280
Re: Do we need a Sys Generation 4?
« Reply #29 on: February 20, 2021, 10:14 PM »
interesting on makita having a sys-cart.  Will have to keep it in mind but looks like might be hard to find in the US, also looks a lot more expensive than the Tanos/Festool ones.  I would guess it will suffer the same fate as the Tanos/Festool cart and be no more.

It's one of those things that is a way over priced item in the first place, but I bought them, changing the size of them is just insane thing to do to those who were willing to give them 90 bucks for a hunk of plastic and 4 castors.

Like anything else, if you are going to bring out a new version that doesn't directly replace the old, don't get rid of the old. Like anything else, new versions of things are fine, changes are fine, just don't go breaking things.