Author Topic: systainer storage cabinet height, 16mm on centre, does it matter anymore?  (Read 2356 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline sanjay

  • Posts: 9
I am designing some systainer storage , based on the TSO plans.  with the original systainers, they all fit well using the 16 on centre vertical hole patterns, so there was always even spacing between each sys, regardless of height.

Ofcourse with the new sys3, quite a few do not fit this older unit system.   

Is there a height for the cabinets that would mean there wasnt an odd gap at the top or bottom?  I suspect becuase of the odd sizes, without planning way ahead in advance it wouldnt matter?

Offline Crazyraceguy

  • Posts: 497
That is my gripe with the new Systainers. They went away from the system that worked because of the proportions and focused on guys who are using them in vans, seemingly ignoring the guys who use them in a stationary shop.
CSX
DF500 + assortment set
PS420 + Base kit
OF1010
OF1400
MFK700 (2)
TS55, FS1080, FS1400 holey, FS1900, FS3000
CT26E + Workshop cleaning set
RO90
RO125
ETS EC 125
RAS115
ETS 125 (2)
TS75

Offline Cypren

  • Posts: 139
Just to take a stab in the dark, given how strongly almost everything in the Festool system builds around the concept of "mobile carpentry workshop", I suspect they see the guys working out of a van as their primary customer base.

My guess is that those of us who primarily use the tools in a workshop and don't take them on the road probably represent a distinct minority of purchasers. Anecdotes aren't data, but the overwhelming number of professionals I've spoken to who buy and use a lot of Festool gear are taking it to job sites, and the portability of the system was one of its biggest selling points for them, since it lets them bring a lot of the precision of workshop stationary equipment to a customer's home or office.

Offline mino

  • Posts: 494
I would do a double LR32 hole pattern (so a hole every 16mm) and be done with it. That way you never need to return for "just a another hole". Cheesy aesthetic of a tool cabinet is not an issue IMO - it is a tool, not a solitaire piece after all.

Sooner or later you will want to optimize for different content and even with the Classic/T-Loc when you put in a SYS4 or SYS5 you would have a visible gap anyway.

One thing I would do is configure the inner width to be SYS-AZ compatible, should you ever want to go the path of drawers in the future be they wood or SYS-AZ type.


-------------
All that said, if you look at SYS3 heights, it is a modulo 50mm + 30mm (37 with feet). They are actually designed to work in a standardized (Bott) cabinet system and so work *better* than the original systainers. TANOS actually broke the height-compatibility because of this.

So, if you wanted to take advantage of that and go SYS3-only so you can get super-space-efficient, you can do a 50mm hole spacing with internal height also a multiple of 50mm + 40 mm. It will work exactly well for 8 mm (5/16) plywood shelfs with consistent 5mm clearances. Only the SYS3 105 (112) will not fit into this as it is a carry-over from the original heights so will have a bit a of a gap.

The 50mm spacing will also support the Organizers - 89mm gives you 89 +8 + 3mm clearance.

Even better, you can skip shelves and use the TANOS/BOTT slides, that way you get the full by-design 11-13mm clearances.


DISCLOSURE:
I believe the breaking of the height system was a complete SNAFU moment for TANOS.
But this is why they did it - to allow the most space-efficient storing of systainers possible while still enabling quick-access. That is a killer for in-vehicle solutions which Bott does where space and weight are at a premium. That can be done only with the modulo + fixed increment heights concept but cannot be done with the pure modulo heights concept of the original Systainers.

IMO TANOS needs to expand the SYS3 available heights to include the original SYS2, SYS3 and SYS4 heights to cover the use cases where pure modulo-height approach is a killer feature instead. But that is for another topic.
« Last Edit: May 14, 2021, 06:27 AM by mino »
The Machine does not have a brain. Use Yours!
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
AGC 18@AGC 125 flange, BHC 18, C 12, CTM 36, DRC 18/4, PSC 420, RS 200, TSC 55
Protool: AGP 125, VCP 260
Narex: EDH 82, EFH 36@LR32, EVP 13 H-2CA, S 57 A
My Precious: 376, 376, 376 holy, 632, 1016 holy, 1400 holy, 2400, GECKO, GRS 16 PE, GRS 16 PE

Offline Crazyraceguy

  • Posts: 497
Just to take a stab in the dark, given how strongly almost everything in the Festool system builds around the concept of "mobile carpentry workshop", I suspect they see the guys working out of a van as their primary customer base.

My guess is that those of us who primarily use the tools in a workshop and don't take them on the road probably represent a distinct minority of purchasers. Anecdotes aren't data, but the overwhelming number of professionals I've spoken to who buy and use a lot of Festool gear are taking it to job sites, and the portability of the system was one of its biggest selling points for them, since it lets them bring a lot of the precision of workshop stationary equipment to a customer's home or office.
That may explain the elimination of the Sysports? Certainly no one would be using them in an on-site situation. It would be just too cumbersome to deal with like that. Maybe moving them around in a shop configuration, but not truly portable.
It's just that I don't see some of the tools as "job site" type things. The Domino comes to mind first. It is much more of an assembly tool than an install tool. Track saw too. Not to say that you would never need one on site, but it also seems more like an in shop type thing, at least to me? Routers too. How often would you need a router in the field? Not to say never, but how often?
At least in my field, that kind of thing "should" already be done.
Drill, driver, Jig saw, sanders (if there is a solid surface top involved) Vecturo will do it for most installs of cabinets and reception desks.
This would change if it was a bigger/more involved thing like Wainscot or other trim heavy work.

I guess the thing I dislike is that the van storage rack system is just that, storage. They don't work like the Sys-Az drawers. You cannot "use the tools" strait from the open Systainer, because it won't open. You would literally have to take the Systainers you need and attach them to the CT or a Syscart. Then you are back to dealing with them in a stack. Better than a bunch of soft bags, but not nearly as great as the drawer system that I am used to in the shop.
CSX
DF500 + assortment set
PS420 + Base kit
OF1010
OF1400
MFK700 (2)
TS55, FS1080, FS1400 holey, FS1900, FS3000
CT26E + Workshop cleaning set
RO90
RO125
ETS EC 125
RAS115
ETS 125 (2)
TS75

Offline Spandex

  • Posts: 188
I guess the thing I dislike is that the van storage rack system is just that, storage. They don't work like the Sys-Az drawers. You cannot "use the tools" strait from the open Systainer, because it won't open. You would literally have to take the Systainers you need and attach them to the CT or a Syscart. Then you are back to dealing with them in a stack. Better than a bunch of soft bags, but not nearly as great as the drawer system that I am used to in the shop.
TBH, most people aren’t going to be working in their van, so they only need storage there.

A drawer system isn’t really ideal for a van. Yes, some people have built them into their vans, but they’re heavy, unwieldy, space-inefficient and, if systainers had slides built in, they’d almost certainly be unnecessary for most people.

If someone is workshop based, they can still keep their sys3 systainers in SYS-AZs (where the above negatives aren’t a big issue and being able to work out of the systainer is a benefit), and if they’re van based, they’ll appreciate the built in side sliders.

Offline xedos

  • Posts: 482
I think their thinking was that was one of the few areas for expansion/growth.   

There are relatively a lot of tradesmen / contractors that have some sort of vehicle organization system.   Few of those though are invested in Festool tools. 

The sheep that buy the tools are ultimately going to accept whatever container they come in. 

Offline Crazyraceguy

  • Posts: 497

If someone is workshop based, they can still keep their sys3 systainers in SYS-AZs (where the above negatives aren’t a big issue and being able to work out of the systainer is a benefit), and if they’re van based, they’ll appreciate the built in side sliders.
Of course they can, but my point was about the original Sysports. The new sizes of the Sys3 have disrupted the system. They were designed so that the Systainers would fit and fill one up with no gaps, in the correct proportion. The new odd sizes don't fit this system. There will be gaps.
CSX
DF500 + assortment set
PS420 + Base kit
OF1010
OF1400
MFK700 (2)
TS55, FS1080, FS1400 holey, FS1900, FS3000
CT26E + Workshop cleaning set
RO90
RO125
ETS EC 125
RAS115
ETS 125 (2)
TS75

Offline Spandex

  • Posts: 188
Of course they can, but my point was about the original Sysports. The new sizes of the Sys3 have disrupted the system. They were designed so that the Systainers would fit and fill one up with no gaps, in the correct proportion. The new odd sizes don't fit this system. There will be gaps.
Yes, of course the sys ports are a different matter. I don’t disagree that having new systainer sizes will affect any existing drawer system, built or bought, that was designed for the old sizes. And by ‘affect’, I mean there will be small gaps, rather than affecting the functionality.

However, I was replying to the paragraph of your post that I quoted, where you talked about what you didn’t like about the van storage, not the sys ports.

Offline Crazyraceguy

  • Posts: 497
Of course they can, but my point was about the original Sysports. The new sizes of the Sys3 have disrupted the system. They were designed so that the Systainers would fit and fill one up with no gaps, in the correct proportion. The new odd sizes don't fit this system. There will be gaps.
Yes, of course the sys ports are a different matter. I don’t disagree that having new systainer sizes will affect any existing drawer system, built or bought, that was designed for the old sizes. And by ‘affect’, I mean there will be small gaps, rather than affecting the functionality.

However, I was replying to the paragraph of your post that I quoted, where you talked about what you didn’t like about the van storage, not the sys ports.

I really don't mind the van/rack specific changes. They don't add any functionality to me, but they don't hurt anything either. It's the additional sizes that mess up the works.
My shop-built cabinets should be able to handle a single Sys1 and 4 Sys2 in the same column, with holes drilled at 32mm centers. When I bought the RO125 it came in one of the gen3 Systainers. That just doesn't work.
CSX
DF500 + assortment set
PS420 + Base kit
OF1010
OF1400
MFK700 (2)
TS55, FS1080, FS1400 holey, FS1900, FS3000
CT26E + Workshop cleaning set
RO90
RO125
ETS EC 125
RAS115
ETS 125 (2)
TS75

Offline woodbutcherbower

  • Posts: 43
That is my gripe with the new Systainers. They went away from the system that worked because of the proportions and focused on guys who are using them in vans, seemingly ignoring the guys who use them in a stationary shop.

The new sizes don’t work for guys in vans either - unless the van is racked out with the megabucks, insanity-price-level Bott racking system - which hardly anyone uses. I’ve been on the tools for 40 years and the only Bott-fitted van I have ever seen was being driven my my local Hilti rep. I don’t think this unbelievably short-sighted move is a betrayal just of the workshop guys, it’s a betrayal of literally everyone who has invested time and money in both the boxes, and the means of storing them. Attached is a snapshot of one side of my van - the other side’s similar. When the time finally comes to replace any of these tools - I’m going to face a world of pain rebuilding this, since the box is no longer the same darn size.

Offline Coen

  • Posts: 998
Yeah and if you stack them... you never get same heights with different sizes...

I sometimes put six stacks on the ground to cut down sheetgoods. That's never gonna fly with the oddball sizes of Sys3

And judging by the speed the machines in T-Loc are sold in the secondary market vs the ones in Sys3 I suspect I'm not the only one searching for '(almost) new in T-Loc' machines..

It seems the D8 Domino connectorset and the LR 32 sys still escaped their box downgrade..
« Last Edit: May 24, 2021, 04:24 PM by Coen »

Offline Spandex

  • Posts: 188
When the time finally comes to replace any of these tools - I’m going to face a world of pain rebuilding this, since the box is no longer the same darn size.
If you’re replacing a tool, can’t you just put it in the old box?

Offline woodbutcherbower

  • Posts: 43
When the time finally comes to replace any of these tools - I’m going to face a world of pain rebuilding this, since the box is no longer the same darn size.
If you’re replacing a tool, can’t you just put it in the old box?

What - like buying a 725hp Fisker-Galpin Rocket Mustang, taking out the motor, and putting it into my trashed 1973 Toyota?

Offline Spandex

  • Posts: 188
Quote from: woodbutcherbower link=topic=66466.msg643405#msg643405
What - like buying a 725hp Fisker-Galpin Rocket Mustang, taking out the motor, and putting it into my trashed 1973 Toyota?
Well, I was thinking more “like taking a tool out of the new box and putting it in the old one”. It sounds slightly less dramatic that way.

If you’d rather try to rework your whole rack, that’s an option too. I just thought keeping the old systainer might be easier.