Author Topic: Systainer3 and T-Loc sizing comparison image  (Read 8415 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Svar

  • Posts: 2340
Re: Systainer3 and T-Loc sizing comparison image
« Reply #30 on: December 18, 2020, 01:02 PM »
Not long ago a tradesman truck or shop was just a dump of steel and blow mold cases. Now we write illustrated essays on tool boxes and people get emotionally traumatized when a case handle protruding by 2 mm breaks the harmony of their perfectly color and height coordinated stack.

Offline Cheese

  • Posts: 8171
Re: Systainer3 and T-Loc sizing comparison image
« Reply #31 on: December 18, 2020, 01:30 PM »
Not long ago a tradesman truck or shop was just a dump of steel and blow mold cases. Now we write illustrated essays on tool boxes and people get emotionally traumatized when a case handle protruding by 2 mm breaks the harmony of their perfectly color and height coordinated stack.

Yaaaaaa...isn’t progress a thing of beauty.

Offline demographic

  • Posts: 670
Re: Systainer3 and T-Loc sizing comparison image
« Reply #32 on: December 18, 2020, 03:36 PM »
Personally I like the idea that these new systainers work well as drawers but the way they're now in dodgy heights is a massive fail.
They have been selling festool tools and these boxes using the stacking in regular heights as a selling point for years.
Then they chuck that idea in the bin and are surprised when everyone who bought into that idea is irritated by their change away from it?

Can't be the sharpest tools in the box can they.?

Oh and thevan racking thing? Naaaah, yer alright I'll  not bother. I'll stick with my toolsafe thanks.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2020, 04:08 PM by demographic »

Offline Coen

  • Posts: 809
Re: Systainer3 and T-Loc sizing comparison image
« Reply #33 on: December 18, 2020, 04:46 PM »
I first mentioned this almost a year ago when the first SYS³ Systainers were released.

Quiet stack...an old one on the top and the new one on the bottom with it's handle snapped into the closed position.

(Attachment Link)


Klack stack...the new one on the top with the handle free to move because the T-loc latch on the lower Systainer prevents the handle from snapping into the closed position.

(Attachment Link)


Over bumps, around corners, braking, pot holes, you name it...klack, klack, klack, klack....I finally pulled over and took off one of my gloves and wrapped it around the noisy handle.

You are supposed to use the Bott mountaing in the van he  [unsure]

Offline Spandex

  • Posts: 144
Re: Systainer3 and T-Loc sizing comparison image
« Reply #34 on: December 18, 2020, 06:14 PM »
Then they chuck that idea in the bin and are surprised when everyone who bought into that idea is irritated by their change away from it?

Can't be the sharpest tools in the box can they.?
Are they surprised? I’m not sure where you got that idea. I suspect they’re well aware that a small portion of their customers will be irritated by the change. They’ve clearly made a decision about what features are more important to them (and what they’re willing to sacrifice) in light of their plans for systainers in the future.

Offline Coen

  • Posts: 809
Re: Systainer3 and T-Loc sizing comparison image
« Reply #35 on: December 18, 2020, 06:38 PM »
Then they chuck that idea in the bin and are surprised when everyone who bought into that idea is irritated by their change away from it?

Can't be the sharpest tools in the box can they.?
Are they surprised? I’m not sure where you got that idea. I suspect they’re well aware that a small portion of their customers will be irritated by the change. They’ve clearly made a decision about what features are more important to them (and what they’re willing to sacrifice) in light of their plans for systainers in the future.

Well, since none of the people that were involved with these decisions ever voice any such consideration in public... you never know.

Offline Spandex

  • Posts: 144
Re: Systainer3 and T-Loc sizing comparison image
« Reply #36 on: December 18, 2020, 08:05 PM »
Well, since none of the people that were involved with these decisions ever voice any such consideration in public... you never know.
It’s common sense to me that a company that created and advertised a piece of functionality will be aware that removing that functionality will affect, and therefore upset some of their previous customers.

So it follows that they must feel the benefits of removing that functionality outweigh the drawbacks of upsetting those customers, otherwise they wouldn’t have done it. Unless they’re no longer trying to make money and are simply out to troll certain forum members. Amusing though that would be, it seems unlikely to me.

Offline Imemiter

  • Posts: 139
Re: Systainer3 and T-Loc sizing comparison image
« Reply #37 on: December 18, 2020, 09:58 PM »
Personally I like the idea that these new systainers work well as drawers...

That's the thing though, they're not drawers at all. Drawers can be opened and accessed, the Bott system is a rack. Now a Systainer has to be removed entirely in order to access the contents. If the Bott rails functioned as a drawer, I think they'd have a lot more appeal. But as it is it seems as if they gave up a lot of system specific functionality to gain glaringly little. We're to roll our carts (Sys Rolls, MW 1000s) to the van only to have to remove each and every individual Systainer and install it on it's each and individual Bott rail?? The whole system seems to create otherwise unnessecary work. I don't get it.   
CSX, TID 18, HKC 55, OSC 18, OF 1010, Domino XL, DTS 400, ETS 125, RAS 115, LR32, CTSys, CTMidi, CT-VA-20

Offline Svar

  • Posts: 2340
Re: Systainer3 and T-Loc sizing comparison image
« Reply #38 on: December 18, 2020, 10:16 PM »
Personally I like the idea that these new systainers work well as drawers...
... Now a Systainer has to be removed entirely in order to access the contents...
No, you can still put it on SYS-AZ or whatever drawer system you want and continue using them as before. Nothing is lost comparing to T-loc, just added side slots. You can choose to use those slots or not, but it's there if you need it.

Offline Spandex

  • Posts: 144
Re: Systainer3 and T-Loc sizing comparison image
« Reply #39 on: December 19, 2020, 04:34 AM »
Personally I like the idea that these new systainers work well as drawers...

That's the thing though, they're not drawers at all. Drawers can be opened and accessed, the Bott system is a rack. Now a Systainer has to be removed entirely in order to access the contents. If the Bott rails functioned as a drawer, I think they'd have a lot more appeal. But as it is it seems as if they gave up a lot of system specific functionality to gain glaringly little. We're to roll our carts (Sys Rolls, MW 1000s) to the van only to have to remove each and every individual Systainer and install it on it's each and individual Bott rail?? The whole system seems to create otherwise unnessecary work. I don't get it.
The only thing the new systainer design ‘breaks’ is the stacking height system. Apart from that, they do everything the same but in addition will work in van racking. Being ‘rackable’ doesn’t meant you have to rack them.

If you want to wheel your loaded MW1000 to your van and just strap it straight in, then that’s what you do.

Offline Bob D.

  • Posts: 1919
Re: Systainer3 and T-Loc sizing comparison image
« Reply #40 on: December 19, 2020, 06:00 AM »
The only thing that interests me with the new Sys3 is the handle. But as Cheese pointed out when mixed with T-Loc Systainers makes for a noisy ride.

Will the catch from the Sys3 fit a T-Loc? They appear to be smaller and maybe that would let the handle lay flat.

If the new Systainer was the T-Loc that kept all the current heights but included the Sys3 handle, that would be great.

When I buy my next FT I will have to consider selling the Sys3 and replace it with an appropriate size T-Loc to to maintain symmetry with all my other Systainers.
-----
It's a table saw, do you know where your fingers are?

Offline Imemiter

  • Posts: 139
Re: Systainer3 and T-Loc sizing comparison image
« Reply #41 on: December 19, 2020, 06:22 AM »
The only thing the new systainer design ‘breaks’ is the stacking height system.

I wouldn't go so far as 'broken', but there are some bugs. In the design's defense I'd offer the new hinge. That adds a lot of strength to the stack. But that front handle... ugh. Is there a recommended way to remove it yet?
CSX, TID 18, HKC 55, OSC 18, OF 1010, Domino XL, DTS 400, ETS 125, RAS 115, LR32, CTSys, CTMidi, CT-VA-20

Online mrB

  • Posts: 833
Re: Systainer3 and T-Loc sizing comparison image
« Reply #42 on: December 19, 2020, 07:26 AM »
The Sys3 Latches are swappable with T-Loc no problem.

The front handle not clicking closed is not an issue with Systainer compatibility, but an issue with the design of the new Sys3, or at least the shorter units it affects.

On the smaller units the handle mars with the latch of the below Systainer regardless which type it is.
there's nothing like the right tool for the job

Offline Bob D.

  • Posts: 1919
Re: Systainer3 and T-Loc sizing comparison image
« Reply #43 on: December 19, 2020, 09:33 AM »
"On the smaller units the handle mars with the latch of the below Systainer regardless which type it is."

Thanks for that.
-----
It's a table saw, do you know where your fingers are?

Offline Michael Kellough

  • Posts: 5023
Re: Systainer3 and T-Loc sizing comparison image
« Reply #44 on: December 19, 2020, 10:42 AM »
If you put a Sys3 latch on the T-lok Sys below then the Sys3 handle would close?

I have several tall stacks of Systainers on dollys. I have to unstack down to the box I want. If the Systainers were Sys3 style I could make a simple box with cleats that fit the slots in the new Sys3 and it would be much more convenient for me to pull out the Sys I want. But I m not going to spend $$$ to replace the existing Sys.

I too think it was a dumb mistake to loose height compatibility but I seldom depend on the height of a stack to get things done. And I always have a few wedges on hand.

Offline Cheese

  • Posts: 8171
Re: Systainer3 and T-Loc sizing comparison image
« Reply #45 on: December 19, 2020, 10:45 AM »
When I buy my next FT I will have to consider selling the Sys3 and replace it with an appropriate size T-Loc to to maintain symmetry with all my other Systainers.

My thought exactly...was just thinking last night about my next purchase and looked up to confirm that it still came in a regular Systainer.

The SYS³ Org is slick for small fasteners and the like and the SYS³ XXL is also nice but that's where it ends.

Online DeformedTree

  • Posts: 1280
Re: Systainer3 and T-Loc sizing comparison image
« Reply #46 on: December 19, 2020, 11:25 AM »
Do we know if the inserts for t-lock fit in sys3?

New conspiracy, this was a plan by Festool and Tanos owners,  sell stuff with Sys3, then make more money when festool buyers buy a T-lock from Tanos to "fix the glitch"

Maybe we just all need to wait for "Systainer 4: Lets just forget Systainer 3 ever happened, back to old heights, removed the handle, put the side labels back, but we kept the beefed up structure"

Online mrB

  • Posts: 833
Re: Systainer3 and T-Loc sizing comparison image
« Reply #47 on: December 19, 2020, 11:49 AM »
If you put a Sys3 latch on the T-lok Sys below then the Sys3 handle would close?


No, that is not the case.

With the smallest (2 sizes?) of Sys3 there simply isn’t room on the front of the Systainer for the handle to not overlap the T-Loc latch of the Systainer below (if the latch is in the locking/connecting orientation)

To my investigation it doesn’t matter what kind of T-loc Latch/Systainer is underneath. They all affect it the same.
there's nothing like the right tool for the job

Offline pettyconstruction

  • Posts: 649
Re: Systainer3 and T-Loc sizing comparison image
« Reply #48 on: December 19, 2020, 11:49 AM »
The only thing the new systainer design ‘breaks’ is the stacking height system.

I wouldn't go so far as 'broken', but there are some bugs. In the design's defense I'd offer the new hinge. That adds a lot of strength to the stack. But that front handle... ugh. Is there a recommended way to remove it yet?
I had a sys-3 fall and break the front handle , doesn’t seem to bother me that it’s gone. Lol
Charlie


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Offline demographic

  • Posts: 670
Re: Systainer3 and T-Loc sizing comparison image
« Reply #49 on: December 19, 2020, 01:09 PM »
Dunno about anyone else but I wouldnt complain too hard if they were made out of better plastic as well.ABS is kind of brittle. Don't get me wrong, its been fine for a few years Ive had T-Loc boxes but its still fairly junk plastic isn't it?
Was quite impressed by the Milwaukee Packout boxes I saw today. Tough plastic, waterproof seal, decent  size and solid cart.


Offline usernumber1

  • Posts: 144
Re: Systainer3 and T-Loc sizing comparison image
« Reply #50 on: December 19, 2020, 08:38 PM »
Dunno about anyone else but I wouldnt complain too hard if they were made out of better plastic as well.ABS is kind of brittle. Don't get me wrong, its been fine for a few years Ive had T-Loc boxes but its still fairly junk plastic isn't it?
Was quite impressed by the Milwaukee Packout boxes I saw today. Tough plastic, waterproof seal, decent  size and solid cart.

i can't find what the packout boxes are made out of. they only mention 'impact resistant polymers'. it would be good to compare to known plastics but i suspect it's not very strong so they have to make it thicker which makes it appear stronger

https://omnexus.specialchem.com/polymer-properties/properties/toughness
i disagree abs is brittle and you can see from the charts above.


there's also this video from the germans confirming in some non-scientific testing
https://www.festoolownersgroup.com/festool-and-tanos-systainers/systainer-drop-test-i'm-impressed/

Offline cpw

  • Posts: 267
Re: Systainer3 and T-Loc sizing comparison image
« Reply #51 on: December 19, 2020, 08:53 PM »
I don't like the height change, and am dissapointed they took out the side labeling cards.  I liked making 3 duplicate picture cards so that I could identify a box from 3/4 sides.

I do like the new sys rolls better than the old ones.  For me, I think the big advantage of the new line is that they are taking the "L" (MIDI) size more seriously.  I also like that the toolbox will be open instead of divided in two and not have the handle sticking up all the time.  I find the handle just makes them store worse, because I have nothing permanently in my existing T-LOC style toolboxes, I just dump job-specific things that won't fit into a normal Systainer in there; but when they are on the shelf waiting for something it takes up extra space, and is harder to unstack.

The rails don't hurt or do anything for me.  I like the SYS-AZ, because I can access the contents while they are in my sysports.   I would like them to introduce SYS-AZs that fit the SYS3 L and MIDI.

Offline Crazyraceguy

  • Posts: 226
Re: Systainer3 and T-Loc sizing comparison image
« Reply #52 on: December 20, 2020, 12:34 PM »
I recently bought a Rotex because it was in a SYS2 T-LOC.

I have about £2000 worth of Systainers - OK some came 'free' with tools, but most I paid for. I've built shelves and drawers and have a very neat workshop layout now. It works for me too.

Plain and simple, the SYS3 wont fit in most of my spaces, and will certainly spoil the 'look'.

Buying a new tool in SYS3 will be a serious issue for me, and I certainly wont be buying any empty SYS3.

In the last 4 weeks I have sent back the Organiser set - inferior quality, & the Toprock - poor sound quality. Both were in SYS3 systainers and represent the latest Festool product development/offerings. Not a good sign for me at least.

This was my point from the beginning. It all startedas an integrated system, with specific heights for a reason. Seems like a new generation of designers have forgotten that? or think that people wouldn't care?
Plus there is the dumb name. Why would they call them Sys3 when that is already the name of one of the sizes of Tloc?

You can clearly see the new one at the bottom of the stack. Mine are never in a van, they fit into a drawer system based upon the 1, 1.5 ,2 ,3 ,4 unit sizes.
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: Systainer3 and T-Loc sizing comparison image
« Reply #53 on: December 21, 2020, 12:34 AM »
And now the tool is in a bigger Sys, that takes yet more space in the cabinet

Offline Crazyraceguy

  • Posts: 226
Re: Systainer3 and T-Loc sizing comparison image
« Reply #54 on: December 21, 2020, 07:39 PM »
And now the tool is in a bigger Sys, that takes yet more space in the cabinet
It's not really about "more space", it's about random heights that do not fit the "unit" sizes.
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 demographic

  • Posts: 670
Re: Systainer3 and T-Loc sizing comparison image
« Reply #55 on: December 22, 2020, 02:51 PM »
And now the tool is in a bigger Sys, that takes yet more space in the cabinet
It's not really about "more space", it's about random heights that do not fit the "unit" sizes.

In general I like the changes, just not the heights not working out that irritates me. Especially when Festool themselves have made such a thing of it over the years.
The drawer slide things are great, the front handle seems a good idea to me so its not all bad, its more or less there on the design front.
Just sort the height issue and we're golden.

Online DeformedTree

  • Posts: 1280
Re: Systainer3 and T-Loc sizing comparison image
« Reply #56 on: December 22, 2020, 03:46 PM »

Plus there is the dumb name. Why would they call them Sys3 when that is already the name of one of the sizes of Tloc?


No, the old sizes were Systainer EYE,  EYE EYE, EYE EYE EYE, EYE VEE, VEE, and VEE EYE.  Pronouncing them any other way would be silly.

So be fair,  they should have called them. Systainer, Systainer 2, and now Systainer 3.   And then had the sizes be 1,2,3 or their heights in mm.   Calling systainer 2 "t-lock" was a mistake.

Calling them systainer 3 is one of the few things I think they got right.   But really they should have done. Systainer B or 3B (for Bott), made the special changes for that stuff, while making a Systainer 3 that got hinge/structure type changes, but kept the heights, side labels, no dumb handle.

Offline Crazyraceguy

  • Posts: 226
Re: Systainer3 and T-Loc sizing comparison image
« Reply #57 on: December 25, 2020, 08:49 AM »
T loc 2? would have signaled the next generation much better w/o reusing an existing name.
The idea that there is a size of T loc called Sys3 an the following with the next generation calling it Sys3  is confusing.
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 StanB

  • Posts: 555
  • I like building stuff with my hands.
Re: Systainer3 and T-Loc sizing comparison image
« Reply #58 on: December 27, 2020, 12:44 AM »
So I just got the pdc/ tid combo in the new systainer. I had read this thread before it came and can see the issue with the height, but I must say the new systainer itself is much better than the first gen tloc. The whole unit is much more robust an the hinge is really nice. The box does not flex and has a nice positive feel when latching or closing the lid. So I kinda like them. Will I sell my 30 some odd systainers to upgrade, no. Accept it and move on buying new systainers as needed, yes I would consider it.

Also really like the foam insert for the drill/impact combo all in one systainer. Need one for the cxs and c18.
« Last Edit: December 27, 2020, 12:52 AM by StanB »
OF1010 EQ Router | MFT/3 | DF500Q | Mafell P1CC | ETS EC 150/3 | CT 36 Auto Clean | TSC55 | LR32 | OF1400 EQ Router | ZOBO Metric Set | CXS Li 2.6 - 90 Limited Edition | Universal Cleaning Set | HKC55 | Centrotec CE-SORT | RO150 FEQ | DTS 400 | RO90 DX | CTSYS | C18 Drill | SysLite KALII | Syslite STL 450 | RAS 115 E | OF2200 EB | OSC 18 Vectoro | VAC SYS SYSTEM SET | MX 1200 E MIXER | DF700 XL | PDC 18 | TID 18

Offline Bird

  • Posts: 11
Re: Systainer3 and T-Loc sizing comparison image
« Reply #59 on: December 29, 2020, 10:18 PM »
I've been thinking of drinking the Tanos kool-aid as I organize a new shop. I appreciate the pictures of the different sizes and hearing all the gripes. I have a question about the sys3 line. I don't see the combi boxes. Will one like this be coming?

https://www.woodcraft.com/products/tanos-t-loc-sys-combi-iii-systainer-anthracite?via=573621f669702d06760016d6%2C576455ee69702d3c42000be6