Author Topic: Systainer3 and T-Loc sizing comparison image  (Read 11341 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Systainer.Store

  • Retailer
  • *
  • Posts: 248
    • systainer.store
Systainer3 and T-Loc sizing comparison image
« on: November 25, 2020, 06:36 AM »
Hi FOG -

Working with Tanos USA, I've got this image to share showing the size comparison of the T-Loc and the SYS3 for both the M and L.  This image roughly shows how, for instance, the T-Loc I compares to the new SYS3 M 137. 

Make it a great day - Sys Tim




Offline Crazyraceguy

  • Posts: 495
Re: Systainer3 and T-Loc sizing comparison image
« Reply #1 on: November 28, 2020, 02:56 PM »
So now there are 6 instead of the 5 that increased in regular increments?
Is there a particular reason for this?
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 Systainer.Store

  • Retailer
  • *
  • Posts: 248
    • systainer.store
Re: Systainer3 and T-Loc sizing comparison image
« Reply #2 on: November 29, 2020, 07:06 AM »
Yes, the Systainer3 line up has six different body sizes in the standard systainer width (M).  I may even call it seven if you consider that this image isn't showing the M Organizer, which is 89.  Sure, it is used as an organizer, but some are using it for speciality tools.  I understand that Tanos has feedback that they needed a bit more choices in heights to fit different tools.

Offline Crazyraceguy

  • Posts: 495
Re: Systainer3 and T-Loc sizing comparison image
« Reply #3 on: December 11, 2020, 08:55 AM »
It just seems to go against the system thinking about how they fit in the sysports.
The original T Locs increased in size in regular increments. If you see the Sys 1 as a starting point of 1 unit (just over 100 mm), then the Sys2 works out to roughly 1 1/2 of these units at just over 150 mm. The Sys3 being 2 units and so on down the line. This makes it possible to fit them into a Sysport in the right combination, filling it entirely with minimal gaps or wasted space.
The new "in between" sizes seem to go against this?
Granted, there may be quite a few who don't use the Sysport part of the system, but many still do.
I have nearly 20 Systainers, in stationary self built cabinets, using the 32 mm increment concept. The RO 125 I just got is a very tight fit, even after lowering the bottom drawer guides, just because it is a few mm taller. It's only one in the stack. Four of them would take so much extra space as to eliminate the useability of the last space.
The simple 1, 1.5, 2, 3, and 4 units work in multiples of 10 quite well.
Clearly, Festool has always adapted the internal fit of the inserts to the next larger size if needed.
Maybe offer the alternate sizes in the Tanos line, for those who buy them separately? Obviously the RO 125 fit in a Sys 2 before, the change is not a necessity in this case.
« Last Edit: December 20, 2020, 12:12 PM by Crazyraceguy »
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 Coen

  • Posts: 990
Re: Systainer3 and T-Loc sizing comparison image
« Reply #4 on: December 16, 2020, 12:11 AM »
Yes, the Systainer3 line up has six different body sizes in the standard systainer width (M).  I may even call it seven if you consider that this image isn't showing the M Organizer, which is 89.  Sure, it is used as an organizer, but some are using it for speciality tools.  I understand that Tanos has feedback that they needed a bit more choices in heights to fit different tools.

They need feedback that they messed up bigtime by nixing the whole idea of easily making stacks of the same height!!

Who gave them the feedback that there needed to be more choices? Look at the Festool tools now shipping in the Sys3... they all waste more space, usually 15-20mm. I can't think of a single tool that now has a better fitting Systainer. And this while the market is already flush with options with space-wasting boxes and dito inlays. Just take a look at what Bosch offers with the L-Boxx inlays...

Say I want to lift some piece of sheetgood off the floor by stacking Systainers underneath. So in one corner I put the Domino (Sys 2 T-Loc) and the Systainer with the actual Dominos (Sys 2 T-Loc), on the second corner I put three Sys 1 Classics with my PS-300, FS/2 sys and RTS 400, the 3rd corner I use a Sys 4 and on the fourth corner a Sys 1 + Sys 3. There is just no way you can ever replicate that with the new highly disappointing Sys3. Leave alone getting to the same height as the MFT / CMS / CS-50 / CS-70. That now is only possible with ONE precise combination of the new Sys3 boxes while there were 10s of options to get that height with the previous versions Classic and T-Loc.

I looked for a used Rotex to buy recently and exchanged messages with a seller, but once I found out it came in the that new Systainer I wished him well finding another buyer. I can do without yet another incompatible "system" box.

As for missing sizes; anything I ever missed was the size in between the III and IV, the height of the Sys Combi-2, but the new systeem still has the 100mm gap there.

And how many people actually use the Bott racking system that justified this whole nixing of the height system?
« Last Edit: December 16, 2020, 12:24 AM by Coen »

Offline Alex

  • Posts: 7465
Re: Systainer3 and T-Loc sizing comparison image
« Reply #5 on: December 16, 2020, 01:01 AM »
I agree with Coen. Here Festool can have my feedback: I find the whole new line of systainers ridiculous and atrocious.

You had something really good, and now it's wasted.

And nobody uses Bott van racking.

Offline Svar

  • Posts: 2401
Re: Systainer3 and T-Loc sizing comparison image
« Reply #6 on: December 16, 2020, 01:14 AM »
They need feedback that they messed up bigtime by nixing the whole idea of easily making stacks of the same height!!
I might be an outlier, but I couldn't care less whether they stack the same height. I'd rather have the box fit the tool without wasting space.

Offline mrB

  • Posts: 885
Re: Systainer3 and T-Loc sizing comparison image
« Reply #7 on: December 16, 2020, 04:53 AM »
I agree! I’m also confused and disappointed with this and so posting my previous comments on the subject again. Ultimately I don’t get why adding the racking aspect required such a system overhaul. .


Just ordered my first festool that will come in a  bulls”:t systainer with the ‘wrong’ height. It really does take a little something off the beauty of systainers for me. And by knock on effect the value of spending on festool. .

I’ve had my small city flat/apartment kitted out for storing lots of systainers for nearly a decade now (makes owning lots of tools possible for me)
But in more recent times they’ve also become my portable work benches for lots of jobs, especially installs. With the 3D printed systainer feet kits available these days I have 4 systainer worktops. Two identical pairs, one of each type can be seen below. One is a larger MFT type, the other just a piece of ply in the sys footprint that can have other lengths of 18mm material attached as needed (the MFT top is also 2X18mm in total height)

It really does work a treat and takes so little space or effort to store, transport and setup. Additionally they are great step stools on the job as well.

If you’re new to this concept check out the products available on the ‘feskit’ web page to get a better idea of what’s going on.

Anyway, still hating on the new systainer heights :)




It’s not even the fact that the heights are different, it’s that they’re not even system compatible with them selves like the original T-Locs are. 

The height of my work tops in the photo above is 2x SYS4. But this height can also be achieved with combo of Sys. . .

4+4
4+2+2
4+3+1
2+2+2+2
3+2+2+1
3+3+1+1
3+3+3
1+1+1+1+1+1
3+1+1+1+1

It barely matters what tools I bring to the job, I’ll have some good options for worktop height.  It’s so good as a system but they ruined it!
Over time tools and systainers will break, and newcomers will have new style Sys3,  and this system will be lost. . Why? Because of some racking system no one ever heard of?

I know I’ve been criticised here before for blowing it out of proportion, and I admit it’s not the end of the world. . . But it sure feels like a massive waste of a great thing.
there's nothing like the right tool for the job

Offline Systainer.Store

  • Retailer
  • *
  • Posts: 248
    • systainer.store
Re: Systainer3 and T-Loc sizing comparison image
« Reply #8 on: December 16, 2020, 08:24 AM »
I'm glad you are all voices your likes or dislikes on this sizing. 

I do what I can to get feedback to Tanos, and having this thread is very helpful.  I've found that some customers don't care or mind the sizing, some love the new sizing and others hate it.  None the less, T-Loc isn't going away, not yet.  The colors of T-Loc are discontinued, but Light Grey and Anthracite will be around for a while.  That is to say there isn't a forced departure.  Though it does look like Festool is transitioning over when it makes sense.

Offline neeleman

  • Posts: 1274
Re: Systainer3 and T-Loc sizing comparison image
« Reply #9 on: December 16, 2020, 11:08 AM »
I agree with Coen. Here Festool can have my feedback: I find the whole new line of systainers ridiculous and atrocious.

You had something really good, and now it's wasted.

And nobody uses Bott van racking.
My van has a Bott system, which is very nice to use and one of the best out there.
But I don't store my systainers in the racks but simply on the floor.
And take them all out on the jobsite or at home otherwise they get stolen so easily.
Only some Raaco assortment boxes with all sizes of screws and wallplugs are stored permanently.
Festoolian since 1998.
FESTOOL:
RTSC400Li | CTL MIDI I | SYSROCK BR10 | SYSLITE KAL II | SV-SYS D14 | DSC-AG125FH | CDD9.6 | SYSLITE DUO | DF700 | HKC55 | TXS2.6 | CTL SYS | CXS2.6 | DWC18 | CTWings | BHC18 | CS50 | CMS-OF | MFT/3 | MFT/3-VL | KS120 | TS55 R | PSC420 | PS420 | BS75 | RAS115 | RO90 | RO150 | RS400 | RTS400 | RS300 | LS130 | DX93 | ETS150/5 | ETS150/3 | OF1010 | OF1400 | OFK500 | MFK700 | T18 | EHL65 | CTL26 | CTL22 | WCR1000 | D27-AS Plug-it | D36 UNI-RS | D36x7 | D50x2.5 | FS800 | FS800/2 | FS1080/2 | FS1400/2 (2x) | FS3000/2 | FSK250 | FSK420 | Gecko Dosh | Toolie | CE-SYS-2010 | RB-SYS CART (2x) | LEV1400 | LEV350 | SYS-MFT
PROTOOL:
CHP26 | PDC18 | FLC UNI | VCP260 | DSC-AGP125 | DSC-AGP230 | DSG-AGP125 | DRP16

Offline Alex

  • Posts: 7465
Re: Systainer3 and T-Loc sizing comparison image
« Reply #10 on: December 16, 2020, 11:34 AM »
My van has a Bott system, which is very nice to use and one of the best out there.

Well, you're the first I heard of. I work with a lot of professionals in all fields lately, and most of them make their own van racking, because they can, it is cheaper and more tailored to their own needs.

Only the bigger companies, who have lots of mechanics in their own vans, tend to order a complete system like Bott, or others.

Offline DeformedTree

  • Posts: 1433
Re: Systainer3 and T-Loc sizing comparison image
« Reply #11 on: December 16, 2020, 12:33 PM »
My van has a Bott system, which is very nice to use and one of the best out there.

Well, you're the first I heard of. I work with a lot of professionals in all fields lately, and most of them make their own van racking, because they can, it is cheaper and more tailored to their own needs.

Only the bigger companies, who have lots of mechanics in their own vans, tend to order a complete system like Bott, or others.

I think the other major part of this is unless you are a "brand" and you have a fleet of vans fitting out for a very specific setup that doesn't change, being locked into a brand of system doesn't work.

Independent guys/gals will fit their vans for many brands of tools/boxes.  Unless you get to there being standardization among brands, that won't happen.

What happens to someone with a "Bott Van" who then buys some Milwaukee, dewalt, etc tools.  If those don't fit right in the rack, now you have a real issue.

I can see a Festool Rep driving a fully "Bott Van" around to demos, anyone else is probably going to face some challenges.

I think folks would love to have vans fully fitted out. But if they can't use it from tools/etc from all manufactures, it just doesn't work.

Offline Svar

  • Posts: 2401
Re: Systainer3 and T-Loc sizing comparison image
« Reply #12 on: December 16, 2020, 12:43 PM »
What happens to someone with a "Bott Van" who then buys some Milwaukee, dewalt, etc tools. 
They'll just use Bott pull-out drawers that are interchangeable with the new Tanos/Bott slides and fit into the same cabinet. Or use other Bott shelving solutions that are fully integrated into the system. Only people with severe OCD would have an issue with that.
I don't have any association with Bott, just surprised when people try to find a problem where there is none.
« Last Edit: December 16, 2020, 12:47 PM by Svar »

Offline DeformedTree

  • Posts: 1433
Re: Systainer3 and T-Loc sizing comparison image
« Reply #13 on: December 16, 2020, 01:12 PM »
What happens to someone with a "Bott Van" who then buys some Milwaukee, dewalt, etc tools. 
They'll just use Bott pull-out drawers that are interchangeable with the new Tanos/Bott slides and fit into the same cabinet. Or use other Bott shelving solutions that are fully integrated into the system. Only people with severe OCD would have an issue with that.
I don't have any association with Bott, just surprised when people try to find a problem where there is none.

So that makes the assumption they will fit.  That was my point, nothing to do with OCD.  If you have a rack system, and it's 10mm too skinny for your tool in it's case, you have a problem.

Offline usernumber1

  • Posts: 165
Re: Systainer3 and T-Loc sizing comparison image
« Reply #14 on: December 16, 2020, 01:33 PM »
...  I've found that some customers don't care or mind the sizing, some love the new sizing and others hate it.  ...

i have yet to see anyone love the new sizing in any way. including vendors

Offline Spandex

  • Posts: 187
Re: Systainer3 and T-Loc sizing comparison image
« Reply #15 on: December 16, 2020, 02:16 PM »
Only the bigger companies, who have lots of mechanics in their own vans, tend to order a complete system like Bott, or others.
Sounds like the sort of market Tanos/Festool would be keen to get into, no? Big companies with big spending power, tied into a racking system that would drive tool and accessory sales, if only a tool manufacturer could make their boxes compatible?

And if that massive new market comes at the expense of a few people who refuse to buy anything in the new style Systainers? I guess they only have to look at the numbers to decide if it's worth it.

Offline SRSemenza

  • Global Moderator
  • *
  • Posts: 9615
  • Finger Lakes Region, NY State , USA
Re: Systainer3 and T-Loc sizing comparison image
« Reply #16 on: December 16, 2020, 02:31 PM »
What happens to someone with a "Bott Van" who then buys some Milwaukee, dewalt, etc tools. 
They'll just use Bott pull-out drawers that are interchangeable with the new Tanos/Bott slides and fit into the same cabinet. Or use other Bott shelving solutions that are fully integrated into the system. Only people with severe OCD would have an issue with that.
I don't have any association with Bott, just surprised when people try to find a problem where there is none.

So that makes the assumption they will fit.  That was my point, nothing to do with OCD.  If you have a rack system, and it's 10mm too skinny for your tool in it's case, you have a problem.


You take your Milwaukee tool and put it into a Systainer.   [huh]


Seth

Offline Svar

  • Posts: 2401
Re: Systainer3 and T-Loc sizing comparison image
« Reply #17 on: December 16, 2020, 02:33 PM »
If you have a rack system, and it's 10mm too skinny for your tool in it's case, you have a problem.
No, you don't have a problem. You just place it on a wider shelf right next to your ~400mm stack. That's why any work van would have a variety of drawers, racks, and shelves to accommodate a variety of cases and tools.

Offline Alex

  • Posts: 7465
Re: Systainer3 and T-Loc sizing comparison image
« Reply #18 on: December 16, 2020, 03:21 PM »
Only the bigger companies, who have lots of mechanics in their own vans, tend to order a complete system like Bott, or others.
Sounds like the sort of market Tanos/Festool would be keen to get into, no? Big companies with big spending power, tied into a racking system that would drive tool and accessory sales, if only a tool manufacturer could make their boxes compatible?

And if that massive new market comes at the expense of a few people who refuse to buy anything in the new style Systainers? I guess they only have to look at the numbers to decide if it's worth it.

That market is not new, lots of those companies already use Festool tools. And I am not sure how massive it actually is. But those big companies also tend to buy cheaper tools because they know how their employees treat their tools. They only buy Festool if that's absolutely the best option for the job.

You will see a single man company like a carpenter show up with a van full of Festool, and proud of it, and you'll see the big companies worker's carry Makita and DeWalt because they're half the price.
 
Anyway, the Bott angle in this discussion doesn't interest me so much, I just find the Systainer3's completely over-engineered. Too much systainer, too little storage. I alway prefer simple solutions that last, and the old classic systainer was very simple and sturdy.
« Last Edit: December 16, 2020, 03:24 PM by Alex »

Offline Systainer.Store

  • Retailer
  • *
  • Posts: 248
    • systainer.store
Re: Systainer3 and T-Loc sizing comparison image
« Reply #19 on: December 16, 2020, 03:55 PM »
This is interesting discussion.

One point I like to draw out is that any system is worth its salt when it maintains compatibility.  Some have argued that height compatibility isn't there in the SYS3.  I hear you.  I also like that SYS3, T-Loc and Classic still have availability and Classic can connect in with SYS3.  There are some cases where compatibility had to break.  Decades of these products being produced and they still work together. 

Offline wpz

  • Posts: 83
Re: Systainer3 and T-Loc sizing comparison image
« Reply #20 on: December 16, 2020, 05:10 PM »
Personally, I've always found that the sys classic and T-Loc should have had more logical names, but that might just be my OCD.

sys I -> sys 1
sys II-> sys 1,5
sys III-> sys 2
sys IV-> sys 3
sys V -> sys 4
Since they are multiples of a sys I height (10,5mm without the feet)

I see that the new sizes increase by 50mm or 100mm, probably to fit into the bott system.
The heights are very similar to the sortimo (now bosch-sortimo) L-boxx system.
Let's hope Tanos copies the LS-boxx and i-boxx rack (they seem to have copied the LT-boxx already)

The more options we have, the better.

wpz

Offline jimbo51

  • Posts: 517
Re: Systainer3 and T-Loc sizing comparison image
« Reply #21 on: December 16, 2020, 05:53 PM »
I wonder if a few smart folks with good PowerPoint skills sold this as the greatest idea since...   

Great ideas of the past include Polaroid movies and movies on laser disc introduced shortly before VHS crushed both of them.

Offline pixelated

  • Posts: 291
Re: Systainer3 and T-Loc sizing comparison image
« Reply #22 on: December 16, 2020, 09:27 PM »
I almost hate to ask the question, but are there any adapters that allow classic systainers to use the systainer3 racking?
I like the relative simplicity vs things like theses-ax drawers.

Offline Mortiser

  • Posts: 88
Re: Systainer3 and T-Loc sizing comparison image
« Reply #23 on: December 16, 2020, 10:42 PM »
What @Coen said.
I just don't see the advantage of Sys3. I do believe large industrial users/fleets drove this decision.

Offline Coen

  • Posts: 990
Re: Systainer3 and T-Loc sizing comparison image
« Reply #24 on: December 16, 2020, 10:57 PM »
I'm glad you are all voices your likes or dislikes on this sizing. 

I do what I can to get feedback to Tanos, and having this thread is very helpful.  I've found that some customers don't care or mind the sizing, some love the new sizing and others hate it.  None the less, T-Loc isn't going away, not yet.  The colors of T-Loc are discontinued, but Light Grey and Anthracite will be around for a while.  That is to say there isn't a forced departure.  Though it does look like Festool is transitioning over when it makes sense.

Just like @usernumber1 I have yet to hear or read from anyone that likes the new heights.

That the T-Loc's aren't discontinued isn't the issue. The issue is that Festool now uses the Sys3 by default. One of the reasons of buying Festool was that it compared somewhat favorable to another brand + buying separate systainer. Now that discount is gone... it's either other brand + Systainer of Festool + Systainer. And I absolutely do not like the idea of having to buy and sell all these different Systainers.

They need feedback that they messed up bigtime by nixing the whole idea of easily making stacks of the same height!!
I might be an outlier, but I couldn't care less whether they stack the same height. I'd rather have the box fit the tool without wasting space.

Different reason but same result: T-Loc >>> Sys3.
« Last Edit: December 16, 2020, 11:03 PM by Coen »

Offline DeformedTree

  • Posts: 1433
Re: Systainer3 and T-Loc sizing comparison image
« Reply #25 on: December 17, 2020, 12:46 AM »
if someone owns no existing systainers, then systainer 3 heights aren't a huge issue,  though the stack height to get to 900mm is a valid point.

The design changes are still issue, the dumb handle, no side labels, etc.

Most folks are going to be stuck with a mix, that is the issue.  As has been said before, if Tanos made this system for the BOTT stuff, but kept T-locks for Festool, and or even expand that system, folks would be happy. 

I don't think many people have a fundamental issue with there being a 3rd generation systainer, or new models, and some changes. It's just that there is basically no good to be found in the changes.  I don't think many people are giving much hope to festool re-thinking and going back to T-lock and offering a trade in program for those who got a systainer 3 dumped on them.

How much this will impact new tool buying, not sure, but I think a lot of folks will pause for a bit, or delay, or just go look at other options more verses just accepting a systainer 3 based tool.  After all, systainers are one of the key selling point of festool, and they just broke that.  It's not unlike when they ditched metric in some regions, some folks don't care, some like it, and a lot hate it with a passion as it broke part of the system.  Maybe going forwards festool will just randomly remove dust ports from tools  [tongue], who knows.

Festool will just tell themselves everytime they sell a tool that ships in a systainer 3 that people bought them because of systainer 3, and various other positive spins.  And of course a lot of buyers won't care in any way.

Offline AstroKeith

  • Posts: 193
Re: Systainer3 and T-Loc sizing comparison image
« Reply #26 on: December 17, 2020, 03:47 AM »
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.
Retired engineer/scientist

Offline Coen

  • Posts: 990
Re: Systainer3 and T-Loc sizing comparison image
« Reply #27 on: December 17, 2020, 10:09 PM »
Two different PDFs, one with feet height included... the other not?  [huh]

Offline Coen

  • Posts: 990
Re: Systainer3 and T-Loc sizing comparison image
« Reply #28 on: December 18, 2020, 02:28 AM »
Two different PDFs, one with feet height included... the other not?  [huh]
SYS T-LOC.PDF is for the “old” Systainers - SYS3.PDF is for the “new” Systainers.

I hope this helps . . .

One PDF has the height of the feet included... the other does not. Still have no clue what column 2 is supposed to show.

Offline Cheese

  • Posts: 8557
Re: Systainer3 and T-Loc sizing comparison image
« Reply #29 on: December 18, 2020, 11:22 AM »
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.




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.




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.