Author Topic: Systainer3 and T-Loc sizing comparison image  (Read 8418 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Systainer.Store

  • Retailer
  • *
  • Posts: 235
    • 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: 226
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
TS55, FS1080, FS1400 holey, FS1900, FS3000
CT26E + Workshop cleaning set
RO90
RO125
ETS EC 125
RAS115
ETS 125 (2)

Offline Systainer.Store

  • Retailer
  • *
  • Posts: 235
    • 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: 226
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
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 #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: 7253
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: 2340
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: 833
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: 235
    • 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: 1273
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: 7253
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.

Online DeformedTree

  • Posts: 1281
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: 2340
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 »

Online DeformedTree

  • Posts: 1281
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: 144
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: 144
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.

Online SRSemenza

  • Global Moderator
  • *
  • Posts: 9536
  • 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: 2340
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: 7253
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: 235
    • 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: 78
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: 506
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: 257
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: 76
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: 809
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 »

Online DeformedTree

  • Posts: 1281
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: 186
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: 809
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: 809
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.

Online Cheese

  • Posts: 8172
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.

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.

Online Cheese

  • Posts: 8172
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

Offline 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.

Online Cheese

  • Posts: 8172
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: 1281
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"

Offline 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: 1281
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

Offline Systainer.Store

  • Retailer
  • *
  • Posts: 235
    • systainer.store
Re: Systainer3 and T-Loc sizing comparison image
« Reply #60 on: December 30, 2020, 06:31 AM »
Tanos stays pretty quiet about future products.  Right now I don't know of any Combi planned in SYS3 style.  Though the future is big and vast and not written yet.

Offline Bird

  • Posts: 11
Re: Systainer3 and T-Loc sizing comparison image
« Reply #61 on: December 30, 2020, 10:45 AM »
  [big grin]

Offline Imemiter

  • Posts: 139
Re: Systainer3 and T-Loc sizing comparison image
« Reply #62 on: December 30, 2020, 01:02 PM »

Also really like the foam insert for the drill/impact combo all in one systainer. Need one for the cxs and c18.

That does look well designed. I may have to look for a part number.
CSX, TID 18, HKC 55, OSC 18, OF 1010, Domino XL, DTS 400, ETS 125, RAS 115, LR32, CTSys, CTMidi, CT-VA-20

Offline bidn

  • Posts: 12
  • hobbyist
Re: Systainer3 and T-Loc sizing comparison image
« Reply #63 on: January 03, 2021, 05:25 PM »
I too globally hate this new gen 3 system. especially the handles, because they are positioned at the bottom, which makes them useless for carrying the taller systainer, and on the smallest size they cannot be fixed-clicked when stapled... And they are not compatible with the first generation. I still use some of the first generation because I find them more sturdy, so better for very heavy content, and I will put them at the bottom of a staple. I can still put a generation 2 between a gen 1 and a gen 3 for connection, but this is a shame.

Also I loved the generation 2 roll sys (small wheeled tray). The new one (gen 3) which displaced the gen 2 is larger, wasting more space when aggregating several rolling stacks.

There are still some positive things : the XXL systainer is a nice addition for big things, and does not have the bottom handle, although it belongs to the systainer3 (gen 3) serie.

There seem to be some shortage of separately available systainers in Europe, re. the models with the standard width. I suspect this may be related to the Covid pandemic. Systainers are used for storing and transporting the covid tests, which should have resulted in a huge demand. I wonder whether some companies might use those with the black insulating foam inside for the Covid vaccines
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 mkasdin

  • Posts: 474
Re: Systainer3 and T-Loc sizing comparison image
« Reply #64 on: January 03, 2021, 07:10 PM »
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.
there’s a lot of petty theft in Europe? The Netherlands is plagued with car break ins. I’m told the thieves watch your car with binoculars from apartments, and will steal the change from your ashtray? So yah the tools would be gone within 7-10 days left overnight on the street.

Offline edwarmr

  • Posts: 241
Re: Systainer3 and T-Loc sizing comparison image
« Reply #65 on: January 03, 2021, 07:22 PM »
I too globally hate this new gen 3 system. especially the handles, because they are positioned at the bottom, which makes them useless for carrying the taller systainer, and on the smallest size they cannot be fixed-clicked when stapled...

Keep in mind the front handle you are describing on the larger gen 3 Systainers is not actually a handle, it's a pull out aid for van racking or for your own homemade racking. You will notice it does not actually flip up like a handle; it is locked in place. It can be removed from the inside of the gen 3 Systainers if you don't like it. The flip handles on the front of the Systainers end at size Sys 3 M 187 for the very reason you mentioned (at larger sizes the front handle would not allow the Systainer to be balanced for carrying). Even the flip handles can be removed on the smaller sizes of the gen 3 Systainers if you don't like them.

Personally I love the gen 3 Systainers :)

Offline Svar

  • Posts: 2340
Re: Systainer3 and T-Loc sizing comparison image
« Reply #66 on: January 03, 2021, 07:34 PM »
And they are not compatible with the first generation... I can still put a generation 2 between a gen 1 and a gen 3 for connection, but this is a shame.
They are compatible with Classic, exactly as T-loc. You can put Classic directly under Sys3.

« Last Edit: January 03, 2021, 08:00 PM by Svar »

Offline bidn

  • Posts: 12
  • hobbyist
Re: Systainer3 and T-Loc sizing comparison image
« Reply #67 on: January 06, 2021, 08:37 AM »
They are compatible with Classic, exactly as T-loc. You can put Classic directly under Sys3.

Thank you, I hadn't realized this.
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.