Author Topic: SYSTAINER³ available from September (Read 62496 times)

nvalinski · « **Reply #30 on:** June 28, 2019, 11:18 AM »

I hadn't thought about the heights stacking in a not really all that nice fashion... but I do see the appeal in having them in a consistent increment. I imagine the van racking probably takes up ~20 mm in between each. With racking set up to be height adjustable at maybe 50 mm, that would maximize the space with the systainer + drawer/divider being at 150/200/250/300/400/500 mm spaces (just the previously mentioned sizes + 20 mm, with the exception of the 112 height).

I think ultimately this is a change from everything being divisible by a common unit (52.5 mm for T-locs) and a move to a base height (feet+drawer) plus a common increment. Plusses and minuses for both, I suppose.

SRSemenza · « **Reply #31 on:** June 28, 2019, 11:30 AM »

I notice that the sixth size is actually not the one in the number six spot. It is the one in the number two spot at 137mm. Though the actual heights are different from the T-Loc, the 137 is a new one within the "generality" of the Sys - I - V heights. 112 is Sys - I, 137 is a Sys- I and a 1/4, the 187 is a Sys- II etc.

I think, with the exception of the 112, 137 and 187, the front handle is really only for a pull out / slide around aid since on the taller ones it is still located near the bottom and not in the center of the height.

Seth

Cheese · « **Reply #32 on:** June 28, 2019, 01:17 PM »

Like others, I'm trying to make some sense out of the new Systainer³ heights.

I took the combinations we're all familiar with;
1 + 1 = 3
1 + 3 = 4
2 + 2 = 4
1 + 4 = 5
3 + 3 = 5

I substituted the new height dimensions and there is not even one combination of Systainer³ heights that will yield the matching stacking height.

Consequently, even the new Organizer M at a height of 89 mm will not produce a matching stack height with either the old Systainers or the new Systainers.

Jiggy Joiner · « **Reply #33 on:** June 28, 2019, 03:47 PM »

Apart from the unlikelihood of Festool changing the height of MFT’s, Kapex’s and CS70’s etc etc, I cannot see any reason to change the height dimension?
There must be a reason, as they could have brought in the new design but, keep the heights the same?
If they have done this for van racking reasons, then surely two heights should be offered?

We often stack up systainers on site to help out with bench space, and when breaking sheet goods down.
Not sure whether stock up on more of the current ones, or maybe see what unfolds.
All a bit odd though eh?

Svar · « **Reply #34 on:** June 28, 2019, 04:08 PM »

New systainer heights are at 25, 50, and 100 mm increments. Old ones are at 52.5 and 105 mm. Hence more flexibility with the new. Of course, they could have added 26.3mm to SYS1 to make 131.3mm and call it SYS1.5.
There are always compromises, but the priority is how various tools fit in the boxes to optimize internal space.

BTW you can still stack the new ones to match MFT for all practical purposes: 130+330+430+7=897mm.

tobiaskurz · « **Reply #35 on:** June 29, 2019, 04:10 AM »

The main change in the hight system is that then number wich gets multiplied for each hight has changed drastically.

For the Classic and T-Loc SYSTAINERs all hight wehre a multiple from 52.5 mm.
SYS 1 – 2 x 52.5 = 105
SYS 2 – 3 x 52.5 = 157,5
SYS 3 – 4 x 52.5 = 210
SYS 4 – 6 x 52.5 = 315
SYS 5 – 8 x 52.5 = 420

This endet up with a System wehre many combinations reached the same hight.

For the new SYSTAINER³ the hight is always a multiple from 5 mm.
SYS³ 112 – 21 x 5 = 105
SYS³ 137 – 26 x 5 = 130
SYS³ 187 – 36 x 5 = 180
SYS³ 237 – 46 x 5 = 230
SYS³ 337 – 66 x 5 = 330
SYS³ 437 – 86 x 5 = 430

The drastically smaller common divisor from all hight has not only benefits. To get matching SYSTAINER hight you need to stack way more compared to the old system.

demographic · « **Reply #36 on:** June 29, 2019, 07:54 AM »

Currently I have a load of T-loc boxes in my van toolsafe, several are stacked so they work out at the same heights, can't see that working out so well with the new setup.

I do like the idea of the drawer slide capability and the front mounted handle helps that but can't help thinking they kind of just forgot about how usefull it is to have the heights the same.
Think I have a 4 and 2x2s beside it at the same height with my chopsaw on top of them and so on.

As a side note, does anyone else find Festools website to be all style and the content fairly hard to navigate/find details?
Their catalogues are the same. Nice paper, pretty photos but you get far better information from Peter Parfit and Dave Stantons Youtube stuff.

DeformedTree · « **Reply #37 on:** June 29, 2019, 10:49 AM »

Quote from: demographic on June 29, 2019, 07:54 AM

As a side note, does anyone else find Festools website to be all style and the content fairly hard to navigate/find details?
Their catalogues are the same. Nice paper, pretty photos but you get far better information from Peter Parfit and Dave Stantons Youtube stuff.

Yes, they are a poster child for this. It's really annoying when any company does pretty look, but won't just have nice clear PDF spec sheets there with all the info. Give folks information they can print out, mark up, think about, even keep in a binder someplace. It sucks having to make your own files, notes, etc on stuff. Additionally their websites are massively slow, often don't fully load, and the photos of the items are often not very useful, and sometime there are no images, or they are not of the product you are looking at (different versions). A lot of this is how companies have changed their websites for smart phones, this just makes them useless junk far as being a website and being helpful.

jimbo51 · « **Reply #38 on:** June 29, 2019, 10:50 AM »

This is an opportunity for Woodpecker and others to create new router/drill templates to accommodate the new dimensions with greater precision/utility than the 32 mm and 1/4 inch systems currently available.

While they are at it, someone could produce a stamped steel tray to fit the Systainers. It would have depressions to hold the feet and a lip (same depth as depressions) going down in the front and back to provide rigidity. The sides would turn up and have mounting holes to match 32 mm slide systems. I think this would maximize the number of Systainers in a given vertical space.
|______|
|______|
|______|

I wonder when the discussions about matching heights of systainers and the MFT were terminated during the design team meetings? I would guess it was very early, if not at the very first meeting. This is about storing in racks where matching heights is not a major objective.

Do any of you guys in the US use the Bott system? As an amateur, I personally know only 3 small contractors. One uses a pick-up truck and the other 2 use vans without rack systems.

mrB · « **Reply #39 on:** June 29, 2019, 11:05 AM »

We should remember here that Tanos is the systainer company. They are owned by the same group as festool, hence the integration on a level beyond any other tool manufacturer. However i can only assume that Tanos design their products for far bigger markets than tool boxes alone. I can imagine festool have little say over what Tanos decides to do.

Might have to go see Warren at the systemcontainer.co.uk sooner rather than later...

In fact Warren might be able to enlighten is on other large or larger scale users of the systainer.. I forget @Warren 's handle is that it...?

DeformedTree · « **Reply #40 on:** June 29, 2019, 12:41 PM »

Yeah, it's a clean slate verses backward compatibility issue.

Having 50mm or 100mm increments just makes sense, really it's an issue of why did they have 52.5 in the first place. So I can see the issue of "do we clean this up, and cause breakage or do we fix an ugly from the past".

Part of my thinks they just never really planned things out very well.

Obviously sometimes its hard or just a jinx or bad messaging to call the first generation of something gen 1 from the get go, but if they hadn't made a mess of the names and just said

Systainer 1. (classic)
Systainer 2. (t-lok)
Systainer 3. (sytainer 3)

Or Sys mk1, Sys mk2.....

If the heights had been organized from the start they could have just had

Sys1.50, Sys1.100, Sys2.25, Sys2.200, Sys3.400. etc.

the Systainer I , III, IV. thing is just not good. It's back to the problem of "trade sizes", which just seems odd for them to have done since things out of Europe are really good about getting rid of trade sizes/designations and giving them explicit numbers based on their dimensions. (5mm thread, not #10, x mm thickness, not gauge, x mm^2 wire, not AWG/Gauge/MCM, etc).

So if in part they are just trying to clean things up, I get that, sometimes you don't know a product will take off like it will and then you have regret. I almost wonder if they should just continue Tlok and the new ones. Not a great answer. I think most folks would have just asked for a short t-lock with the front handle to be added to the system. If they wanted to beef things up, refine corners, etc, sure.

Jiggy Joiner · « **Reply #41 on:** June 29, 2019, 12:58 PM »

After some careful thought, I think this sucks.

tobiaskurz · « **Reply #42 on:** June 29, 2019, 02:28 PM »

50 an 100 mm increments make sense when the hight from each SYSTAINER is dividable by 50 without a remainder. This is not the case and ends up wit a leek of combination possibility.
The old hight system had more sense then the new one. I understand that 52.5 mm isn't a very common measurement. They ware able to change to an 50 or even 25mm grid. The 5mm grid (5 is the biggest common divisor of all hights) seams to me as to narrow.

Jiggy Joiner · « **Reply #43 on:** June 29, 2019, 03:01 PM »

The current systainers were designed and built with multi function in mind.
The MFT SYS for example, is great for making up a bench extension or mini bench etc. If all they are worried about now, is how well they stow into a van, I really think it’s poor show, and from a company that is supposed to be innovative. Seems they are going backwards now?

DeformedTree · « **Reply #44 on:** June 30, 2019, 01:34 AM »

So what is the history with systainers. Did Tanos create them and then Festool adopted them, did they created them for Festool and then expand, have the 2 companies been under the same parent the whole time?

As others have touched on, if Tanos drives the boat here and is focused on 3 dimensional units for the containment of smaller 3 dimensional units to be used by many, and not just for Festool and their stuff, then it becomes easy to see them not caring very much. I wonder how long it will take Festool to convert all their stuff...if they do. Some of the products aren't that old.

demographic · « **Reply #45 on:** June 30, 2019, 03:15 AM »

Quote from: Svar on June 28, 2019, 04:08 PM

New systainer heights are at 25, 50, and 100 mm increments. Old ones are at 52.5 and 105 mm. Hence more flexibility with the new. Of course, they could have added 26.3mm to SYS1 to make 131.3mm and call it SYS1.5.
There are always compromises, but the priority is how various tools fit in the boxes to optimize internal space.

Eh? More flexibility with the new? Nope, sorry, the height changes is a massive fail compared to the old T-Loc boxes where two 1s made a 3 height and 2x2s made a 4 height.

I like the drawer slides and the front handle works with that drawer slide system but the few mm they have altered the heights by just lacked thought, jeez they didnt even need to think it up, just remember that it was already thought up.

Quote from: Cheese on June 28, 2019, 01:17 PM

Like others, I'm trying to make some sense out of the new Systainer³ heights.

I took the combinations we're all familiar with;
1 + 1 = 3
1 + 3 = 4
2 + 2 = 4
1 + 4 = 5
3 + 3 = 5

I substituted the new height dimensions and there is not even one combination of Systainer³ heights that will yield the matching stacking height.

Consequently, even the new Organizer M at a height of 89 mm will not produce a matching stack height with either the old Systainers or the new Systainers.

Yup, kind of my thoughts on it.

Jiggy Joiner · « **Reply #46 on:** June 30, 2019, 05:38 AM »

This has really put a spanner in the works for a lot of people I’d imagine.
We have a good few systainers from various brands, with their main use as storage, and stacking for bench extensions and support etc.
The vans have compartments at the side doors, with basic ply shelve etc, so no big deal on van storage for me, no matter what dimension these plastic cases come in.
The workshop has home made carts that we stack systainers and cases on, so again no big deal.

But, and it’s a big but, what about the vast amount of people that have racked out their vans and workshops with custom sized cabinets, that house sliding draws etc to take the current systainers? This is a kick in the nuts for these people.
They will either have to stock up on some current spare cases, or eventually re build the cabinets, really?

Either we’re not getting the full story or this is a major boob!

The whole idea around Festool is it’s modular, Systainers are included in this as they are a modular system, that ties in with many Festool product and ideas, why on earth change it?

I guess the price of current Systainers will now soar as they become scarce?

wheely · « **Reply #47 on:** June 30, 2019, 09:12 AM »

@Jiggy Joiner

I'm hoping the Bott van slides and Bott van drawers are the same size between uprights as the SYS-AZ drawers at 427mm, that way there are no cabinet / van racking alterations required to fit the new Systainer 3. Looking at some of the Bott and Tanos images it looks like the Bott Drawer and integrated slides are the same size.

It may be that you can open the drawer on a sys-combi too as the Bott drawers have a cutout

I guess we will find out once they start shipping. Bott suggests Vario 3 is available to order from 1 August.
Bott Vario3

harry_ · « **Reply #48 on:** June 30, 2019, 10:14 AM »

Quote from: Jiggy Joiner on June 30, 2019, 05:38 AM

But, and it’s a big but, what about the vast amount of people that have racked out their vans and workshops with custom sized cabinets, that house sliding draws etc to take the current systainers? This is a kick in the nuts for these people.
They will either have to stock up on some current spare cases, or eventually re build the cabinets, really?

That really depends on the 'life cycle' of the van. I mean at some point we have to change out our ride, then we upfit accordingly.
As for the shop scenario, I would hope that those custom build-outs had some forethought in mind like on a 32mm system.

For me they should have just left off the backwards compat to the first gen systainers. Seems that about 1/2 of my second generation systainers have had the compatibility tabs broken off anyhow.

Jiggy Joiner · « **Reply #49 on:** June 30, 2019, 12:53 PM »

A lot of racking in a van goes into replacement van, especially if the new van is of similar spec and size.
Our vans aren’t racked for systainers like many are but, we have expensive frails and racking for carrying large sheet goods, and these aren’t cheap, so we usually remove them from older vehicles and have them fitted to replacements, providing they are in good order, which saves me a lot of money.

I know many remove their systainer racking for the same reasons.
I’ll not lose sleep over plastic cases though, as I only use them for storing and carrying tools, and stacking for bench work. I still think it’s a very strange decision though.
It’s the little, sometimes hidden ideas that set Festool apart, I just can’t see any positives in this?

demographic · « **Reply #50 on:** June 30, 2019, 12:54 PM »

So, in short.
These new boxes will fit well into vans racking systems (yay, new sales opportunity for Festool) but don't even play that nice with themselves.
They'll stack but try getting two stacks side by side the same height and you better be using the same combination.
I like it/detest it. Win/fail all rolled into one.

Part of the reason I'm not bowled oved by the mobile workbench is the drawer system wastes a fair bit of space and just stacking the boxes on the SYS ROLL and lifting them off when needed means I can carry a few more in a one'er. Oh and that its bleedin expensive.
Ideally Id rather have a beefed up SYS ROLL which is kind of what I'm pottering away at making mine into anyway.

Euclid · « **Reply #51 on:** June 30, 2019, 05:34 PM »

I just stumbled across another backwards non-compatibility point...

https://www.instagram.com/p/BrqLAkjlM7h/

It seems as though a great number of little, but rather useful, points have been thought about along the way with the system (they cannot all be serendipitous) - but then forgotten about.
Pending further insights (or a curious strand of arithmetic I've not encountered), I'm still calling "dropped ball" (other sporting analogies are available...).

tobiaskurz · « **Reply #52 on:** July 01, 2019, 02:01 AM »

Quote from: Euclid on June 30, 2019, 05:34 PM

I just stumbled across another backwards non-compatibility point...

https://www.instagram.com/p/BrqLAkjlM7h/

It seems as though a great number of little, but rather useful, points have been thought about along the way with the system (they cannot all be serendipitous) - but then forgotten about.
Pending further insights (or a curious strand of arithmetic I've not encountered), I'm still calling "dropped ball" (other sporting analogies are available...).

The SYS 1 is tho only hight wich stays from the old system. Tow of the new SYS³ M 112 will still match the hight from the VAC SYS. Same goes for one SYS³ M 112 and the KAPEX 60.
With the T-Loc SYSTAINERs it was possible to use a SYS 3 instead of two SYS 1. This will not be possible with the new ones.

mrB · « **Reply #53 on:** July 01, 2019, 02:21 AM »

I live in London, in a small flat, with a workshop that will undoubtedly have to move again probably sooner than later as all the industrial Estates become new homes..

My life is built around drawers and cupboards built with storage height for a sys5. Below are the combinations that can fit this height...

Sys5
Sys4 + sys1
Sys3 + sys3
Sys3 + sys1 + sys1
Sys2 + sys2 + sys1
Sys1 + sys1 + sys1 + sys1

As joiner says, i won't loose sleep over this, but it's a real shame to lose such a WONDERFUL system. And it certainly might affect some future purchase desicions as having the
£50 systainer included did help justify the cost/decision in some tool choices...

Jiggy Joiner · « **Reply #54 on:** July 01, 2019, 02:59 AM »

Quote from: DeformedTree on June 30, 2019, 01:34 AM

So what is the history with systainers. Did Tanos create them and then Festool adopted them, did they created them for Festool and then expand, have the 2 companies been under the same parent the whole time?

As others have touched on, if Tanos drives the boat here and is focused on 3 dimensional units for the containment of smaller 3 dimensional units to be used by many, and not just for Festool and their stuff, then it becomes easy to see them not caring very much. I wonder how long it will take Festool to convert all their stuff...if they do. Some of the products aren't that old.

Hi DT, If that is the case, surely Festool should be either be looking elsewhere for storage manufacture, or asking Tanos to keep the dimension the same in a bespoke range?
If Festool and Tanos are owned by the same company, somebody must be able to pull strings?
Also, what if Festool did decide to alter the machines to fit the Systainers, which I think is probably unlikely. Then Tanos fairly quickly decide to alter the Systainers again?
I would imagine that Festool are not happy at all about this situation. It really is an unnecessary change for change’s sake, without any obvious reason, unless we’re all missing something, or we haven’t got the full story?

Personally I think the Systainers are way over priced, for what in reality is a plastic case with a lock tab and handle. So I feel for the many people who have heavily invested in these plastic cases, as the people that make them, have decided a change is needed.
It really is an odd manoeuvre don’t you think?

DeformedTree · « **Reply #55 on:** July 02, 2019, 12:37 AM »

Well, the core issue is that Systainers solve a problem really well and there really isn't much in the way of alternatives. Other systems are limited, not nice dimensions and or just not available in the USA (part that matters to some of us). I've looked into things like "Euro norm" containers, those have a benefit of using the same footprint and being made by many companies. Problem is they too don't exist in the US for the most part, and what are sold here cost many times more than what is paid in Europe (basically depending on the size a systainer is about the same price). Some get better if your in the market to buy a few thousand of one size.

Also Euronorms don't have the latches and such, so good for some stuff, not others.

Systainers are expensive, it's hard to put a number on if they are overpriced but I'd wager they make a healthy profit. I was ok with the price if things stayed standard. This is/was my issue on this subject a while back. Basically the need for standard containers like these. In Europe there are options, in the US, things are very limited.

You also get into the situation where there is the midi line that never had all the sizes, I think they now went from 2 to 3 sizes, odd, and it's the size that doesn't make sense. Meanwhile the Maxi size never even got T-loc update. I'd prefer to see that get revised too, since it's the double to the systainer so the 2 can work nicely together.

It looks like the first gen went 17 years, then the t-locs came. That's typical, you change a few years ahead of patents expiring, this go is a bit soon on the cycle as it will be 10 years in. You need to launch a new model a few years ahead of patents expiring so people get use to the new and thus when patent runs out no one is interested in making the old any more. With this change it could be nearly 10 years before someone could make systainer t-loc designs and spawn a open design. So probably won't happen.

I do wish there were other options. But in the end, what is key is interchangeability. If someone else comes out with something similar but it's different footprint, or doesn't connect together with these ones, there is no point.

I spend a lot of money putting all my stuff in systainers the past few months. It is wonderful to have everything organized and it makes working so much better. Thinking about how many thousands I spent on this effort really was something hard to grasp and caused second guessing. It's certainly not any easier with things changing. I really wish there was an ISO standard option, something made by multiple companies. If there was, I would have taken festool stuff out of systainers and move it all into what ever standard design there was, just like I tossed all the blow molded cases of the other brand tools I had. But there simply wasn't options. Now a change would be rough. Tanos knows this, so they basically know they can break things and there won't be consequences. I can generally adjust to the heights, I just don't like having things mismatches, as it moves away from the goal. I really don't get the removal of the side labels, I'm not sure what all has been made better here, and how much more expensive will these now be. What becomes of the products out there, does things live in a dual world for many years? What about say Mafell, do they change over, make a deal to stick to old, or go some other brand which then hoses over folks who again want the interchange. What about those who make air compressors and such.

I'm sure some of this happened before with the previous update, but I wasn't around then. I worry that companies will bail and go to other systems and then were does that leave Tanos. Overall I guess those companies will adjust too and move on with the new system. It's going to be really frustrating though if I want to buy say a Mafell Dual Doweler and they decide to go to a different brand of case, that's not going to work well at all.

Bob D. · « **Reply #56 on:** July 02, 2019, 05:22 AM »

"Personally I think the Systainers are way over priced, for what in reality is a plastic case with a lock tab and handle."

I like having the Systainer for storing the tool but I too think they are a little pricey. To me it seems that it is Festool who is pulling Tanos along with all the Systainer sales bundled with their tools, but I don't know what percentage of total Systainer production the Festool segment represents.

Still, if you had a choice of purchasing a Festool without the Systainer and saving some money (or having that cash available to invest in additional Festool accessories), I wonder how many would take that option. I say that because there have been a number of people on here who have said they don't use the Systainers because they don't fit their particular situation or storage method.

If you have a dozen empty Systainers sitting around taking up space, that's roughly the equivalent of one or two tools you could add to your arsenal. You can sell them and recoup some of your money, but you won't get full value so money lost for something you never wanted but couldn't opt out of.

Jiggy Joiner · « **Reply #57 on:** July 02, 2019, 06:34 AM »

@DeformedTree Yeah I can understand the predicament across the water. It does sound strange hearing somebody outside of the UK is getting fleeced on prices too, haha! I thought it was only us that paid too much

I think you’re right regarding the outgoing patent, that may even explain the height increase along with a new patent. It’s a bit naughty but, will keep the bean counters happy.

@Bob D. Yes good point about being offered a tool with or without a Systainer, I must be honest, I’d prefer with, mainly to carry and protect the investment.
We have a fair few Systainers, nowhere near as many as some, and I have thought about kitting the workshop out with banks of systainers in drawers etc but,a lit of ours are just stacked along the side wall, they’re labelled but not as convenient and tidy as draws and cabinets.

Some trades I’ve noticed throw away their cases and systainers, and carry their tools and chargers in big boxes or gorilla tubs? Which I think is crazy, I see it often though.
I also hear stories of large companies buying power tools in bulk for their factory floor etc, and dumping the cases or systainers in the rubbish!

six-point socket II · « **Reply #58 on:** July 02, 2019, 06:41 AM »

I was and basically still am, baffled that Tanos/Festool would chose new heights for the Systainer³ models. I mean the Systainer is part of the system in so many ways, feels kinda odd giving that up. That said, I like the front handle, I like the wider models (long cordless ratchet with battery installed), I like the padlock option ...

But I think I like the new organizers best so far, and those will not interfere with "my" system but be a stand alone solution, just like I use the Mini-L-Boxxes. I'll definitely get some of those!

Then again, I'm fortunate to be pretty much set - I have tons of T-Locs. But I also have my workshop sideboard and sysport - while I could easily adjust heights (drilled complete 32mm hole pattern rows) I can't adjust width that easily.

Personally I can easily see people buying tools without systainer, especially in a workshop-only environment. + Not everyone likes them, anyway.

So yeah, I'm resting my head fairly easy as well.

Kind regards,
Oliver

Cheese · « **Reply #59 on:** July 02, 2019, 10:15 AM »

Quote from: Bob D. on July 02, 2019, 05:22 AM

Still, if you had a choice of purchasing a Festool without the Systainer and saving some money (or having that cash available to invest in additional Festool accessories), I wonder how many would take that option. I say that because there have been a number of people on here who have said they don't use the Systainers because they don't fit their particular situation or storage method.

I'd like that option...

All of my drills are kept on the shelf, sans Systainer because they're used so often. The same goes for the Vac Sys and the sleeved vacuum hoses that arrived in Systainers. That gave me an additional 6 Systainers to use for storing items, unfortunately it also forced me to make room and save all of the plastic inserts "just in case" I wanted to sell the items later.