Author Topic: The new version of systainers looks pretty awesome!  (Read 7372 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline bwehman

  • Posts: 76
The new version of systainers looks pretty awesome!
« on: September 27, 2019, 11:40 AM »
Not sure how many of you all have run across these, but seems like they did an amazing job incorporating that vertical carrying handle and such. My OCD tendencies are bummed that I'll have a mix of systainer generations, ha, but I'll take that trade off for what looks to be a superior design.

https://www.festool.com/campaigns/microsites/mobility


Offline Euclid

  • Posts: 185
Re: The new version of systainers looks pretty awesome!
« Reply #1 on: September 27, 2019, 11:58 AM »
We debated these at some length a little while ago, and they received a rather mixed reception.
If you are already concerned about having a mix of old and new, then you might want to restrain your excitement until you have studied the dimensions... that may (or may not) irk you rather more than minor cosmetic differences...(!)

:-)
« Last Edit: September 27, 2019, 12:00 PM by Euclid »

Offline safety1st

  • Posts: 183
Re: The new version of systainers looks pretty awesome!
« Reply #2 on: September 27, 2019, 12:18 PM »
From that link

"Festool will convert all products to Systainer³ in a gradual process, starting in 2020."

I guess this answers the question whether systainer3 is an add-on or a replacement design.

Offline xedos

  • Posts: 117
Re: The new version of systainers looks pretty awesome!
« Reply #3 on: October 02, 2019, 10:52 AM »
What do you think is superior on this generation?   I see some changes , but none superior in my view. 

I do see some issues with the new heights though. 

Link to big discussion:

https://www.festoolownersgroup.com/festool-and-tanos-systainers/systainer3-available-from-september/



Offline Jiggy Joiner

  • Posts: 804
Re: The new version of systainers looks pretty awesome!
« Reply #4 on: October 02, 2019, 01:27 PM »
The height difference is my gripe too, and in honesty the vertical carry handle doesn’t excite me that much, as most of the contents in my Systainers lends itself better, to be carried with the top handle.

Offline Cheese

  • Posts: 6542
Re: The new version of systainers looks pretty awesome!
« Reply #5 on: October 02, 2019, 02:00 PM »
I agree with Jiggy, the front handle is nice for removing a Systainer from a cubby but that’s pretty much the end of its usefulness.

Take an installers set with all of those 1” bits stored in the many small pockets. Then turn it on it’s side and carry it somewhere. Open it up...what do you have?

Offline xedos

  • Posts: 117
Re: The new version of systainers looks pretty awesome!
« Reply #6 on: October 02, 2019, 04:41 PM »
front handle available for current t-locs if you want:

 

Offline Peter Halle

  • Global Moderator
  • *
  • Posts: 12058
  • Magnum - My new little boy
Re: The new version of systainers looks pretty awesome!
« Reply #7 on: October 02, 2019, 06:15 PM »
And the image at the start of the thread shows a top and a front handle.  For my needs that works better and would allow more compact spacing of Systainers on shelves or in my van.

Peter

Offline xedos

  • Posts: 117
Re: The new version of systainers looks pretty awesome!
« Reply #8 on: October 02, 2019, 09:12 PM »
How is the new one more compact when they’re taller ? 

That doesn’t sound more compact at all and may necessitate reconfiguring your van racks/shelves for sysII-V.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2019, 09:19 PM by xedos »

Offline SRSemenza

  • Global Moderator
  • *
  • Posts: 8994
  • Finger Lakes Region, NY State , USA
Re: The new version of systainers looks pretty awesome!
« Reply #9 on: October 02, 2019, 11:03 PM »
How is the new one more compact when they’re taller ? 

That doesn’t sound more compact at all and may necessitate reconfiguring your van racks/shelves for sysII-V.

Depending on the height actually needed it is possible that a shorter Systainer could take the place of a taller one. That, of course is situational. EX- I have more than one Sys - III that is too tall but a Sys - II is too short. I didn't check the new heights just now, but if one of the new ones is in between a current Sys - II and III it would save space. Like I said though, it is situational.

What is not situational is that the integrated front handle (which is more compact and fits inside the footprint compared to  the add on front handle) will make it easier to pull Systainers from racks or shelving.  Making it so that very little space is needed between shelves. Since the Systainer can be slid straight out without or tipping or tilting or bumping / catching on the one above or below. And no hand / finger space is needed above , below, or at the sides to pull it out.

 I can even see the handle being useful if the Systainer is on a drawer. The Sys handle effectively becoming the drawer handle.

Plus with the built in slide / grooves / channels the new ones can just into slots. Zero shelf or drawer space needed.

Seth
« Last Edit: October 02, 2019, 11:06 PM by SRSemenza »

Offline Coen

  • Posts: 469
Re: The new version of systainers looks pretty awesome!
« Reply #10 on: October 17, 2019, 12:40 AM »
The new heights look pretty irritating. With the old system you could just put a SYS-III on one side to support something, and two stacked SYS-I's on the other side. There is no way stacking smaller Systainers of the 3 variety to get to the same height as a larger one.

Compare heights;
old;
105
157.5
210
315
420

new;
105
130
180
230
330
430

All heights above are in [mm] and w/o feet, so add 7mm for each stack.

 [sad]

Offline Gregor

  • Posts: 1459
Re: The new version of systainers looks pretty awesome!
« Reply #11 on: October 17, 2019, 04:30 AM »
[sad]
At least they have left the SYS 1 height, would have been an absolute shame if had they messed that up too as a SYS 1 is nice way to support very long things for the Kapex (when used on an even surface without the cart).

But apart from that I agree, the new height increments make stacking temporary supports of even height way harder than before - which is a downgrade compared to the old version.

The handles seem to be a downgrade too: the front one looks like getting in the way when accessing a the T-LOC of the systainer below and the top handle (folding toward the front, though it makes sense when grabbing it to lift the systainer from a rack) will, unless being locked in place by something now visible on the photos, extend on it's own when carring the systainer on the front handle - unless that front handle will break off anyway in case the systainer isn't empty, it dosn't look sturdy enough to take much load (apart from what's needed to pull the systainer out of the rack).

Seems like someone stopped thinking this throught somewhere half-way.

Offline xedos

  • Posts: 117
Re: The new version of systainers looks pretty awesome!
« Reply #12 on: October 17, 2019, 09:21 AM »
SYS1 height is not the same as the saw bed height on the original Kapex.   

I'm not sure about the "revised" 120 edition. I do know they align on the smaller kapex 60 though , which is NAINA.

Offline demographic

  • Posts: 536
Re: The new version of systainers looks pretty awesome!
« Reply #13 on: October 17, 2019, 12:48 PM »
I like almost everything about these new boxes, other than the fact that some wally forgot about the heights matching.

It's been part of the sales pitch for Festol boxes for twenty or more years and I'm utterly stunned that they allowed these out the factory without that feature.

There must be some reason that explains it and I'm missing it. To me it just seems like they were so close but dropped the ball at the end.

Offline Gregor

  • Posts: 1459
Re: The new version of systainers looks pretty awesome!
« Reply #14 on: October 17, 2019, 08:53 PM »
SYS1 height is not the same as the saw bed height on the original Kapex.   
But with the feet of the systainer (total of 112mm) close enough to the 110mm of the Kapex when the systainer is sitting 2+m away from it.

Offline Spandex

  • Posts: 30
Re: The new version of systainers looks pretty awesome!
« Reply #15 on: October 18, 2019, 12:21 PM »
I like almost everything about these new boxes, other than the fact that some wally forgot about the heights matching.

It's been part of the sales pitch for Festol boxes for twenty or more years and I'm utterly stunned that they allowed these out the factory without that feature.

There must be some reason that explains it and I'm missing it. To me it just seems like they were so close but dropped the ball at the end.
Maybe they researched and discovered only a small percentage of customers relied on the matching height combinations.

Offline tazcubed

  • Posts: 41
Re: The new version of systainers looks pretty awesome!
« Reply #16 on: October 18, 2019, 01:47 PM »
I wish one of these storage manufacturers would make something that's closer to 24"/610mm wide on the inside. I've got a few tools that are close that length that I wish I could find a storage solution for.

Offline Svar

  • Posts: 1871
Re: The new version of systainers looks pretty awesome!
« Reply #17 on: October 18, 2019, 01:58 PM »
Maybe they researched and discovered only a small percentage of customers relied on the matching height combinations.
Quite likely. I, for example, don't care for stacking height. I'd rather bring sawhorses (or adjustable height roller stand) than fumble through systainers constructing a tower and then discovering that I need a tool from the bottom one. All toolboxes need to be easily accessible at all times.

Possibly they studied average tools dimensions (for example, all track saws are ~ 220 mm tall) and optimized box heights that way in lieu of matching boxes with each other.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2019, 02:53 PM by Svar »

Offline demographic

  • Posts: 536
Re: The new version of systainers looks pretty awesome!
« Reply #18 on: October 18, 2019, 02:46 PM »
Maybe they researched and discovered only a small percentage of customers relied on the matching height combinations.

Possible, I just like it because they fit into my toolsafe well with various combinations being the same height so I can store my mitresaw on to of them but still securely in the toolsafe.

Its a shame because the other features of the boxes are good.

Offline Spandex

  • Posts: 30
Re: The new version of systainers looks pretty awesome!
« Reply #19 on: October 31, 2019, 10:04 AM »
Some examples of European pricing here:

https://www.sys-classic.de/TANOS-systainer-The-third-Generation:::678.html

Obviously this is for non-Festool versions, and not everything listed has a price yet, so I assume the different products will trickle out over the next few months.

Offline Coen

  • Posts: 469
Re: The new version of systainers looks pretty awesome!
« Reply #20 on: November 01, 2019, 06:15 PM »
Insane.... that's nearly double. If that is gonna trickly down to every Festool tool in Systainer I think it's the biggest boost to L-boxx'es in a long time...

Offline Jiggy Joiner

  • Posts: 804
Re: The new version of systainers looks pretty awesome!
« Reply #21 on: November 02, 2019, 04:55 AM »
It is indeed insane asking these prices but, what’s probably more insane is, many people pay the prices.
As much as I like Systainers, all said and done, they’re plastic cases, the price doesn’t reflect this though.
I know they don’t have T locs but, the Makita equivalent are around a thirds of the price of Festool?

Offline demographic

  • Posts: 536
Re: The new version of systainers looks pretty awesome!
« Reply #22 on: November 02, 2019, 06:38 AM »
Insane.... that's nearly double. If that is gonna trickly down to every Festool tool in Systainer I think it's the biggest boost to L-boxx'es in a long time...

I tried L-box's a while ago, good size and made of stronger plastic than Systainers.
Problem is the way they join together is bleedin orrible. You can't put one on top of another without it locking so a few inside my toolsafe weree a nightmare. I had to leave space either side of them to unlock them.
In the end I gave them away and was glad to be rid of them.

I wouldn't complain if systainers were glass reenforced and a bit thicker though.

Offline Bob D.

  • Posts: 1359
Re: The new version of systainers looks pretty awesome!
« Reply #23 on: November 02, 2019, 06:45 AM »
SYS1 height is not the same as the saw bed height on the original Kapex.   
But with the feet of the systainer (total of 112mm) close enough to the 110mm of the Kapex when the systainer is sitting 2+m away from it.

"close enough", since when has Festool been about close enough? That's the other guys motto. :-)
« Last Edit: November 02, 2019, 07:04 AM by Bob D. »
-----
It's a table saw, do you know where your fingers are?

Offline Gregor

  • Posts: 1459
Re: The new version of systainers looks pretty awesome!
« Reply #24 on: November 02, 2019, 08:45 AM »
SYS1 height is not the same as the saw bed height on the original Kapex.   
But with the feet of the systainer (total of 112mm) close enough to the 110mm of the Kapex when the systainer is sitting 2+m away from it.

"close enough", since when has Festool been about close enough? That's the other guys motto. :-)
You have a point.

Offline xedos

  • Posts: 117
Re: The new version of systainers looks pretty awesome!
« Reply #25 on: November 02, 2019, 09:41 AM »
Quote
Maybe they researched and discovered only a small percentage of customers relied on the matching height combinations.

I seriously doubt it.  At least not the general, end using customer. 

Did anyone here get asked about this?   How about the on the instagram or facebook outlets ?

Offline Spandex

  • Posts: 30
Re: The new version of systainers looks pretty awesome!
« Reply #26 on: November 02, 2019, 06:05 PM »
I’m not sure people on here are that representative. Forums tend to be populated by the serious fans who are into every detail, but most people buying these tools just see them as exactly that - a tool. They have tools from loads of different brands and don’t turn up on site with everything stacked in systainers.

Offline Bob D.

  • Posts: 1359
Re: The new version of systainers looks pretty awesome!
« Reply #27 on: November 02, 2019, 08:17 PM »
Well for me one of the big advantages of the Systainer was it was modular. If that is out the window then I don't know what I'll do, look for tools without Systainers, save some money I guess, and buy used T-locs. I am having trouble finding value in almost all the changes the Sys³ has brought about.

I do like the integrated handle on the front of the Sys³ though. I bought one of the add-on front handles and it does hang out the front as Seth mentioned. I ended taking it off as I kept hitting it with my leg when it was stored on the shelf under the bench.

It seems that the slot on each side where you could place a label is gone. So if your boxes are stuffed in a slot somewhere and you can only see the side it will be difficult to know what's in which Systainer. Yes, there are other ways to label the Systainer but that was professional looking and easy to change out if the contents changed.

The Systainer is probably the biggest markup item in a tool kit I'd bet. When you boil it down there's what like $2 worth of plastic and manufacturing in the thing. Why upset the apple cart and kill that golden goose... I don't get it. Yes, not many if any will choose not buy Festool because of the change in Systainers. And anyone new to Festool who is not vested in the old style Systainer will care nor feel the pain. Only those who have been there for years will be affected.

I guess the same happened when the T-loc came into being. My first Festool (RO125) was in the old classic style Systainer, everything after that has been T-loc and I now have over a dozen. Storage in my shop is sized around them, and the new sizes will not mix well with the old when it comes to my shelf spacing.



« Last Edit: November 04, 2019, 05:44 AM by Bob D. »
-----
It's a table saw, do you know where your fingers are?

Offline thudchkr

  • Posts: 146
Re: The new version of systainers looks pretty awesome!
« Reply #28 on: November 02, 2019, 09:32 PM »
Insane.... that's nearly double. If that is gonna trickly down to every Festool tool in Systainer I think it's the biggest boost to L-boxx'es in a long time...

I tried L-box's a while ago, good size and made of stronger plastic than Systainers.
Problem is the way they join together is bleedin orrible. You can't put one on top of another without it locking so a few inside my toolsafe weree a nightmare. I had to leave space either side of them to unlock them.
In the end I gave them away and was glad to be rid of them.


When I got my L-BOXXs they came with installed clips that would keep them from locking to each other.  Still have a bunch of them as I prefer to be able to  connect them.  Problem, as you say, is they tend to connect when placed atop each other.  Especially when you'd prefer they didn't.

I like the latches on the L-BOXX better than those on the classic systainer, but prefer the T-Loc over the L-BOXX latch.  Currently am using Systainers, both classic and T-Loc, L-BOXXs as well as a few boxes from Milwaukee and Dewalt.  I think they all have their own little area of excellence where that specific box is best for the task.
Clint

TSC 55, TS 75, HKC 55, DF 500, DF 700, Kapex 120, UG Ext. Wings, MFK 700, OF 1010, OF 1400, OF 2200, CT 22, CT 26, ETS 150/3, ETS EQ 150/5, PRO 5, DTS 400, RO 90, RO 150, RAS 115, CXS, DWC 18-4500, MFT Kapex, MFT 3 (2), MFT 800, MFT 1080

Offline Coen

  • Posts: 469
Re: The new version of systainers looks pretty awesome!
« Reply #29 on: November 03, 2019, 07:30 AM »
I doubt though the relative price increase is that much. I think those prices are just early  adaopter prices...

A Systainer is definitely way more than $2 to produce

Offline xedos

  • Posts: 117
Re: The new version of systainers looks pretty awesome!
« Reply #30 on: November 03, 2019, 08:51 AM »
I’m not sure people on here are that representative. Forums tend to be populated by the serious fans who are into every detail, but most people buying these tools just see them as exactly that - a tool. They have tools from loads of different brands and don’t turn up on site with everything stacked in systainers.


If this group isn't representative ,  then why does Festool keep sending tools for Peter to "review" ?

And , if you were in charge of a product and needed to beta test it , why wouldn't you send it to serious users who would pour over every detail ? 

Even the faithful around here that do site work for a living have and use other brands of tools.  That's exactly who I'd want putting a product though its paces before launch.   


Offline Spandex

  • Posts: 30
Re: The new version of systainers looks pretty awesome!
« Reply #31 on: November 04, 2019, 03:47 AM »
If this group isn't representative ,  then why does Festool keep sending tools for Peter to "review" ?
Because they want someone experienced and trusted to review their products? Not sure how that’s related really... reviewers don’t have to be representative of the ‘typical buyer’, otherwise they’d just ask the first person who bought it to do the review, right?
And , if you were in charge of a product and needed to beta test it , why wouldn't you send it to serious users who would pour over every detail ? 
I’ve managed plenty of product releases and whilst user testing can be very useful, it’s only practical at the end of the development - i.e when you have an actual product - and want to find defects. It’s not useful for the design stages.
Even the faithful around here that do site work for a living have and use other brands of tools.  That's exactly who I'd want putting a product though its paces before launch.
Before launch, possibly... before you designed it, unlikely.

Offline Reiska

  • Posts: 1174
  • Hackers build things, Crackers break them.
Re: The new version of systainers looks pretty awesome!
« Reply #32 on: November 04, 2019, 09:45 AM »
I wonder am I the only one to notice, but it looks like the smallest Systainer3 M 112 does not have the T-loc clip at the bottom neither the Organizer.

This would mean that one would need to clip these as the bottom most systainers in a stack if they only have the T-loc clasp on them to attach to a systainer above them and only one of them per stack if I'm not missing something in the pictures?

I atleast have all my fasteners in SYS-1's with boxes equivalent to the Organizer and would easily have more than one of that size to stack up when doing something.
The sky's the limit in my workshop, literally. [big grin]

Offline Spandex

  • Posts: 30
Re: The new version of systainers looks pretty awesome!
« Reply #33 on: November 04, 2019, 10:28 AM »
I was assuming the clip is hidden behind the handle (the handle is lower on these sizes by necessity).

If so, I suspect is will be slightly less convenient un-latching these sizes because a third of the T-lock latch will be inaccessible, unless you lift the handle. Which is probably why they only did it on the smaller sizes where they had no choice, but moved the handle up on the larger sizes.

<edit>
This picture backs that up... the clip is visible under the handle:
« Last Edit: November 04, 2019, 10:32 AM by Spandex »

Offline edwarmr

  • Posts: 74
Re: The new version of systainers looks pretty awesome!
« Reply #34 on: November 04, 2019, 12:46 PM »
This is how it looks connected. I’m not digging it with the handle sticking out. Wish they could have come up with another solution.


Offline Spandex

  • Posts: 30
Re: The new version of systainers looks pretty awesome!
« Reply #35 on: November 04, 2019, 03:24 PM »
Yeah, that is pretty clunky. Not sure what else the solution could be other than not have handles on the smaller boxes, but that looks awful.

Offline Gregor

  • Posts: 1459
Re: The new version of systainers looks pretty awesome!
« Reply #36 on: November 04, 2019, 04:31 PM »
... but that looks awful.
Not only looking awful, it also makes stacking them densly into a corner (be it in the shop or a normal van) more problematic, as the prior even front is lost.

They might be a great idea when exclusively used in the rack system, but for joe normals... *meh*

Offline Bob D.

  • Posts: 1359
Re: The new version of systainers looks pretty awesome!
« Reply #37 on: November 04, 2019, 04:44 PM »
If you're only one deep on your storage no a big deal, but for me my Systainers are two deep and will not fir with the handles on the Sys³
-----
It's a table saw, do you know where your fingers are?

Offline JimH2

  • Posts: 847
Re: The new version of systainers looks pretty awesome!
« Reply #38 on: November 04, 2019, 05:19 PM »
If this group isn't representative ,  then why does Festool keep sending tools for Peter to "review" ?
Because they want someone experienced and trusted to review their products? Not sure how that’s related really... reviewers don’t have to be representative of the ‘typical buyer’, otherwise they’d just ask the first person who bought it to do the review, right?
And , if you were in charge of a product and needed to beta test it , why wouldn't you send it to serious users who would pour over every detail ? 
I’ve managed plenty of product releases and whilst user testing can be very useful, it’s only practical at the end of the development - i.e when you have an actual product - and want to find defects. It’s not useful for the design stages.
Even the faithful around here that do site work for a living have and use other brands of tools.  That's exactly who I'd want putting a product though its paces before launch.
Before launch, possibly... before you designed it, unlikely.

Consumers do not do well with choices. Same holds true for design options. It is easier for everyone to sell one and maybe two versions of a product. The last thing anyone wants to deal with is design by committee.

Offline Jiggy Joiner

  • Posts: 804
Re: The new version of systainers looks pretty awesome!
« Reply #39 on: November 04, 2019, 05:22 PM »
I think Tanos must of banged their head, if it ain’t broke.......................

Offline Gregor

  • Posts: 1459
Re: The new version of systainers looks pretty awesome!
« Reply #40 on: November 04, 2019, 05:32 PM »
Consumers do not do well with choices.
I have learned in my youth that this isn't correct.
Given 3 choices the decision of a consumer is quite quick and they make one - have a different number and things get worse.
Quote
last thing anyone wants to deal with is design by committee.
That strongly depends on the humans forming that committee - and their motivations.
It can be great in case they're smart and their goal is a good result, it can be a nightmare in case they're stupid and/or aim to further themselves instead of the goal.

Offline Svar

  • Posts: 1871
Re: The new version of systainers looks pretty awesome!
« Reply #41 on: November 04, 2019, 05:36 PM »
Quote
last thing anyone wants to deal with is design by committee.
That strongly depends on the humans forming that committee - and their motivations.
It can be great in case they're smart and their goal is a good result, it can be a nightmare in case they're stupid and/or aim to further themselves instead of the goal.
Well, that settles it: design by committee of humans is a nightmare.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2019, 05:39 PM by Svar »

Offline SRSemenza

  • Global Moderator
  • *
  • Posts: 8994
  • Finger Lakes Region, NY State , USA
Re: The new version of systainers looks pretty awesome!
« Reply #42 on: November 04, 2019, 06:55 PM »
It would be better if the front handle did not stick out when the smallest is connected. And it probably should have been designed better. And a fix it modification shouldn't be needed.

But-    I am betting that front handle can be easily removed turning it into a Sys without front handle just like all the previous models.


Seth

Offline Gregor

  • Posts: 1459
Re: The new version of systainers looks pretty awesome!
« Reply #43 on: November 04, 2019, 08:22 PM »
But-    I am betting that front handle can be easily removed turning it into a Sys without front handle just like all the previous models.
Yea, a sledgehammer should be able to do that modification without much problems. Or an angle grinder. /sarcasm

Sorry, that's IMHO a bad design.

Offline xedos

  • Posts: 117
Re: The new version of systainers looks pretty awesome!
« Reply #44 on: November 04, 2019, 08:24 PM »
Quote
Because they want someone experienced and trusted to review their products? Not sure how that’s related really... reviewers don’t have to be representative of the ‘typical buyer’, otherwise they’d just ask the first person who bought it to do the review, right?

It's related because if this group and his other audience wasn't representative of a typical buyer they wouldn't bother.  You proffered this group was not representative of a typical customer.  I disagree.  But to each his own.

Quote
I’ve managed plenty of product releases and whilst user testing can be very useful, it’s only practical at the end of the development - i.e when you have an actual product - and want to find defects. It’s not useful for the design stages.


Agreed.  However, Festool doesn't seem to be very adept at either.  Certainly not at the later stages anyway.

Quote
Before launch, possibly... before you designed it, unlikely.
 
So, whom do you ask if you want to do market research for a new product ?  For sure it's not practical for small/medium scale operation to focus group before a new product is in its infancy, but sure as shootin it's advisable to have real users kick the tires on the prototypes.  Few if any parents want to admit (or can even recognize) that their baby is ugly, slow, weak, or not fit for the long haul.   It's just our nature.

Meaning: internal review isn't really all that helpful.  People close to the operation tend not to be all that objective.  GM could do no wrong in their eyes for decades, and refused to listen to their customers and dealers.  They've paid the price.  It's also the reason boards of directors are comprised of people from outside the widget maker's direct circle.

 And , no I'm not saying Festool is a GM.

Yes, I am saying "that baby is ugly"
« Last Edit: November 04, 2019, 08:27 PM by xedos »

Offline DeformedTree

  • Posts: 597
Re: The new version of systainers looks pretty awesome!
« Reply #45 on: November 05, 2019, 12:57 AM »
Gah,  this front handle thing is just making these things even worse.   These should have been an alt line for van racking, and keep with the old, or make non-destructive changes to the old.

Like others mentioned, this really messes up the design if you have things set for 2 deep storage in cabinets, which I suspect is what many folks do since will, thats how they package away nicely. And fits on the form factor of a Maxi/other Euro norm footprint stuff.

Really struggling on finding improvements with these things.  Dumb handle on front, no more side labels.....    Tanos really had a one track mind on these things and completely forgot the non-van rack usage of these things.


Offline Spandex

  • Posts: 30
Re: The new version of systainers looks pretty awesome!
« Reply #46 on: November 05, 2019, 03:26 AM »
It's related because if this group and his other audience wasn't representative of a typical buyer they wouldn't bother.  You proffered this group was not representative of a typical customer.  I disagree.  But to each his own.
His audience is certainly representative of a typical buyer because his reviews are amongst the top hits when you search on YouTube - a lot of prospective buyers will do just that before making a decision. But he himself is not representative. And that’s fine because when you look for a review, you don’t need someone who uses tools in exactly the same way you do. You want someone who will go into every detail, every flaw, every quirk, then you will make a decision based on your knowledge of what’s important (and not important) to you.

If Peter says a certain product isn’t great at a certain thing, you may not care at all because you never do that thing. Someone else might see it as a dealbreaker. That’s why his reviews are good - because they cater to all kinds of users, not just one type of ‘typical buyer’.
Agreed.  However, Festool doesn't seem to be very adept at either.  Certainly not at the later stages anyway.
Well, I’m not especially convinced of the value of user testing at all really. In my personal experience I rarely got anything useful back from that particular test stage - only the occasional defect that was impossible to reproduce in normal testing. Users aren’t harder on a product than a good test team, and they tend to just repeat the same types of simple use-cases over and over. Often, the only thing user testing gives you is scale.
So, whom do you ask if you want to do market research for a new product ?  For sure it's not practical for small/medium scale operation to focus group before a new product is in its infancy, but sure as shootin it's advisable to have real users kick the tires on the prototypes.  Few if any parents want to admit (or can even recognize) that their baby is ugly, slow, weak, or not fit for the long haul.   It's just our nature.
Market research is exactly that - research on the potential market for a product. It’s not supposed to be asking the public what they think of your new design and asking for tips. And if you are doing that research, you want a broad cross section of the market - so that includes people who’ve never bought any Festool products, as well as those who already own some. You really don’t want to reduce the scope of that research by focusing on the opinions of a group of fans on a forum.

Personally, I would be very concerned for Festools future if they started coming to this forum soliciting input in the design stages of their products. It would be a sign that there was something very wrong in their design and strategy teams.

If a company doesn’t understand its market well enough to identify new products or changes to existing lines, or if their designers aren’t good enough to meet those briefs without resorting to asking the public if they’re on the right track, then that company will fail. Perhaps GMs problem wasn’t that they didn’t listen to their buyers, but that they missed the mark so badly to start with.

Offline Gregor

  • Posts: 1459
Re: The new version of systainers looks pretty awesome!
« Reply #47 on: November 05, 2019, 04:25 AM »
Personally, I would be very concerned for Festools future if they started coming to this forum soliciting input in the design stages of their products. It would be a sign that there was something very wrong in their design and strategy teams.

If a company doesn’t understand its market well enough to identify new products or changes to existing lines, or if their designers aren’t good enough to meet those briefs without resorting to asking the public if they’re on the right track, then that company will fail. Perhaps GMs problem wasn’t that they didn’t listen to their buyers, but that they missed the mark so badly to start with.
I see it from the opposite direction: Not harvesting the brains of the users early on leads to sub-par products. Take for example the CT-VA, the oversight in the first version that it literally falls apart (both when lifting it and inside the lid of the black lid not staying closed) is something I (and plenty others) noticed within minutes of seeing that thing. Needing to have the upgrade kit could have been easily avoided by not limiting themselves to people affected by organizational blindness.

Offline Spandex

  • Posts: 30
Re: The new version of systainers looks pretty awesome!
« Reply #48 on: November 05, 2019, 05:53 AM »
I disagree. The CT-VA was a design flaw that ideally should have been picked up by the design team and as a worst-case, by the test team.

If the issue is bad design, then the cause must be sub-standard work from the designers or product managers. To fix it, you need to address that root cause, not try to tack on some consumer review process to try to catch the cock-ups before they hit production. Asking the public to double check your sums is never the correct solution to bad design.

Offline Gregor

  • Posts: 1459
Re: The new version of systainers looks pretty awesome!
« Reply #49 on: November 05, 2019, 06:42 AM »
I disagree. The CT-VA was a design flaw that ideally should have been picked up by the design team and as a worst-case, by the test team.
Which clearly both didn't happen.
Quote
If the issue is bad design, then the cause must be sub-standard work from the designers or product managers.
Or simply them not having the best idea on how to solve something. Seems to happen quite often these days (and with that I mean in general, not limited to Festool).
Quote
To fix it, you need to address that root cause, not try to tack on some consumer review process to try to catch the cock-ups before they hit production. Asking the public to double check your sums is never the correct solution to bad design.
It's not only about detecting problems after the fact, but also about coming up with better solutions than what's currently on the table.

While the stance that the customer can't have anything meaningful to add except the contents of his wallet (preferably up to the limit of his credit cards) seems to be quite widespread these days... it necessarily dosn't need to be the best method of doing business. IMHO thinking that a design team always* knows better than joe average is both arrogant and stupid, simply because involving the user base into development can not only hedge against design team, QA and management having a collective bad day but can also surface insights and ideas that are not obvious to come up with.

But I think we stray from the topic, so let's agree to disagree and head back to the topic.


*) The word always was missing when I originally posted it, sorry for that.
« Last Edit: November 05, 2019, 11:46 AM by Gregor »

Offline Svar

  • Posts: 1871
Re: The new version of systainers looks pretty awesome!
« Reply #50 on: November 05, 2019, 10:08 AM »
Like others mentioned, this really messes up the design if you have things set for 2 deep storage in cabinets, which I suspect is what many folks do since will, thats how they package away nicely.
Those who actually store them 2 deep leave about 5 cm space in between, otherwise you can't open the front one. The protruding handle will not interfere with that setup.
Sure, the new handle on small redesigned systainer is an eyesore, but people just keep inventing non-existing problems.

   
« Last Edit: November 05, 2019, 10:17 AM by Svar »

Offline Spandex

  • Posts: 30
Re: The new version of systainers looks pretty awesome!
« Reply #51 on: November 05, 2019, 10:37 AM »
IMHO thinking that a design team knows better than joe average is both arrogant and stupid, simply because involving the user base into development can not only hedge against design team, QA and management having a collective bad day but can also surface insights and ideas that are not obvious to come up with.
Well I must be arrogant and stupid then, because I believe a design team should know their product better than any customer ever could. I've never worked on a single product where I'd agree the users knew that product better than the team making it. I'd be a bit embarrassed if that was ever the case TBH.

Not sure this is off topic really, as we were discussing potential design issues with the new Systainer (and whether they really were issues, or simply choices that some forum members disagreed with).

Tanos have clearly decided to take the Systainer in a slightly different direction - that is obviously going to upset some people and make others happy. Now, it's possible that everyone at Tanos is slightly mad, or stupid, or both, and they've just alienated the majority of their customer base. Or, it could be that this is a sensible move because they can make more money from being part of a racking system and can finally compete properly with one of their biggest rivals, Sortimo. My money is on the latter, but I accept that incompetence is always a possibility.

However, I've not seen anything in these designs or the comments about them that makes me believe Tanos have dropped the ball on this. There are certainly compromises, and they have clearly decided not to continue with certain functionality in order to meet other design requirements. I'm also sure that sticking out handle will make the design team weep every time they see a stack of shallow boxes connected together. Even if it doesn't have a functional impact on most people, it looks terrible and designers are a sensitive bunch.

Offline cpw

  • Posts: 159
Re: The new version of systainers looks pretty awesome!
« Reply #52 on: November 05, 2019, 10:44 AM »
This is how it looks connected. I’m not digging it with the handle sticking out. Wish they could have come up with another solution.

I think it's ugly, but it isn't obvious there is a better alternative.  Also, I can't actually come up with any function that it prevents; except maybe stacking on top of a maxi.    The maxis are pretty rare (I have one for the Planex and that's it), and the T-Loc would already face inside, making it not such an important use case anyway.

Offline Gregor

  • Posts: 1459
Re: The new version of systainers looks pretty awesome!
« Reply #53 on: November 05, 2019, 11:45 AM »
IMHO thinking that a design team *always* knows better than joe average is both arrogant and stupid, simply because involving the user base into development can not only hedge against design team, QA and management having a collective bad day but can also surface insights and ideas that are not obvious to come up with.

The intended 'always' was missing here, sorry for that. I hope it's now clearer what I was trying to say, even with the original being translated from another language.

Offline Spandex

  • Posts: 30
Re: The new version of systainers looks pretty awesome!
« Reply #54 on: November 05, 2019, 04:17 PM »
I understand the sentiment. I don’t think design teams always know better, but I absolutely believe they should. That is their job.

Offline Bob D.

  • Posts: 1359
Re: The new version of systainers looks pretty awesome!
« Reply #55 on: November 05, 2019, 04:26 PM »
SOME OF  "Those who actually store them 2 deep leave about 5 cm space in between, otherwise you can't open the front one. The protruding handle will not interfere with that setup."

I don't since my bench is only 24 inches deep two Systainers fit crowded up tight front to back and are flush with the face of the bench. In most cases I don't have the issue with opening the top front lid because I place a lower stack in the rear. Plus I usually remove the Systainer to access the tool as I don't have pull outs in each cubby space.

But that's just me, everyone else does it the way you described I guess. I didn't see the change in the Systainers coming when I built the bench years ago.
-----
It's a table saw, do you know where your fingers are?

Offline Bob D.

  • Posts: 1359
Re: The new version of systainers looks pretty awesome!
« Reply #56 on: November 05, 2019, 04:56 PM »
" I believe a design team should know their product better than any customer ever could."

You may be right in that statement, but in practice it's not always the case, at least in construction.

I can't tell you how many times I or someone else in the field has corrected an engineering blunder because the "design team" didn't have a clue as to how to build something, the methods used to build something, or the experience to know what they proposed would not work (other than on paper). I'm not talking fresh out of school with a year or two internship under their belt, but an average of 10 to 20 years of 'design' experience for each member of the design team. It's happened on school construction, casino hotels, power plants, chemical plants, you name it.

One example. Client hired an outside engineering firm  to 'design' a mod package for relocating some heating water supply and return piping. This was a pair of 12 inch water lines that fed a whole building with close to 100 people working in it. Project was scheduled to start end of September (in New Jersey it's starting to get below freezing at night) and their schedule had the heating water isolated to the building for 3 weeks. There were multiple pipe supports to fabricate and install, valves to relocate, interferences that had to be moved, etc. Long story short I'm walking down the job and came up with a way that cut the down time of the heating system to 4 or 5 days, save replacing over 200 feet of 12 inch pipe which saved having to insulate all that new pipe and eliminated the supports that had to be reworked. Project saved close to $400K in labor and materials and we were done before it got too cold and people in the building would be affected. All because they never asked anyone from the installation team how they might go about implementing the change. Oh, and they charged the client close to $250K for the 'design' of the mod.

I don't see software project teams or product development teams as being any better.

Design in a vacuum is a bad idea, you need input from your customer base.
-----
It's a table saw, do you know where your fingers are?

Offline DeformedTree

  • Posts: 597
Re: The new version of systainers looks pretty awesome!
« Reply #57 on: November 05, 2019, 11:52 PM »
Like others mentioned, this really messes up the design if you have things set for 2 deep storage in cabinets, which I suspect is what many folks do since will, thats how they package away nicely.
Those who actually store them 2 deep leave about 5 cm space in between, otherwise you can't open the front one. The protruding handle will not interfere with that setup.
Sure, the new handle on small redesigned systainer is an eyesore, but people just keep inventing non-existing problems.


I'm talking about storing them in a cabinets that are 24"/600mm deep inside.  Not about having access to open them.  You stack them up and slide the front row up against the back row so you can close cabinet door. 

If people have their cabinetry setup to handle the footprint of Euronorm containers, this is no good.

Soon as you have containers having a random part sticking out you have completely destroyed the entire concept of standard container systems like Systainers, which are based of the Euronorm footprints.

I can deal with height changes, really if they make them match other Euronorm containers that would be ideal. I haven't looked but I think neither the old ones or the new ones achieve this.

Offline Svar

  • Posts: 1871
Re: The new version of systainers looks pretty awesome!
« Reply #58 on: November 06, 2019, 01:22 AM »
Like others mentioned, this really messes up the design if you have things set for 2 deep storage in cabinets, which I suspect is what many folks do since will, thats how they package away nicely.
Those who actually store them 2 deep leave about 5 cm space in between, otherwise you can't open the front one. The protruding handle will not interfere with that setup.
Sure, the new handle on small redesigned systainer is an eyesore, but people just keep inventing non-existing problems.
I'm talking about storing them in a cabinets that are 24"/600mm deep inside.  Not about having access to open them.  You stack them up and slide the front row up against the back row so you can close cabinet door. 
If people have their cabinetry setup to handle the footprint of Euronorm containers, this is no good.
So, basically 99.999% of people will not be affected. And the rest 0.001% will simply have to not lock systainers together when the small one sits on top of a stack. I wonder how Bosch users survive with their boxes not fitting into Euronorm footprint.
« Last Edit: November 06, 2019, 01:03 PM by Svar »

Offline ggc

  • Posts: 45
Re: The new version of systainers looks pretty awesome!
« Reply #59 on: November 06, 2019, 06:55 AM »
How do these new dimensions effect shipping costs? 
A Euro pallet is 1200mm * 800mm, the old 396mm*296mm systainer dimension used to pack quite efficiently, but 508mm * 296mm and handles sticking at the front (assuming they lock them together for shipping) is going to introduce some "deadspace" into the shipping.

Also, just had a look through the Tanos catalogue, seems like the Tloc Midi is no more, and there's a new cart/baseplate with a SYS-Sort style catch.

Offline ggc

  • Posts: 45
Re: The new version of systainers looks pretty awesome!
« Reply #60 on: November 06, 2019, 07:17 AM »
Insane.... that's nearly double. If that is gonna trickly down to every Festool tool in Systainer I think it's the biggest boost to L-boxx'es in a long time...
The Tanos list price doesn't show a massive jump in pricing.  Tloc 1 in 2016 catalogue was 48.45Euro, the 2019 Systainer3 M112 is 54.50Euro. 
For comparison the Sys-Combi 3 has gone from 103Euro to 108.70Euro in the same time period.

Offline Svar

  • Posts: 1871
Re: The new version of systainers looks pretty awesome!
« Reply #61 on: November 06, 2019, 12:31 PM »
How do these new dimensions effect shipping costs? 
They don't.

Offline DeformedTree

  • Posts: 597
Re: The new version of systainers looks pretty awesome!
« Reply #62 on: November 06, 2019, 09:51 PM »
Like others mentioned, this really messes up the design if you have things set for 2 deep storage in cabinets, which I suspect is what many folks do since will, thats how they package away nicely.
Those who actually store them 2 deep leave about 5 cm space in between, otherwise you can't open the front one. The protruding handle will not interfere with that setup.
Sure, the new handle on small redesigned systainer is an eyesore, but people just keep inventing non-existing problems.
I'm talking about storing them in a cabinets that are 24"/600mm deep inside.  Not about having access to open them.  You stack them up and slide the front row up against the back row so you can close cabinet door. 
If people have their cabinetry setup to handle the footprint of Euronorm containers, this is no good.
So, basically 99.999% of people will not be affected. And the rest 0.001% will simply have to not lock systainers together when the small one sits on top of a stack. I wonder how Bosch users survive with their boxes not fitting into Euronorm footprint.

So a system that is by it's very nature a storage system design around a storage system so that they fit in an optimal way is not important to this system?  Packing them in as I'm describing is the very purpose and point of systainers. If you don't use them in these ways, then there really isn't much point to having the container.

How does what Bosch does matter?  This is about Tanos and how they (and others) set their systems up.  Tanos basing the system on a form factor used by many is one of the prime reasons to use it.  In addition to the obvious that there really isn't any other such system available in the US.  But if a company goes and creates their own form factor that doesn't play well with others, it lacks a point unless they are solving some other issues in a very different way.

By your logic it would be perfectly fine to go and make an Intermodal Shipping container with a random chunk that sticks out the side. It no no longer legally can go down the road, or fit on a container ship, but that's fine.

Offline ggc

  • Posts: 45
Re: The new version of systainers looks pretty awesome!
« Reply #63 on: November 06, 2019, 10:12 PM »
How do these new dimensions effect shipping costs? 
They don't.
Maybe not at a retail level, but for the wholesalers the new L sized systainers dramatically reduce the number of systainers that fit on a pallet. 
It used to be that you could get 6 * Midis or 8 * regular systainers at the base of pallet, the new L sized systainers only allow for 4 on the base.  Tanos pricelist confirms this, 52 * L137 systainers to a pallet, or 104 * M137. 
Eventually the increased shipping costs have to be absorbed by someone, likewise the internal storage/logistics at the Tanos factory also take a hit. 
On a different topic, has anybody seen a photo where the new Systainer3 Organizers are actually latched together with each other or a regular systainer?  I'm guessing there's a small catch hidden under the front handle, but I'm yet to see it.


Offline SRSemenza

  • Global Moderator
  • *
  • Posts: 8994
  • Finger Lakes Region, NY State , USA
Re: The new version of systainers looks pretty awesome!
« Reply #64 on: November 07, 2019, 12:04 AM »
 
On a different topic, has anybody seen a photo where the new Systainer3 Organizers are actually latched together with each other or a regular systainer?  I'm guessing there's a small catch hidden under the front handle, but I'm yet to see it.

Yes, see pictures in post #33 and #34 on page one of this topic.

Seth

Offline SRSemenza

  • Global Moderator
  • *
  • Posts: 8994
  • Finger Lakes Region, NY State , USA
Re: The new version of systainers looks pretty awesome!
« Reply #65 on: November 07, 2019, 12:14 AM »
Like others mentioned, this really messes up the design if you have things set for 2 deep storage in cabinets, which I suspect is what many folks do since will, thats how they package away nicely.
Those who actually store them 2 deep leave about 5 cm space in between, otherwise you can't open the front one. The protruding handle will not interfere with that setup.
Sure, the new handle on small redesigned systainer is an eyesore, but people just keep inventing non-existing problems.
I'm talking about storing them in a cabinets that are 24"/600mm deep inside.  Not about having access to open them.  You stack them up and slide the front row up against the back row so you can close cabinet door. 
If people have their cabinetry setup to handle the footprint of Euronorm containers, this is no good.
So, basically 99.999% of people will not be affected. And the rest 0.001% will simply have to not lock systainers together when the small one sits on top of a stack. I wonder how Bosch users survive with their boxes not fitting into Euronorm footprint.

So a system that is by it's very nature a storage system design around a storage system so that they fit in an optimal way is not important to this system?  Packing them in as I'm describing is the very purpose and point of systainers. If you don't use them in these ways, then there really isn't much point to having the container.

How does what Bosch does matter?  This is about Tanos and how they (and others) set their systems up.  Tanos basing the system on a form factor used by many is one of the prime reasons to use it.  In addition to the obvious that there really isn't any other such system available in the US.  But if a company goes and creates their own form factor that doesn't play well with others, it lacks a point unless they are solving some other issues in a very different way.

By your logic it would be perfectly fine to go and make an Intermodal Shipping container with a random chunk that sticks out the side. It no no longer legally can go down the road, or fit on a container ship, but that's fine.

  You know I get it ...................... the handle shouldn't stick out,  but it does.

  However you are making a mountain out of a mole hill. It only sticks out on the shortest height Systainer, and only when it is latched to one underneath.  Really shouldn't be a problem in a double deep storage cabinet situation. Unless a shortest height Sys is actually stacked under another one on the same shelf. And if it is just  take the darn handle off and throw it away.  That way it will be just like all the rest of the front handle free Systainers that we have now.

   It really seems that your solution to the front handle is to have never offered a Systainer with it in the first place. Take away the usefulness of it completely for those that might actually want a front handle.  Awesome, nothing like stifling innovation for no good reason.   [thumbs up]

Seth

Offline Svar

  • Posts: 1871
Re: The new version of systainers looks pretty awesome!
« Reply #66 on: November 07, 2019, 02:10 AM »
Packing them in as I'm describing is the very purpose and point of systainers. If you don't use them in these ways, then there really isn't much point to having the container.
I don't pack them as you describe. And I don't know anybody who does, or have ever seen them packed this way. It's just terribly inconvenient. I guess we are all missing the very purpose and point of systainers.
Just curious, do you store yours in two stacks, necessarily locked together, one behind the other in a 600 mm deep cabinet with no room to spare?
« Last Edit: November 07, 2019, 10:17 AM by Svar »

Offline Spandex

  • Posts: 30
Re: The new version of systainers looks pretty awesome!
« Reply #67 on: November 07, 2019, 06:52 AM »
If anyone still honestly believes the members of this forum are representative of the Tanos/Festool customer base, this thread should make it absolutely clear this isn't the case (pun intended).

If you showed this thread to most people thinking of buying a Festool product, they'd think we'd all gone mad. We would look like trainspotters to them, obsessing over every millimeter of height difference, worrying about handles sticking out, questioning the number of cases you can fit on a standard pallet. And that's all about the CASE THE TOOL COMES IN(!!!) not the actual tool!

Don't get me wrong, I like it. I'm a nerd. I'm a 'systainer-spotter'. But I also have a sense of perspective, and I know that the changes they've made aren't going to have anywhere near the negative impact some people have predicted. Tanos are a big, successful company. They will know that removing the height-matching functionality will potentially lose them a few sales, but they will also have run the numbers and calculated that they will more than make up for it with increased sales due to the new van racking partnership with Bott. Now, maybe they're wrong and they've made a massive strategic mistake, but none of us have access to the sales and market data that they have, so I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Offline Gregor

  • Posts: 1459
Re: The new version of systainers looks pretty awesome!
« Reply #68 on: November 07, 2019, 09:40 AM »
I know that the changes they've made aren't going to have anywhere near the negative impact some people have predicted.
Interesting perspective (or not).
To me most people here seem to mainly care about the change in usability of a product they use - the possible change of the bottom line of the company that makes it seems to be less relevant.

Offline Svar

  • Posts: 1871
Re: The new version of systainers looks pretty awesome!
« Reply #69 on: November 07, 2019, 10:28 AM »
... obsessing over every millimeter of height difference, worrying about handles sticking out, questioning the number of cases you can fit on a standard pallet.
LOL. I may have OCD, but I'll draw the line at fitting cases on a standard pallet.  [smile]

Offline SRSemenza

  • Global Moderator
  • *
  • Posts: 8994
  • Finger Lakes Region, NY State , USA
Re: The new version of systainers looks pretty awesome!
« Reply #70 on: November 07, 2019, 05:13 PM »
... obsessing over every millimeter of height difference, worrying about handles sticking out, questioning the number of cases you can fit on a standard pallet.
LOL. I may have OCD, but I'll draw the line at fitting cases on a standard pallet.  [smile]

     Well, clearly you have not purchased enough Systainers   [tongue]  I mean, if you don't own enough to fill a pallet and use a fork lift to  move them, then you really aren't serious about using them.  [big grin]

Seth

Offline mrB

  • Posts: 572
Re: The new version of systainers looks pretty awesome!
« Reply #71 on: November 07, 2019, 05:42 PM »
I don't love the way the handle sticks out, but it's presence would make getting stuff from the sys IV, at bottom of a 5 foot stack much easier than holding onto the handle on the top. . so there's a positive :)

New heights still suck  [dead horse]
there's nothing like the right tool for the job

Offline ggc

  • Posts: 45
Re: The new version of systainers looks pretty awesome!
« Reply #72 on: November 07, 2019, 08:02 PM »
... obsessing over every millimeter of height difference, worrying about handles sticking out, questioning the number of cases you can fit on a standard pallet.
LOL. I may have OCD, but I'll draw the line at fitting cases on a standard pallet.  [smile]

     Well, clearly you have not purchased enough Systainers   [tongue]  I mean, if you don't own enough to fill a pallet and use a fork lift to  move them, then you really aren't serious about using them.  [big grin]

Seth

I've purchased systainers from Tanos (no dealer in Australia) by the pallet on 2 separate occasions, trust me, shipping costs and how many systainers I can fit on a pallet are a big factor. 
There are also bigger discounts if buying a complete pallet of one product, which is how most of the larger end-users would be buying their systainers. 
Big assumption, but I'm guessing Festool and the other European tool manufacturers are the majority of Tanos' market.  If I was working for a tool company looking at packing/distributing my product in a L sized systainer, giving up space on a pallet/inside a shipping container and how it effects my cost per delivered unit would have to be considered.     

I'm sure there is some logic behind the 508mm width which will become obvious in due course (does it fit in with existing dimensions in the Bott system), it just seems strange that they didn't stick with the existing 496mm footprint of the Midi systainer, given it a) already exists, and b) significantly improves shipping density.

At the end of the day, I won't be losing any sleep over them.  The fact that there's an active discussion forum for talking about expensive plastic German toolboxes does say something about their end-users.  When there's a raft of changes that appear to be moving away from efficient/clever design, I'd be disappointed if it wasn't discussed.   

Offline SRSemenza

  • Global Moderator
  • *
  • Posts: 8994
  • Finger Lakes Region, NY State , USA
Re: The new version of systainers looks pretty awesome!
« Reply #73 on: November 07, 2019, 08:46 PM »
... obsessing over every millimeter of height difference, worrying about handles sticking out, questioning the number of cases you can fit on a standard pallet.
LOL. I may have OCD, but I'll draw the line at fitting cases on a standard pallet.  [smile]

     Well, clearly you have not purchased enough Systainers   [tongue]  I mean, if you don't own enough to fill a pallet and use a fork lift to  move them, then you really aren't serious about using them.  [big grin]

Seth

I've purchased systainers from Tanos (no dealer in Australia) by the pallet on 2 separate occasions, trust me, shipping costs and how many systainers I can fit on a pallet are a big factor. 
There are also bigger discounts if buying a complete pallet of one product, which is how most of the larger end-users would be buying their systainers. 
Big assumption, but I'm guessing Festool and the other European tool manufacturers are the majority of Tanos' market.  If I was working for a tool company looking at packing/distributing my product in a L sized systainer, giving up space on a pallet/inside a shipping container and how it effects my cost per delivered unit would have to be considered.     

I'm sure there is some logic behind the 508mm width which will become obvious in due course (does it fit in with existing dimensions in the Bott system), it just seems strange that they didn't stick with the existing 496mm footprint of the Midi systainer, given it a) already exists, and b) significantly improves shipping density.

At the end of the day, I won't be losing any sleep over them.  The fact that there's an active discussion forum for talking about expensive plastic German toolboxes does say something about their end-users.  When there's a raft of changes that appear to be moving away from efficient/clever design, I'd be disappointed if it wasn't discussed.


Of course my reply  ^  had nothing to do with people that actually buy Systainers by the pallet. And everything to do with joking with Svar.   ::)

Seth

Offline SRSemenza

  • Global Moderator
  • *
  • Posts: 8994
  • Finger Lakes Region, NY State , USA
Re: The new version of systainers looks pretty awesome!
« Reply #74 on: November 07, 2019, 09:08 PM »
Just for a little clarity in regard to the handle sticking out ------------

        The integrated front handle is included on the smallest three sizes- 112 , 137, 187 heights.

        The three larger sizes 237, 337, 437. Have a pull out aid in place of the handle. They are too tall to carry by a front handle. The pull out aid does not stick out.

       The handle only sticks out on the 112 height. And only if another T-Loc is connected  underneath the 112 height. Otherwise the front handle does NOT stick out on the 112. It does NOT stick out on the 137 or the 237 at all, stacked or not stacked.

       
Seth

Offline grobkuschelig

  • Posts: 549
Re: The new version of systainers looks pretty awesome!
« Reply #75 on: November 09, 2019, 01:05 AM »
I found this very interesting:

It is a video from Mike‘s Toolshop. An Austrian Festool Dealer that usually does great videos explaining details about tools and functions.

He just received his first Systainer 3 and shows most of the changes in good detail.
Unfortunately for most of you, it is not in English, but should be very helpful, regardless.



What I am slightly annoyed by is:
- the changed opening direction for the top handle:
I have this on an „AUER“ Systainer and definitely prefer the Old Festool style in daily use.
- The fact that you seem to need to „unclip/reclip“ all the handles

For more, I‘d need to handle one myself..

Offline Svar

  • Posts: 1871
Re: The new version of systainers looks pretty awesome!
« Reply #76 on: November 09, 2019, 02:35 AM »
What I am slightly annoyed by is:
- the changed opening direction for the top handle
- The fact that you seem to need to „unclip/reclip“ all the handles
I think it makes sense for the handle to fold forward. Imagine pulling it from a shelf or rack. You grab the front and then almost immediately top handle.

I have Sortimo and Tanos sitting on shelves next to each other and it's immediately obvious which is easier to pick up and place back. Tanos has front and top forward folding handles.

I agree with you on clip/unclip handles. Probably has to do with bumpy vehicles.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2019, 03:04 AM by Svar »

Offline demographic

  • Posts: 536
Re: The new version of systainers looks pretty awesome!
« Reply #77 on: November 09, 2019, 03:10 AM »
Hmm, I never saw the change of top handle direction.
Assuming that its the same handle design, just turned round I forsee quite a few handle being pulled off when people pick them up.
The handles are fixed much stronger when they are vertically up and when they get a bit worn (like a few of mine are with the standard T-loc design) and the handle can pop out.

As most people store them with the fronts facing the person who lifts em this means you have to have the handle in the right place as you lift and pull it towards yourself. The new design means its more likely to have those handles angled so they are in a weaker position.

Unless they have also uprated the handle clips somehow I reckon they will wear to the point of failure faster.

Offline neeleman

  • Posts: 1240
Re: The new version of systainers looks pretty awesome!
« Reply #78 on: November 09, 2019, 03:23 AM »
Here's a review of the new Systainer³ from Austria.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2019, 03:36 AM by neeleman »
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 Bob D.

  • Posts: 1359
Re: The new version of systainers looks pretty awesome!
« Reply #79 on: November 09, 2019, 05:15 AM »
If you go to Settings in YouTube you can turn on Auto-translate. Not perfect but it helps.

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

Offline demographic

  • Posts: 536
Re: The new version of systainers looks pretty awesome!
« Reply #80 on: November 09, 2019, 06:03 AM »
For me the good points versus bad points are...

Good points:
Stiffer bottom, its ribbed and consequently stronger.
Simpler to use in a drawer system.
Additional front handle helps with drawer system.
Middle stiffener at the hings point,  without that additional bit of plastic that slows down disassembly on the standerd T-locs and some tool manufacturers (Metabo and Panasonic take note) think they can miss out and nobody will notice.

Bad Points:
Handle (which lets face it, was never that brilliant for long term use when worn) has been turned 180 degrees so more likely to let the entire box with contents fall away fron the handle while carrying it.
Heights no longer match up for sizes. This one is a pretty big deal for me and means they don't fit into my toolsafe anywhere near so well, they also don't provide regular heights for a surface and just don't play well with others in general.

In the meantime I think I'll hang on and see if Tanos/Festool remember all the advertising blurb they spouted 20 years ago and sort the heights so they work better together.

Offline Bob D.

  • Posts: 1359
Re: The new version of systainers looks pretty awesome!
« Reply #81 on: November 09, 2019, 09:25 AM »
A question concerning the heights of the Sys³. Videos posted by many on YT show using a stack of Systainers on a dolly as an additional support when working on large workpieces on the MFT/3. The height of the Systainer stack and the height of the table are very close if not the same as if by design it seems.

So the question is do the new Sys³ have some combination that would allow them to be used in this same manner?

Though I have never done it myself because I don't take my MFT/3 out of the shop for those that do this would seem to be helpful when working on site and be able to use the Systainers to support a long workpiece.
-----
It's a table saw, do you know where your fingers are?

Offline cpw

  • Posts: 159
Re: The new version of systainers looks pretty awesome!
« Reply #82 on: November 09, 2019, 01:39 PM »
A question concerning the heights of the Sys³. Videos posted by many on YT show using a stack of Systainers on a dolly as an additional support when working on large workpieces on the MFT/3. The height of the Systainer stack and the height of the table are very close if not the same as if by design it seems.

So the question is do the new Sys³ have some combination that would allow them to be used in this same manner?

Though I have never done it myself because I don't take my MFT/3 out of the shop for those that do this would seem to be helpful when working on site and be able to use the Systainers to support a long workpiece.

I don't know if a dolly matches the height, but without a dolly you can match the height of an MFT w/ 2 Sys IVs, a SYS II and a SYS I.  I'm sure you need a SYS2 in there to get the "half-height", but might be getting the other dimensions wrong.  I don't take my MFT out of the shop, but do find another stack or two useful for long boards or sheets to have some out riggers.

The MW1000 also matches that height.  What I do find myself doing more commonly is creating stacks on a site that match each other.  Usually for me this is a SYS1 + SYS 2, because I have a SYS-MFT and a SYS 2 that I swapped an attic lid onto a SYS1 for my main toolbox; and then the MFT lid onto the SYS2 to hold some mismatched MFT clamps and the extra parts that I don't use very often.