Author Topic: The new version of systainers looks pretty awesome!  (Read 7832 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline xedos

  • Posts: 135
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: 32
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: 32
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: 80
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: 32
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: 1475
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: 1390
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: 866
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: 823
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: 1475
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: 1910
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 »

Online SRSemenza

  • Global Moderator
  • *
  • Posts: 9009
  • 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: 1475
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: 135
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: 620
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: 32
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: 1475
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: 32
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: 1475
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: 1910
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: 32
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: 161
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: 1475
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: 32
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: 1390
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: 1390
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: 620
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: 1910
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.