Author Topic: The new version of systainers looks pretty awesome! (Read 7889 times)

ggc · « **Reply #60 on:** November 06, 2019, 07:17 AM »

Quote from: Coen 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...

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.

Svar · « **Reply #61 on:** November 06, 2019, 12:31 PM »

Quote from: ggc on November 06, 2019, 06:55 AM

How do these new dimensions effect shipping costs?

They don't.

DeformedTree · « **Reply #62 on:** November 06, 2019, 09:51 PM »

Quote from: Svar on November 06, 2019, 01:22 AM

Quote from: DeformedTree on November 05, 2019, 11:52 PM
Quote from: Svar on November 05, 2019, 10:08 AM
Quote from: DeformedTree on November 05, 2019, 12:57 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.

ggc · « **Reply #63 on:** November 06, 2019, 10:12 PM »

Quote from: Svar on November 06, 2019, 12:31 PM

Quote from: ggc on November 06, 2019, 06:55 AM
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.

SRSemenza · « **Reply #64 on:** November 07, 2019, 12:04 AM »

Quote from: ggc on November 06, 2019, 10:12 PM

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

SRSemenza · « **Reply #65 on:** November 07, 2019, 12:14 AM »

Quote from: DeformedTree on November 06, 2019, 09:51 PM

Quote from: Svar on November 06, 2019, 01:22 AM
Quote from: DeformedTree on November 05, 2019, 11:52 PM
Quote from: Svar on November 05, 2019, 10:08 AM
Quote from: DeformedTree on November 05, 2019, 12:57 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.

Seth

Svar · « **Reply #66 on:** November 07, 2019, 02:10 AM »

Quote from: DeformedTree on November 06, 2019, 09:51 PM

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?

Spandex · « **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.

Gregor · « **Reply #68 on:** November 07, 2019, 09:40 AM »

Quote from: Spandex on November 07, 2019, 06:52 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.

Svar · « **Reply #69 on:** November 07, 2019, 10:28 AM »

Quote from: Spandex on November 07, 2019, 06:52 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.

SRSemenza · « **Reply #70 on:** November 07, 2019, 05:13 PM »

Quote from: Svar on November 07, 2019, 10:28 AM

Quote from: Spandex on November 07, 2019, 06:52 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.

Well, clearly you have not purchased enough Systainers

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.

Seth

mrB · « **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

ggc · « **Reply #72 on:** November 07, 2019, 08:02 PM »

Quote from: SRSemenza on November 07, 2019, 05:13 PM

Quote from: Svar on November 07, 2019, 10:28 AM
Quote from: Spandex on November 07, 2019, 06:52 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.

Well, clearly you have not purchased enough Systainers 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.

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.

SRSemenza · « **Reply #73 on:** November 07, 2019, 08:46 PM »

Quote from: ggc on November 07, 2019, 08:02 PM

Quote from: SRSemenza on November 07, 2019, 05:13 PM
Quote from: Svar on November 07, 2019, 10:28 AM
Quote from: Spandex on November 07, 2019, 06:52 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.

Well, clearly you have not purchased enough Systainers 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.

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

SRSemenza · « **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

grobkuschelig · « **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..

Svar · « **Reply #76 on:** November 09, 2019, 02:35 AM »

Quote from: grobkuschelig on November 09, 2019, 01:05 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.

demographic · « **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.

neeleman · « **Reply #78 on:** November 09, 2019, 03:23 AM »

Here's a review of the new Systainer³ from Austria.

Bob D. · « **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.

demographic · « **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.

Bob D. · « **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.

cpw · « **Reply #82 on:** November 09, 2019, 01:39 PM »

Quote from: Bob D. 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.

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.