Apotheosis for the 'real' systainer.

[mwildt]

Interesting discussion. I'm quite sure Tanos has both weight and compatibility covered in their development cycle. Lets not forget that Tanos products are widely used for more than just tools.  A quick look on their t-loc site produced this brochure. Unfortunately it does not list what the weight limit is per systainer size.

http://www.t-loc.de/Englisch/T_Loc_Englisch.pdf

If Festool have decided to move to the new series then I believe it would only happen if they feel the new style is better than the classic series. I like the single hand opening mechanism. Yeah, it sucks some limitations potentially exists, but if you look at other tool vendors very few of them, today, have a concept that works like Tano's/Festool.

 

[jmbfestool]

I think it's also important to note that with the classic systainer, the only lid that was under stress was the lid of the systainer that was on top of the stack. With the T-loc systainers, each and every lid in the stack is under stress.

I also wonder how long the bottom of the T-loc systainers will last if you push them around on the pavement of the garage. The bottom feet now have a function when stacking.

Very good point! Never thought of that! How the weight it on every lid! Also how wear of the bottom feet is something to think about!

Im worry about the lugs on the front of the T-lock as I often have materials in my van and this then takes over the space so my tools cant go where I normally have them but also I become lazy and cant be bothered to get my systainer behind the material where its safe! I often just slide the systainer to the back of the van saves me gettin in and putting it their and same with materials.  With the classics the lugs are set back and are protected but the lugs on the Tanos are unprotected so they could get knoced off. I dont know how much impact is required to snap the lugs off.  Just more chance of knocking the lugs with the new T-lock. 

Saying this thought when I got my first classic systainer I looked at the lugs of the classics and thought umm they seem like they can be knocked off easily dont know if I like these systainers. Any way now allllllllllllllllllll my tools are in systainers (apart from my New milwuakee SDS) cus  I love the systainers! Nice tidy VAN!

JMB

JMB

 

[bobbobbob]

I also wonder how long the bottom of the T-loc systainers will last if you push them around on the pavement of the garage. The bottom feet now have a function when stacking.

Does anyone know of a good photo of the bottom of the new T-Locs?  Could the latching portion be somewhat protected from the raised feet in the corners?  I haven't yet seen one in person and have almost only seen the photos in this thread and the Tanos website.

 

[Wonderwino]

Are they going to "upgrade" the sortainers as well?  I can see that a T-Lock will attach to the top of a classic sortainer, but what if you want to lock a sortainer on top of a systainer?  ???

 

[image132]

I think it's also important to note that with the classic systainer, the only lid that was under stress was the lid of the systainer that was on top of the stack. With the T-loc systainers, each and every lid in the stack is under stress.

I'm going to have to disagree, at least in part with your statement.

Check out the Tanos brochure and look at page 4. Specifically the bottom systainer with the "C" on the latch. If you look the latch is connecting the top of the body of the bottom systainer to the bottom of the body of the middle systainer transferring weight from body to body and not to the lid. The only thing is I would think that the rear of the systainer lid might still have some weight on it because of the way the hook into the handle.

Maybe Festool have found a clever way of transferring weight? Lets not count them out completely just yet. Lets wait and get all the facts before making a judgement. I would like to see a test done with T-locks only so we can compare it to what Mike has shown us already.

 

[Coen]

True, but the classic systainers skipped the lid completely. And the only thing preventing it from slipping loose is that T-loc in the front.

 

[Michael_MA]

And the only thing preventing it from slipping loose is that T-loc in the front.

Your assumption here is not correct.

watch my Video, i just posted in the Review section, and watch closely the part where i explained and compared the feet of both Systainers T-LOC and Classic.
more important is the part in the beginning, when i dismount the upper T-LOC from the lower one.. I had to lift the front before i could pull it out of the rear groove.
This shows,  there are grooves on each front edge of the lid, which engage with the feet of the upper T-LOC Systainer.. and additionally the groove behind the barrel grip engage with the rear feet/wedge of the upper T-LOC Systainer.. it forms a very stable construction, which can only be moved within 3-4mm.

kind regards, Mike

 

[image132]

True, but the classic systainers skipped the lid completely. And the only thing preventing it from slipping loose is that T-loc in the front.

Well from what I have seen that front lock seems to be quality! Besides that I actually like the newer one now when you lock stuff the weight is being distributed between 2 points (the handle) and then 3 points (the rear of the lid where it connects to the body and the front lock) so divide the the weight by 2 and then by 3 and that is what each should be carrying. Someone correct me if my logic is wrong here.

Also If you lock at how the lock holds it holds between 3 points as well. One on the top systainer, one on the bottom and then a third smaller one on the bottom. I've got to say I'm impressed. And after seeing Mike's video of how they reinforced the lid it looks rather good.

 

[Eli]

In the rigging world A three point pick is statically determined. Example ; You are picking 100 lbs. Each leg must be good for 33 lbs.
If you pick the same load (100lbs) in a four point pick; Each leg must be good for 50 lbs.
This may or may not apply here, but something to think about.
James Metcalf
Barnhart Crane and Rigging

I don't know anything about rigging, but wanted to clarify if you meant 25 lbs for the four-point example?  If it really is 50 lbs, why?

Also, just being nitpicky, I would hope in the 3 point pick that each leg is actually good for 34 lbs, as 33 each would be just a hair short, no? 
Again, just look at this from a math standpoint.

No, the 50lb per leg is correct. Here's why. Only on paper would you ever have all four legs or lifting points or whatever you want to call them exactly the same length or evenly distributed from the pick point. One will always be a skeench shorter.

This means that any two will (must) take the full load and the load will teeter totter on two loaded ones and the other two are slack. These will be diagonally opposing pairs. 

So in order to be safe, on a 4 point lift you must rate all four legs as half the intended load. On a three point lift, all three are always fully loaded, and so the entire lift can be divided between three legs. This is of course ignoring any safe work load provision, for example when you rig to drop tree limbs gear is rated around 7 times the safe work load. When I fly humans the rating is 10 times the safe work load, etc.

So your 33-34lb leg rating that is fine in this forum is actually probably more like 2ton slings, 3t shackles, and a 5t hook in reality.  ;D

 

[Coen]

Today lifted a stack of four Rotex 150 sanders and two Trion's in their T-loc systainer. The top lid didn't give in that much.

*Coen does approve the use of T-loc systainers