CT-SYS but bigger

[mkasdin]

I have been using the CT-15 for a while. It’s a stripped down version of he CT-Midi. No brake and no Bluetooth. Also won’t accept systainers on top and no hose garage. Overall it’s a good value without bleeding the bank.

 

[Bob D.]

Thinking about getting a Dustopper (also sold through Home Depot;  basically an inexpensive and reasonably low-profile pre-separator) as a relatively inexpensive fix for this.  I hear it works pretty well for wood sanding dust but not for drywall dust. I'd probably put a weight in the bottom and place it right on top of the CT sys (with hose garage removed). 

Something like this?

 

[papasteve]

Yes, like that!  I especially like the way you have used smooth pvc with the Dustopper rather than ribbed hose. Does it work well?  Specifically,

(a) do you notice the CT-SYS valve opening and closing as much?  I would think this would be less of a problem with the Dustopper, and of course you shouldn't have to replace bags that often. 
(b)is suction reduced noticeably by the Dustopper?

If so, your system (coupled with any of several variable suction "hacks") would seem to address, at low cost, many of the limitations of the CT SYS discussed in this thread for those of us who love its compact size, stackability, etc., don't desperately need more suction, and aren't ready to buy another, large Festool vac (I already have two shop vacuums).

 

[Bob D.]

Well I have not taken any measurements to determine any performance differences, it's by eye so to speak but I have not noticed any difference in suction. The bin (in this case a 5 gallon bucket) does trap most of the debris. How efficient it is compared to a cyclone I don't know. I do use it with my sanders as shown in the photo but drywall dust I have no idea how it would perform.

I used 1-1/2" ABS DWV pipe and some fittings I had laying around to plumb everything up. The bucket is mounted to a piece of 1/2" MDO that is cut to attach to a Systainer (in this case the CT-SYS) and has the feet to engage the top of the Systainer plus the latch. You can pick up the CT-SYS and the bucket by the bucket handle, but I wouldn't try to pick up a whole stack of Systainers with it. I cut a slightly oversize hole in the MDO located to allow the pipe to pass through and couple to the CT-SYS. To secure the bucket so it could not tip over I cut a ring to fit the bottom of the bucket and from that cut some segments that I placed around the bottom plus added some thumb latches for a "no-tools required" way to attach/detach the bucket. I used some scraps to make a cord hanger off the back and also some postsw to fit the vacuum nozzles so I don't have to hunt for them. The cart is made from a cheap movers dolly and a piece of 3/4 EMT conduit that I bent into a hamdle. I used a couple metal shelf brackets I had laying around to support the handle.

If I had it to do over and had a spare SYS IV or V I would look at converting one of those into the dust bin and work out a nicer looking layout overall.

It's pretty ugly but it works and for me was all built from stuff in the scrap bin or junk box so didn't cost me anything except some time which being retired I have plenty of.

 

[papasteve]

Not at all ugly, it's a thing of beauty.  Thanks Bob D.  You have given me some great ideas.

 

[Bob D.]

Not at all ugly, it's a thing of beauty.  Thanks Bob D.  You have given me some great ideas.

I have thought of painting it. I think that would improve the looks a bit over that
ugly spackle bucket.

 

[Coen]

I think it should be modular in a SYS format. Motor module, dust bin module SYS1 through SYS5, cyclone separator module, and sys cart. Then you buy modules that you want and configure your own extractor or reconfigure it for a specific job.

I'd say that is never gonna happen. The bigger Systainers probably aren't suited that well for the negative pressure. So that would require new molds for every size. Molds are expensive as hell (ask Lego*!) so you don't want to create a sprawling amount of parts that each require a different mold.

*They almost went bankrupt on the proliferation of low-volume odd parts each requiring a new mold.

You want a larger tank and wheels? > Get a Mini. Want still larger tank > Get a Midi. The tanks of the Mini and midi are interchangeable (within the same generation), but even that is something almost nobody does given the cost..

 

[Crazyraceguy]

But what's the point of a vac without wheels? Or do you want to use your vac only stationary? Because when vacs get bigger, they're not so easy to carry around as a systainer.

Right, especially as they get full.
Seems to me that this whole thing is about trying to use the smallest/most portable vac as you would a much bigger unit. Adding all of this would decrease it's intended function in favor of another?

 

[Svar]

I think it should be modular in a SYS format. Motor module, dust bin module SYS1 through SYS5, cyclone separator module, and sys cart. Then you buy modules that you want and configure your own extractor or reconfigure it for a specific job.

I'd say that is never gonna happen. The bigger Systainers probably aren't suited that well for the negative pressure. So that would require new molds for every size. Molds are expensive as heck (ask Lego*!) so you don't want to create a sprawling amount of parts that each require a different mold.

Modular systems require fewer unique parts than non-modular, because parts/modules are interchangeable/configurable. That's their nature and one of the biggest benefits. Another being ease of upgrading.
Obviously, they are invested in the current lineup, but everything eventually gets phased out. After all they bothered to create new molds for CT-SYS, didn't they?

 

[Coen]

I think it should be modular in a SYS format. Motor module, dust bin module SYS1 through SYS5, cyclone separator module, and sys cart. Then you buy modules that you want and configure your own extractor or reconfigure it for a specific job.

I'd say that is never gonna happen. The bigger Systainers probably aren't suited that well for the negative pressure. So that would require new molds for every size. Molds are expensive as heck (ask Lego*!) so you don't want to create a sprawling amount of parts that each require a different mold.

Modular systems require fewer unique parts than non-modular, because parts/modules are interchangeable/configurable. That's their nature and one of the biggest benefits. Another being ease of upgrading.
Obviously, they are invested in the current lineup, but everything eventually gets phased out. After all they bothered to create new molds for CT-SYS, didn't they?

Yes, but they did not make molds for four/five different tank sizes for the CT sys.

 

[mino]

A CTL Mini "module" in the size of a SYS 2-ish is certainly doable with the same mechanicals/electronics as a Mini.

The a "bucket" module which can be SYS -ish height can go along it. The probably a SYS4-size "big" bucket.
What will be interesting is cyclone option that would just "plug" atop the vac unit.

Wheels we already have - the SYS-RB/CART.

The only problem ?
We just invented a replacement for the Mini/Midi line which will be + modular - heavier - bigger. Ergh.

 

[DeformedTree]

I think just an expansion of the CT-SYS.  Basically just a new bin system for it. And a gen II for the cyclone.

Might be bigger/heavier than other solutions, but just like systainers take up more volume than the tool laying out, it's about the ability to pack it all away.  They current CTs have the basic problem of "where do you put them", since you can't just toss them in you piles of systainers.

 

[mino]

I think just an expansion of the CT-SYS.  Basically just a new bin system for it. And a gen II for the cyclone.

The only problem I see that a cyclone needs top-side air intake while the CT-SYS has a top-side air intake too.

I guess the first step is for a CT SYS R to have a bottom air intake so it can be used placed atop a cyclone without connecting hoses.

Not sure how to handle the hose garage on bottom challenge though.

Maybe a side-air intake and a "hard plastic accessory" so it can connect to existing CT-VA directly. Yeah. The first problem is we need a side intake. And power regulation. Eh.

 

[Coen]

A Cyclone with the CT-Sys... I think you are missing the target market of the CT-Sys.

 

[JeremyH.]

From a tool storage perspective it makes more sense to have to find a place for the systainer wheels than it does a CT vacuum. Think in a work van or a wall of systainers.

From a marketing perspective people are nerdy and like to mix and match stuff...

 

[mino]

A Cyclone with the CT-Sys... I think you are missing the target market of the CT-Sys.

Well, not really. The discussion was about expanding a CT-SYS target market. I have seen Peter Parfit use one and I know how (little) dust gets through the cyclone.

Going onsite with a CT-SYS + CT-VA + cart combo makes a lot of sense.
You can use the CT-SYS2 as a primary vac with the cyclone (not really bigger than a normal CT) AND be able to disconnect it for that special work on a ladder here and there AND get excellent economy out of it.

For an install job, you would leave the CT-VA at home and put systainers on the stack instead.

For a quickie, you would take just the CT-SYS2 with a short hose, no accessories.

Having the extraction port on the side is all that would be needed and it would not impact/affect the current use cases. It would just add more scenarios.

 

[Coen]

I have yet to see anyone taking their Cyclone in the van to a job site...

 

[DeformedTree]

A Cyclone with the CT-Sys... I think you are missing the target market of the CT-Sys.

It's exactly the target market. The CT-Sys exist to be a continuation of everything in the Systainer Format. Same for the Cyclone. The cyclone had  the mistake of having the top and bottom not be connected, Festool addressed this some with the suspenders, but a full on latched version would be better.

The 2 are a natural fit for each other.