Festool LEYSYS-FT1 spirit level

[Lincoln]

Also, the rails aren't available in all countries, even though all regions have swapped to the Sys3, which is...confounding.

 

[Cheese]

And I guess you guys won’t till/if they introduce …SysGen IV ! Now with 27.5mm less redundant matter!!!

I'd love it if Festool brought on Gen IV Systainers because hopefully they'd integrate what they had that was golden in the earlier versions and combine that and correct their current deficient solutions. To not be able to slide a Systainer forward and fully open it up to extract the contents within is inexcusable. That borders on stupid.

Festool with their early roll-out of the Sys 3 was simply chasing the $$$ bus and now that's become quite evident over the last few months. A lot of stuff that worked before no longer makes sense.

 

[Svar]

The Original version of the Systainer, as far back as 1993, was built intentionally in height increments of 52.5mm.  The T-Loc version carried on this tradition starting in 2010.
Thus, it was possible to stack multiple Systainers of different sizes into the same height, allowing one to use them as an impromptu sawhorse or other flat surface.

I consider obsession with 52.5 mm increment to be a certifiable case of OCD. I don't care if my impromptu flat surface height is evenly divisible by 52.5 mm. I would never build a 30 kg Babylon tower of sustainers to be level with MFT either (another common argument). I'd use a light folding height adjustable sawhorses. The latter come with the advantage of not requiring complete dismantle when you need to reach for a tool, which I assure you will ALWAYS be in the lower most systainer of the aforementioned tower.

 

[Svar]

And the slides that they offer don't allow you to fully open up the Systainer...that's annoying. How convenient is this situation?

If that's important for you, just use drawer slides just like you would with Gen2. Gen3 gives you an extra racking option, it doesn't take away the old option.

 

[luvmytoolz]

The Original version of the Systainer, as far back as 1993, was built intentionally in height increments of 52.5mm.  The T-Loc version carried on this tradition starting in 2010.
Thus, it was possible to stack multiple Systainers of different sizes into the same height, allowing one to use them as an impromptu sawhorse or other flat surface.

I consider obsession with 52.5 mm increment to be a certifiable case of OCD. I don't care if my impromptu flat surface height is evenly divisible by 52.5 mm. I would never build a 30 kg Babylon tower of Systainers to be level with MFT either (another common argument). I'd use a light folding height adjustable sawhorses. The latter come with the advantage of not requiring complete dismantle when you need to reach for a tool, which I assure you will ALWAYS be in the lower most systainer of the aforementioned tower.

I disagree that it's in anyway OCD, the heights as mentioned were specifically designed for a reason. What wasn't mentioned above is that they were also designed to be stackable with the dust extractors as well as the MFT, etc, etc. So tradies on site who would have their tools at the ready (not sitting in a case), could use the empty cases to extend work areas.

For myself the useless middle handle on lower height cases that sticks out is a pain, as is the fact as like many, many others I built shelving to hold the cases, and the new ones completely screwed that idea up by being slightly higher for no good reason!

 

[jeh]

It’s of no use to complain about something that will not be changed for another 10+. Tooling has been purchased, machines reprogrammed, assembly lines reconfigured, etc. Add in the adjustments made by suppliers as the final nail in the coffin on changing it.

 

[Packard]

Sweet
maybe now people will stop complaining about the new systainers

Where are the cup holders?

 

[Steve1]

The photos show a marking of +/- 1mm/m.

My Sola levels are +/- 0.3mm/m.

So I'm not too impressed by the Festool level. 

 

[Coen]

It’s of no use to complain about something that will not be changed for another 10+. Tooling has been purchased, machines reprogrammed, assembly lines reconfigured, etc. Add in the adjustments made by suppliers as the final nail in the coffin on changing it.

Tooling can be adjusted, although in this case it might be hard / impossible. However, molds wear out, and if nobody complains... they replace it by the same failed thing again.

Didn't they adjust the 'locking' of the top handle already? See > complaining works.

[...]
What I feel is an absolute work of art.
[...]

Great. Put it in a museum, for away from daily use.

[...]

I really dunno what y’all old timers have against these beauties.
Sys3 is in my opinion much more sleekly designed, the additional front handles are super handy , the reverse closing of the main handle is genius and imperative for one handed taking out/putting back in the shelf .The storage rails… that’s an outright genius invention ..how can anyone have anything against that?
everything about Sys3 is simply awesome!!

The rails aren't sold separately in Festool's biggest market, so exit that point. The reverse handle is only "needed" with the rails -which we already established as unavailable for most Festool users-, for stacking it's just another negative as it's won't fold if you bump it from the frontside.

There are also the little things that few people talk about… the fact that you can remove or put in the Sys Label without needing to open the lid.

Making it easier to lose labels isn't a positive, it's just another negative. Also; where is the label slot on the sides?

The fact that the “Festool” Logo is written “upside down” so that if your mate is opening his/her Sys3 and you happen to be hanging around in the vicinity and that open lid is facing you , well then that upside down is now right side up…and you absolutely KNOW it’s Festool and you get that warm fuzzy feeling inside just from reading that name….
()

Nobody cares about the logo on the lid.

What else… oh yeah …removing/replacing lids has become THAT much easier with Sys3…very hard to damage any plastic when popping out those lil pegs now….

Nobody cares about that either. It wasn't an issue before.

And what’s all that about not liking the sys3’s most amazing signature ‘SNAP!’ ??? That’s a totally gnarly n excellent feature!! I love hearin that sound so much I close the lid every chance I get just to hear that snap man! And if you don’t get why the added that , it’s for locking it in when you’re carrying it by the side handle..so it doesn’t open up unintentionally…ok maybe that one’s pretty obvious then…

Ahaa. But if they hadn't reversed the top handle direction, it wouldn't even need to lock if carried by the front handle.

CrazyRaceGuy please excuse my ignorance, what do you mean by ‘engineering aspect’ ,
And ‘the stacking sizes don’t line up’ …

if you can explain why the height change is so fundamental to y’all , that would be great !

I’m sure I’m missing something there, because aside from having to perhaps rebuild any Sys-Cabs that were perfectly sized and specifically built for T-Loc, I don’t understand entirely why the new heights got to be so problematic.

I’m relatively new n green (XCuse the pun) to this craft, ‘specially compared to all you old timers n professionals, so any enlightenment is greatly appreciated

I regularly put a bunch of equal-height stacks of Systainers to elevate sheet goods or random other workpieces. You can create equal-height stacks with completely different Systainers. But with Sys3 you can only do so with stacks of equal number of Systainers, because of the stupid +30mm part in (INT x 50 + 30). Even Sortimo L-Boxx uses INT x 34; no +... part.

The Original version of the Systainer, as far back as 1993, was built intentionally in height increments of 52.5mm.  The T-Loc version carried on this tradition starting in 2010.
Thus, it was possible to stack multiple Systainers of different sizes into the same height, allowing one to use them as an impromptu sawhorse or other flat surface.

I consider obsession with 52.5 mm increment to be a certifiable case of OCD. I don't care if my impromptu flat surface height is evenly divisible by 52.5 mm. I would never build a 30 kg Babylon tower of Systainers to be level with MFT either (another common argument). I'd use a light folding height adjustable sawhorses. The latter come with the advantage of not requiring complete dismantle when you need to reach for a tool, which I assure you will ALWAYS be in the lower most systainer of the aforementioned tower.

Someone choose 52.5mm back then, and they should have stuck with it. It's a feature of Festool to be able to make equal-height stacks with different Systainers. Festool's whole slogan is "Better in system"; they broke a part of their system by garbling the heights. If current tools required something in between Sys I and Sys II so bad they should have done 131.25 (2.5x 52.5). You could argue they had 105 and the Sys II was already the odd one out.

It's really easy to conclude; the people that don't care about the heights... they don't care. The people that do care... they want the same heights as previous situations. Easy solution to appease all; keep heights the same.

I did make the 'Babylon towers' a few times and no, I did not need a tool from that stack. The whole marketing is that you can leave that additional workhouse at home because you have the Systainers. Some newb/no0b at Festool apparently didn't know or was too arrogant and they changed the heights. None of them ever explained why broke the System.

It's like Lenovo changing the keyboard on their Thinkpads. They made a few well-thought out changes (double-height escape and delete button) in 2010 and published a long blog post on why they did the changes, the research they did that prompted the changes, etc. etc. A few people hated the changes, some loved it and almost everyone got along eventually. Then in 2012 they undid the 2010 changes and completely removed the 7th row of keys, removed spacing between F-keys and disappeared a few keys in the process. Everybody hated it. And they responded with a blogpost; "Why You Should Give In to the New ThinkPad Keyboard". It lacked any real explanation and basically boiled down to 'some designer took a dumb mondaymorning and now your 7th row of keys is gone, get used to it'. It became their best-read blogpost with the most responses ever; 95%+ negative. It stayed up on their shortlists of 'most read' and 'most responses' until they manually excluded that blogpost from those lists.
And Lenovo did eventually change a few things; in 2013, spacing between F-keys returned. But they let the physical trackpoint buttons disappear. That was a failure too, so in 2014... physical trackpad buttons came back. All in all... they should not have changed anything after 2010 and they would have still had the best keyboard. The users that don't care about it aren't bothered by any of it.
I bought a Thinkpad in 2012. And because of the keyboard, I bought one from model year 2011. I had people around me with Thinkpads from model year 2012 and the keyboard was horrible. If they return to the 2010 keyboard (or improve on it) I'd happily buy a new Thinkpad.

One change I do agree with with the new Systainers is to offer the L-sized one in more heights. Previously the Midi was only sold in two sizes, the current L in three sizes (excluding the Organizer). I have my Bosch GCG-310(battery powered caulk gun) in a Systainer3 L. It doesn't fit in a Bosch L-Boxx (except XL-Boxx, that is wayyy to big) but fits neatly in a  Sys3 L

 

[Jacks Moonshiner]

Thanks Coen for your per-subject replies
I laughed out loud reading some of them and my wife asked me what’s up withatnow???
Tried to explain the Systainer Generation Debate but I think she stopped listening after 7.26 seconds….

Anyway I dunno how to go subject by subject and reply like you did so I’ll just write it all in one swoop…

To me at least ,part of the fun of this craft , a rather substantial part, is enjoying the aesthetics of my tools, Systainers etc… I’m not a pro like some of you in this forum, I don’t make money off most jobs I do , and once in a while if I do make a small buck it’s really just for consumables or gas or whatever. I’ve gotten into woodworking and enjoying power tools about four years ago more as a therapeutic hobby, a way to bring back some good ol honest work ethic and discipline into my life that was mostly gone back then… when I started out I had no idea I would get so hooked ( also had no idea my bank account would get so black-holed) but that’s a another story for another time perhaps. In short(ish) I think that aside from Festool making some of the best, most reliable, and inventive tools on this planet I , personally, fell immediately in love with their design, look, ergonomics, feel and outright coolness of their products. Yes I can totally understand how many who do this for a living , from all sorts of trades, do not give the slightest thought to these things for the most part, but ,hey , I’m just telling it like how it was/is for ME, personally. So yeah, not ashamed to say i extremely enjoy working daily with “Absolute Works of Art” and no I wouldn’t waste my Systainers’ aesthetic AND functional potential by putting em in a museum…though now that you mention it someone SHOULD put one in some kind of museum for these kind of things.

The reverse handle works great when they are stored in shelving, at least for me , they’re NOT just for the rails…so I don’t agree with that statement.When you’re other hand is holding something and you want to take out/put in a sys3 in a shelf where there’s another shelf/Systainer on top of it and there’s not much room to fully open the handle… I take out the Sys using the front handle, then there’s enough room to pull open the top handle and I can extract it one handed. Not sure I could manage that with T-Loc but maybe I’m wrong.

The labels don’t get lost easily … they’re just easier to take out put in while that Sys is in its shelf. The side labels getting dumped I agree…I missum too……

I know most nobody cares about the logo on the lid( except me maybe) it was a sorta joke…

Not sure that nobody cares about having an easier time removing/replacing lids but ok.

Agree with L sizes they are awesome…XXL is awesome … the new attic lids are great but honestly I was a wee bit disappointed by those….these are a case where I think the T-Loc attics are more robust n less fragile-feeling…

Festool please make a Sys3 M Bottom Drawer Systainer pleaaaase!
That would be friggin amazing!

Thanks again Coen and the rest for your enlightenment it’s interesting to read n learn about all that

 

[Packard]

All tool designs involve compromise.  Sometimes it is weight.  Other times it is cost.  Sometimes it is size. 

If you want to see the impact of those enforced dictates, you only have to look at the Skil line of tools.  I would call these tools “beginner-grade-hobby-on-a-tight-budget”. Do I feel that Festool has better engineers and designers than Skil?  Probably not.  But the Festool engineers have a much larger budget to work with.

So Festool’s marketing people said, “Hey, we have a hollow handle on the Systainers.  What tool can you design that will fit inside that handle.  It would be way-cool”.

And the engineers come back to marketing and say, “We can design a bubble level to fit inside that handle.  But for less cost we can make a more functional version that simply fits inside the Systainer.  The artificial design parameter of ‘fitting inside a handle’, will result in a good product, but one inferior to one that simply fits inside the container.”

And marketing says, “Fitting inside the handle is way-cooler.  We should go with that.”

And then marketing comes up with the idea to put a table saw inside a Systainer.  And Engineering comes back to them and says,”If we can have two more inches in width and one more inch in depth, we can make a vastly better table saw.  It seems the only advantage in fitting the saw in a Systainer is that it fits in the Systainer.  We think we should have a special Systainer for the saw.”

And marketing says, “Nope.  We are a Systainer-based company.  You simply have to accept that parameter.  Anything else will be unacceptable. 

 

[Crazyraceguy]

The other part of the incremental sizing was the fitment to Sysports. They are drilled with the 32mm system. That spacing allows for easy rearrangement of the drawers.
I built my shop-made cabinets with that in the design. A simple 1000mm height and 32mm hole spacing, all you have to do is count the holes to change height.
The Sys3 do not work like that.

I could "get over" the minor aesthetic changes, but abandoning the engineered/compatible heights is a major issue.
The front handle may be nice, if you only have one, or only ever need to carry one. Beyond that, it's as much a liability as it is asset. They don't latch together without moving it out of the way.
The top handle moving the opposite direction is a consolation of the Bott rack thing. The racks that are purely about storing the Systainers, not for being opened and accessed while in the rack.

Plus, there is the expense of the redesign itself, including new tooling. Why, when the system works as well as it has proven over the years. I appreciated the actual improvements of T-Loc over the 1st gen units, one handed latches being the main one....but it was a real improvement.

 

[luvmytoolz]

The T-Loc (while still keeping everything compatible) was a very welcome improvement. I hated the old latch type cases and I'm quite amazed companies still ship products in them. The completely unnecessary extra height that serves no purpose other than breaking an advertised and cohesive working system, and the changes to the handles, just baffling to me.

 

[PaulMarcel]

I only have 2 of the new Sys3; the one the TiD came in is with my jobsite kit for when I have to go do something at someone's house or studio. For that, I like the front handle. It didn't fit anywhere in my SysPort-bench, but the handle makes it better as a to-go Systainer for jobsites than a holder for the drill. None of my drills are in Systainers. The handle would never get used if it was in the SysPort bench.

I still love the T-Loc design and have definitely used Systainers as on-site Kapex extensions.

The only thing that was better on the Classics was the attic: it had a nice flip latch that was easy to open and lock and you were sure it was locked. On the T-Loc, they couldn't put the latch there so it has a push slider. Seems like the two I have are fussy about sliding and locking. After the attic dumps on the floor a couple times, you decide to leave it empty

 

[mrboult]

I’ll forever miss the Systainer heights!

Spandex- don’t rewrite and reverse history.

 

[Coen]

compromise

What is the benefit of dropping the [INT x 52,5] and going to [INT x 50 + 30]? I only see negatives.

 

[squall_line]

compromise

What is the benefit of dropping the [INT x 52,5] and going to [INT x 50 + 30]? I only see negatives.

I'm guessing that someone thought "we need to have 30mm for the Bott rail grooves, so we have to add that to each size" or "The third hinge will impede if we don't add height", without taking the time to see if it was ACTUALLY necessary.  Which, given how much empty space is in most of the new Systainers and how many tools moved to ever-larger Systainers over the years, seems like they skipped the "test" phase of the ideation process...

 

[Coen]

compromise

What is the benefit of dropping the [INT x 52,5] and going to [INT x 50 + 30]? I only see negatives.

I'm guessing that someone thought "we need to have 30mm for the Bott rail grooves, so we have to add that to each size" or "The third hinge will impede if we don't add height", without taking the time to see if it was ACTUALLY necessary.  Which, given how much empty space is in most of the new Systainers and how many tools moved to ever-larger Systainers over the years, seems like they skipped the "test" phase of the ideation process...

If they are so easy to roll over to fit into some other brand' constraints... might just as well adopted the Sortimo L-Boxx and sign up for Bosch' Ampshare. They are rackable too.

 

[mino]

I consider obsession with 52.5 mm increment to be a certifiable case of OCD.
...

The SYS3 generation consciously abandoned a capability. Thus killing off several use cases. An undisputed fact. The same as it was done for no benefit to non-vehicle users.

The impact on people is, naturally, subjective and specific - some are not affected, some are annoyed, some have their workflow/use case suddenly destroyed/made impossible. So the reactions differ.

As for me - I could not use SYS3 gen even sans the height mess indeed.
We use them at home, atop high cabinets as secondary storage space. (Yes, Festool/TANOS logo sanded out and the catches changed for same-color as the bodies). The T-Loc generation elegant design allows that. The SYS3 "spaceship" design does not.

So, does it mean I am mentally ill - as you presume - by not wanting any SYS3 around me, complicating my life? I do not think so. Irrespective of anyone's dismissal. But I also do NOT talk about the design aspect "issue". It is very much subjective AND is not something fixable by TANOS. Not at this stage.

I do talk about the heights though. First, they are ridiculously easy to fix - just a couple molds away. Second, they impact a WAY bigger group of customers as evidenced by the persistently annoyed feedback.

=====
As someone who did product planning/development, I know well the ONLY way a customer can provide feedback to a company is to "complain". Taking it up the back silently never ever resulted in positive change for the affected party.

 

[Spandex]

And the slides that they offer don't allow you to fully open up the Systainer...that's annoying. How convenient is this situation? How much stuff can you retrieve from that Systainer unless your fingers are the size of an 8 year old?

Sorry, how can any slide allow you to open a systainer fully? In order to open fully the systainer must be clear of the box above. When means the slide would have to extend beyond the cabinet, no?

It seems people are complaining that the slide doesn’t achieve the impossible, which honestly sums up the point we’ve reached with these discussions.