Handles on Systainer

[Crazyraceguy]

But note that the L-Boxxes maintained a logical height system, the four sizes being 3*, 4*, 7*, 11* multiples of 34mm. Something the Systainer USED to have with multiples of 52.5mm. Now however... it's X*50mm + Y. The Y component makes it nearly impossible to create equal-height stacks with differently sized Systainers.

I think a lot of this was even unkown by users as Festool never promoted these features properly. Like you can easily make a Systainer stack that equals the height of the MFT... but not with Sys3

This is why I have always maintained the idea that engineers/designers really should look at how the end users actually use the product. They are just too good to think that they could learn something from the users. This especially be done before making changes to existing products.
"Is this new feature something that people really want?" "Does it interfere with other functionality?" etc

 

[tsmi243]

Well let me just take the devils advocate position on this little gem...squall_line, SRSemenza & Crazyraceguy.

This whole need for a handle lock down rationale could make sense if looked at from the 15,000 foot level but when viewed from the macro level, this explanation just does not have much validity.

It's when the lid is up, in the open position we're talking about.  The SYS3 have the top handle pointed the other way, so every time you open the case, the handle "klacks". 

Now, WHY do the handles fold the other way?  No idea.  But it's easy to imagine the testers opening/closing the lids a bunch of times (got fixed), but maybe not driving around with a stack of em (not fixed).

 

[luvmytoolz]

But note that the L-Boxxes maintained a logical height system, the four sizes being 3*, 4*, 7*, 11* multiples of 34mm. Something the Systainer USED to have with multiples of 52.5mm. Now however... it's X*50mm + Y. The Y component makes it nearly impossible to create equal-height stacks with differently sized Systainers.

There was a whole episode Sedge did on how the systainers were backwards compatible and were designed to be able to stack on a CT and match the height of the MFT or another stack of systainers.

 

[Crazyraceguy]

...
They are just too good stupid to think that they could learn something from the users.
...

There. Fixed for you!

And aside. Two sayings I re-iterate to colleagues (IT field) every now and then:
- There are no stupid questions.
- Only fools do not listen what the /perceived/ idiot has to say.

The corollary to that is "You can learn something from anyone, even if it is just what not to do.

My actual intent of the first statement was self important, but was trying to be nice about it.

 

[cpw]

But note that the L-Boxxes maintained a logical height system, the four sizes being 3*, 4*, 7*, 11* multiples of 34mm. Something the Systainer USED to have with multiples of 52.5mm. Now however... it's X*50mm + Y. The Y component makes it nearly impossible to create equal-height stacks with differently sized Systainers.

There was a whole episode Sedge did on how the systainers were backwards compatible and were designed to be able to stack on a CT and match the height of the MFT or another stack of systainers.

He got lucky with a couple on the vac that were close to the MFT.  The vacs are not a perfectly consistent height system like the old systainer.

The old heights really did make a lot of sense, and integrated with the system well.  They kept the SYS I height so that they could still be used as an outfeed for kapex, etc.  But then the heights after that are just not combinable anymore and it is somewhat frustrating, because the availability of the L and XXL size is a good change.

 

[Coen]

But note that the L-Boxxes maintained a logical height system, the four sizes being 3*, 4*, 7*, 11* multiples of 34mm. Something the Systainer USED to have with multiples of 52.5mm. Now however... it's X*50mm + Y. The Y component makes it nearly impossible to create equal-height stacks with differently sized Systainers.

There was a whole episode Sedge did on how the systainers were backwards compatible and were designed to be able to stack on a CT and match the height of the MFT or another stack of systainers.

I think he did that pre Sys3

MFT height is 900mm
=7mm feet + 17x52.5mm = 899.5mm

So you need one Sys 2 and then you are free to use any combination of 1,3,4,5 that adds up to 14x52.5mm
Sys 1 = 2*52.5mm
Sys 2 = 3*52.5mm
Sys 3 = 4*52.5mm
Sys 4 = 6*52.5mm
Sys 5 = 8*52.5mm

 

[dsh1705]

Whew! I am so happy to learn that the "handle" in front does NOT release, and is just a pull. I was having a heck of a time trying to get it out! [attachimg=1]

 

[Coen]

But did the crowbar win?

 

[dsh1705]

Nope!  [big grin]

 

[timwors]

On the subject of handles, I recently got one of the new SYS3 DF M 137 (with the new style attic). The moulding has clearly been altered such that the top handle is pleasantly easier to release, and crucially no longer makes that ear-splitting squeak when you push it back down.

So good news I think. Apart from the fact that the attic is shallower which means that accessories made for T-LOC attics no longer fit  [sad]

 

[tango63]

On the subject of handles, I recently got one of the new SYS3 DF M 137 (with the new style attic). The moulding has clearly been altered such that the top handle is pleasantly easier to release, and crucially no longer makes that ear-splitting squeak when you push it back down.

So good news I think. Apart from the fact that the attic is shallower which means that accessories made for T-LOC attics no longer fit  [sad]

Best way for Festool to make you buy new accessories for the attics  ;D

 

[Ebuwan]

Not sure why all the hate on the top handle; I've never had an issue pulling the handle up when it has been clicked in; never even though of it till just reading folks annoyance with it here.

The front handle having to rest on the tloc below it and clacking, yeah, i get that one being annoying. For those smaller ones though, I can't see another option, unless just to never have that front handle on it anyway, taking away the option to carry it that way i guess?

That handle can be removed, right? Then you no longer have the clacking, and you end up where Tanos would have had to end up; just no handle in the front at all.

 

[Coen]

On the subject of handles, I recently got one of the new SYS3 DF M 137 (with the new style attic). The moulding has clearly been altered such that the top handle is pleasantly easier to release, and crucially no longer makes that ear-splitting squeak when you push it back down.

So good news I think. Apart from the fact that the attic is shallower which means that accessories made for T-LOC attics no longer fit  [sad]

Best way for Festool to make you buy new accessories for the attics  ;D

They have been breaking compatibility with their boxes since forever. Look at the boxes in their 1st gen Sys1-Box, then the T-Loc box, the sortainer, the 3 organizer; all just slightly different sizes.

Not sure why all the hate on the top handle; I've never had an issue pulling the handle up when it has been clicked in; never even though of it till just reading folks annoyance with it here.

The front handle having to rest on the tloc below it and clacking, yeah, i get that one being annoying. For those smaller ones though, I can't see another option, unless just to never have that front handle on it anyway, taking away the option to carry it that way i guess?

That handle can be removed, right? Then you no longer have the clacking, and you end up where Tanos would have had to end up; just no handle in the front at all.

Because the top handle not fully collapsing will cause failed mating of stacked systainers without it being very obviously. When lifted it might result in cracked cases and tools. Furthermore; previous generations systainers would have their handle fold down perfectly fine when another systainer would be put on top.

Classic and T-Loc Systainer top handles would just lock on their own. And when carried on their side with the optional front handle the top handle would by default not unfold. Because they reversed the direction of the top handle, the 'locking' of it became necessary.
My guess is the reversal was to facilitate the 'racking', where an extended top handle would just collapse when the systainer gets racked instead of jamming the racking.

Bosch' L-Boxx's have this racking system since longer and also the same orientation with the top handle that requires locking. However, it doesn't need such excessive force as the Sys3 handle does and when stacked it will more likely lock in place by the weight of the box on top and if not it will be more obvious compared to the way Systainers stack.