lets design the rest of the systainer system

[Alan m]

hi there
i was think about ways to improve the systainer system.
i would lke

a fold down sides for putting a kreg jig in so the lid opens,the sides open out or down and act as a continues place for the work
piece.

lets hear your ideas for systainer concepts, inserts, etc

 

[semenza]

I made a shallow  full width drawer.  It would fit right into the  current modularity of the system.

Seth

 

[RDMuller]

A simple 1 row high sorttainer with 2 or 3 drawers to attach to my drill systainer.  Current 3 by 3 is way too heavy for portable use if you put much into it. 

 

[neeleman]

Something like this?

They are available from Tanos and once from Protool.

 

[Eli]

I'd like a sys4 with GFI/RCD 4plex plugs and a retractable power lead, 30M

And another with an air hose.

 

[Wood_Junkie]

Something like this?

They are available from Tanos and once from Protool.

Just as an aside for folks, you can subsitute the medium width drawers for two small ones.
So you could have your single-level with two drawers (instead of four smalls... I personally find the smalls nearly useless).

 

[fdengel]

I think the next iteration should lock together horizontally as well as vertically, so you can build (and rebuild) custom workbenches out of them on site.

Then arrange for the bench unit for the planer to lock onto the top.

;D

 

[Scott B.]

I would like them to be see through. Seeing what is inside is more important than figuring out how to get more inside.

 

[Alan m]

i would like a sys with a sys 1 or 2 on top and a  sortainer drawer on the bottom.
the shallow drawer would hold accesories related to teh tool in the top part.
drill bits, jig saw blades, sand paper, guide bushs  etc. 

 

[Steve R]

I made a shallow  full width drawer.  It would fit right into the  current modularity of the system.

Seth

+1

 

[Timtool]

Since these sortainers are destined to be locked to other systainers, then they should be directly incorporated into other systainers, that way you wouldn't lose that many empty space above the drawers.
Say add some drawers under a sys1 and making it sys2-3 height, then you could put your drill insert on the top and all the drills and bits in the drawers by example. But the problem is that current sortainers can't be built into the T-loc design, unless they are built inti the top lid!

 

[Alan m]

i dont see why they coulnt be made to fit onto a t loc.
all you need is the little lump for the t loc to lock onto. worst case being that the middle drawer coulndt be opened unless the t lock was only on the lower sys

 

[RC]

First they could finally move to T-loc throughout the range including the sortainers. I for one have only T-locs and I'm never going to get a single old style finger breaker.

Secondly +1 to the have Sys-1 and Sys-2 size top parts with attic lids and then sortainer drawers integrated underneath instead of the braindead CXS two-layer insert.

Also it would be great if they made available DIY kits for the shelves (at a reasonable price) for those who would like to rather build their custom systainer shelving instead of buying the ready made metal systainer cabinets.

 

[Maťo]

Hi,
I believe that's exactly what the next generation sortainer will look like. Combination of a systainer on top with drawers underneath, in one unit.
Let me explain. I've been always wondering what the T-Loc sortainer would look like. Getting T-Loc knob out of drawer's way would add height and simply waste too much space. Perhaps „T-Loc“ could be modified to some kind of „I-Loc“ to avoid this problem, but I rather thought, they'll just add central anchoring point for the T-Loc knob on the bottom, while keeping original latches on the top. Until I saw this new Midi-systainer in the other thread and noticed, it has NO anchors for original latches. So, in order to be connectible with this thing, all future products MUST be of T-Loc design. That leads me to conclusion, there will be no successor of sortainer/racktainer in current form. Instead, they'll come up with a combo unit you guys suggest here. That way, T-Loc knob could be used without modification and full compatibility with the new lineup would be restored.

 

[Alan m]

welcome mato.
i think that having a combo sortainer and sys is the way forward

 

[semenza]

Hi Mato,

Welcome to the FOG!  [smile]

I could see both integrated and seperate staying in the line. If the only type is integrated  (Sys top/sort bottom) then Sortainers could not be practically  stacked without having a  Sys component wasting space in the middle of the stack. Yes, things could be in the  "trapped" Sys but acces would then require unstacking. 

Seth

 

[Maťo]

Thank you for your welcome!

Seth, with my limited English I'm not quite sure what exactly you mean. The integrated design which I had in mind would behave just like a regular T-Loc systainer in a stack, with additional drawers.

What I suspect is that the „pure“ sortainer is not going to survive. I tried to explain in my first post. And there is another thing - you only need „Open“ and „Connect“ position in a sortainer, no need for „Lock“. T-Loc just doesn't make sense here.

One idea though – „Lock“ position could be used to secure all the drawers in place at the same time. Central locking instead of individual locks. That would make perfect sense to me. But don't ask me how could that be accomplished. [smile]

 

[semenza]

Thank you for your welcome!

Seth, with my limited English I'm not quite sure what exactly you mean. The integrated design which I had in mind would behave just like a regular T-Loc systainer in a stack, with additional drawers.

What I suspect is that the „pure“ sortainer is not going to survive. I tried to explain in my first post. And there is another thing - you only need „Open“ and „Connect“ position in a sortainer, no need for „Lock“. T-Loc just doesn't make sense here.

One idea though – „Lock“ position could be used to secure all the drawers in place at the same time. Central locking instead of individual locks. That would make perfect sense to me. But don't ask me how could that be accomplished. [smile]

I get what you  mean. I think I am the one not explaining the advantage of a pure Sortainer. 

I tend to use Sortainers in stack positions where I don't want to unstack to get things, just open the  drawers. Think of the stacks as semi - permanent arrangements. With pure Sortainers I can have more than one stacked with a Sys on top, and not have to unstack at all to get things. EX (bottom to top order ) Sort// Sort// Sys.    If only integrated Sys/Sorts are available, stacking multiples will then require unstacking to get into the Sys portion of an integrated unit that is not on the top of the stack.

I have attached a pic of a stack that I would leave together for use.  If the Sortainers in the pic were integrated units (Sys/Sort in one piece) I would then have to unstack to get into the Sys portions.

I think the integrated unit would be a great option, but there is a place in the line for both types.

Seth

 

[Timtool]

I have attached a pic of a stack that I would leave together for use.  If the Sortainers in the pic were integrated units (Sys/Sort in one piece) I would then have to unstack to get into the Sys portions.

I think the integrated unit would be a great option, but there is a place in the line for both types.

Seth

I'm not sure if i understand, if T-locs had a bottom section with drawers, then you wouldn't ever need to unstack anything or not?
Unless you keep the classic sys bottom, which would be terrible because then these hybrid systainers would not be able to interlock with each other.
I gave it much thought and i am sure Tanos did even more about making T-loc sortainers, because as much as i currently would love to have one, i don't because i can't help seeing them as outdated design that is likely to be updated any time.

Still it will take alot of creativity to not waste all the space behind the lock

 

[RC]

Well, one way of working around the locking latch position of the T-loc system would be to move the drawers to open from the ends of the systainer instead of the sides. Then the T-loc latch & nob can take as much space as they need to and still retain full volume utilization of the systainer (assuming that backward compatibility would be dropped and the old side latch connection point could be removed). This could go two ways in either enabling a lot longer drawers than in possible today or two shorter drawers one from each end.

Heck, if Tanos would like to make a sexy Sortainer NG they would make the long side of the systainer above the T-loc latch an translucent flip-down drawer a bit like the attic lid and have the drawers behind that opening from the sides  [tongue]

As far as I can see in the situations one would use a sortainer it would be out in the open, so all sides of the systainer would mostly be accessible.

The main downside that I foresee would be when a sortainer with end drawers is situated on a shelf / systainer rack because then you would need to slide the shelf open to access the side drawers.

I see the option an integrated drawer sortainer with a standard size systainer box compartment and attic lid on top to be the next generation standard tool systainer with better accessory storage options vs. the current multi-level inserts and stuff just thrown into the systainer on top of the tools - not as a replacement for a full-blown sortainer for only keeping organization of loose things.

So I would like to see both versions available - sortainers with T-loc latches for organization of small stuff and Systainers with integrated row of sortainer drawers at the bottom to have tool specific utilities storage separate from the tool storage compartment.

Just comparing to the CXS set I have I would rather have the attic lid which is great + a standard T-loc SYS1 size compartment under it with the normal insert for the CXS+battery+chucks+charger only + a single row of three drawes to a side half way through the systainer each with compartment dividers for the standard drills, hook adapters, screws, fasteners, etc. that I currently carry in a separate SYS1 with the screwbox inserts attached to the systainer and have to balance with the CXS systainer in the connected position instead of just pull open a drawer. Currently I have nothing in the second insert layer of the CXS systainer because its just too much of a hassle to pry the top layer out of the systainer with your fingernails and try not to drop your drill from the cart when its out - so its effectively a waste of space.

I guess ideally (if space permits) the tool storage insert would have a dedicated space for every accessory the tool has, but no additional 'general utility spaces' and the generalized space would be provided in the form of an attic lid + drawers under the tool compartment. This way the tools would stay nice and tidy with their chucks, connector bars, DC adapters, etc. and all the random stuff would have a place out of sight in the drawers. Large items line TS-saw blades would probably be counted as standard accessories and should have a spot like they have in the current systainer insert.

My router systainer is so full of stuff that it takes 10min to just pull a table full of router bits, biscuits, DC connectors, templates, extra copy rings, etc. out of the box that I seriously think twice before pulling the tool out. And its a jigsaw puzzle to get back together and close the lid.  [embarassed]