Let me start by saying this is not a bash on the new systainers. I actually kinda like them although I am not a fan of how the top handle locks down. But honestly one of the most exciting features to me when they were released was the aspect of the rail system. I have a few dozen systainers and 8 of those are the new sys3. I was really excited about the less expensive aspect of the rail and how versatile they could be. For my work I am often moving my set up from the work trailer and back and forth to the shop so the rails open up an inexpensive option to quickly change racking set ups around and have the components be reusable. I currently use about a dozen of the sys az and use them mainly in the shop along with a older metal sysport. In the trailer I mainly use wooden racks and have at times used the sys az in the trailer. The rails seemed like the perfect add on to the system to me.
That all being said I have two main complaints about the rails that seem like simply poor planning on system integration and huge missed opportunities to me. Both of which I think will keep these rails from becoming the huge hits they could have been. They largely stem from how poorly the rails play with the sys az drawers.
The first issue is width. The sys az drawers require an open case width of 427 mm for the drawer units to work. The rails for the size M systainers require 418. A difference of 9 mm. This prohibits the mixing of drawers and rails in the same case. It prohibits the use of a case for rails and then later upgrading the the drawers. This could have been solved so easily by simple making the rails slightly thicker. I would have solved this problem and made these two components play together and compliment each other so nicely. Yes it would have make the rail system slightly bulkier but also more useful.
The second is the hole pattern on the rails and for the life of me I just don't understand this one at all. The sys az drawers need a front hole back 58mm from the front of the case and the rails need a standard slide hole 37 mm back from the front. Most importantly even if you set the rails back further they cannot use the hole patterns of the sys az. This would have been such an easy fix as the hole pattern on the rails could have extra holes to match or could simple have taken the same hole spacing as the sys az. Sure you could bore extra holes in the case side panels so the you could have both but again this issue is pointless since they require a slightly different case width.
It really boggles my mind that the rails and sys az drawers have such poor integration. Especially since system integration is really Festool's bread and butter. This really came up for me recently, I have been using the systainers more and more for site work and like the system so much that I have been really thinking about changing all our non festool site tools over to systainers from the mix of packout and tough system that we use now. So I ordered about a dozen of the new sys3 and three of the rail packs to get started on this. Having spent a day this week messing with trailer layout and realizing about how the rails don't play with the drawers I have tossed the packs of rails up on a top shelf in the storage room and canceled the order for the systainer3 and just ordered more packout. Perhaps in the future I will shell out for a ton of sys az drawers and make the move, and maybe I will use the rails for a fasteners sysport or something. But for now I am not impressed. Feel really disappointed in the product, which sucks because I was really excited about it.
Festool is usually so good about all their products playing together in every way that to have two products that are perfect for integration be so incompatible really makes me rethink their purchase. This was such a missed opportunity in my mind that had such easy design adjustments to be workable.
I am wondering if anyone else has had these thoughts or run into this issue. Am I just missing some obvious fix that is right in front me? This just seems like too obvious of an issue for festool not to realize before releasing this stuff.
Thoughts or disagreements welcome, I am really hoping someone can point out an obvious fix that I am just missing.
That all being said I have two main complaints about the rails that seem like simply poor planning on system integration and huge missed opportunities to me. Both of which I think will keep these rails from becoming the huge hits they could have been. They largely stem from how poorly the rails play with the sys az drawers.
The first issue is width. The sys az drawers require an open case width of 427 mm for the drawer units to work. The rails for the size M systainers require 418. A difference of 9 mm. This prohibits the mixing of drawers and rails in the same case. It prohibits the use of a case for rails and then later upgrading the the drawers. This could have been solved so easily by simple making the rails slightly thicker. I would have solved this problem and made these two components play together and compliment each other so nicely. Yes it would have make the rail system slightly bulkier but also more useful.
The second is the hole pattern on the rails and for the life of me I just don't understand this one at all. The sys az drawers need a front hole back 58mm from the front of the case and the rails need a standard slide hole 37 mm back from the front. Most importantly even if you set the rails back further they cannot use the hole patterns of the sys az. This would have been such an easy fix as the hole pattern on the rails could have extra holes to match or could simple have taken the same hole spacing as the sys az. Sure you could bore extra holes in the case side panels so the you could have both but again this issue is pointless since they require a slightly different case width.
It really boggles my mind that the rails and sys az drawers have such poor integration. Especially since system integration is really Festool's bread and butter. This really came up for me recently, I have been using the systainers more and more for site work and like the system so much that I have been really thinking about changing all our non festool site tools over to systainers from the mix of packout and tough system that we use now. So I ordered about a dozen of the new sys3 and three of the rail packs to get started on this. Having spent a day this week messing with trailer layout and realizing about how the rails don't play with the drawers I have tossed the packs of rails up on a top shelf in the storage room and canceled the order for the systainer3 and just ordered more packout. Perhaps in the future I will shell out for a ton of sys az drawers and make the move, and maybe I will use the rails for a fasteners sysport or something. But for now I am not impressed. Feel really disappointed in the product, which sucks because I was really excited about it.
Festool is usually so good about all their products playing together in every way that to have two products that are perfect for integration be so incompatible really makes me rethink their purchase. This was such a missed opportunity in my mind that had such easy design adjustments to be workable.
I am wondering if anyone else has had these thoughts or run into this issue. Am I just missing some obvious fix that is right in front me? This just seems like too obvious of an issue for festool not to realize before releasing this stuff.
Thoughts or disagreements welcome, I am really hoping someone can point out an obvious fix that I am just missing.
