SYS port construction and a question I can’t answer

[Df1k1]

So…  if European cabinetry is based on the 32 mm system and seems inherently based on a captured top and bottom why the heck does tanos/Festool show this diagram? Obviously I can adjust the math to capture top and bottom as that’s the way I always build but…. I just wondered if anyone had the answer to why they’re showing this type of construction
https://www.tanos.de/pics/Service/Anleitungen/Montageanleitung_Schublade_SYS-Auszug.pdf

 

[Lincoln]

Strength. We always build like that if it's a floating cabinet, or, like these units, there are castors (or legs) attached to the bottom.

 

[Spandex]

I would be amazed if the person who created that diagram chose the cabinet construction method for any particular reason at all. It’s a diagram to show all the dimensions required to install the sys-az drawers, not how to construct the cabinets themselves. I wouldn’t read too much into it.

 

[Spandex]

Strength. We always build like that if it's a floating cabinet, or, like these units, there are castors (or legs) attached to the bottom.

This isn’t strictly true. For example, a 2.3m tall kitchen unit, with drawers full of pans, mdf doors and two ovens mounted in it will be extremely heavy, but it will still have a captive base/top for aesthetic reasons. The legs are designed and positioned to support both the sides and the base, so weight isn’t an issue.

 

[Paul_HKI]

Strength. We always build like that if it's a floating cabinet, or, like these units, there are castors (or legs) attached to the bottom.

This isn’t strictly true. For example, a 2.3m tall kitchen unit, with drawers full of pans, mdf doors and two ovens mounted in it will be extremely heavy, but it will still have a captive base/top for aesthetic reasons. The legs are designed and positioned to support both the sides and the base, so weight isn’t an issue.

Nobody is building a 2.3M tall mobile sysport with twin ovens and filling it with pots and pans.  [big grin]

That construction diagram is absolutely the way that kind of unit should be built.  It's not a euro standard kitchen cabinet.  Tanos know what they designed and to suggest otherwise is a bit silly.

 

[TSO_Products]

So…  if European cabinetry is based on the 32 mm system and seems inherently based on a captured top and bottom why the heck does tanos/Festool show this diagram? Obviously I can adjust the math to capture top and bottom as that’s the way I always build but…. I just wondered if anyone had the answer to why they’re showing this type of construction
https://www.tanos.de/pics/Service/Anleitungen/Montageanleitung_Schublade_SYS-Auszug.pdf

- the picture of TSO's proven SYSTAINER Cart Plan Set may answer your question in specific detail.
If the $ 6.95 download price is not worth it, we'll refund your purchase price [smile]

 

[Coen]

Strength. We always build like that if it's a floating cabinet, or, like these units, there are castors (or legs) attached to the bottom.

This isn’t strictly true. For example, a 2.3m tall kitchen unit, with drawers full of pans, mdf doors and two ovens mounted in it will be extremely heavy, but it will still have a captive base/top for aesthetic reasons. The legs are designed and positioned to support both the sides and the base, so weight isn’t an issue.

Yeah, well, you answered your own thing; kitchen cabinet feet are designed to support the side walls. That's not gonna happen if someone puts casters on a Sysport. So the design in that PDF is perfectly fine.

 

[Crazyraceguy]

The real issue here is that the new Sys3 units do not fit into the Sysport design correctly anyway.

 

[Paul_HKI]

The real issue here is that the new Sys3 units were ever made.

Fixed your post.  [big grin]

 

[Crazyraceguy]

The real issue here is that the new Sys3 units were ever made.

Fixed your post.  [big grin]

100% correct. Yet they still are....

 

[Coen]

The real issue here is that the new Sys3 units do not fit into the Sysport design correctly anyway.

How so? They fit the drawers equally fine?? Or do you mean because of the different heights?

 

[Spandex]

Yeah, well, you answered your own thing; kitchen cabinet feet are designed to support the side walls. That's not gonna happen if someone puts casters on a Sysport. So the design in that PDF is perfectly fine.

The guy doing the diagrams for the sys-az manual is not suggesting how to actually construct the cabinet, beyond providing the required dimensions. If you built what's shown in the diagram, and tried to push it around on casters, it would eventually rack so badly it fell apart, because they haven't put any bracing on the back. It is not a 'serving suggestion'.

You can build it like the diagram, or you can build it with full height side pieces, depending on your requirements and whether it's going to be mobile, stationary, wall mounted, floor mounted, whatever. The design shown in the diagram isn't right and it isn't wrong. It's just a way of doing it that may or may not be appropriate to the person actually building the thing.

 

[Spandex]

Nobody is building a 2.3M tall mobile sysport with twin ovens and filling it with pots and pans.  [big grin]

Mobile? I didn't mention mobile. The comment I responded to said you would build it as shown in the PDF whether your cabinet had legs or casters - I pointed out that you can support a huge amount of weight on legs with full height side pieces.

There seems to be a lot of people who assume sys-az drawers only get used in mobile cabinets, despite this forum being full of pictures of peoples permanent under-bench sys-port setups.

 

[Coen]

For stationary it doesn't matter, for mobile you want the setup from the pdf... yes, with a backwall.

I don't get the problem. Basic dimensions are  provided, use as you see fit.

 

[Crazyraceguy]

The real issue here is that the new Sys3 units do not fit into the Sysport design correctly anyway.

How so? They fit the drawers equally fine?? Or do you mean because of the different heights?

Yes, heights. They ruined the proportional step sizing.
Fitting to drawers is fine, how they all fit into the Sysport, not so good.

 

[Coen]

The real issue here is that the new Sys3 units do not fit into the Sysport design correctly anyway.

How so? They fit the drawers equally fine?? Or do you mean because of the different heights?

Yes, heights. They ruined the proportional step sizing.
Fitting to drawers is fine, how they all fit into the Sysport, not so good.

Ah yes, the Sys3 usually wastes about 20mm. Even the D8 connector set now comes in a M137 Systainer. That's one of the bigger reasons I bought it in T-Loc... because I feared that would happen. The set fits perfectly fine in a Systainer T-Loc I (25mm lower!).

 

[Spandex]

I think any of us (me included) who keep our tools in their original systainers/inserts can probably no longer pretend to care about space efficiency.  [tongue]

 

[Kpp80202]

I think any of us (me included) who keep our tools in their original systainers/inserts can probably no longer pretend to care about space efficiency.  [tongue]

Yeah, there’s definitely lots of dead air space around just about every tool in the original systainers.

 

[Coen]

With Sys³ yes.

But a TS55 with parallel guide, additional long plug-it cord, clamps, blades, guide stop, parallel guide in a Sys IV.. is pretty efficiënt. With the T-Loc version even the FS-WA/90° fits. But with Sys³ it comes in a 15mm higher box for exactly zero additional use.

 

[Spandex]

Yes, I’m sure we can hunt around and find rare examples of tools that are crammed in. But the fact you have to cherry pick should tell you something.