SYS port construction and a question I can’t answer

[mino]

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.

Well, wasn't the whole point of the Systainer concept that the boxes the tools ship in are NOT single-use thingies. I mean, the whole concept of the universal box + standalone insert just screams that to me.

Not a single tool I bought in a Systainer is living in that Systainer. The first task*) after getting the tool is to throw out the insert, get rid of the "placard" in the cover and think how I can use that particular systainer. While at same I am thinking into what systainer /or not/ I will store the tool and its accessories etc. Sometimes I may put the tool + accessories back in its original systainer until I figure out what accessories I need with it and what not. But that is already without the insert.

*) Well, not entirely true anymore. Today the first task is to put the SYS3 for sale or gift it due to the incompatible heights. But that is unrelated to the "inefficient" space use.

Er. correction there is one tool - a Narex power planer - I have in a T-Loc in its original insert. That tool actually came in a box and then I bought the Classic systainer insert and adapted to a T-Loc. So technically above still holds. LOL.

 

[mino]

To add, I think for some of the corded tools the systainer can be made pretty efficient and it can work out - like that planer of mine, the TS55 mentioned etc.

But with cordless tools, I almost never take chargers with me - and definetely not one for each tool I am taking. I usually pack a drill, jigsaw and an angle grinder with spare batteries in a SYS3 and there I go.

I actually cannot see how this can be done by Festool for cordless tools to meet ALL reqs at the same time, these are mutually exclusive:
- have efficient space use
- allow shipping in the same box a charger (or two) and a battery spare
- allow for the scenario when SOME customers actually require/demand the tool + charger + accessories in one box while other would be happy for the charger to ship externally so its eternally-empty slot does not waste space

Do not want to really defend the new heights, I hate them. But IMO lots of people are too emotionally tied to something they are not the customer for from the start.
I.e. if you do not need all accessories in the box - and are willing to pay the efficiency price for that, then just do not use the inserts and make your own, more efficient setup. A SYS1 (or 112) is more than enough for a TPC + chucks + batteries. There is no reason using even a SYS2, not to mention a 187.

 

[Crazyraceguy]

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]

That's kind of the price that has to be paid to keep with the "standardized" sizes. The sizes were initially set into the system, so then the tools "have to" fit into one of those sizes. If it "wastes space" in one, but won't fit in the next size smaller... so be it.

Look at the ETS EC 125. It is one of the worst examples. There is virtually nothing in the box but the sander itself. I still have one though and in its original Systainer.

So far, I only have one of the new Sys3 containers, with the RO125, but a couple more are on the way.

 

[Spandex]

Yes, I understand why it’s the way it is. The point of my ‘joke’ was just that anyone who happily keeps individual tools in their original systainers can’t really complain about wasted space in a sys3.

It wasn’t supposed to be a serious comment on how to store tools.

 

[Coen]

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.

I don't have to cherry pick.

My OF-1010 Systainer is packed with the router itself an accessories; currently comes in a 20 mm bigger box.
My PS300 Systainer I even upgraded a size to fit everything, but currently ships in 25 mm bigger box.
My RTS 400 fit's it's box just fine, but currently ships in a 75mm (!!!) bigger box
My DTS 400 is already swimming in it's Classic Sys, but currently ships in a 22.5mm bigger box.

Etc. Somehow... all boxes got more air added to them. I can't think of any tool that now ships in a less tall Systainer. The sturdier bottom might have something to do with it... but it's also a lot of lazyness I think.

For half empty boxes... competitors have 1/2 inlays that you can combine however you see fit. But that requires a box with two symmetry axes. But I can tell you that both my GSR 18v-60 and GDX 18v-200 came in a nearly half-empty L-boxx, but with recombining their inlays... I can have both in one box with a charger and spare batteries.  [tongue]

 

[Coen]

Yes, I understand why it’s the way it is. The point of my ‘joke’ was just that anyone who happily keeps individual tools in their original systainers can’t really complain about wasted space in a sys3.

Joke or no joke, they still can, as Sys3 does waste space.

 

[mino]

Yes, I understand why it’s the way it is. The point of my ‘joke’ was just that anyone who happily keeps individual tools in their original systainers can’t really complain about wasted space in a sys3.

Joke or no joke, they still can, as Sys3 does waste space.

Sorry. But you are being stubborn as usual here. Beyond reasonable.

SYS3 does lose about 5mm of height from the stronger bottom. That is about it. EVERYTHING ELSE is just about how Festool either chose the positioning of the tools or simply how the tool size - unrelated from the box sizes - just happened to match with the standard systainer sizes.

If you care about space efficiency, then make your own inserts. This was always the case more or less. That for some tools Festool was able to do a pretty damn good job. Well. Great.

For me, and most poeple, space efficiency is about taking things I need and only things I need with me. The power of the Systainer is it allows a custom solution. Just use it.

The fact that -any- standardised solution will most likley not fit most use cases is just the fact of life. That is what customisation is a thing - where it is worth it. With the "worth it" being different for everyone.

 

[Coen]

Yes, I understand why it’s the way it is. The point of my ‘joke’ was just that anyone who happily keeps individual tools in their original systainers can’t really complain about wasted space in a sys3.

Joke or no joke, they still can, as Sys3 does waste space.

Sorry. But you are being stubborn as usual here. Beyond reasonable.

SYS3 does lose about 5mm of height from the stronger bottom. That is about it. EVERYTHING ELSE is just about how Festool either chose the positioning of the tools or simply how the tool size - unrelated from the box sizes - just happened to match with the standard systainer sizes.

Your comment about me being stubborn would only hold if some tools also got downsized. Yes, Sys3 is not primarily to blame... but it's biggest user; Festool. Well, doesn't make much of a difference. Changing layouts and boxes is expensive and time consuming. I bought an extra Domino set and the connector set and it saved me 47.5mm stack height compared to buying now  [tongue]

 

[mino]

Yes, Sys3 is not primarily to blame... but it's biggest user; Festool. Well, doesn't make much of a difference. Changing layouts and boxes is expensive and time consuming.

Absolutely.

It seems the "new guard" at Festool is less obsessed with (space) efficiency and more goes after the "space style" of today. In a way, it is as almost everything today, so hard to really blame them much. If one looks at the TPC internals for example, it is clear the body could have been narrower. But it is not - the sole purpose being to look "cooler". Sure, it is still understated compared to the space guns of Hikoki. But still. It is no 100% utilitarian PDC anymore.

I guess with the prevalence of Youtube and the likes all these (clueless) "influencers", the "bigger=better" and "good-looking-is-a-must" matters even in the pro power tools market. This was not the case in the time of dealers and brick stores when the T-Loc was developed along with the insers for it - and - more importantly, when the designers of it grew up their tool concepts.

That said, when I look at the T-Stack monstrosity (to me) I am glad Festool is where they are ref. space efficiency. Even with SYS3, which I am gonna pass on for semi-personal reasons. Eh.

 

[Coen]

I haven't taken apart a TPC, but isn't the extra space some air duct?

Using the same mold again can bring some cost saving. Just like some 14.4V batteries just have an empty slot...

 

[mino]

I haven't taken apart a TPC, but isn't the extra space some air duct?

Using the same mold again can bring some cost saving. Just like some 14.4V batteries just have an empty slot...

The point was that the body is rounded while the gearbox inside is cylindrical. Same for the motor. They could have shaved about 2-3 mm on each side with the same functionality. Possibly more. But form was preferred as that is what sells - even to pros these days.

The practical downside is that even though you can now use the UNI excentric chuck, it does no allow you a "straight" drill work absolutely near the edge/wall like the T/C18 does. The TPC is just too chunky for the excentric distance of the chuck so the closest you can get is about 20mm from the wall/panel. With a T18 you get as close as 10mm. Same would be if the PDC accepted that chuck ..

 

[Spandex]

I don't have to cherry pick.

All I’m saying is that people who keep their tools individually in their original systainers clearly don’t mind wasted space. If that’s not you, then the jokes not directed at you...

As for cramming accessories in with tools, surely with a larger sys3 you can cram even more in?  [wink]

 

[Coen]

I don't have to cherry pick.

All I’m saying is that people who keep their tools individually in their original systainers clearly don’t mind wasted space. If that’s not you, then the jokes not directed at you...

As for cramming accessories in with tools, surely with a larger sys3 you can cram even more in?  [wink]

I do keep most in their original Systainer. The PS300 being the exception... that one got boosted a size to fit the circle guide, rail guide, more blades, a sanding sponge etc.

But more air below the inlay doesn't give more space. The addition is also only in height. Stacking more accessoires in height is usually not a good idea.

They should also include photos of the inlay on the product pages. And be more clear what accesoires it's designed for. Sometimes something fits perfectly, is definitely thought about by some engineer, but never communicated to the (potential) customer.

Stacking bare tools on a shelf is more space efficient yes, but there is a tradeoff somewhere, but with how they are implementing Sys³ (everything in bigger box, not selling the rails in Europe) the tradeoff got worse.... and the relative step down in inefficiency to Bosch with it's L-Boxx'es and near-complete lineup a lot smaller.

Now... I might still get a Sys³ L for my Bosch 18V caulk gun. But I think the one Sys³ I have needs filing on the locking of the top handle.

 

[semenza]

Hopefully the OP has been able to gain something useful about the Sysport construction question that was asked?

    As to the space wasting created by the Sys3 ...................................................

        It really depends on the tool and storage situation. Yes, many (most?) Festool tools have ended up in a taller size unit. But Festool is not the only thing going into a Systainer. I have personally moved three tools and one accessory set up into Sys3 in order to  downsize (yes, as in put them into a shorter Systainer) than previously needed.

      Sawzall, D-handle drill, Heat Gun, power / extension cord unit.  None of these would fit into a T-Loc I. All of them needed at least a T-Loc II. I have them in Sys3 M137. A 137 is about 20mm shorter than a T-Loc II.

      If someone is sticking strictly to the Festool arrangements and sizing, then most things will be in a taller Sys. But if someone cares about the space used by systainers, and is rearranging tools, then there is a good chance that a Sys3 might actually save space in many situations.

      I am not saying that Sys3 is better than T-Loc or vice versa. I am saying that the idea that a Sys3 always wastes space is quite simply not true.

Seth

 

[Coen]

Space wasting is not the only thing yeah as is also nixes the height system. Goodluck stacking Sys³ to same height with differently sized boxes. Goodluck also getting an MFT height stack.

Some of the space wasting is mitigated by the rails... but they don't sell those in Europe....

The M137 has it's uses yes. One of the new cleaning sets is in one of them and that is nice.

I really want something in between III and IV, like an M287, but nope...

Closest I can find is Auer's Eurobox 270mm;https://www.auer-packaging.com/nl/nl/Euroboxen-met-scharnierdeksel/ED-4327-HG.html

 

[semenza]

Space wasting is not the only thing yeah as is also nixes the height system. Goodluck stacking Sys³ to same height with differently sized boxes. Goodluck also getting an MFT height stack.

Some of the space wasting is mitigated by the rails... but they don't sell those in Europe....

The M137 has it's uses yes. One of the new cleaning sets is in one of them and that is nice.

I really want something in between III and IV, like an M287, but nope...

Closest I can find is Auer's Eurobox 270mm;https://www.auer-packaging.com/nl/nl/Euroboxen-met-scharnierdeksel/ED-4327-HG.html

I edited the last line of my post for better meaning. I did not mean that space wasting was the only problem. I meant that the idea that Sys3 always waste space is not true. 

As to the height stacking match up being a problem? Again it depends on the user. It is a problem for you because you use them in that manner. Lots of other people don't. And many of them are probably very happy with the added rail system instead of having to use drawers.

Yes, I would like a 287.  More height options is better if you want to keep things as compact as possible yet still have good organization.

              Organization, access, and space. Is a triangle of trades offs.

Seth

 

[Coen]

YesI know you meant that, but I wanted to abuse the open wording  [tongue]

Well, rails are nice... IF you can get them. And in Europe Festool signed a contract with Bott to not sell the rails. Neither does Tanos and neither does Bott.... so drawers it still is unless you let Bott modify your van...

Yes, the stacking height is a problem. It's a feature that got dumped without one word of explanation. Lots of people don't... even more never buy Festool to begin with. For me it's a lost feature meaning the next tool might just as well come in an L-Boxx.. Note that all L-boxes are a multiple of 34;
102 is 3*34
136 is 4*34
238 is 7*34
374 is 11*34
Not as easy to make stacks, but still perfectly possible without having to have same number of boxes per stack. Also their top isn't flat...

The exact same multiple we had with Systainer Classic and T-Loc, but with more choices. Especially note that differently sized boxes are a multiple of a smaller box, which is not the case with the L-Boxx system.
I is 2*52.5
II is 3*52.5
III is 4*52.5
IV is 6*52.5
V is 8*52.5

And even the odd sized Sortainers still had multiples of 52.5 if I remember right.
But with Sys³... nope... they don't share a denominator, even though their sizes increases with 50mm steps... the base is not an integer multiple of 50. So to get same stack height you have to also match box count in each stack. Which makes it way less likely you happen to have the right boxes around.

I can make a whole bunch of stacks with the Sys-IV height, either from Classic and/or T-Loc Systainers, with different combinations... 2* II, I+III, IV, etc. But with Sys³ having a base dimension of 130 and then steps of 50mm... you can only achieve same-height stacks with equal numer of boxes per stack. And besides the 112... not compatible with stacks having Classic or T-Loc Systainers.

And the 112 is a joke in another way... with the handle sticking out when locked on top of another Sys³ or T-Loc.

Sys³;
112; 130 - 0,5*50
137; 130
187; 130 + 1*50
237; 130 + 2*50
337; 130 + 4*50
437; 130 + 6*50
You see how messy that is ..

Even the supermarkets have this system of equal stack height. The pre packaged lettuce might ship in size 11, which is exactly 2/3 of the crate labeled 17 and exactly half of the crate labeled 23.

 

[mino]

...
And many of them are probably very happy with the added rail system instead of having to use drawers.
...

You might not be aware, but the rails are pretty much an unobtainium in Europe. In theory, Bott sells them. In practice you cannot get them pretty much anywhere. Not unless you buy a whole van fitout from Bott ..

This results in the sole practical benefits of the SYS3 being the sturdier construction and the front handle/ability to pull it easily from a shelf. That is basically it.

Against this goes:
- height non-system /potential show stopper for some/
- space wastage from rails which are unusable for 99% users poer above /potential show stopper for some/
- ugly as heck (compared to a T-Loc which one can even use at home when catch is replaced by same-color as the systainer body)
- "locking" handles which forces one to waste time filing them /again, potential show-stopper on usability, why should I be *fixing* such an expensive box ?/
- lack for label points (see below)
- lack of mount-points for straps and other accessories /potential show stopper for some uses/

Overall, SYS3 is screaming "I am a vehicle accessory that can be used in a shop." In the same way the Classic and T-Loc are screaming "I am a shop animal that does not mind being transported around."

These use cases merge for some people, but for most these are products with different target markets that never should have been treated like two generations of the same product. They are none of it.

This is why all these discussions can lead only nowhere. It is like an argument that a specialist tool like an impact is better than a more generalist of a drill driver. Of course the impact is better. It is better for the specific tasks it focuses on. At same, it is worse for pretty much everything else.
With a SYS3 it is like with that impact who pretended to be a new generation of a drill driver ..

All that said, IMO on space the M137 is actually a good height for a lot of tools - if only Festool took advantage of this. Lots of tools just barely - a few mm - do not fit in SYS1 but do fit in an M137. I dare say that most tools shipped historically in SYS2s are like that.

EDIT: Apologies for the OT rant. Had the impact/drill metaphor come to my mind. IMO it is very fitting here.

 

[semenza]

Whether or not the rails are available is a different issue than whether or not some people want and like them.

The front handle is a non-issue. If it had not been added no one would be complaining that it sticks out. If someone doesn't like the front handle there is a two minute fix ..........................  remove it. Pretend it never existed. But for those that like the front handle it is now available for them to use.

The point is that not everything about the Sys3 is a negative compared to the T-Loc.  The things that matter to some are different than the things that matter to others.

Overall I prefer the T-Loc. But there are some situations that the Sys3 is better for me.

Seth

 

[Paul_HKI]

Overall I prefer the T-Loc. But there are some situations that the Sys3 is better for me.

Seth

T-Loc's are an appreciating asset?  ;D