Systainer Math

[Kev]

Normal math ...

1+ 1 = 2

Systainer math ...

Sys1 + Sys1 = Sys 3

Huh ??

When we look at heights ...

Sys1 105.0 mm
Sys2 157.5 mm
Sys3 210.0 mm
Sys4 315.0 mm
Sys5 420.0 mm

So ...

3 x Sys1 = Sys4

4 x Sys1 = Sys5

2 x Sys3 = Sys5

The only thing that gives me comfort is the fact that 2 x Sys2 = Sys4 and Sys5 - Sys4 = Sys1 ... but that's probably a mistake !!!

If we renamed the Sys2 the Sys1.5 and dropped all the higher ones down a digit I think I'd be able to sleep at night - that or I should go back to counting sheep coz counting systainers just isn't working  [eek]

 

[AlexThePalex]

With systainers, there is no math .... it's just a ranking system.

 

[mouppe]

I always thought it was a log scale set to base Festool.

 

[Steve R]

Normal math ...

1+ 1 = 2

Systainer math ...

Sys1 + Sys1 = Sys 3

Huh ??

When we look at heights ...

Sys1 105.0 mm
Sys2 157.5 mm
Sys3 210.0 mm
Sys4 315.0 mm
Sys5 420.0 mm

So ...

3 x Sys1 = Sys4

4 x Sys1 = Sys5

2 x Sys3 = Sys5

The only thing that gives me comfort is the fact that 2 x Sys2 = Sys4 and Sys5 - Sys4 = Sys1 ... but that's probably a mistake !!!

If we renamed the Sys2 the Sys1.5 and dropped all the higher ones down a digit I think I'd be able to sleep at night - that or I should go back to counting sheep coz counting systainers just isn't working  [eek]

Kev,

yea.... a 1.5 would have been too easy....  but look at this way.... at least they didn't do it in binary [eek]
Cheers,
Steve

 

[semenza]

Its called SysInc. For Systainer Increment. The Sys-II should definetly have been called Sys 1.5,  then it would been Roman numeral  Sys - I S.    [wink]

Seth

 

[andvari]

There is a saying that the whole numbers are the work of God, and all else (negatives, decimals, fractions, rationals, irrationals, imaginaries, complex, hypercomplex, algebraic, transcendentals, hyperreals, computables, superreals, surreals, etc. numbers) is the flawed work of man.

Therefore 1.5 is pants.

The best policy would therefore be to number the Systainers after their heights rounding off any fractional stuff - Sys-105, Sys-157 etc. With that there is no possible confusion and we stay safely with whole numbers.

 

[Kev]

There is a saying that the whole numbers are the work of God, and all else (negatives, decimals, fractions, rationals, irrationals, imaginaries, complex, hypercomplex, algebraic, transcendentals, hyperreals, computables, superreals, surreals, etc. numbers) is the flawed work of man.

Therefore 1.5 is pants.

The best policy would therefore be to number the Systainers after their heights rounding off any fractional stuff - Sys-105, Sys-157 etc. With that there is no possible confusion and we stay safely with whole numbers.

Fair call - half a cubit could have resulted in some ugly chopping of limbs to get a consistent measurement  [eek]

Noah: "the plan says forty two and three quarter cubits across ... can we have another fractional forearm volunteer please?"

 

[PeterK]

Being half German, this whole numbering system Festool chose drives me nuts too!!
Wonder if the wundermind that came up with the Systainer numbering system still has a job???

 

[Corwin]

...
Wonder if the wundermind that came up with the Systainer numbering system still has a job???

Nah, he completed his job and now lives off the royalty checks from each Systainer sold;  1 Euro for each Sys I, 2 Euros for each Sys II...  Bet he wishes he had thought of the Sys 1.5    [wink]

 

[honeydoman]

they make a new tool, then decide the size for that tool. then make systainer.  then make more tools that you can cram into that systainer

 

[blairhalden]

I cannot believe after all this time lurking this is the post that drags me in.

Does using addition instead of multiplication make sense?

For example: (3) units of sys1 = sys4;  (2) units of sys2 = sys4;  (4) units of sys1= sys5;  (1)sys1 and (1)sys4 = sys5  and so on and so on.

Never thought of sys math before.  Thank you for the post.  Interesting.

 

[semenza]

Hi Blair,

Welcome to the FOG!  [smile]

Adding the quantity to the size seems to work, sort of. I think they just got numbered in order of size.

Seth

 

[semenza]

A small observation.  If you count the label space + the narrower rectangles under it (that could be used for additional small labels) , the number equals the Systainer size.

Seth

 

[blairhalden]

Many of you probably already do this.  Lately I have found myself using systainers for all sort of things.

Tonight I finally realized that if I stack a 3 2 1 on top of base cabinets they give me the 18" needed to support wall cabinets!

This is one of the things I appreciate with FESTOOL.  The ongoing pleasant surprises.

 

[mhch]

The height of each systainer is always multiple of 52.5 millimeters ...

May be the numbering should have reflected the multiplication number ...

Anyway, I'm still struggling to find a way to use this information to build a sysport that can easily be reconfigured to hold any reasonable configuration of these boxes.

 

[fdengel]

Don't blame this on Festool; they don't make the systainers.

They just get them made with their own custom color scheme.

I don't think they came up with the numbering scheme, either.

 

[AlexThePalex]

Festool, Tanos, TTS, it's all the same company........

 

[Kev]

Don't blame this on Festool; they don't make the systainers.

They just get them made with their own custom color scheme.

I don't think they came up with the numbering scheme, either.

So wrong .... So very, very wrong  [big grin]