systainer sys cart magic working height

[chefwich]

Hello!  Does anyone know if there is a list of necessary systainer options to obtain the standard mft working height?  (Ideally t-loc only)

I'm ultimately interested in using a sys cart at the bottom in one instance.  Could it be that with the right systainers we could have standard height work support? 

Additionally, I realized with my midi vac and (older sys 2) and (sys 1 t-loc mft) on top I believe that accomplished  the correct height one time....

So with the extractors  maybe there is a list as well?

Thank you!  ???

 

[KGB pilot125]

Yes,  I stumbled on it on accident.  I wish I would have taken a picture but I didnt.  I will be back out in the garage tomorrow I'll try and stack them again.

 

[chefwich]

Cool!  I hope so!  I'm really just looking for another good reason to get one or two sys carts...heh.

It would also work with the kapex, UG setup I assume?  I don't have that yet, b u t ,  I'm seeing more reasons to upgrade...have a dewalt 10" slider with sawhelper stand.  Could be worse I suppose.

 

[john5mt]

did you ever figure out the combo?

 

[elfick]

You can figure this out fairly easily for any systainer combination (I don't know the heights of the DCs)...
(MFT_height - systainer_foot)/ SysU
(900 - 7)/52.5 = 893/52.5 = 17.0096

A SysU is 52.5mm.
Systainer I = 2 SysU = 105mm
Systainer II = 3 SysU = 157.5mm
Systainer III = 4 SysU = 210mm
Systainer IV = 6 SysU = 315mm
Systainer V = 8 SysU = 420mm

So any combo that adds up to 17 SysU should get you there. A 1 II + 1 IV + 1 V for instance, or 3 III + 1 II + 1 I.
I think this means you need a Systainer II in any combination since that is the only way to get to odd SysU.
To figure in a DC, subtract the height of the DC's Systainer deck, not the total DC height, instead of systainer_foot from the equation.

 

[chefwich]

Maybe I'm a little slow,  but did you just come up with a sys unit (u) value?  Ok, that makes sense,  but what's the height of a sys cart?  I appreciate the help already- looks like I need a couple more systainers heh heh. ..

 

[neeleman]

Height of the (new) SYS-Cart is 157 mm.
Thus the same as a SYS 2 without feet, that's the Festool System!

 

[TinyShop]

Resurrecting this thread because I need to acquire some more systainers and am aware that the new "improved' design of the sys3 version dramatically changes the math on how to assemble boxes, carts, CT's, etc., in order to match the 900mm working height of the MFT/3, CMS, CS saws, etc. In fact, I'm not even sure its possible to achieve the 900mm "system" height using the new boxes and/or new version of the cart, either on their own or in combination with earlier versions.

Since I want to continue relying on rolling stacks of systainers as work supports I want to know if I should avoid the 3rd generation boxes and/or cart and stick with Generation 2 or if I can dip my toe into the 3rd generation without screwing up my flow.

So, my question is:

What have folks found when it comes to the 3rd generation Tanos boxes and carts, either standalone or in combination with generation 2 and/or 1 boxes and/or sys-carts - are there any stacking combinations which work perfectly (or close enough with the addition of a scrap piece of stock-thickness material) to achieve the 900mm working height? Again, the common denominator needs to be a sys-cart since I'm not willing to shuffle non-wheeled stacks around. I've got a handful of the carts and rely on them for more than just organizing and moving stacks of systainers around and they are worth their weight in gold. 

As a directly related aside, maybe it's time for [member=101]Festool USA[/member] to produced an updated video addressing what the stacking possibilities are (if there are any) with the addition of the new box/cart heights, etc. After all this is easy content that customers/users would immediately benefit from (plus Sedge and crew have easily available to them just laying around all the props necessary that they can use to physically mix and match to see what might work if they don't want to add to the spreadsheets already in existence and/or do the math necessary to figure this out on paper).

Here are some relevant forum posts from the past (when all that was available was gen1 and 2):
https://www.festoolownersgroup.com/festool-jigs-tool-enhancements/sys-mft-and-mft-height/
https://www.festoolownersgroup.com/...-stack-of-systainers-that-equals-festool-mft/
https://www.festoolownersgroup.com/festool-and-tanos-systainers/sys-cart-height/

In closing, since no combination exists, at least when using a gen2 sys cart or, in my case, a Starmix DC wth a cobbled together sys tray, that perfectly matches the 900mm working height, I'm wondering if maybe now that there are more intermediate heights available if it might be possible to hit the magic number (or at least get close enough to it in a practical sense).

And, now, some obligatory photos:

[attachimg=1]

[attachimg=2]

[attachimg=3]

[attachimg=4]

 

[Coen]

At least without cart you can still get very very close, but it requires the use of SYs3 Organizers and the choice in combinations is much more limited in general.

337 + 137 + 112 + 89 + 89 + 89 + 89 - (5*7mm feet) = 900

Alternatively you could do 237 + 237 instead of 337 + 137, or 287 + 187

From the cart I wouldn't know. It was easy before... as the cart was in the system too. But with Sys3 there is no more system.

 

[TinyShop]

[member=8955]Coen[/member] - thanks for the guidance!

According to the fine folks at the [member=68900]Systainer.Store[/member], the deck height of the Gen3 sys cart is 160mm. IOW although the feet are recessed down into the Gen3 version of the cart, the body of a systainer itself sits on top of the new version of the cart (in contrast, the design of the Gen2 cart has the body of the systainer fitting down into a recess).

FWIW according to my measurements, the deck height of the Gen2 SYS RB is 137mm.

Next, maybe some math surgeon can figure out the "SysU" when all of the Gen3 heights are figured in so that the rest of us can determine how mixing and matching all three generations of systainers and RB carts might allow us to achieve the 900mm working height (or at least how close we can come). I'm also not sure if the SysU as originally calculated (see above) accounts for/included the Gen1 heights - I don't think it does.   

 

[Coen]

[member=64030]TinyShop[/member] ; the Sys3 sizes are already figured out; it is; ((X * 50mm) + 30mm). The '+30' part makes it not stack nice within it's own generation (you need the same number of boxes in each equal-height stack OR exactly multiples of five different). The "50mm" part makes it not stack nice with previous Systainers, because they use 52.5mm.

Systainer Classic and T-Loc had (X * 52.5mm). Size I was 2x52.5, size II was 3x52.5, size III was 4x52.5, size IV was 6x 52.5 and size V was 8x 52.5.

Just like Sortimo L-Boxx has (X * 34mm); there is an L-boxx 102 (3x34), 136 (4x34), 238 (7x34) and 374 (11x34).

 

[TinyShop]

[member=8955]Coen[/member] - your reply is much appreciated and has me thinking that someone ([member=61691]TSO_Products[/member], [member=59331]TSO Products[/member], Tool Theory, etc.) should consider producing systainer-footprint-shaped spacers that consumers can use in conjunction with Gen1 & 2 and, as necessary, Gen 3, to achieve the system elevation.

If I understand your numbers, a 2.5mm thick spacer would effectively achieve 'compatibility' between Gen3 and Gen 2 and a 30mm thick spacer would make Gen3 boxes play nice with other Gen3 boxes. I guess a correctly thickness'ed spacer would also allow those of us who use stacks of systainers mounted on sys-carts as material supports to achieve the system height exactly (however that spacer-thickness math works out).

If the spacers were designed to install on the lid of the upper most systainer in a given stack, they would only need the four feet and the T-Loc catch (assuming Gen 2 & 3 boxes) in order to be installable. Not sure a 2.5mm thick spacer equates to enough material to permit that version of a spacer but a 30mm-thick spacer certainly is. Maybe there's some multiple of 2.5mm that would accomplish the same thing with just a more limited combination of boxes in play? Or maybe it's time for an asymmetrical version of the t-lock knob, one corner of which could be sized to 'catch' the catch molded onto the front of a 2.5mm-thick spacer (again, I'm guessing 2.5mm isn't enough 'meat' to facilitate a spacer of this thickness? But maybe 5mm is. Or 7.5mm is. Or 10mm is. 

Alternatively, two layers of 15mm-thick plywood (I believe some 5/8" ply sold in N.A. is that dimension) fastened together and fitted with a set of 3D-printed T-Loc feet would produce a shop-built version of the 30mm-thick spacer. 

Hmmmm.

 

[woodferret]

Just carry a lab scissor jack in a slim Systainer.  Bonus points for mounting it on a plywood base with tloc feet.

 

[TinyShop]

Just carry a lab scissor jack in a slim Systainer.  Bonus points for mounting it on a plywood base with tloc feet.

OK, I thought you were making a joke. But a quick web search divulged otherwise:

View attachment 1

A surprisingly inexpensive potential solution! Dime a dozen on the 'zon:

Source

Who knew such a thing existed?!

 

[TSO_Products]

[member=8955]Coen[/member] - your reply is much appreciated and has me thinking that someone ([member=61691]TSO_Products[/member], [member=59331]TSO Products[/member], Tool Theory, etc.) should consider producing systainer-footprint-shaped spacers that consumers can use in conjunction with Gen1 & 2 and, as necessary, Gen 3, to achieve the system elevation.

REPLY:
Tinyshop - thank you for resurecting this thread and the rest of you for your comments:

TSO is interest in hearing what unmet needs exist in this connection. We are concerning ourselves with this general area of shop needs. It would be helpful to hear your thoughts.

the best way to communicate with TSO is email to our Customer Service mailbox:
      info@tsoproducts.com
and include your actual name in addition to the FOG 'Handle" and add Attention "Hans" unless it is a routine customer service matter.

and HAPPY 2024 woodworking NEW YEAR [smile]
Hans

 

[mino]

[member=61691]TSO_Products[/member]

Feel free to use below thought:
.....

I would say that a "T-loc base" that would be as high as the difference between a T-Loc II and a SYS3 heights would make some sense. And a same thing for the top to act as a reinforced top of a stack.

I believe a CNC-machined board with detents for systainers to lock into from the top would be interesting. It should have a strong T-Loc interface so it accepts a standard low-profile T-Loc catch as used on the SYS-RB or the new sortainers.

Sure, one can buy the SYS-RB, but it has too big of a footprint for many use cases .. plus it has impractical height.

137 is 130+7 while a SYS II is 157.5+7, so that gives 27.5 mm worth of height gap
187 is 180+7 while a SYS III is 210+7, so that gives 30 mm worth of height gap
237 is 230+7 while a SYS II Combi is 262.5+7, so that gives 32.5 mm worth of height gap

Also:
A SYS 112, wanting to "fit" into a SYS 137 place has 25 mm "spare" space to work with

The "weird" height in SYS3 is the +30 mm everywhere. So I believe that whatever the spacer, it should be 30mm height. Such would connect with most SYS3 heights so they fit in SYS T-loc prepared spaces and it would also connect with SYS 112 to fit in a SYS 137 space for the most part.

Second, I believe making spacers just for the sake of spacers does not have much long-term commercial value. However making high-quality "bottom" and "top" layers to provide connecting interfaces first *and* be able to act as spacers for some additional usage makes a lot of sense. A SYS-RB does this bad and goes $50 apiece ...

With this, one can also make stacks:

30bottom + 3 * SYS3 + 30top => 900

30bottom + 4 * SYS3 => 900

5* SYS3 => 900+7

etc.

Most importantly, a SYS M437 with two such spacers is something one can absolutely safely stand on, place things on etc. - once a systainer is not forced to stand on its feet, it can take a couple hundred pounds easily.

What this needs to be made from is industrial grade plywood, possibly poplar for weight (assuming catch interfaces are aluminum) and it needs to be CNC-ed to remove some weight where not needed, a full 30mm piece of high-strength ply would be too heavy while a plastic molding would need too big a series for economu. I believe doing this in coop with [member=68900]Systainer.Store[/member] for distribution makes a lot of sense ... the bottom piece definitely needs an original catch included. The top piece should be just a piece of ply with aluminum or strong plastic details for the catch and feet.

Also, since the two spacers would connect using the T-Loc they would be very practical to carry-sell etc. The spacer should NOT have both sides connectivity with T-Loc - as that precludes the feet-less bottom "spacer" and the flat-top-providing top "spacer" which are actually their main use cases for many people.

Since all that is needed is T-Loc generation compatibility ... there should be zero problems with patents etc.

My 3c.

[member=8955]Coen[/member] your take?

 

[Coen]

There is no magic spacer to make things equal height. Because there is both a fixed step (the +30 part) AND a different base unit (50 vs 52.5) the required spacer would vary with each and every different stack configuration.

 

[mino]

There is no magic spacer to make things equal height. Because there is both a fixed step (the +30 part) AND a different base unit (50 vs 52.5) the required spacer would vary with each and every different stack configuration.

Yeah, what I was looking is close-enough for practicality and - just in the case of 900 stack, going for exact 900.

There is no way to *solve* the SYS3 height mess other than expanding the range with a SYS3 157, SYS3 217 and a SYS3 315 respetively.

But this is not about TANOS but 3rd parties, and I think if anyone were to make a "spacer-ish" utensil, it needs to be 30mm thick, from light ply, have reinvorced connection points, and no feet. *)

E.g.
- the 8.5 T-locs stack is 899.5, incl. feet while the 5x SYS3 stack is 900.7. Neither are exact, but close-enough in practice.

- E.g. the older sys card (2nd gen) puts the bottom of the stack 140 mm above ground, resulting in a stack of either 875 or 928, with a spacer at 30mm atop (also as a work surface) one would get to 905, not great, but close-enough for supporting a full sheet etc. on a small workbench I actually have a 30mm foam board laying around using it like that ..

*) Thinking about it more, a 22 mm (7/8) board with 7mm reinforced feet may also work out fine for the bottom. And it could then work in the middle of the stack as well. But still believe the top needs to be 30 mm with flat top, no notches etc. as that is what provides the added value compared to, say, a SYS-MFT etc. and give a reason to buy it. It can also be mostly hollowed-out from the bottom, providing either for a TSO GRS 16 storage (lock in the handle cavity), two 160 blades storage etc. Making it from two pieces of 15mm ply should be reasonably practical. Heck, I think I will actually go and make the two-blades storage one for myself regardless!

 

[Coen]

Isn't the GRS 16 fatter on the clip? (Too lazy to measure mine)

Maybe incorporate the spacer into a newly sized SYS-MFT.

 

[woodbutcherbower]

I'm not sure if I fully understand the problem (apart from looney-tunes Sys3 heights) or if I'm on the right track here - but when I was building the racking for my van a few years back, I knocked up a routing template to generate multiple Gen2 Systainer shelves with 'foot-holes' to stop them from sliding out of the racking every time I drove round 90-degree corners on two wheels  [big grin]

I'm thinking that this could also be used to make spacers using various thicknesses of material. 30mm for example = 18mm + 12mm ply sheets glued together. If anyone needs the template (dimensioned to use a half-inch cutter with a 30mm guide bush/copy ring) - I still have it. I'd be more than happy to trace it onto paper and mail it to anyone who could find a use for this shape. PM me if I can help out.

I wish all FOG members worldwide a happy and healthy New Year.

[attachimg=1]

[attachimg=2]

[attachimg=3]

Kevin