SYSTAINER³ available from September
- Thread starter tobiaskurz
- Start date
DeformedTree
Member
- Joined
- May 19, 2018
- Messages
- 1,397
DustyTools said:I’m having the same heart burn! Just finished making an expensive switch to 100% Systainer setup!DeformedTree said:
It’s called Sod’s law
——————————
dusty.tools
Yeah, last year I had none, now I probably have like 40-50. I purposely didn't by some sizes so that I could keep consistent stacking. This way when they are in cabinets on shelfs I can maximize the fit. Now things will be all messed up.
I'm curious as to why they changed the heights, I get if they wanted to add some tween sizes from the old, but changing the heights just a little doesn't make much sense.
Like everything else, systems only work when they stay systems.
mrboult
Member
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2013
- Messages
- 1,024
What!? They've changed the heights of the regular sys1-5 ?! [scared]
That's ridiculous!! That's more than ridiculous. That's almost the whole point. The way i use mine with drilled mft type slabs 'cleated' on top of 2 or 3 matching stacks, the way I transport them, the way I store them both at home and the workshop... They changed the heights? Ffs.
It's gonna be a sad day when my first festool arrives in a systainer that doesn't match stackable with all my others. In fact, I'm now more likely than previously to buy a non festool and a systainer separately.... There have been a couple of purchases at least where i bought the festool over the competition partly because the systainer came in the price... (Like the little plane and an RTS)
I thought festool were all about systems? These new heights don't even double up to equal another size in the range. Seriously?
EDIT:
EDIT #2
Thank to the post below I have realise these measurements previously contained the feet (7mm) now removed as only the bottom feet factor in stacking heights.
And as others I said I also hope there is method or reason in this madness!
New heights:
105mm
130mm
180mm
230mm
330mm
430mm
Old heights:
Sys1 = 105mm
Sys2 = 157.5mm
Sys3 = 210mm
Sys4 = 315mm
Sys5 = 420mm
That's ridiculous!! That's more than ridiculous. That's almost the whole point. The way i use mine with drilled mft type slabs 'cleated' on top of 2 or 3 matching stacks, the way I transport them, the way I store them both at home and the workshop... They changed the heights? Ffs.
It's gonna be a sad day when my first festool arrives in a systainer that doesn't match stackable with all my others. In fact, I'm now more likely than previously to buy a non festool and a systainer separately.... There have been a couple of purchases at least where i bought the festool over the competition partly because the systainer came in the price... (Like the little plane and an RTS)
I thought festool were all about systems? These new heights don't even double up to equal another size in the range. Seriously?
EDIT:
EDIT #2
Thank to the post below I have realise these measurements previously contained the feet (7mm) now removed as only the bottom feet factor in stacking heights.
And as others I said I also hope there is method or reason in this madness!
New heights:
105mm
130mm
180mm
230mm
330mm
430mm
Old heights:
Sys1 = 105mm
Sys2 = 157.5mm
Sys3 = 210mm
Sys4 = 315mm
Sys5 = 420mm
I'm struggling to think of a valid reason for messing with the heights of Systainers... was anyone routinely finding the sizes "just a bit to shallow"? I do "sometimes" find the Sys1 a touch to shallow - and I have long fancied a "Sys6" (for a very specific application) - but neither of those were sufficient reason for wanting the system changed!
I thought the base of the Kapex was arranged to be the same height as a Sys1 - so they could be used as out-field material supports. I don't have a Kapex (though I'd like one) - but what happens there?
Also, the business of Sys-stack combinations equalling the height of an MFT?
(It's a bit early in the morning here for pre-coffee mental arithmetic, but I can't readily see a combination that would work).
Makes a nonsense of this, from Sedge:https://www.instagram.com/p/Bys1S0iDoDD/
I thought the base of the Kapex was arranged to be the same height as a Sys1 - so they could be used as out-field material supports. I don't have a Kapex (though I'd like one) - but what happens there?
Also, the business of Sys-stack combinations equalling the height of an MFT?
(It's a bit early in the morning here for pre-coffee mental arithmetic, but I can't readily see a combination that would work).
Makes a nonsense of this, from Sedge:https://www.instagram.com/p/Bys1S0iDoDD/
Jiggy Joiner
Member
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2018
- Messages
- 1,103
Wonder how the new height will work out for things like, supporting a work piece when using a Kapex on the floor? A spacer?
Stacking Systainers to a level height of an MFT top?
Does seem a bit odd, and if it ain’t broke........................
Stacking Systainers to a level height of an MFT top?
Does seem a bit odd, and if it ain’t broke........................
Do the listed new heights include the 7mm for the feet?
Either way, it looks like only the SYS1 lines up height wise between old and new, unless there's a mixture of feet heights in the new sizes.
I'd like to think there's a good reason to stray from the existing sizes and it's not just some marketing bastardy.
Either way, it looks like only the SYS1 lines up height wise between old and new, unless there's a mixture of feet heights in the new sizes.
I'd like to think there's a good reason to stray from the existing sizes and it's not just some marketing bastardy.
I had given up looking for an Classic plus the 'extender section' to make a case for my portable steam-cleaner... the new "Sys6" (?) might "just" do the trick (it was that close...).
At least, it appears, the new will stack and lock with the old - otherwise it's a bit disappointing, and messy... can anyone see some virtue in this that most of us seem to be missing?
At least, it appears, the new will stack and lock with the old - otherwise it's a bit disappointing, and messy... can anyone see some virtue in this that most of us seem to be missing?
six-point socket II
Member
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2016
- Messages
- 2,234
Maybe it has to do with the bott van racking. But I honestly don't know.
Kind regards,
Oliver
Kind regards,
Oliver
tobiaskurz
Member
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2018
- Messages
- 33
Yesterday there was an extra page about the new SYSTAINER³ on festool.de today its gone. #edit the page ist still available (https://www.festool.de/kampagnen/microsites/mobility) but no reference to it is on the home page.
It looks like that the feet stay with 7mm the same.
The only hight combination wich makes sense if found quickly is:
SYS3 M/L 137 (the new one in between the 1 and 2) + SYS3 M/L 237 (previous SYS 3) = two times SYS3 M/L 187 (previous SYS 2)
Maybe the Organizer helps to compensate the upcoming hight differences.
The practical hight combinations we all know from the Classic SYSTAINER and although the T-Loc seem to stop with the new ones.
Valid for SYS Classic and T-LOC:
1+1=3
2+2=4
1+3=4
4+1=5
It looks like that the feet stay with 7mm the same.
The only hight combination wich makes sense if found quickly is:
SYS3 M/L 137 (the new one in between the 1 and 2) + SYS3 M/L 237 (previous SYS 3) = two times SYS3 M/L 187 (previous SYS 2)
Maybe the Organizer helps to compensate the upcoming hight differences.
The practical hight combinations we all know from the Classic SYSTAINER and although the T-Loc seem to stop with the new ones.
Valid for SYS Classic and T-LOC:
1+1=3
2+2=4
1+3=4
4+1=5
I hadn't thought about the heights stacking in a not really all that nice fashion... but I do see the appeal in having them in a consistent increment. I imagine the van racking probably takes up ~20 mm in between each. With racking set up to be height adjustable at maybe 50 mm, that would maximize the space with the systainer + drawer/divider being at 150/200/250/300/400/500 mm spaces (just the previously mentioned sizes + 20 mm, with the exception of the 112 height).
I think ultimately this is a change from everything being divisible by a common unit (52.5 mm for T-locs) and a move to a base height (feet+drawer) plus a common increment. Plusses and minuses for both, I suppose.
I think ultimately this is a change from everything being divisible by a common unit (52.5 mm for T-locs) and a move to a base height (feet+drawer) plus a common increment. Plusses and minuses for both, I suppose.
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2007
- Messages
- 10,361
I notice that the sixth size is actually not the one in the number six spot. It is the one in the number two spot at 137mm. Though the actual heights are different from the T-Loc, the 137 is a new one within the "generality" of the Sys - I - V heights. 112 is Sys - I, 137 is a Sys- I and a 1/4, the 187 is a Sys- II etc.
I think, with the exception of the 112, 137 and 187, the front handle is really only for a pull out / slide around aid since on the taller ones it is still located near the bottom and not in the center of the height.
Seth
I think, with the exception of the 112, 137 and 187, the front handle is really only for a pull out / slide around aid since on the taller ones it is still located near the bottom and not in the center of the height.
Seth
Cheese
Member
Like others, I'm trying to make some sense out of the new Systainer³ heights.
I took the combinations we're all familiar with;
1 + 1 = 3
1 + 3 = 4
2 + 2 = 4
1 + 4 = 5
3 + 3 = 5
I substituted the new height dimensions and there is not even one combination of Systainer³ heights that will yield the matching stacking height. [sad]
Consequently, even the new Organizer M at a height of 89 mm will not produce a matching stack height with either the old Systainers or the new Systainers. [eek]
I took the combinations we're all familiar with;
1 + 1 = 3
1 + 3 = 4
2 + 2 = 4
1 + 4 = 5
3 + 3 = 5
I substituted the new height dimensions and there is not even one combination of Systainer³ heights that will yield the matching stacking height. [sad]
Consequently, even the new Organizer M at a height of 89 mm will not produce a matching stack height with either the old Systainers or the new Systainers. [eek]
Jiggy Joiner
Member
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2018
- Messages
- 1,103
Apart from the unlikelihood of Festool changing the height of MFT’s, Kapex’s and CS70’s etc etc, I cannot see any reason to change the height dimension?
There must be a reason, as they could have brought in the new design but, keep the heights the same?
If they have done this for van racking reasons, then surely two heights should be offered?
We often stack up systainers on site to help out with bench space, and when breaking sheet goods down.
Not sure whether stock up on more of the current ones, or maybe see what unfolds.
All a bit odd though eh?
There must be a reason, as they could have brought in the new design but, keep the heights the same?
If they have done this for van racking reasons, then surely two heights should be offered?
We often stack up systainers on site to help out with bench space, and when breaking sheet goods down.
Not sure whether stock up on more of the current ones, or maybe see what unfolds.
All a bit odd though eh?
New systainer heights are at 25, 50, and 100 mm increments. Old ones are at 52.5 and 105 mm. Hence more flexibility with the new. Of course, they could have added 26.3mm to SYS1 to make 131.3mm and call it SYS1.5.
There are always compromises, but the priority is how various tools fit in the boxes to optimize internal space.
BTW you can still stack the new ones to match MFT for all practical purposes: 130+330+430+7=897mm.
There are always compromises, but the priority is how various tools fit in the boxes to optimize internal space.
BTW you can still stack the new ones to match MFT for all practical purposes: 130+330+430+7=897mm.
tobiaskurz
Member
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2018
- Messages
- 33
The main change in the hight system is that then number wich gets multiplied for each hight has changed drastically.
For the Classic and T-Loc SYSTAINERs all hight wehre a multiple from 52.5 mm.
SYS 1 – 2 x 52.5 = 105
SYS 2 – 3 x 52.5 = 157,5
SYS 3 – 4 x 52.5 = 210
SYS 4 – 6 x 52.5 = 315
SYS 5 – 8 x 52.5 = 420
This endet up with a System wehre many combinations reached the same hight.
For the new SYSTAINER³ the hight is always a multiple from 5 mm.
SYS³ 112 – 21 x 5 = 105
SYS³ 137 – 26 x 5 = 130
SYS³ 187 – 36 x 5 = 180
SYS³ 237 – 46 x 5 = 230
SYS³ 337 – 66 x 5 = 330
SYS³ 437 – 86 x 5 = 430
The drastically smaller common divisor from all hight has not only benefits. To get matching SYSTAINER hight you need to stack way more compared to the old system.
For the Classic and T-Loc SYSTAINERs all hight wehre a multiple from 52.5 mm.
SYS 1 – 2 x 52.5 = 105
SYS 2 – 3 x 52.5 = 157,5
SYS 3 – 4 x 52.5 = 210
SYS 4 – 6 x 52.5 = 315
SYS 5 – 8 x 52.5 = 420
This endet up with a System wehre many combinations reached the same hight.
For the new SYSTAINER³ the hight is always a multiple from 5 mm.
SYS³ 112 – 21 x 5 = 105
SYS³ 137 – 26 x 5 = 130
SYS³ 187 – 36 x 5 = 180
SYS³ 237 – 46 x 5 = 230
SYS³ 337 – 66 x 5 = 330
SYS³ 437 – 86 x 5 = 430
The drastically smaller common divisor from all hight has not only benefits. To get matching SYSTAINER hight you need to stack way more compared to the old system.
demographic
Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2015
- Messages
- 795
Currently I have a load of T-loc boxes in my van toolsafe, several are stacked so they work out at the same heights, can't see that working out so well with the new setup.
I do like the idea of the drawer slide capability and the front mounted handle helps that but can't help thinking they kind of just forgot about how usefull it is to have the heights the same.
Think I have a 4 and 2x2s beside it at the same height with my chopsaw on top of them and so on.
As a side note, does anyone else find Festools website to be all style and the content fairly hard to navigate/find details?
Their catalogues are the same. Nice paper, pretty photos but you get far better information from Peter Parfit and Dave Stantons Youtube stuff.
I do like the idea of the drawer slide capability and the front mounted handle helps that but can't help thinking they kind of just forgot about how usefull it is to have the heights the same.
Think I have a 4 and 2x2s beside it at the same height with my chopsaw on top of them and so on.
As a side note, does anyone else find Festools website to be all style and the content fairly hard to navigate/find details?
Their catalogues are the same. Nice paper, pretty photos but you get far better information from Peter Parfit and Dave Stantons Youtube stuff.
DeformedTree
Member
- Joined
- May 19, 2018
- Messages
- 1,397
demographic said:
Yes, they are a poster child for this. It's really annoying when any company does pretty look, but won't just have nice clear PDF spec sheets there with all the info. Give folks information they can print out, mark up, think about, even keep in a binder someplace. It sucks having to make your own files, notes, etc on stuff. Additionally their websites are massively slow, often don't fully load, and the photos of the items are often not very useful, and sometime there are no images, or they are not of the product you are looking at (different versions). A lot of this is how companies have changed their websites for smart phones, this just makes them useless junk far as being a website and being helpful.
This is an opportunity for Woodpecker and others to create new router/drill templates to accommodate the new dimensions with greater precision/utility than the 32 mm and 1/4 inch systems currently available.
While they are at it, someone could produce a stamped steel tray to fit the sustainers. It would have depressions to hold the feet and a lip (same depth as depressions) going down in the front and back to provide rigidity. The sides would turn up and have mounting holes to match 32 mm slide systems. I think this would maximize the number of sustainers in a given vertical space.
|______|
|______|
|______|
I wonder when the discussions about matching heights of systainers and the MFT were terminated during the design team meetings? I would guess it was very early, if not at the very first meeting. This is about storing in racks where matching heights is not a major objective.
Do any of you guys in the US use the Bott system? As an amateur, I personally know only 3 small contractors. One uses a pick-up truck and the other 2 use vans without rack systems.
While they are at it, someone could produce a stamped steel tray to fit the sustainers. It would have depressions to hold the feet and a lip (same depth as depressions) going down in the front and back to provide rigidity. The sides would turn up and have mounting holes to match 32 mm slide systems. I think this would maximize the number of sustainers in a given vertical space.
|______|
|______|
|______|
I wonder when the discussions about matching heights of systainers and the MFT were terminated during the design team meetings? I would guess it was very early, if not at the very first meeting. This is about storing in racks where matching heights is not a major objective.
Do any of you guys in the US use the Bott system? As an amateur, I personally know only 3 small contractors. One uses a pick-up truck and the other 2 use vans without rack systems.
mrboult
Member
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2013
- Messages
- 1,024
We should remember here that Tanos is the systainer company. They are owned by the same group as festool, hence the integration on a level beyond any other tool manufacturer. However i can only assume that Tanos design their products for far bigger markets than tool boxes alone. I can imagine festool have little say over what Tanos decides to do.
Might have to go see Warren at the systemcontainer.co.uk sooner rather than later...
In fact Warren might be able to enlighten is on other large or larger scale users of the systainer.. I forget [member=2775]Warren[/member] 's handle is that it...?
Might have to go see Warren at the systemcontainer.co.uk sooner rather than later...
In fact Warren might be able to enlighten is on other large or larger scale users of the systainer.. I forget [member=2775]Warren[/member] 's handle is that it...?
Similar threads
