DeformedTree
Member
- Joined
- May 19, 2018
- Messages
- 1,397
Yeah, it's a clean slate verses backward compatibility issue.
Having 50mm or 100mm increments just makes sense, really it's an issue of why did they have 52.5 in the first place. So I can see the issue of "do we clean this up, and cause breakage or do we fix an ugly from the past".
Part of my thinks they just never really planned things out very well.
Obviously sometimes its hard or just a jinx or bad messaging to call the first generation of something gen 1 from the get go, but if they hadn't made a mess of the names and just said
Systainer 1. (classic)
Systainer 2. (t-lok)
Systainer 3. (sytainer 3)
Or Sys mk1, Sys mk2.....
If the heights had been organized from the start they could have just had
Sys1.50, Sys1.100, Sys2.25, Sys2.200, Sys3.400. etc.
the sustainer I , III, IV. thing is just not good. It's back to the problem of "trade sizes", which just seems odd for them to have done since things out of Europe are really good about getting rid of trade sizes/designations and giving them explicit numbers based on their dimensions. (5mm thread, not #10, x mm thickness, not gauge, x mm^2 wire, not AWG/Gauge/MCM, etc).
So if in part they are just trying to clean things up, I get that, sometimes you don't know a product will take off like it will and then you have regret. I almost wonder if they should just continue Tlok and the new ones. Not a great answer. I think most folks would have just asked for a short t-lock with the front handle to be added to the system. If they wanted to beef things up, refine corners, etc, sure.
Having 50mm or 100mm increments just makes sense, really it's an issue of why did they have 52.5 in the first place. So I can see the issue of "do we clean this up, and cause breakage or do we fix an ugly from the past".
Part of my thinks they just never really planned things out very well.
Obviously sometimes its hard or just a jinx or bad messaging to call the first generation of something gen 1 from the get go, but if they hadn't made a mess of the names and just said
Systainer 1. (classic)
Systainer 2. (t-lok)
Systainer 3. (sytainer 3)
Or Sys mk1, Sys mk2.....
If the heights had been organized from the start they could have just had
Sys1.50, Sys1.100, Sys2.25, Sys2.200, Sys3.400. etc.
the sustainer I , III, IV. thing is just not good. It's back to the problem of "trade sizes", which just seems odd for them to have done since things out of Europe are really good about getting rid of trade sizes/designations and giving them explicit numbers based on their dimensions. (5mm thread, not #10, x mm thickness, not gauge, x mm^2 wire, not AWG/Gauge/MCM, etc).
So if in part they are just trying to clean things up, I get that, sometimes you don't know a product will take off like it will and then you have regret. I almost wonder if they should just continue Tlok and the new ones. Not a great answer. I think most folks would have just asked for a short t-lock with the front handle to be added to the system. If they wanted to beef things up, refine corners, etc, sure.