SYSTAINER³ available from September

[FestitaMakool]

I drive Land Rover and Mini, sooo.. I will probably not say anything about fast cornering and uneven “roads” - with my trailers following behind

 

[Coen]

Another thing on the change in height;


You can make the MFT height with a SYS(-TL) 2 + the equivalent of 7 Sys1's. That ends up being 899.5mm (the MFT being 900) == the same. Those 7 Sys1's can be anything from actually 7x1, or a 5 + 4. Or 2+2+5 or ....

But with the new system you can never get as close to 900 as the old system.

Closest I can come up with is a set of 3 Systainer3's then you get to 897mm;
eg; 137+337+437. Replace '7' with '0', add it all up and add one set of feet (7mm); 130+330+430+7=897

This means the choice of Systainers is way more restrictive. You can only use 3, and those three must add up. You cannot replace one big Systainer for two smaller ones.

You can however use different combos. Eg 137+337+437 or 237+237+437 or 237+337+337

 

[edwarmr]

You can make the MFT height with a SYS(-TL) 2 + the equivalent of 7 Sys1's. That ends up being 899.5mm (the MFT being 900) == the same. Those 7 Sys1's can be anything from actually 7x1, or a 5 + 4. Or 2+2+5 or ....

But with the new system you can never get as close to 900 as the old system.

Closest I can come up with is a set of 3 Systainer3's then you get to 897mm;
eg; 137+337+437. Replace '7' with '0', add it all up and add one set of feet (7mm); 130+330+430+7=897

This means the choice of Systainers is way more restrictive. You can only use 3, and those three must add up. You cannot replace one big Systainer for two smaller ones.

You can however use different combos. Eg 137+337+437 or 237+237+437 or 237+337+337

I think I found a combo that works with the new Systainers:
Systainer³ SYS3 M 337 (337-7)=330
Systainer³ SYS3 M 137 (137-7)=130
Systainer³ SYS3 M 112 Feet Included
Systainer³ Organizer SYS3 ORG M 89 (89-7)=82
Systainer³ Organizer SYS3 ORG M 89 (89-7)=82
Systainer³ Organizer SYS3 ORG M 89 (89-7)=82
Systainer³ Organizer SYS3 ORG M 89 (89-7)=82
Total=900

 

[Coen]

You can make the MFT height with a SYS(-TL) 2 + the equivalent of 7 Sys1's. That ends up being 899.5mm (the MFT being 900) == the same. Those 7 Sys1's can be anything from actually 7x1, or a 5 + 4. Or 2+2+5 or ....

But with the new system you can never get as close to 900 as the old system.

Closest I can come up with is a set of 3 Systainer3's then you get to 897mm;
eg; 137+337+437. Replace '7' with '0', add it all up and add one set of feet (7mm); 130+330+430+7=897

This means the choice of Systainers is way more restrictive. You can only use 3, and those three must add up. You cannot replace one big Systainer for two smaller ones.

You can however use different combos. Eg 137+337+437 or 237+237+437 or 237+337+337

I think I found a combo that works with the new Systainers:
Systainer³ SYS3 M 337 (337-7)=330
Systainer³ SYS3 M 137 (137-7)=130
Systainer³ SYS3 M 112 Feet Included
Systainer³ Organizer SYS3 ORG M 89 (89-7)=82
Systainer³ Organizer SYS3 ORG M 89 (89-7)=82
Systainer³ Organizer SYS3 ORG M 89 (89-7)=82
Systainer³ Organizer SYS3 ORG M 89 (89-7)=82
Total=900

Haha nice one. Somehow I thought the Organizers couldn't be locked together.  [unsure]

Just bought two steel cases with boxes for screws based on that assumption  [eek]

 

[tsercitpo]

FYI I was able to order from Axminster successfully. I half expected the order to be canceled or to be delayed, but to my surprise and delight it only took 3 days from ordering to delivery from the UK to US (midwest)

 

[mrboult]

Just ordered my first festool that will come in a  bulls”:t systainer with the ‘wrong’ height. It really does take a little something off the beauty of systainers for me. And by knock on effect the value of spending on festool. .

I’ve had my small city flat/apartment kitted out for storing lots of systainers for nearly a decade now (makes owning lots of tools possible for me)
But in more recent times they’ve also become my portable work benches for lots of jobs, especially installs. With the 3D printed systainer feet kits available these days I have 4 systainer worktops. Two identical pairs, one of each type can be seen below. One is a larger MFT type, the other just a piece of ply in the sys footprint that can have other lengths of 18mm material attached as needed (the MFT top is also 2X18mm in total height)

It really does work a treat and takes so little space or effort to store, transport and setup. Additionally they are great step stools on the job as well.

If you’re new to this concept check out the products available on the ‘feskit’ web page to get a better idea of what’s going on.

Anyway, still hating on the new systainer heights

 

[Michael Kellough]

[member=22067]mrB[/member]  Are those Metabo boxes the same height as Systainers?

 

[mrboult]

Yes they are the same size as the original T-loc systainers. Available in sys II, III, IV as far as I’ve seen.
They’re definitely the best (2nd to T-Loc) systainers available. The single latch is way easier and quicker than the 4 latches of the ‘Classic sys’ variants, although it doesn’t allow you to open half way down a stack like a T-loc. They’re also notably sturdier than Tanos systainers.

I prefer T-loc latches by far, but for the price these metabo ones are a winner (i paid >£20 each for these two, new and delivered)

 

[sustad]

I second everything Mr b says on the topic.

 

[mrboult]

It’s not even the fact that the heights are different, it’s that they’re not even system compatible with them selves like the original T-Locs are. 

The height of my work tops in the photo above is 2x SYS4. But this height can also be achieved with combo of Sys. . .

4+4
4+2+2
4+3+1
2+2+2+2
3+2+2+1
3+3+1+1
3+3+3
1+1+1+1+1+1
3+1+1+1+1

It barely matters what tools I bring to the job, I’ll have some good options for worktop height.  It’s so good as a system but they ruined it!
Over time tools and systainers will break, and newcomers will have new style Sys3,  and this system will be lost. . Why? Because of some racking system no one ever heard of?

I know I’ve been criticised here before for blowing it out of proportion, and I admit it’s not the end of the world. . . But it sure feels like a massive waste of a great thing.

 

[FestitaMakool]

[member=22067]mrB[/member]
- You have a point, I agree. Van racking seems to take over the old “system”.
I really see the point of racking compatibility, but (FT!) don’t forget the original system. It can be solved by adding SYS3 systainers that complies with old and at least a couple of those will solve height issues. There can be systainers that are NOT compatible with BOTT.
In addition: CMS is also obsolete..

Forecast based economics ruin brands and products.. I suspect there are new forces (I don’t know) running Festool. Financial focused I suspect, not marketing in collaboration with creative engineers...

 

[Gregor]

[member=22067]mrB[/member]
I really see the point of racking compatibility, but (FT!) don’t forget the original system.

Given that the heights are completely incompatible... I suspect the latter should be read as past tense, that ship seems to have sailed. *sigh*

 

[mino]

Given that the heights are completely incompatible... I suspect the latter should be read as past tense, that ship seems to have sailed. *sigh*

The T-Loc was designed as a direct "version 2/tuning" of the concept and so mostly displaced the Classic. But still the Classic line SKUs which did not get a functional replacement do soldier on till today like the SYS-SORTs.

Sys3 is not so. It is a compatible-but-not-a-replacement type for a product line. To me it is a side-step, not a functional replacement as it had to forego the LEGO-like height system to get into the vehicle system.

SYS3 is here to stay. And Festool will globally push to have it included by default with new tools - if for anything then for consistency and the new "fancy" thing.

But there is nothing preventing Festool (not mention TANOS) to carry the classic T-Loc line as a parallel system-storage line.

And this is what we should all tell to our Festool reps loud and clear:
"SYS3 are nice, but they are not a replacement of T-Locs.
If you do not want to lose a big part of your customer base, you need to carry both lines long term. 20 years style long term. If you do not, the community will migrate to the Makpacks and Metalocs of the world which will have a superior system on their hands."

/I know this is past the time, but should be said:/
I am totally convinced that TTS messed up in underestimating the value of the height system to their heavy users/evangelizers.
As can be seen on this thread, the height system is a go/no-go for many big adopters and the "masses" do not care so there is no real benefit giving them the vehicle-compatibility. For many it is a reason why they choose a Festool in place of a Makita or a Metabo.

They really should have talked about this with Bott and have Bott adapt/support the TANOS height system OR agree to make a few "special-Bott-aligned" sizes which would have been *in addition* to the standard 52,5 mm module ones.
I think e.g. the 130(7) and the 230(7) would be usable also for tools (at times allowing to avoid bigger SYS-2 and SYS-4 respectively) while the 330(7) and 430(7) are close-enough to SYS-4/5 they would be mostly not needed as the TANOS sizes would be close-enough.

Then the Organizes REALLY should have been 87.5(+feet) to align with the 5/6*105 module the SORTAINER is using so that 3 Organizes will be 3x87.5 = 262.5mm = 2,5x52.5 => the same as a COMBI2.
(Ref: The shelf modules of a SYS-SORT4/3 are 87.5 and the "inactive" height of it is exactly 52.5mm, so you can make a SYS-SORT"7"/6 with 6 shelfs and height of 11*52,5 modules by taking apart a couple SYS-SORTS. I am convinced this is why TANOS originally chose 105mm => it is cleanly divisible by 3 and so you can make 2/3 in addition to the 52,5 1/2 sizes which will end up with rational numbers as dimensions instead of 3,3333...)

Such approach would have allowed also the "Bott folks" to choose the smaller SYS-1/SYS-3 when they would value the TANOS LEGO system above in-vehicle efficiency or go with the Bott-optimized 130/230(maybe-330) heights when otherwise.

But well, what is borked is borked. Lets go for some damage control then.[cool]

 

[Coen]

It’s not even the fact that the heights are different, it’s that they’re not even system compatible with them selves like the original T-Locs are. 

The height of my work tops in the photo above is 2x SYS4. But this height can also be achieved with combo of Sys. . .

4+4
4+2+2
4+3+1
2+2+2+2
3+2+2+1
3+3+1+1
3+3+3
1+1+1+1+1+1
3+1+1+1+1

It barely matters what tools I bring to the job, I’ll have some good options for worktop height.  It’s so good as a system but they ruined it!
Over time tools and systainers will break, and newcomers will have new style Sys3,  and this system will be lost. . Why? Because of some racking system no one ever heard of?

I know I’ve been criticised here before for blowing it out of proportion, and I admit it’s not the end of the world. . . But it sure feels like a massive waste of a great thing.

Given plenty of time I guess you can probably trade them for someone who goes all-in on the new system. Classic Systainers are still available too, I guess the T-loc's will stay around too.

I still don't understand why they had to change the heights for that racking system of Bott. They didn't have to conform to L-boxx width either.

 

[mrboult]

Yes I am sure there will be regular T-Locs around for a while, but it’s way less convenient and cost effective to sell new Systainers and buy old. My TID 18 just came in the new Sys3 and having seen new prices on eBay and just watched a Sys3 (from a TID 18) sell for £32. . . After postage, eBay fees and the hassle. . It’s really not worth it in my opinion.

Someone previously questioned my annoyance saying I “can just buy old Systainers” and “how many new tools do I buy a year” but that’s not overly relevant. The tools used to come in compatible Systainers and that was part of the value. Now that value is lessened. Granted they still stack and Lock and that’s still convenient, but it’s notably less useful for me.

Often in the past I’d buy a tool for a specific job that I don’t want to keep permanently. I’d use it, keep it in great condition and sell it a month later without the T-loc. I’d get about 80% of my investment back and a ‘free’ t-loc. I‘ll be less inclined to do that with the new ones.

I’m moaning mostly because I have the time on lock down, but also because I’ve made Systainers a huge part of my life and this inexplicable alteration really damages that for no reason I can see. BOTT never sold Systainers before, and don’t seem to currently sell the Systainer racking the Sys3 was designed for (from my half arsed investigation). Just can’t see why the heights needed to change. And from a company that claims your investment with them is solid for ten years of spare parts, has MFT, CMS and mitre saws that are all height compatible with the old Systainer system. . . I just can’t imagine why they changed it? I’d really LOVE to know.

 

[Spandex]

If you have a large number of systainers then it’s also presumably possible to swap any new Sys3s that you get for systainers that never leave the home/workshop. That allows you to ensure that systainer stacks used on jobs (where the heights may be an issue) are all old t-locs.

 

[Cheese]

BOTT never sold Systainers before, and don’t seem to currently sell the Systainer racking the Sys3 was designed for (from my half arsed investigation).

The racking is Bott Vario 3. This is the best shot I could find on how the Systainers fit into the racking.

[attachimg=1]

 

[mrboult]

If you have a large number of systainers then it’s also presumably possible to swap any new Sys3s that you get for systainers that never leave the home/workshop. That allows you to ensure that systainer stacks used on jobs (where the heights may be an issue) are all old t-locs.

Yes you are correct. I have 3 or 4 Systainers that never leave the house. But they’re all sys4 with paints, stains, glues etc etc. Swapping this new SYS3 137 into the mix doesn’t really help. Don’t get me wrong, I’ll find a use, but it won’t be on jobs. As I’ve said before with 4 MFT sys tops, I often end up only having this kind of work bench on smaller jobs, and whatever Systainers I packed, I’d easily find a work height that suited within that selection. In the future this won’t be possible for newcomers and people like me will end up with a growing amount of Systainers they have to be mindful of in that regard. . .

Like I said before, I’m just ranting as I have the spare time, and I keep thinking how silly this was. I’m interested in the perceived benefits of the new design decision more than tips on how I’ll manage. I know I’ll manage, this hasn’t instantly ruined my work flow, the show will go on.

Thanks for the Bott info [member=44099]Cheese[/member]  I’m mildly interested in what this has all been for.
Who knows, one day I might have a van full of it and be looking to swap every thing to new sys3  [big grin] but I doubt it. .

 

[FestitaMakool]

BOTT never sold Systainers before, and don’t seem to currently sell the Systainer racking the Sys3 was designed for (from my half arsed investigation).

The racking is Bott Vario 3. This is the best shot I could find on how the Systainers fit into the racking.

[attachimg=1]

I’ve noticed also, and cannot see any real reason to change sizes, the shelves would be easy to adapt to existing systainers. Except if FT wasn’t happy with some of the sizes from what they tried to fit inside..

 

[Cheese]

Ive noticed also, and cannot see any real reason to change sizes, the shelves would be easy to adapt to existing systainers. Except if FT wasn’t happy with some of the sizes from what they tried to fit inside..

I agree with you...however I think it was Bott that drove the decision to change the Systainer height. Also, as Bott does 50,000 vehicle conversions per year, that was too lucrative a market for Festool to just walk away from.

A tweak to the Systainer tooling here & a tweak to the Systainer tooling there and suddenly Festool has opened up a brand new market for itself. And actually, Festool didn't even have to tweak the tooling, that was done by Tanos who was already producing Systainers for Bott.

So, all Festool had to do to gain entrance to a lucrative new market was to agree to switch over to the new Systainer style for packaging their tools. Kind of a no-brainer for Festool, considering the upside potential of the market.

Bott also describes the Vario 3 as a "new design" that is "redefining in-vehicle equipment".

[attachimg=1]