Systainer3 Mounting Rails -- Why so long?

[dlu]

Any idea why the mounting rails for the Systainer3 boxes are so long? The extend about 75mm past the depth of the M and L Systainers. I'd rather not loose that space -- but even more I'd rather not learn the hard way that there is a reason why they are the length they are...

 

[Coen]

It fits the Bott van racking system that was designed around deeper boxes. All praise Bott!  [not worthy] [not worthy] [not worthy], everything else be damned.

Yes, it's completely insane for DIY storage. Waste of space. It kinda fits the whole Sys3 (wasting space)

 

[Svar]

Any idea why the mounting rails for the Systainer3 boxes are so long? The extend about 75mm past the depth of the M and L Systainers.

To create a secret storage space [big grin]. 75 or 45? The rails are 343 mm long and are flush with the front of systainer.

 

[mino]

I believe the point is that in a van racking setup - and these are meant *just* for that - you usually have some space behind for the van beams and other stuff like wiring etc. Plus the standard Bott depth is a bit more for other reasons.

I see no reason why you cannot shorten the rails though. They are designed for mobile (as in vibrations etc.) operation. In a static use the loads they see are way less.

Probably a good question why Festool does not make static-use-optimised rails ... [member=68900]Systainer.Store[/member] maybe you can ping TANOS on this.

That could also solve the problem of the rails availability - non-mobile use ones could be just a Festool/Tanos thing, be optimised for LR32 system etc. etc.

I could easily imagine rails that would even have limited/reduced detents/stops - so the Systainers would hold in place mostly by gravity.

 

[Systainer.Store]

Sometime ago I asked deeper questions regarding the SYS-Rails as well.

Bott has a couple different lines ups for van racking, I don't have it straight in my head.  What I recall though is the SYS-Rail is designed for the greater depth of the one of the lines ups and thus it extends beyond.  You can band saw or miter saw the rail down.

I also carry the Bott rail plate used in the Bott SmartVan. 

Agree, there could be better use of space and a shorter rail

 

[Coen]

Now we just need someone to make a mold, sell the product and NOT get sued by Tanos or Bott.

I remember cardreaders that were fully compatible with XD cards without claiming to be, to get out from under excessive licensing fees.

 

[mino]

Now we just need someone to make a mold, sell the product and NOT get sued by Tanos or Bott.

I remember cardreaders that were fully compatible with XD cards without claiming to be, to get out from under excessive licensing fees.

I believe one can make a -compatible- railing as long as it does not copy the Bott rails themselves - assuming they are even patented.

As in something that fits the TANOS/BOTT rails in the systainer yet is not a verbatim copy of their product, nor does it claim to be a product of theirs. I believe there were a bunch of rulings to that effect relating to car parts where the third party was - by definition - allowed to make a compatible part as the shape of the interface of a product was deemed by definition non-patentable. Or something like that.

By that philosophy one can extend/expand the use of a patented product but is not allowed to copy it or its protected function. I believe the Metaloc cases are a good example - they are fully compatible with T-Locs but use a different approach to joining, thus being "patent-free" vis-a-vis TANOS.

 

[Systainer.Store]

An interesting conversation...

What advantages would a new product need to offer that the current doesn't when the current can easily be shortened if that is the only concern?

For me, I like that the Bott rail version can be single post mounted.  That is there are two rows of holes vertically aligned versus the single row on the SYS-Rail.

 

[GarryMartin]

For me, there should always have been two options - one for vans and one for workshops. If you read most of the negative comments across the various platforms, including the length one here, they don't relate to their use in vans.

By going with the single option, and using that in a workshop, you're losing valuable space in a cabinet - the rail could easily have been shorter and not as high and could even have shipped with "shims" to allow it to be used in a SYS-AZ sized cabinet if desired (or the shims could have been made available separately).

That's what I'd be focussed on; a rail specific to use in cabinets with attachable shims to allow it to be used in SYS-AZ sized cabinets, or used without the shims to optimise storage space across the width of the cabinet.

 

[mcfal12]

While I think that dual options would be fine, it's hard for me to accept criticism by these reviewers of products being used for an application they weren't designed for.

 

[mino]

While I think that dual options would be fine, it's hard for me to accept criticism by these reviewers of products being used for an application they weren't designed for.

Well, SYSTAINER aka SYStemconTAINER came first and foremost as a shop & mobile shop storage system. For 25 odd years before the Bott thing came up that was the case. That is why SYS PORT was a thing, SYS AZ, etc. etc.

The rails are the only (potentially) positive result of the the Bott shenanigans. Asking that the rails are actualy practical to leverage for the 90 % of use cases people have - which are workshop-based is the absolute minimum expectation.

Now, the other option is to effectively proclaim the SYS3 is "not fit for purpose" in a workshop as it is "designed only for vehicle use" with Bott racking.
Fortunately, that view is seen as extreme even by folks like me, who will never ever be able to use SYS3 in my workflow until/unless standard heights are re-introduced/re-added.

Despite that, folks like me still want the SYS3 to be as useful and as practical a product. Simply because we like the "old" TANOS/FESTO design aproach and are hoping it will come back once the new generation at TTS grows up. The alternative is - basicaly nothing. End of the line. Nada. There is zero possibility of other company picking up where T-Loc left for all kinds of market dynamics reasons.

 

[Coen]

An interesting conversation...

What advantages would a new product need to offer that the current doesn't when the current can easily be shortened if that is the only concern?

For me, I like that the Bott rail version can be single post mounted.  That is there are two rows of holes vertically aligned versus the single row on the SYS-Rail.

1) Being actually available outside North America
2) Add a 2nd row of screws so you can get 16mm spacing when using LR-32 hole pattern?

While I think that dual options would be fine, it's hard for me to accept criticism by these reviewers of products being used for an application they weren't designed for.

Well, Sys3 replaced something that was designed with actual use in mind... it's the rule of succession; the reputation is only relative to what it replaced.

Now we just need someone to make a mold, sell the product and NOT get sued by Tanos or Bott.

I remember cardreaders that were fully compatible with XD cards without claiming to be, to get out from under excessive licensing fees.

I believe one can make a -compatible- railing as long as it does not copy the Bott rails themselves - assuming they are even patented.

As in something that fits the TANOS/BOTT rails in the systainer yet is not a verbatim copy of their product, nor does it claim to be a product of theirs. I believe there were a bunch of rulings to that effect relating to car parts where the third party was - by definition - allowed to make a compatible part as the shape of the interface of a product was deemed by definition non-patentable. Or something like that.

By that philosophy one can extend/expand the use of a patented product but is not allowed to copy it or its protected function. I believe the Metaloc cases are a good example - they are fully compatible with T-Locs but use a different approach to joining, thus being "patent-free" vis-a-vis TANOS.

Yes, but we need someone with deep pockets to take that gamble. Or someone in China. Alieexpress won't care.

 

[mcfal12]

I understand the desire and support that desire for a ‘workshop’ solution- I’m simply saying that criticism of a product when using it not as designed is not something I think is fair.

I do think that Festool should look at all of the cabinets being built by their users to store Systainers and should’ve had an aha moment that the single solution didn’t meet everyone needs and is an opportunity lost with their customer base.

 

[Coen]

Sys-AZ wastes the same amount of space btw. But then it's at least a drawer.

 

[mino]

Sys-AZ wastes the same amount of space btw. But then it's at least a drawer.

Yep, there it is mostly a necessity as otherwise the Systainers could not open while still in the drawers. *)

The rails do not allow opening it anyway so there is no need to be deeper even by a millimeter. Had there been a "static-use" rail set readily availabe, it would have been obvious to arrange the Systainers "hanging" just on the rails in a position above workbenches - kitchen top cabinets style.

*)
Yes, yes, it could have been optimised a bit but there is only so much more-than-full-extension drawers can handle.

 

[Systainer.Store]

1) Being actually available outside North America

I've been told they are working on getting this available in Europe.  You might have to use Tanos' e-Shop to get it, which I know they are rolling out to different countries. 

 

[Crazyraceguy]

This is the favorite whipping post for a few of us (mino, Coen, me, especially)
I really don't have a problem with the idea of the van rack-ability, but you don't ruin 20 years worth of previous use and a seriously well engineered "system" to get it. You adapt the rails to the boxes, not the boxes to the rail at the expense of that engineering.
There are plenty of guys like me out there who have built our custom storage cabinets based on the original  (again, well thought out) sizes.
The new ones just throw that out like it had no point.

 

[Coen]

1) Being actually available outside North America

I've been told they are working on getting this available in Europe.  You might have to use Tanos' e-Shop to get it, which I know they are rolling out to different countries.

Lol, they are a few years late with it.