Testing of box solidity, incl. Festool systainers

[bidn]

Hi,

you maybe interested by the following test, where one operator lets the boxes fall in exactly the same position:
- from a height of 2 meters, with a load of 2 kg inside
- from a height of 7 meters, empty.


It is in German, but youtube might translate it for you.
In any case, the video speaks for itself, after a presentation of the box systems,
the actual testing starts at about 11:15.

I had the impression is that the Systainers Sys3 (3rd gen) were the worst, and this is what Sebastian, the guy leading the test, implied, as he said at about 22:50  "the systems which are made for vehicles suffer the most" and he picks up a Sys3 systainer... (three of them got broken).

It seemed to me that the best results were with the Milwaukee packouts (even their big, heavy drawer system came out perfect) (not the older Milwaukee boxes)
but Sebastian said that he found the best to be the MetaLoc from Metabo (Metabo systainers, based on T-Loc).

Have fun with this video and a nice weekend.

 

[Coen]

Well, the single T-Loc also seems to be a weak point where other boxes have the lid closed at at least two spots.

But in reality there is no 2 kg load that just floats about in the Systainer.

But we all know the Classic Systainers can be a pain in opening when it's cold, so euh...

They did solve some lid instability with the Sys3 by adding a 3rd hinge (+ 4th in case of L-size)

There is also a big difference between how the boxes hit the floor. There is a Systainer drop at 17:27 where the Systainer lands with it's lid first, almost parallel to the floor. Almost immediately a full-surface contact and done. Very little warping because of a uniform deceleration. The next drop it lands on a corner and the consequences are pretty clear of that; massive warping, T-loc detaches, lid opens, hinge-pin gone.

The Milwaukee boxes are also king the category of lost space, so pick your poison  [tongue]

 

[mino]

A useless video "test".

(Space-inefficient) boxes which were designed to be thrown around at the price of weight and size.
Then space efficient boxes which are made first and foremost for static loads and small bumps at the price of toughness.

Guess which wins on weight and ergonomy and guess which wins on toughness.

If the space-efficient boxes won on toughness, or least fared very well, that would be a testament to the "tough" boxes being pointless, nothing more.
If the "tough" boxes were lighter and/or more ergonomic than the "space-ies", that would also be a fail of these making them pointless.

And as already mentioned, the job of the boxes in case of a crash is to ABSORB the impact as much as possible to protect the tool. Placing the tool as free-moving and not checking its damage even or the accelleration it was subjected to makes the whole test even more useless. The job is to protect the tool, not to survive while the tool is in pieces!

Typical tube junk for clicks. Eh.