The new version of systainers looks pretty awesome!

[bwehman]

Not sure how many of you all have run across these, but seems like they did an amazing job incorporating that vertical carrying handle and such. My OCD tendencies are bummed that I'll have a mix of systainer generations, ha, but I'll take that trade off for what looks to be a superior design.
https://www.festool.com/campaigns/microsites/mobility

[attachimg=1]

 

[Euclid]

We debated these at some length a little while ago, and they received a rather mixed reception.
If you are already concerned about having a mix of old and new, then you might want to restrain your excitement until you have studied the dimensions... that may (or may not) irk you rather more than minor cosmetic differences...(!)

 

[safety1st]

From that link

"Festool will convert all products to Systainer³ in a gradual process, starting in 2020."

I guess this answers the question whether systainer3 is an add-on or a replacement design.

 

[xedos]

What do you think is superior on this generation?  I see some changes , but none superior in my view. 

I do see some issues with the new heights though. 

Link to big discussion:
https://www.festoolownersgroup.com/festool-and-tanos-systainers/systainer3-available-from-september/

 

[Jiggy Joiner]

The height difference is my gripe too, and in honesty the vertical carry handle doesn’t excite me that much, as most of the contents in my Systainers lends itself better, to be carried with the top handle.

 

[Cheese]

I agree with Jiggy, the front handle is nice for removing a Systainer from a cubby but that’s pretty much the end of its usefulness.

Take an installers set with all of those 1” bits stored in the many small pockets. Then turn it on it’s side and carry it somewhere. Open it up...what do you have?

 

[xedos]

front handle available for current t-locs if you want:

 

[peter halle]

And the image at the start of the thread shows a top and a front handle.  For my needs that works better and would allow more compact spacing of Sustainers on shelves or in my van.

Peter

 

[xedos]

How is the new one more compact when they’re taller ? 

That doesn’t sound more compact at all and may necessitate reconfiguring your van racks/shelves for sysII-V.

 

[semenza]

How is the new one more compact when they’re taller ? 

That doesn’t sound more compact at all and may necessitate reconfiguring your van racks/shelves for sysII-V.

Depending on the height actually needed it is possible that a shorter Systainer could take the place of a taller one. That, of course is situational. EX- I have more than one Sys - III that is too tall but a Sys - II is too short. I didn't check the new heights just now, but if one of the new ones is in between a current Sys - II and III it would save space. Like I said though, it is situational.

What is not situational is that the integrated front handle (which is more compact and fits inside the footprint compared to  the add on front handle) will make it easier to pull Systainers from racks or shelving.  Making it so that very little space is needed between shelves. Since the Systainer can be slid straight out without or tipping or tilting or bumping / catching on the one above or below. And no hand / finger space is needed above , below, or at the sides to pull it out.

I can even see the handle being useful if the Systainer is on a drawer. The Sys handle effectively becoming the drawer handle.

Plus with the built in slide / grooves / channels the new ones can just into slots. Zero shelf or drawer space needed.

Seth

 

[Coen]

The new heights look pretty irritating. With the old system you could just put a SYS-III on one side to support something, and two stacked SYS-I's on the other side. There is no way stacking smaller Systainers of the 3 variety to get to the same height as a larger one.

Compare heights;
old;
105
157.5
210
315
420

new;
105
130
180
230
330
430

All heights above are in [mm] and w/o feet, so add 7mm for each stack.

[sad]

 

[Gregor]

[sad]

At least they have left the SYS 1 height, would have been an absolute shame if had they messed that up too as a SYS 1 is nice way to support very long things for the Kapex (when used on an even surface without the cart).

But apart from that I agree, the new height increments make stacking temporary supports of even height way harder than before - which is a downgrade compared to the old version.

The handles seem to be a downgrade too: the front one looks like getting in the way when accessing a the T-LOC of the systainer below and the top handle (folding toward the front, though it makes sense when grabbing it to lift the systainer from a rack) will, unless being locked in place by something now visible on the photos, extend on it's own when carring the systainer on the front handle - unless that front handle will break off anyway in case the systainer isn't empty, it dosn't look sturdy enough to take much load (apart from what's needed to pull the systainer out of the rack).

Seems like someone stopped thinking this throught somewhere half-way.

 

[xedos]

SYS1 height is not the same as the saw bed height on the original Kapex. 

I'm not sure about the "revised" 120 edition. I do know they align on the smaller kapex 60 though , which is NAINA.

 

[demographic]

I like almost everything about these new boxes, other than the fact that some wally forgot about the heights matching.

It's been part of the sales pitch for Festol boxes for twenty or more years and I'm utterly stunned that they allowed these out the factory without that feature.

There must be some reason that explains it and I'm missing it. To me it just seems like they were so close but dropped the ball at the end.

 

[Gregor]

SYS1 height is not the same as the saw bed height on the original Kapex. 

But with the feet of the systainer (total of 112mm) close enough to the 110mm of the Kapex when the systainer is sitting 2+m away from it.

 

[Spandex]

I like almost everything about these new boxes, other than the fact that some wally forgot about the heights matching.

It's been part of the sales pitch for Festol boxes for twenty or more years and I'm utterly stunned that they allowed these out the factory without that feature.

There must be some reason that explains it and I'm missing it. To me it just seems like they were so close but dropped the ball at the end.

Maybe they researched and discovered only a small percentage of customers relied on the matching height combinations.

 

[tazcubed]

I wish one of these storage manufacturers would make something that's closer to 24"/610mm wide on the inside. I've got a few tools that are close that length that I wish I could find a storage solution for.

 

[Svar]

Maybe they researched and discovered only a small percentage of customers relied on the matching height combinations.

Quite likely. I, for example, don't care for stacking height. I'd rather bring sawhorses (or adjustable height roller stand) than fumble through systainers constructing a tower and then discovering that I need a tool from the bottom one. All toolboxes need to be easily accessible at all times.

Possibly they studied average tools dimensions (for example, all track saws are ~ 220 mm tall) and optimized box heights that way in lieu of matching boxes with each other.

 

[demographic]

Maybe they researched and discovered only a small percentage of customers relied on the matching height combinations.

Possible, I just like it because they fit into my toolsafe well with various combinations being the same height so I can store my mitresaw on to of them but still securely in the toolsafe.

Its a shame because the other features of the boxes are good.

 

[Spandex]

Some examples of European pricing here:
https://www.sys-classic.de/TANOS-systainer-The-third-Generation:::678.html

Obviously this is for non-Festool versions, and not everything listed has a price yet, so I assume the different products will trickle out over the next few months.