Why aren't Systainer heights multiples of 32mm?

[wow]

I was doing a layout in CAD for my homemade SysPort and - being the persistent pot-stirrer that I am - got to wondering:

Why aren't systainter heights multiples of 32mm? Or at least 16mm?

Not only are they not multiples of 32mm, the Sys2 isn't even measured in 'whole' mm - it's 157.5mm. Kind weird, huh?

I'm certain a LOT of thought went into the decision and design. Does anyone know the back-story or how they ended up to be the sizes that they are?

It's not important, but I'll bet it's interesting. And like the tabloid says:

"Enquiring Minds Want To Know!"

 

[Corwin]

You wouldn't want them to be sized in multiples of 32mm if you also wanted them to fit within a 32mm shelving system -- for that they would need to be a multiple of 32 minus some amount for clearance in order to fit.  Yet, this may not even enter into the sizing, as I do believe the sizes where chosen to fit efficiently on international shipping pallets. 

 

[AlexThePalex]

Yet, this may not even enter into the sizing, as I do believe the sizes where chosen to fit efficiently on international shipping pallets. 

Yups. It's Germans. Everything they do is thought out and done according to some standard written down in their -very- big book of standards.

 

[jonny round boy]

... the Sys2 isn't even measured in 'whole' mm - it's 157.5mm. Kind weird, huh?

The sys2 is exactly half the height of a sys4, which is 315mm, hence 157.5mm. Not weird at all*. They're designed so that multiples of smaller sizes equal the height of the larger ones, so that stack heights are always consistent. For example:

3x sys1's = sys4
2x sys2's = sys4
sys3 + sys1 = sys4
2x sys1's = sys3
sys1 + sys4 = sys5
2x sys3's = sys5

*having said that, the sys2 is a little weird after all, as the rest of them are multiples of 105mm, but the sys2 is 1.5x that size. This means that to keep the stack heights consistent you need to use sys2's in pairs.