My problem with the saw stop is definitely their marketing approach. They
designed a product, good or bad is your own choice, then they did demos and
touted the product and all sorts of marketing techniques. For whatever the
reason, probably cost, the woodworking community was less than enthusiastic
about the product.
Then, if I recall the order correctly, they tried to force the manufacturers
to install the product on their product. Failing that they decided to market
their own saw, at the same time lobbying to get a law passed requiring the
product be put on new ( and old?) saws.

I may have some of the facts screwed up a bit but the gist of it is the
same. All in all, it is NOT a product I'd have any interest in. I'm 67 years
old and have been making noise and sawdust for over 40 years - still have
all ten complete digits.

Just MHO,

Vic Baron

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
It just occurred to me that the replacement parts for the Sawstop could be
a
profit center for saw manufacturers. Especially if it falses
occasionally.
Probably be able to make as much margin on those as on a blade.

Wonder if he tried to sell it that way? The razor and blades approach.
Give away the sawstop and figure enough people are hamfingered enough to
make up the cost in consumables?

Be interesting to see some market research on that.

If there are 30,000 table-saw related injuries that require a hospital
visit
every year (and presumably most of those would have triggered the sawstop
if it was present) how many more were there that did not require a
hospital
visit but would have triggered the sawstop? There seem to be about ten
non-amputations for every amputation, if that carries through to
non-hospital then there would be about 300,000 Sawstop activations a year.
So what is that in terms of percentage of the installed base of saws?

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)