On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 16:15:49 -0800, "ted harris"
wrote:
In typed:
1) UL refused to act on SawStop, saying it needed more development and
testing.
Isn't testing what they do?
If you read the reports, both from the CPSC and the ones SawStop
attached to its petition, you'll see that the constant refrain is that
much of the system _can't_ be tested because it isn't there yet. That
is the pieces haven't been designed or built to production standard.
2) In its petition to the CPSC, SawStop misrepresented UL's concern,
claiming UL said it didn't have the ability to test the device.
Does UL have the ability to test it? If they do, why didn't they?
At this point no one has the ability to test it, except as a
proof-of-concept device. There's too much development work still to be
done.
3) According to SawStop there is already an industrial chop saw on the
market which uses a quick-retract safety mechanism. (I haven't looked
up the references yet.)
There is a video of it on the Sawstop website.
4) As a technical matter, granting SawStop's petition would have
violated the CPSC's mandate by establishing a design rather than a
performance standard.
The CPSC did award Sawstop a safety commendation for "developing innovative
safety technology for power saws intended to prevent finger amputations and
other serious injury."
Sawstop has also received awards for Challengers Distinguished Achievement
Award as one of the most innovative new products in woodworking at the
International Woodworking Fair in Atlanta, Georgia in August 2000.
None of those awards were given after testing. They were given because
SawStop looks like a neat, innovative device.
And I notice you dodged the point. By law CPSC is prohibited from
establishing 'design' standard -- which this clearly was. They can
only establish performance standards.
5) Despite claims made here to the contrary that no one is working on
saw safey, the saw manufacturers have had an on-going 'multi-million
dollar' program to develop a safety device to prevent major injuries.
One difference is the manufacurers have agreed to pool their patents
to make any such device widely available.
Good luck...
Do you have any proof this is not the case?
6) According to SawStop the royalty they are asking is 8 percent of
the wholesale price of each saw.
(NB: Based on my experience this is a rather high royalty for a
'big-ticket' item like a table saw. 1 or 2 percent is more common, I
believe. --RC)
By big ticket you mean a saw that retails for $150-, sawstop would be
getting $12-. Does the industry sell more saws for $150- to $1000-, or over
$1000-? At $1000- they would be getting still only $80-. Sounds like a lot
less than the $100-to $150- it would add to the cost of a saw listed on
their website.
That is only the royalty. It does not include the cost of designing
and manufacturing the devices.
What does a $150- or a $1000- saw wholesale for anyway?
even less? Seems to me like it balances out in the manufacturers favor.
Not even close. The SawStop royalty is extremely high by industry
standards, especially for something which is only part of the product.
Now I am sure that sawstop has the numbers for how many of this and that are
sold and has figured out that in the long run they are going to make money,
but it is not near as much as you would like us to believe.
Excuse me? I'm quoting the facts from the CPSC filings. What you
believe is (fortunately!) a matter of some indifference to me.
Since when is 8% high...when a sports figure can get 7% of Nike with no
sweat equity in the produxt?
Because the company figures that sports figures endorsement can boost
the sales of the product by a huge amount. And the sports figure is
not getting that percentage only everything Nike makes, only on the
brand of shoes advertised with his name and likeness.
Apples and oranges.
7) According to the power tool manufacturers, saw makers who tested
SawStop reported an unacceptably large number of false responses --
both false positives (tripping unnecessarily) and false negatives (not
tripping when it should. They also found a lot of other design issues
and pointed out the SawStop would have particular problems with
direct-drive or geared saws.
What would YOU expext them to say...
Can you name any manufacturer that has not resisted safety before laws were
enacted to protect the workers and consumer?
8) According to SawStop most woodworkers would need more than one
module since the modules are matched to the blade type. A dado blade
needs a different module from a regular blade, for example.
And your point is...? (rhetorical)
My point is that that's another expense to the customer. At $60 or $70
a pop those modules aren't cheap.
Anyway, read through the filings and you'll have a much better idea
about SawStop.
--RC
Thanks, but I read it weeks ago as I was doing a term paper for the
manufacturing classes I am taking at the local college. The first time I
ran into the website, I thought it was an exceptional product.
The web site does indeed make SawStop sound like an exceptional
product. But then that's its job.
Didn't change my mind one bit.
May I respectfully suggest you invest in a reading comprehension
course? I'm sure your collect has an excellent one.
In fact, it reinforced my original feelings about sawstop.
Then you have a very peculiar sense of what makes an exceptional
product. A more reasonable perspective would be that while it's an
exceptional idea, it is not yet a product of any sort.
It is clearly a case of David versus Goliath...
You might try being a little more realistic and less romantic about
the situation.
At this point I don't know what's driving you but it's clearly not the
facts.
--RC
Projects expand to fill the clamps available -- plus 20 percent
|