http://slashdot.org/articles/06/08/14/1241211.shtml

"brianlanning" wrote in message
ups.com...
http://slashdot.org/articles/06/08/14/1241211.shtml


Cool. It was only a matter of time before enough people would see the value
in such a product. It could very well help keep everyone's insurance
premiums in check.

brianlanning wrote:
: http://slashdot.org/articles/06/08/14/1241211.shtml

Also http://www.designnews.com/CA6360672.html

Leon wrote:
"brianlanning" wrote in message
ups.com...
http://slashdot.org/articles/06/08/14/1241211.shtml


Cool. It was only a matter of time before enough people would see the value
in such a product. It could very well help keep everyone's insurance
premiums in check.

The news coverage suggests that the saw industry will never use the
SawStop; the inventor/advocate is causing manufacturers tons of
heartburn. They'll come up with something of their own to satisfy
government regulations, after they lobby to water down those
regulations.

Damned shame. The guy has spent a lot of time and money trying to save
fingers.

"Dhakala" wrote in message
oups.com...

Leon wrote:
"brianlanning" wrote in message
ups.com...
http://slashdot.org/articles/06/08/14/1241211.shtml


Cool. It was only a matter of time before enough people would see the
value
in such a product. It could very well help keep everyone's insurance
premiums in check.

The news coverage suggests that the saw industry will never use the
SawStop; the inventor/advocate is causing manufacturers tons of
heartburn. They'll come up with something of their own to satisfy
government regulations, after they lobby to water down those
regulations.

Well if it makes manufacturers come out with a better safety device that
will be good. I suspect that once the cost goes up for those manufacturers
and costs get passed on to the consumer that a watered down version may turn
consumers off to that brand. Right now the SawStop is in the price range
of the better built saws. If the cost goes up for other saw manufacturers
and requires similar pricing to the consumer so that they can comply they
will have to start competing with SawStops quality and safety features
rather than price alone, as it stands now. Time will tell. Regardless, as
time passes and more people are exposed to the SawStop, the saw may become
the new standard to compare to.


Damned shame. The guy has spent a lot of time and money trying to save
fingers.

I would not count them out. LeeValley is replacing all of the working saws
in their stores with the SawStop and I strongly suspect that most are being
sold to those with multiple workers that use a TS. If the SawStop continues
to impress and become a standard in the commercial industry it should enjoy
success.

"Leon" writes:
Well if it makes manufacturers come out with a better safety device that
will be good.

The problem isn't better safety devices, it's *mandatory* safety
devices. If the sawstop becomes mandatory, you won't be able to buy a
cheap saw any more (by cheap, I mean under $1000). It's a case of
legislation to protect us from our own choices destroying an entire
market segment.

I'm ok with having an *option* to buy a sawstop, and the market will
determine its price. I am NOT ok with the government FORCING me to
buy one if I buy a saw.

DJ Delorie wrote:

I'm ok with having an *option* to buy a sawstop, and the market will
determine its price.**I*am*NOT*ok*with*the*government*FORCING*me *to
buy one if I buy a saw.

Amen!

--
It's turtles, all the way down

"DJ Delorie" wrote in message
...

The problem isn't better safety devices, it's *mandatory* safety
devices. If the sawstop becomes mandatory, you won't be able to buy a
cheap saw any more (by cheap, I mean under $1000). It's a case of
legislation to protect us from our own choices destroying an entire
market segment.

I'm ok with having an *option* to buy a sawstop, and the market will
determine its price. I am NOT ok with the government FORCING me to
buy one if I buy a saw.

I absolutely see your point but equally I disagree with the government
requiring me to buy auto insurance to protect the other guy. With
government required air bags in my wife's car and in my truck we enjoy
insurance rates that are lower than what we paid 20+ years ago. I am sure
you have noticed, health insurance has not gotten any cheaper and you might
be surprised by how many people show up in the ER from TS accidents. I was
unfortunately and made the ER trip in 1989. When the plastic surgeon asked
what happened, I told him I was cutting a board and he ended the sentence,
with a table saw. I nodded my head. He said that the ER sees TS injuries 3
to 4 times a week.
IF the TS's are mandated to have a safety device, maybe health insurance
rate premiums will benefit also.
While you may see it as having to pay more for a TS, I see it as me possibly
not having to pay higher insurance rates for myself and those that do get
injured.
I am not one that believes that I am all knowing and not one that believes
that what the government is all bad. I know that some of the laws that are
passed do indeed help and many are beneficial to a society whether every one
can understand this or not. IMHO this would be one of the Good laws. It
would protect the user of TS's and help lower the health and accident
insurance rates to the manufacturing industry which may put more money in
all of our pockets. If you are upset with being required to buy a new saw
with this safety device, you should be very upset that you the saw you have
now also has a government required guard that you were forced to buy.
Even today and in the relatively recent past you have had to pay for a
guard with most every new TS now. At least the extra cost of the SawStop
type safety device will actually do a much better job when your finger does
come in contact with the blade.

"Leon" writes:
With government required air bags in my wife's car and in my truck
we enjoy insurance rates that are lower than what we paid 20+ years
ago.

But there are alternatives to air bags (ABS, active restraints) and
the public has decided what they want. My vehicle doesn't have air
bags, it has ABS. My wife once had a car with active restraints that
almost cut her thumb off. Air bags have been known to injure smaller
passengers. Car safety went through a long process of trial and
acceptance before any mandates happened.

But car safety is about protecting the passengers and bystanders from
the driver, too. The saw stop only protects the user (by "user" I
include assistants, who are responsible for their own actions too), so
the car analogy is inappropriate.

IF the TS's are mandated to have a safety device, maybe health
insurance rate premiums will benefit also.

More likely, insurance underwriters will adjust premiums for those who
*choose* to have *proven* safety devices. I get a discount because my
house has wired fire sprinklers, but they aren't mandatory. And
insurance underwriters won't discount a safety device if it doesn't
*actually* reduce the risk (i.e. if it tends to be disabled).

It would be interesting to find out if the saw stop *causes* more
hospital claims, due to people becoming careless about safety and
getting more small cuts. I also have a fee on my house insurance
because occasionally people knock the sprinkler heads off, which
causes damage.

While you may see it as having to pay more for a TS, I see it as me
possibly not having to pay higher insurance rates for myself and
those that do get injured.

Neither of these require a government mandate. I agree that more
safety is better, and that lower insurance rates are good. That
doesn't mean I agree that forcing us to use a specific product is a
good idea.

IMHO this would be one of the Good laws.

Perhaps, after the market has come up with cheaper implementations and
user choice. Or, perhaps, if the government voided the patent so that
they weren't creating a monopoly. Or if they passed the law later
only to get rid of the few remaining hold-outs. Compare this kind of
law to the UK's anti-dado law. Have you shortened your arbor yet?

you should be very upset that you the saw you have now also has a
government required guard that you were forced to buy.

Guards are cheap and there's lots to choose from. Different argument.

At least the extra cost of the SawStop

A huge cost, at the moment. I could buy six table saws for the cost
of one saw stop.

DJ Delorie wrote:

A huge cost, at the moment. I could buy six table saws for the cost
of one saw stop.

Comparing apples to apples, it would make sense to compare this saw
against the PM66, the Unisaw, or the General 650.

In that case, it's more like 1.5 saws for the cost of one SawStop.

However, even that is likely too much of a premium for most home users.

Chris

Chris Friesen writes:
Comparing apples to apples, it would make sense to compare this saw
against the PM66, the Unisaw, or the General 650.

If I could compare apples to apples, it would be less of an argument.
The problem is that a government mandates redefines the apple. I have
a $500 table saw. What's the equivalent if a sawstop is mandated? At
the moment, the closest equivalent is 6x the cost.

Even with your math, that puts the cost delta of a saw stop at $1000,
turning a $500 saw into a $1500 saw (3x).

But cost isn't my real issue. My issue is choice. I want one.

"DJ Delorie" wrote in message
...
..

Snip


But car safety is about protecting the passengers and bystanders from
the driver, too. The saw stop only protects the user (by "user" I
include assistants, who are responsible for their own actions too), so
the car analogy is inappropriate.

Totally appropriate. I was using the air bags as only an example of a
mandated safety devise that results in cheaper insurance premiums as would
likely be the case with the type device that may be mandated for TS's.


IF the TS's are mandated to have a safety device, maybe health
insurance rate premiums will benefit also.

More likely, insurance underwriters will adjust premiums for those who
*choose* to have *proven* safety devices. I get a discount because my
house has wired fire sprinklers, but they aren't mandatory. And
insurance underwriters won't discount a safety device if it doesn't
*actually* reduce the risk (i.e. if it tends to be disabled).

You are still not getting the point I am trying to make. Basically less
expensive claims typically mean cheaper insurance rates for every one. For
example, many complain about their insurance rates on their homes because of
the Katrina hurricane. They complain because they do not live near the
coast and had no damage claims. You do not have to have a claim or damage
for your premiums to go up. Your rates may not go as much if you do not
have a claim but claims paid by an insurance company affects all of those
that pay for insurance. My auto insurance rates went up as a result of the
flooding that occoured in Houston 5 years ago. I had no claim. Today the
rates are closer to normal. Still no claims or violations in the last 15
years. Every time there is a rise in insurance claims you and I pay the
extra premiums just like theft in a store translates to higher prices of
goods. We all pay.


It would be interesting to find out if the saw stop *causes* more
hospital claims, due to people becoming careless about safety and
getting more small cuts. I also have a fee on my house insurance
because occasionally people knock the sprinkler heads off, which
causes damage.

Lets put those questions in to perspective. Does the safety on a gun cause
more hospital claims because people become more careless. The fact that
nothing is perfect and fool proof will keep 99.999% of the people from
ignoring the possibility of an accident happening. For that matter you can
cut your self by simply replacing a blade. I seriousely doubt that a blade
spinning at 100 mph will be any less intemidating.


I agree that more safety is better, and that lower insurance rates are
good. That
doesn't mean I agree that forcing us to use a specific product is a
good idea.

Unfortunately unless the governmant gets involved in many cases our safety
is of little concern by most manufacturers and especially those that turned
down SawStops proposal. Perhaps, had the manufacturers had our safety in
mind and chose to add an equally effecty device to their saws whe would not
be in the situation of being to be forced by the government to buy a saw
with this feature.

I think that in this instance this mandate woutd be good for far many people
than those that could be injured. Every one paying insurance premiums
should benefit also.


IMHO this would be one of the Good laws.

Perhaps, after the market has come up with cheaper implementations and
user choice. Or, perhaps, if the government voided the patent so that
they weren't creating a monopoly. Or if they passed the law later
only to get rid of the few remaining hold-outs. Compare this kind of
law to the UK's anti-dado law. Have you shortened your arbor yet?

If everyone starts building the same type safety device prices will come
down. Air bags are now much cheaper than they were in the early 80's. When
every one offers the same features prices become more compeditive.


you should be very upset that you the saw you have now also has a
government required guard that you were forced to buy.


Guards are cheap and there's lots to choose from. Different argument.

Not really. I would say that most people never use the standard guard
that comes on most saws. Regardless of price that guard becomes expensive
at that point. Regardless of price, if you do not use it, it is wasted
money and expensive. Still you have to pay for that guard.
Considering the expense of the SawStop, for the extra cost you get the Saw
Stop safety device, and a riving knife, and a heavier built saw with build
specs closer to the PM 66 in terms of trunion and arbor size.


A huge cost, at the moment. I could buy six table saws for the cost
of one saw stop.

And I could buy 20 TS's for the cost that you pay for those 6.
You could buy 6 TS's for the cost of 1 Powermatic 66.

It would be better to compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges.

For a similar class and built TS the actual numbers may only be 50% more
expense at worst.

For a SawStop Cabinet Saw with rip fence you pay about $3100. Amazon has a
3 hp PM66 for $3100.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00...lance&n=228013

"Leon" writes:
If everyone starts building the same type safety device prices will
come down.

Ah, but they can't. It's patented.

"Leon" wrote in message
. ..

"DJ Delorie" wrote in message
...
.

Snip


But car safety is about protecting the passengers and bystanders from
the driver, too. The saw stop only protects the user (by "user" I
include assistants, who are responsible for their own actions too), so
the car analogy is inappropriate.

Totally appropriate. I was using the air bags as only an example of a
mandated safety devise that results in cheaper insurance premiums as would
likely be the case with the type device that may be mandated for TS's.


IF the TS's are mandated to have a safety device, maybe health
insurance rate premiums will benefit also.

More likely, insurance underwriters will adjust premiums for those who
*choose* to have *proven* safety devices. I get a discount because my
house has wired fire sprinklers, but they aren't mandatory. And
insurance underwriters won't discount a safety device if it doesn't
*actually* reduce the risk (i.e. if it tends to be disabled).

You are still not getting the point I am trying to make. Basically less
expensive claims typically mean cheaper insurance rates for every one.
For
example, many complain about their insurance rates on their homes because
of
the Katrina hurricane. They complain because they do not live near the
coast and had no damage claims. You do not have to have a claim or damage
for your premiums to go up. Your rates may not go as much if you do not
have a claim but claims paid by an insurance company affects all of those
that pay for insurance. My auto insurance rates went up as a result of
the
flooding that occoured in Houston 5 years ago. I had no claim. Today
the
rates are closer to normal. Still no claims or violations in the last 15
years. Every time there is a rise in insurance claims you and I pay the
extra premiums just like theft in a store translates to higher prices of
goods. We all pay.


It would be interesting to find out if the saw stop *causes* more
hospital claims, due to people becoming careless about safety and
getting more small cuts. I also have a fee on my house insurance
because occasionally people knock the sprinkler heads off, which
causes damage.

Lets put those questions in to perspective. Does the safety on a gun
cause
more hospital claims because people become more careless. The fact that
nothing is perfect and fool proof will keep 99.999% of the people from
ignoring the possibility of an accident happening. For that matter you
can
cut your self by simply replacing a blade. I seriousely doubt that a
blade
spinning at 100 mph will be any less intemidating.


I agree that more safety is better, and that lower insurance rates are
good. That
doesn't mean I agree that forcing us to use a specific product is a
good idea.

Unfortunately unless the governmant gets involved in many cases our safety
is of little concern by most manufacturers and especially those that
turned
down SawStops proposal. Perhaps, had the manufacturers had our safety in
mind and chose to add an equally effecty device to their saws whe would
not
be in the situation of being to be forced by the government to buy a saw
with this feature.

I think that in this instance this mandate woutd be good for far many
people
than those that could be injured. Every one paying insurance premiums
should benefit also.


IMHO this would be one of the Good laws.

Perhaps, after the market has come up with cheaper implementations and
user choice. Or, perhaps, if the government voided the patent so that
they weren't creating a monopoly. Or if they passed the law later
only to get rid of the few remaining hold-outs. Compare this kind of
law to the UK's anti-dado law. Have you shortened your arbor yet?

If everyone starts building the same type safety device prices will come
down. Air bags are now much cheaper than they were in the early 80's.
When
every one offers the same features prices become more compeditive.


you should be very upset that you the saw you have now also has a
government required guard that you were forced to buy.


Guards are cheap and there's lots to choose from. Different argument.

Not really. I would say that most people never use the standard guard
that comes on most saws. Regardless of price that guard becomes
expensive
at that point. Regardless of price, if you do not use it, it is wasted
money and expensive. Still you have to pay for that guard.
Considering the expense of the SawStop, for the extra cost you get the Saw
Stop safety device, and a riving knife, and a heavier built saw with
build
specs closer to the PM 66 in terms of trunion and arbor size.


A huge cost, at the moment. I could buy six table saws for the cost
of one saw stop.

And I could buy 20 TS's for the cost that you pay for those 6.
You could buy 6 TS's for the cost of 1 Powermatic 66.

It would be better to compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges.

For a similar class and built TS the actual numbers may only be 50% more
expense at worst.

For a SawStop Cabinet Saw with rip fence you pay about $3100. Amazon has
a
3 hp PM66 for $3100.


http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00...lance&n=228013


Your arguments about insurance prices dropping do not stand up to scrutiny -
when was the last time you had an insurance agent ask you if you use a table
saw? Yes it would be a factor for a place like Woodcraft that has classes
for folks but for individuals it is not.

I agree that safety is important but you seem intent on removing any
responsibility from the user for their stupidity. . . A table saw can be
used safely but not by idiots.

I have a 5HP Left Tilt Unisaw in my shop with a Biesmeyer splitter - it is
safe to use as long as I follow the rules - if I don't then it is my fault
not the governments because they do not mandate that everyone use a SawStop.
.. .

I refuse to allow the government to tell me what kind of table saw I can
buy - there are much more dangerous things they do little about - cancer
caused by tobacco kills how many people a year? Roughly 45,000 people die in
the US in traffic accidents every year (half of which involve drinking and
driving). A few missing digits while not wonderful hardly rates high for
things that require government interference. . .

BB

"DJ Delorie" wrote in message
...

"Leon" writes:
If everyone starts building the same type safety device prices will
come down.

Ah, but they can't. It's patented.

SawStop offered and I would likely think that they would still offer a
license to use the technology. Nothing unusual about that. VCR and DVD
recorder manufacturers pay for a license to manufacture a product that play
and record different formats.

"BB" wrote in message news:JCnEg.56098$zc2.16305@trnddc06...

Your arguments about insurance prices dropping do not stand up to
scrutiny -
when was the last time you had an insurance agent ask you if you use a
table
saw?

January 2005 and he saw my damaged thumb. We alos talked about whether I
needed extra insurance to occasionally haul manufactured goods to a
customer. He ultimately offered me lower home owner and auto rates and this
year the rates have come down about 15%.

Yes it would be a factor for a place like Woodcraft that has classes
for folks but for individuals it is not.

My personal experience proves otherwise.


I agree that safety is important but you seem intent on removing any
responsibility from the user for their stupidity. . . A table saw can be
used safely but not by idiots.

Absolutely true and also absolutely ture is the fact that ANYONE including
you can have an accident on a TS.
I am absolutely not trying ro remove user responsibility. I simply want
insurance premiums to resude for everyone and for there to be less injuries.



I have a 5HP Left Tilt Unisaw in my shop with a Biesmeyer splitter - it is
safe to use as long as I follow the rules - if I don't then it is my fault
not the governments because they do not mandate that everyone use a
SawStop.

Blame the tool manufacturers that decided to not make their saws safer for
the inevetable mandate.
If you believe that using a saw safely will save your butt you are pretty
naive.



I refuse to allow the government to tell me what kind of table saw I can
buy - there are much more dangerous things they do little about - cancer
caused by tobacco kills how many people a year?

Did you buy your TS new? If so you bought a guard that the government
requires it to have.

It sounds like you simply want to go against the government, period. The
government could simply out law tobacco and that would take care of future
generations. But people like you would not like the government interfeering
with you doing harm to your self. Why not eleminate the problem to start
with.


Roughly 45,000 people die in
the US in traffic accidents every year (half of which involve drinking and
driving). A few missing digits while not wonderful hardly rates high for
things that require government interference. . .

What's your point?

"DJ Delorie" wrote in message
...

"Leon" writes:
If everyone starts building the same type safety device prices will
come down.

Ah, but they can't. It's patented.

So? That why engineers get the big bucks, to make a similar non-infringing
version. Or you pay a royalty. Saw Stop did offer the technology to others
but was turned down.

"Leon" wrote in message

SawStop offered and I would likely think that they would still offer a
license to use the technology. Nothing unusual about that.

I have to wonder what the lawyers will do with this down the road. If you
cut a finger on a Brand X saw, will they be considered negligent because
they did not use available technology to prevent the accident?

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message

I have to wonder what the lawyers will do with this down the road. If you
cut a finger on a Brand X saw, will they be considered negligent because
they did not use available technology to prevent the accident?

And, considering that the US is one of the most litigious countries in the
world, you just know there's an army of lawyers salivating to get their
hooks into the fray.

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
news:FgoEg.2672$v_1.2509@trndny01...

"Leon" wrote in message

SawStop offered and I would likely think that they would still offer a
license to use the technology. Nothing unusual about that.

I have to wonder what the lawyers will do with this down the road. If you
cut a finger on a Brand X saw, will they be considered negligent because
they did not use available technology to prevent the accident?

I suspect that they will leave it alone. Manufacturers that do not include
riving knives probably are not being bothered.


Most employers carry workman's comp for this same reason. The workman's
comp protects a company from these claims. I doubt that they will be found
negligent unless the government eventually requires a similar safety device
be used and it is not used.

Leon wrote:
"DJ Delorie" wrote in message

Ah, but they can't. It's patented.

SawStop offered and I would likely think that they would still offer a
license to use the technology.

Yes. They want 8% of the full retail cost of the saw in royalties.

Chris

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
news:TcoEg.244$ha1.10@trndny03...


So? That why engineers get the big bucks, to make a similar
non-infringing version. Or you pay a royalty. Saw Stop did offer the
technology to others but was turned down.


Fein could look into this. They manufacture the Multimaster. It can use a
circular blade that cuts through stationary objects but does not spin.
Because it does not spin it will not cut your finger. The blade oscillates
in a shorter distance than you skin will move. The blade simply vibrates
you skin. It would have a long way to go but it has its potential. No kick
backs.

"Chris Friesen" wrote in message
...
Leon wrote:
"DJ Delorie" wrote in message

Ah, but they can't. It's patented.

SawStop offered and I would likely think that they would still offer a
license to use the technology.

Yes. They want 8% of the full retail cost of the saw in royalties.

Ouch, that sound rather pricey just for a license. That would probably add
a minimum of 20% to the cost of a cabinet saw between the device and the
royalty. Higher percentage on a contractor model.

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
news:NFoEg.2064$117.1344@trndny09...

"Chris Friesen" wrote in message
...


Ouch, that sound rather pricey just for a license. That would probably
add a minimum of 20% to the cost of a cabinet saw between the device and
the royalty. Higher percentage on a contractor model.


Higher yes but I suspect that you get a much better saw in the long run.
The $600 TS with a 20% mark up is now the $720 TS with a more robust trunion
and arbor. It would have to be built better to withstand the shock of
stopping the blade.
Given that however, I think the cost may be higher depending on what grade
you buy or sell. IIRC SawStop said that it adds some where in the $250
range to the actual cost of a saw. Retrofitting if possible would be much
more expensive. A $1000 saw would go for $1350 including the 8% royalty.
A $2000 saw would be slightly better at $2430 including the 8%. That's now.
If every one added the feature I suspect that prices would settle back down
to what they are now or the equivalent considering current dollar value
after the competition becomes competitive.

If you wait 5 years the saws will likely go up 20% in price anyway without
improvements. I paid $1300 for my Jet cabinet saw 7 years ago. I bet I
would have to pay more than 25% extra today.

But car safety is about protecting the passengers and bystanders from
the driver, too. The saw stop only protects the user (by "user" I
include assistants, who are responsible for their own actions too), so
the car analogy is inappropriate.

Totally appropriate. I was using the air bags as only an example of a
mandated safety devise that results in cheaper insurance premiums as would
likely be the case with the type device that may be mandated for TS's.

So let's get down to business: Have you shelled out the bucks for
SawStop? No? Why not? You want to mandate something for everyone
else which you haven't adopted yourself?

"Leon" wrote in message
t...


Given that however, I think the cost may be higher depending on what grade
you buy or sell. IIRC SawStop said that it adds some where in the $250
range to the actual cost of a saw. Retrofitting if possible would be much
more expensive. A $1000 saw would go for $1350 including the 8%
royalty. A $2000 saw would be slightly better at $2430 including the 8%.

As a side note, because the government no longer regulates electricity
prices in Houston and much of Texas I now pay 50% more for electricity this
year than I did last year. I get no added benefits. At least with the
increase in price of the TS you get some added benefit. ;~)

A bit farther OT but maybe something you might want to consider since all of
us buy electricity. For years the local electric company said to raise you
thermostat in the summer and lower it in the winter to save electricity.
That certainly does make sense. Because I work out side in the garage I
would set my thermostat on 86 degrees during the day and 78 in the evening.
86 degrees feels good compared to 95 outside so I tolerated it.
Starting in April this year I started setting my thermostat on 82 during the
day and left the 78 alone for the evenings.
From mid April till now compared to the same period last summer I have used
26 less kilowatt hours electricity.
A neighbor who owns an AC business told me that the more often a compressor
cycles and shorter the cycle period of an AC compressor the more efficient
it becomes. My AC is now 11 years old and has used less electricity this
summer than it has since 2000 and my house is 4 degrees cooler during the
day. No refrigerant has been added since it was installed 11 years ago.

"Larry Bud" wrote in message
ups.com...

So let's get down to business: Have you shelled out the bucks for
SawStop? No? Why not? You want to mandate something for everyone
else which you haven't adopted yourself?


Just as easy to ask, Have you shelled out the bucks for a SawStop? You do
not want every one to benefit from something because you have not tested it
your self?

I am entitled to my opinion as are you.

On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 12:42:15 -0600, Chris Friesen
wrote:

Leon wrote:
"DJ Delorie" wrote in message

Ah, but they can't. It's patented.

SawStop offered and I would likely think that they would still offer a
license to use the technology.

Yes. They want 8% of the full retail cost of the saw in royalties.

Chris

Thanks Chris - I looked and could not find this important info.
Thats a margin breaker...likely to be something like 30% of the cost
breakdown.
It would be my opinion that we should not disillusion ourselves that
the inventor cares about saving fingers. Its all about the $$. IMO, in
his victory he saw money not safety. Thats not to say I blame him but
lets call a spade a spade.

On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 14:09:33 GMT, "Leon"
wrote:


"Dhakala" wrote in message
roups.com...

Leon wrote:
"brianlanning" wrote in message
ups.com...
http://slashdot.org/articles/06/08/14/1241211.shtml


Cool. It was only a matter of time before enough people would see the
value
in such a product. It could very well help keep everyone's insurance
premiums in check.

The news coverage suggests that the saw industry will never use the
SawStop; the inventor/advocate is causing manufacturers tons of
heartburn. They'll come up with something of their own to satisfy
government regulations, after they lobby to water down those
regulations.

Well if it makes manufacturers come out with a better safety device that
will be good. I suspect that once the cost goes up for those manufacturers
and costs get passed on to the consumer that a watered down version may turn
consumers off to that brand. Right now the SawStop is in the price range
of the better built saws. If the cost goes up for other saw manufacturers
and requires similar pricing to the consumer so that they can comply they
will have to start competing with SawStops quality and safety features
rather than price alone, as it stands now. Time will tell. Regardless, as
time passes and more people are exposed to the SawStop, the saw may become
the new standard to compare to.


Damned shame. The guy has spent a lot of time and money trying to save
fingers.

While I appreciate his concern, I have a bit of concern myself when I
think about one of my $100 blades being welded into an aluminum block.
Granted, it's cheaper than reattaching a finger, but if it has a
misfire even once a year, the cost of that saw is way too high in the
long run. I've been doing construction for a little under a decade,
and I could count the number of guys I've met with missing fingers on
one hand- and that would still be true even if I had cut a few of
those fingers off... which I haven't. Grandpa lost a few fingers,
but that was in a press at a tire factory. My dad lost a foot, but
that was on a hay elevator on a farm. Never met a guy who lost a body
part woodworking, though there are plenty of scars around, usually
from chisels, pealed fingers (from hitting them with a waffle headed
hammer) and nails sticking out of boards. Saws of any type are more
likely to cut their own cords off than take off your fingers, if
observation is worth anything.

Given that obsevation, I still feel just fine using my tools even
without a blade stopper. I'd prefer to see good riving knives as
standard equipment on table saws, rather than the crappy lexan shields
that never want to stay aligned properly.

All that being said, I did cut one of my fingers pretty severely with
a saw once... but it was a handsaw, and I was pruning a bush. Too bad
there wasn't a saw stop that time.

"Joe Bemier" wrote in message
...


It would be my opinion that we should not disillusion ourselves that
the inventor cares about saving fingers. Its all about the $$. IMO, in
his victory he saw money not safety. Thats not to say I blame him but
lets call a spade a spade.

LOL... All manufacturers are in it for the MONEY. This one just happens to
be offering additional safety that others feel is not important.

On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 21:08:55 GMT, "Leon"
wrote:


"Joe Bemier" wrote in message
.. .


It would be my opinion that we should not disillusion ourselves that
the inventor cares about saving fingers. Its all about the $$. IMO, in
his victory he saw money not safety. Thats not to say I blame him but
lets call a spade a spade.

LOL... All manufacturers are in it for the MONEY. This one just happens to
be offering additional safety that others feel is not important.


Agreed. But if you read this thread thoroughly you'll find some
statements that make it seem as though this guy is doing it to save
fingers - maybe so, but that is not his primary goal, in my opinion.
If it were he could offer the license for a more reasonable price.
So to repeat myself its about calling a spade a spade.

"Leon" wrote in message
t...

"BB" wrote in message
news:JCnEg.56098$zc2.16305@trnddc06...

Your arguments about insurance prices dropping do not stand up to
scrutiny -
when was the last time you had an insurance agent ask you if you use a
table
saw?

January 2005 and he saw my damaged thumb. We alos talked about whether I
needed extra insurance to occasionally haul manufactured goods to a
customer. He ultimately offered me lower home owner and auto rates and
this
year the rates have come down about 15%.

Yes it would be a factor for a place like Woodcraft that has classes
for folks but for individuals it is not.

My personal experience proves otherwise.

Actually it is based on your sample of "one" which is not statistically
valid. . .


I agree that safety is important but you seem intent on removing any
responsibility from the user for their stupidity. . . A table saw can be
used safely but not by idiots.

Absolutely true and also absolutely ture is the fact that ANYONE including
you can have an accident on a TS.
I am absolutely not trying ro remove user responsibility. I simply want
insurance premiums to resude for everyone and for there to be less
injuries.

Yes I would like insurance premiums to decrease but to do that we need to
get rid of all the lawyers. Do you know how much of the price of a ladder is
due to the liability insurance the manufacturer has to pay?


I have a 5HP Left Tilt Unisaw in my shop with a Biesmeyer splitter - it
is
safe to use as long as I follow the rules - if I don't then it is my
fault
not the governments because they do not mandate that everyone use a
SawStop.

Blame the tool manufacturers that decided to not make their saws safer for
the inevetable mandate.
If you believe that using a saw safely will save your butt you are pretty
naive.

I do know that using it safely will reduce the chance of injury but not
necessarily remove it entirely. But life is full of risks - I could slip in
the shower, get hit walking to the mailbox, get struck by lightening, shot
is a drive by shooting. . . et al. I refuse to become paranoid about
"something that MIGHT happen to me".


I refuse to allow the government to tell me what kind of table saw I can
buy - there are much more dangerous things they do little about - cancer
caused by tobacco kills how many people a year?

Did you buy your TS new? If so you bought a guard that the government
requires it to have.

The guard was a POS and was removed. Even use of a (good) guard does not
remove all danger.

It sounds like you simply want to go against the government, period. The
government could simply out law tobacco and that would take care of future
generations. But people like you would not like the government
interfeering
with you doing harm to your self. Why not eleminate the problem to start
with.

I feel that government is too intrusive. I am not a socialist - history
shows that it is ultimately unworkable. You seem to have a belief that
government can solve all the problems. The recent fiasco with the TSA and
operating from fear not logic is getting a bit old.

Roughly 45,000 people die in
the US in traffic accidents every year (half of which involve drinking
and
driving). A few missing digits while not wonderful hardly rates high for
things that require government interference. . .

What's your point?

If you cannot get it then doubt it would do much good to explain. . .

BB

"Chris Friesen" wrote in message
...
Leon wrote:
"DJ Delorie" wrote in message

Ah, but they can't. It's patented.

SawStop offered and I would likely think that they would still offer a
license to use the technology.

Yes. They want 8% of the full retail cost of the saw in royalties.

Chris

This is onerous since usual royalties for IP are in the .5-2% range. Also in
a manufacturing environment that translates into a 16-20% of the
manufacturers cost to build. Hardly a commercial viable proposition.

BB

"Leon" wrote in message
t...

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
news:NFoEg.2064$117.1344@trndny09...

"Chris Friesen" wrote in message
...


Ouch, that sound rather pricey just for a license. That would probably
add a minimum of 20% to the cost of a cabinet saw between the device and
the royalty. Higher percentage on a contractor model.


Higher yes but I suspect that you get a much better saw in the long run.
The $600 TS with a 20% mark up is now the $720 TS with a more robust
trunion
and arbor. It would have to be built better to withstand the shock of
stopping the blade.
Given that however, I think the cost may be higher depending on what grade
you buy or sell. IIRC SawStop said that it adds some where in the $250
range to the actual cost of a saw. Retrofitting if possible would be much
more expensive. A $1000 saw would go for $1350 including the 8%
royalty.
A $2000 saw would be slightly better at $2430 including the 8%. That's
now.
If every one added the feature I suspect that prices would settle back
down
to what they are now or the equivalent considering current dollar value
after the competition becomes competitive.

If you wait 5 years the saws will likely go up 20% in price anyway without
improvements. I paid $1300 for my Jet cabinet saw 7 years ago. I bet I
would have to pay more than 25% extra today.

Adding the $250 required to as the feature PLUS the royalty is a deal buster
since it mean they would be getting $20 per saw just from the $250 in
additional parts cost. Good the see that the Sawstop boys are not greedy or
anything. Plus I am willing to bet that even though you license the
technology they assume no liability for injuries from it failing to operate
properly.

It seems quite clear that the reason the saw makers decided not to use it
was due to that fact that it made NO SENSE financially.

BB

"Joe Bemier" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 12:42:15 -0600, Chris Friesen
wrote:

Leon wrote:
"DJ Delorie" wrote in message

Ah, but they can't. It's patented.

SawStop offered and I would likely think that they would still offer a
license to use the technology.

Yes. They want 8% of the full retail cost of the saw in royalties.

Chris

Thanks Chris - I looked and could not find this important info.
Thats a margin breaker...likely to be something like 30% of the cost
breakdown.
It would be my opinion that we should not disillusion ourselves that
the inventor cares about saving fingers. Its all about the $$. IMO, in
his victory he saw money not safety. Thats not to say I blame him but
lets call a spade a spade.

Agreed

BB

On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 17:08:15 GMT, "Leon"
wrote:


"DJ Delorie" wrote in message
...
.

Snip


But car safety is about protecting the passengers and bystanders from
the driver, too. The saw stop only protects the user (by "user" I
include assistants, who are responsible for their own actions too), so
the car analogy is inappropriate.

Totally appropriate. I was using the air bags as only an example of a
mandated safety devise that results in cheaper insurance premiums as would
likely be the case with the type device that may be mandated for TS's.
SNIPPO

A huge cost, at the moment. I could buy six table saws for the cost
of one saw stop.

And I could buy 20 TS's for the cost that you pay for those 6.
You could buy 6 TS's for the cost of 1 Powermatic 66.

It would be better to compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges.

For a similar class and built TS the actual numbers may only be 50% more
expense at worst.

For a SawStop Cabinet Saw with rip fence you pay about $3100. Amazon has a
3 hp PM66 for $3100.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00...lance&n=228013


People on this group tend to discuss the sawstop safety feature with
larger, expensive tablesaws in mind. However, if mandated, the sawstop
device would be required on all saws, from the $99 benchtop to the
$100,000 GEEWHIZBANG Commercial model. Now I don't care how many are
made, the cost of the sawstop will never get below a lowend tablesaw
cost and the structure required to simply put this type of feature on
a saw is way beyond the structure of a benchtop saw. Therefore any
such requirement simply eliminates the whole lowend market, which in
reality is probably a major part if mot the majority of the market in
terms of units sold. I dare say that if air bags and seatbelts doubled
or tripled the cost of the average car and virtually eliminated the
ability to make and sell anything smaller or less costly than higher
end 4 door sedans, there is no way they would have become required
equipment on cars, regardless of their life saving potential.

BTW I cannot concieve of any way that you could redesign my saw, a
Shopsmith, to accept such a device and Shopsmith (already a very niche
market company with financial issues) would simply go out of business.
Dayton Ohio would lose jobs.

Dave Hall

"BB" wrote in message news:_vyEg.9026$5M.453@trnddc02...


Adding the $250 required to as the feature PLUS the royalty is a deal
buster
since it mean they would be getting $20 per saw just from the $250 in
additional parts cost.

Perhaps a deal breaker for you, but not of others.

Good the see that the Sawstop boys are not greedy or
anything.

Yeah, the deal seems reasonable to me.


Plus I am willing to bet that even though you license the
technology they assume no liability for injuries from it failing to
operate
properly.

It could tahe that path or maybe not.


It seems quite clear that the reason the saw makers decided not to use it
was due to that fact that it made NO SENSE financially.

And that very well may be their problem. Most every one does not like the
path that Delta is being taken down.

"BB" wrote in message news:%qyEg.8990$5M.505@trnddc02...

Actually it is based on your sample of "one" which is not statistically
valid. . .

Say what you want. It is a real statistic compared to all of your
assumbtions.





Yes I would like insurance premiums to decrease but to do that we need to
get rid of all the lawyers. Do you know how much of the price of a ladder
is
due to the liability insurance the manufacturer has to pay?

The cost if every thing is affect by something. You either agree to pay or
you don't.




I do know that using it safely will reduce the chance of injury but not
necessarily remove it entirely. But life is full of risks - I could slip
in
the shower, get hit walking to the mailbox, get struck by lightening, shot
is a drive by shooting. . . et al. I refuse to become paranoid about
"something that MIGHT happen to me".

So you own absolutely no health home or auto insurance?



I refuse to allow the government to tell me what kind of table saw I
can
buy - there are much more dangerous things they do little about -
cancer
caused by tobacco kills how many people a year?

Did you buy your TS new? If so you bought a guard that the government
requires it to have.

The guard was a POS and was removed. Even use of a (good) guard does not
remove all danger.

Did you chang you mind? First you refuse to allow the government to tell
you what kind of saw to buy, next you let some things through as
acknowledged by the fact that you bought a saw with a required guard.
I agree that nothing is going to cover all instances regarding safety.



I feel that government is too intrusive. I am not a socialist - history
shows that it is ultimately unworkable. You seem to have a belief that
government can solve all the problems. The recent fiasco with the TSA and
operating from fear not logic is getting a bit old.

I do not seem to think that government can solve all things. I simply think
that of all the things that the government gets involved in, this particular
situation is a good one.




Roughly 45,000 people die in
the US in traffic accidents every year (half of which involve drinking
and
driving). A few missing digits while not wonderful hardly rates high
for
things that require government interference. . .

What's your point?

If you cannot get it then doubt it would do much good to explain. . .

Well certainly you are not suggesting that the government get involved with
practicing medicine.

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 17:08:15 GMT, "Leon"
wrote:

People on this group tend to discuss the sawstop safety feature with
larger, expensive tablesaws in mind. However, if mandated, the sawstop
device would be required on all saws, from the $99 benchtop to the
$100,000 GEEWHIZBANG Commercial model. Now I don't care how many are
made, the cost of the sawstop will never get below a lowend tablesaw
cost and the structure required to simply put this type of feature on
a saw is way beyond the structure of a benchtop saw.

1973 The 4 function electronic calculator came to market from TI. Retail
price, $129.00
1975 The electronic calculator with memory and square root functions could
be bought for $14.95



BTW I cannot concieve of any way that you could redesign my saw, a
Shopsmith, to accept such a device and Shopsmith (already a very niche
market company with financial issues) would simply go out of business.
Dayton Ohio would lose jobs.

If Shopsmith is already in financial trouble then the writing is on the
wall. The threat of the SawStop technology is not at fault.

On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 14:02:29 GMT, "Leon"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 17:08:15 GMT, "Leon"
wrote:

People on this group tend to discuss the sawstop safety feature with
larger, expensive tablesaws in mind. However, if mandated, the sawstop
device would be required on all saws, from the $99 benchtop to the
$100,000 GEEWHIZBANG Commercial model. Now I don't care how many are
made, the cost of the sawstop will never get below a lowend tablesaw
cost and the structure required to simply put this type of feature on
a saw is way beyond the structure of a benchtop saw.

1973 The 4 function electronic calculator came to market from TI. Retail
price, $129.00
1975 The electronic calculator with memory and square root functions could
be bought for $14.95

I'm sorry, but WTF does this have to do with the discussion? The
calculator is an elctronic device almost in its entirety and the cost
came down because of the ability to produce semiconductor chips at
etrememly low cost per unit. If memory serves, TI didn't have a
monopoly or charge a significant royalty either. They certainly did
not attempt to have anyone in government say you were no longer
allowed to buy adding machines or comptrometers. In any case, the
sawstop device is mostly mechanical with a little electronic sensing
technology thrown in. There will certainly be some economies of scale
and from improvements in design and manufacturing, but nothing that is
even in the realm of electronics industry from the 1970s to
present.The costs of the electronics has already benefited from the
radical decline in semiconductor costs, but the springs, aluminum
blocks, and heavy steel components of the sawstop device will not
presumably see such cost reductions. Nor, I presume, will the costs of
the blades and other consumable aspects of the unit. With even a cheap
blade and assuming some fairly high unit cost reduction due to higher
production volumes on the aluminum blocks, triggering the system will
likely cost at least half as much as the saw.


BTW I cannot concieve of any way that you could redesign my saw, a
Shopsmith, to accept such a device and Shopsmith (already a very niche
market company with financial issues) would simply go out of business.
Dayton Ohio would lose jobs.

If Shopsmith is already in financial trouble then the writing is on the
wall. The threat of the SawStop technology is not at fault.

I think I said "financial issues" not "in financial trouble". They
have had financial issues for the last 15 to 20 years with few
profitable years in that time and they have shrunk (try to find a
Shopsmith retail store - they don't exist anymore except for the
factory store in Dayton). However, they have stayed in business and
have provided jobs in Dayton (and a few traveling sales/demonstration
people) for all of those years. I am sure that those employees will be
happy that you wrote off their livelyhood so cavalierly.

My bottom line point was that there are many considerations before
mandating costly safety requirements and you can't simply consider the
commercial or high end part of the market. Again, if automobile safety
devices such as seatbelts and airbags had eliminated large segments of
the market they would not have been required. I am not against
resonable safety requirements. I don't support eliminating guards, (or
seat belts for that matter) but it can go too far and in my opinion
mandating sawstop technology is really going too far. Safety advocates
that get silly with their rules and requirements can easily screw up
real safety programs by making safety so onerous and silly that nobody
complies and once non-complince becomes routine, even rational and
effective safety considerations get ignored.

Dave Hall