"Hank Gillette" wrote in message
...
In article , "J"
wrote:

Airbags are practical and were not mandated until they were proven. Now
they
are a selling point. Manufacturers add them because they help sell cars.
In
my opinion Sawstop is not practical. But, if you want one, it appears
that
they will sell you one, so feel free. Let us know how it works out.

How do they help sell cars? They're required. At least some sort of
passive restraint system is required, and I don't think anyone likes the
seat belts that wrap themselves around you automatically.

I hear ads on the radio touting "side cushion airbags" and other safety
features in certain european cars. Of course I am making a big assumption
that the car companies are equiping their cars with them and advertising
them because they are of economic benefit to the car companies.

I'm not in favor of requiring safety equipment that hasn't been proven.
Nor am I in favor of writing a requirement such that only one company
can supply it if there are alternative choices, whether it's SawStop or
Halliburton. I'm just saying that I don't think the SawStop people are
bad, based on what they've done so far.

And I do, based on what they tried to do.

-j

Hank Gillette responds:


So are you saying that airbags are causing people to drive more
recklessly?


Did you READ what I wrote?


I read it. You left open the possibility that you think the airbags are
a factor.

"but it sometimes seems to me that adding extra safety gear to cars and
SUVs gave a lot of people a sense of invulnerability that is a bit
frightening."

What point did you make that you think I missed?

Read what you wrote. You state that I did say it caused it. I said it might,
and that it seemed to ME. That doesn't make a statement other than that this is
my opinion, which means I did NOT present it as a statement of invincible fact.

I don't know if it does. It seems to me that it does. You don't know if it
doesn't. It seems to you that it doesn't, or so your reaction appears to
denote.

That is known as a difference of opinion, but there is not much in the way of
fact on either side.

Charlie Self
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire." Sir Winston
Churchill

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 15:46:49 -0500, Hank Gillette wrote:
In article ,
Dave Hinz wrote:

Public good is _not_ their motivation. That's fine, really it is, but
pretending it is is what gets me.

I don't see any conflict between being interested in the public good and
wanting to make a profit at the same time.

That's not what I'm saying. If you read their petitions to the government,
they did the "it's for the chillllldrun" method of emotionalizing the
issue as a reason for why they should be given a monopoly. It's disgusting
to me when a company claims they're doing something for one reason, when
really they're just in it for profit. Fine. Be in it for profit, that's
perfectly valid, but be honest about it.

If the standard is to give
away anything that would benefit the public, why don't I get my air bags
for free? Why can't I just walk into the store and walk out with a fire
extinguisher without paying?

Yes, you're missing my point.

I _think_ I understand your ire at their attempt to make their device
mandatory. I guess it just doesn't bug me in the same way. I'd like to
see the justification from the saw manufacturers as to why they were not
interested. That has the potential to irritate me much more.

Let's see. It has never shipped a unit to a consumer, and the company
who makes this non-existant product wanted to force everyone to use
their device, which doesn't yet exist. Yeah, I can't see any
reason the manufacturers would tell 'em to go away, can you?

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 13:31:54 -0800, J wrote:
"Hank Gillette" wrote in message
...

How do they help sell cars? They're required. At least some sort of
passive restraint system is required, and I don't think anyone likes the
seat belts that wrap themselves around you automatically.

I hear ads on the radio touting "side cushion airbags" and other safety
features in certain european cars. Of course I am making a big assumption
that the car companies are equiping their cars with them and advertising
them because they are of economic benefit to the car companies.

Oddly enough, it could actually be because they want their customers
to survive a severe crash so they can live to buy another of their
cars. Not all safety equipment usage is there because it's a direct
monetary gain, either.

I'm not in favor of requiring safety equipment that hasn't been proven.
Nor am I in favor of writing a requirement such that only one company
can supply it if there are alternative choices, whether it's SawStop or
Halliburton. I'm just saying that I don't think the SawStop people are
bad, based on what they've done so far.

And I do, based on what they tried to do.

Yup.

On 13 Dec 2004 16:48:06 GMT, Bruce Barnett
wrote:

I guess my point is this:

1) Some people are freakin' careless.
2) Some people are freakin' dumb as a post.

Cut enough fingers off and they'll stop driving too.

There _are_ people dumb enough
that opposable thumbs are wasted on them.

In article , "ted harris" wrote:
In newsave Hinz typed:
snip
Public good is _not_ their motivation. That's fine, really it is, but
pretending it is is what gets me.

You mean the way the manufacturers that won't use the technology?...

I cannot believe the **** I am reading here...

Neither can I.

Sawstop was apparently invented around 1998 or so. This guy and his
employees have been fought around every corner for the last 7 yeays by
skeptical woodworkers, and muscled by the manufacturers.

"Fought around every corner" by the woodworkers, and "muscled by the
manufacturers"? That's a bit over the top, don't you think? How, exactly, does
declining to purchase a product that doesn't exist constitute "fighting"? How,
exactly, does declining to license any particular technology constitute
"muscling"? It's not like the manufacturers of other table saws tried to
prevent SawStop from coming to market; all they did was say "no thanks".

Looks to me like
he has devoted his life to getting this thing going.

Looks more like he has devoted his life to making a buck. Nothing wrong with
that, of course, but he's not exactly a philanthropist.

Now, after almost a
decade of rejection, sawstop is delivering saws as we speak.

Name one person, just *one*, who actually has one in his shop. I may have
missed it, but I haven't seen any evidence so far that they have yet shipped
any product to customers.

I wonder how
many times Steve Gass had to borrow money to feed his family and keep the
electricity on?

My money is on "zero". The guy's a lawyer, for pete's sake, and the United
States isn't exactly overrun with starving lawyers.

I'll be that even now he is in debt up to his eyeballs.

You probably lose that bet too.

He believes in this technology so much that he stuck his finger in it twice.

Granted...

Someday, all you naysayers and the rest of the world will view this
technology as one of the most important advances in rotational cutting
safety.

Keeping my fingers away from the freakin' blade is enough rotational cutting
safety to keep me happy.

Enough of your ridiculous conspiracy theories!

What "ridiculous conspiracy theories" are you referring to? I mean, besides
"fought around every corner... by skeptical woodworkers" and "muscled by the
manufacturers."

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

Fun times. Did the cops stop over to see what you were up to as well?

It was Wisconsin.
It was the winter.
It was cold even without the wind-chill.

I'll bet they saw me and decided to go bust some real villains that day..

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

Yes, it does. Hey Patrick, was this the empty parking lot at State Fair
Park, by any chance? ISTR we're both Milwaukee locals.

No, sorry. This is when I lived in that 'Far North Chicago Suburb' - Lake
Geneva. Seem to recall it was either the High School or Sentry grocery
store.

Ya know - now that I'm out *here* - they've actually done something pretty
cool. See: http://www.winterdrive.com/
I came out here, via a long layover in Texas and suggested that most of them
ought'a invest in the school.

"GregP" wrote in message
...


I suspect that for a given cost, it can be dropped mre quickly
than it can be stopped.

Interesting. Dunno.
Springs that slam a hunk of Al into a spinning blade, spanning an inch or
less of space.
Or springs that need to retract the blade up to 3" into the saw.

Good question for their engineers.

"ted harris" wrote in message

I cannot believe the **** I am reading here...

I won't **** on your leg if you don't try to **** on mine.

Did you ever hear of their attempt to legislate the _mandatory_ use of their
technology?

That fact sort puts a lie to the altruistic motives in which you attempt to
cloak the inventor.

Just my opinion, though.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

"Andy Dingley" wrote in message
...
On 13 Dec 2004 16:48:06 GMT, Bruce Barnett
wrote:

I guess my point is this:

1) Some people are freakin' careless.
2) Some people are freakin' dumb as a post.

Cut enough fingers off and they'll stop driving too.

There _are_ people dumb enough
that opposable thumbs are wasted on them.


How can you drink beer without thumbs?

-j

ted harris wrote:

In newsave Hinz typed:
snip
Public good is _not_ their motivation. That's fine, really it is, but
pretending it is is what gets me.

You mean the way the manufacturers that won't use the technology?...

I cannot believe the **** I am reading here...
Sawstop was apparently invented around 1998 or so. This guy and his
employees have been fought around every corner for the last 7 yeays by
skeptical woodworkers, and muscled by the manufacturers. Looks to me
like
he has devoted his life to getting this thing going. Now, after almost a
decade of rejection, sawstop is delivering saws as we speak. I wonder how
many times Steve Gass had to borrow money to feed his family and keep the
electricity on? I'll be that even now he is in debt up to his eyeballs.
He believes in this technology so much that he stuck his finger in it
twice. Someday, all you naysayers and the rest of the world will view this
technology as one of the most important advances in rotational cutting
safety. Enough of your ridiculous conspiracy theories!

Lemme guess--you're really a sock puppet for Steve Gass.

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

Doug Miller wrote:

In article , "ted harris"
wrote:
In newsave Hinz typed:
snip
Public good is _not_ their motivation. That's fine, really it is, but
pretending it is is what gets me.

You mean the way the manufacturers that won't use the technology?...

I cannot believe the **** I am reading here...

Neither can I.

Sawstop was apparently invented around 1998 or so. This guy and his
employees have been fought around every corner for the last 7 yeays by
skeptical woodworkers, and muscled by the manufacturers.

"Fought around every corner" by the woodworkers, and "muscled by the
manufacturers"? That's a bit over the top, don't you think? How, exactly,
does declining to purchase a product that doesn't exist constitute
"fighting"? How, exactly, does declining to license any particular
technology constitute "muscling"? It's not like the manufacturers of other
table saws tried to prevent SawStop from coming to market; all they did
was say "no thanks".

Looks to me like
he has devoted his life to getting this thing going.

Looks more like he has devoted his life to making a buck. Nothing wrong
with that, of course, but he's not exactly a philanthropist.

Now, after almost a
decade of rejection, sawstop is delivering saws as we speak.

Name one person, just *one*, who actually has one in his shop. I may have
missed it, but I haven't seen any evidence so far that they have yet
shipped any product to customers.

I wonder how
many times Steve Gass had to borrow money to feed his family and keep the
electricity on?

My money is on "zero". The guy's a lawyer, for pete's sake, and the United
States isn't exactly overrun with starving lawyers.

You might be surprised. I used to work with an engineer who had passed the
bar--engineering paid better. I used to have a secretary who had passed
the bar. A friend of mine is married to a graduate of Yale Law School who
has successfully defended asbestos suits. He hasn't worked in about ten
years. There was a time when everybody who could went to law school
planning to get rich quick, with the result that lawyers became a glut on
the market. Not saying that Gass is one of the starving ones, but "passed
the bar" != "well off financially".

I'll be that even now he is in debt up to his eyeballs.

You probably lose that bet too.

He believes in this technology so much that he stuck his finger in it
twice.

Granted...

Someday, all you naysayers and the rest of the world will view this
technology as one of the most important advances in rotational cutting
safety.

Keeping my fingers away from the freakin' blade is enough rotational
cutting safety to keep me happy.

Enough of your ridiculous conspiracy theories!

What "ridiculous conspiracy theories" are you referring to? I mean,
besides "fought around every corner... by skeptical woodworkers" and
"muscled by the manufacturers."

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

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

GregP wrote:

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 13:23:55 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

Actually, they _are_ those early 60s Caddies. Since you can't get a car
like that anymore, people buy SUVs in order to have the same amount of
space and comfort.

Just about any minivan does that a lot better than just
about any SUV.

Yes, but it's a minivan. The Caddy had social connotations as well.

And those big old Caddies didn't really
have all that much room in them, especially if you
considered their ponderous gas-eating bulk requiring
a large military presence in the Mideast to support, just
like the majority of the SUVs out now.

If we all drove mo-peds that "large military presence" would still be
required. By the way, what percentage of the US oil supply has been
provided by that "large military presence" to date?

You might want to get some cortisone or something in that knee.

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

Hank Gillette wrote:

In article , "J"
wrote:

Airbags are practical and were not mandated until they were proven. Now
they are a selling point. Manufacturers add them because they help sell
cars. In my opinion Sawstop is not practical. But, if you want one, it
appears that they will sell you one, so feel free. Let us know how it
works out.

How do they help sell cars? They're required.

Friend of mine spent her last few bucks on a used Mercedes because it had
side airbags. They do sell cars to the safety conscious--the same crowd
that wrecked Volvo's image in an earlier time.

At least some sort of
passive restraint system is required, and I don't think anyone likes the
seat belts that wrap themselves around you automatically.

I'm not in favor of requiring safety equipment that hasn't been proven.
Nor am I in favor of writing a requirement such that only one company
can supply it if there are alternative choices, whether it's SawStop or
Halliburton. I'm just saying that I don't think the SawStop people are
bad, based on what they've done so far.

Personally I don't like anybody who lobbies for legislation that will
restrict my activities and give him a personal reward at the same time.


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

In article ,
Dave Hinz wrote:

I'm not in favor of requiring safety equipment that hasn't been proven.

You're not? You seemed to be before.

I'm sorry that I gave that impression. My point was supposed to be that
mandatory safety equipment is not inherently bad. I also assumed that it
was a given that it should be proven to work before being required.

--
Hank Gillette

In news:Mike Marlow typed:
There's no reason it has to add that kind of cost to a table saw. There's
nothing in it that costs that much. Granted, it's a capitalist world and
the owner of the idea is entitled to charge what the market will bear, but
there's no reason for it to double or triple the cost of a low end saw.

Here is a direct quote from the FAQ page ont he sawstop website;
http://www.sawstop.com/faq.htm#1

How much will a saw with the SawStop system cost?
We estimate that the retail price of a contractors saw will increase by
approximately $50-100 after a manufacturer retools to add the SawStop system
as original equipment.
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

In newsave Hinz typed:
snip
Public good is _not_ their motivation. That's fine, really it is, but
pretending it is is what gets me.

You mean the way the manufacturers that won't use the technology?...

I cannot believe the **** I am reading here...
Sawstop was apparently invented around 1998 or so. This guy and his
employees have been fought around every corner for the last 7 yeays by
skeptical woodworkers, and muscled by the manufacturers. Looks to me like
he has devoted his life to getting this thing going. Now, after almost a
decade of rejection, sawstop is delivering saws as we speak. I wonder how
many times Steve Gass had to borrow money to feed his family and keep the
electricity on? I'll be that even now he is in debt up to his eyeballs. He
believes in this technology so much that he stuck his finger in it twice.
Someday, all you naysayers and the rest of the world will view this
technology as one of the most important advances in rotational cutting
safety. Enough of your ridiculous conspiracy theories!
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 14:48:32 -0600, "Swingman" wrote:


How much is the maunfacturer's per-unit liability insurance ?

How many units?


30,000

In article , "J. Clarke" wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
In article , "ted harris" wrote:
[snip]

I wonder how
many times Steve Gass had to borrow money to feed his family and keep the
electricity on?

My money is on "zero". The guy's a lawyer, for pete's sake, and the United
States isn't exactly overrun with starving lawyers.

You might be surprised. I used to work with an engineer who had passed the
bar--engineering paid better. [...] "passed the bar" != "well off financially".

And "engineering paid better" != "had to borrow money to feed his family and
keep the electricity on".

Which was my point, WRT ted harris's over-the-top bulls**t.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

"GregP" wrote in message
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 14:48:32 -0600, "Swingman" wrote:


How much is the maunfacturer's per-unit liability insurance ?

How many units?


30,000

Sawstop? ... you're dreaming.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 21:16:26 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:


If we all drove mo-peds that "large military presence" would still be
required. .....

There's always an excuse to just keep on tuckin', i guess.

By the way, what percentage of the US oil supply has been
provided by that "large military presence" to date?

Nowhere near enough for the death and money it's costing us.
And other people.

You might want to get some cortisone or something in that knee.

Actually,it feels like it's going to have to be replaced.

"Charles Spitzer" wrote in message
...

and a whole bunch of (usually) kids killed by them.


Well a lot of kids but in reality more kids are saved than with out the air
bags. With out air bags more kids would be killed. Even the Flu shot kills
some people.

"Hank Gillette" wrote in message news:hankgillette-



How do they help sell cars? They're required.

Only required for the front driver and passenger. Our car had the selling
feature of having additionally front side impact air bags and rear seat side
impact air bags.


At least some sort of passive restraint system is required, and I don't
think anyone likes the
seat belts that wrap themselves around you automatically.

I'm not in favor of requiring safety equipment that hasn't been proven.

Air bags have been proven. The insurance industry has figures to prove
that. You wold not get discounts for air bags if you car was not equipped
with them.

"patrick conroy" wrote in message news:i7r392-

Not to jump into the middle of this arg - but IIRC, one of the rags (C&D
and
R&T) had some fun here. They had run across some Driving School where the
instruction was to "lock 'em up and lock 'em up hard." I think they
brought
in some "semi-pro" drivers and tried to see who could stop shorter with
the
most control. A pro who put the foot down to the limit of locking, or an
amature who just stomped on the pedal.

The conditions were dry - and the locked up brakes consistently stopped
shorter.

I have never known or thought a car with ABS would stop shorter and I have
the background for working in the automotive industry for 23 years. It
simply helps you maintain control of the vehicle particularly when on an
inconsistent or slick surface. I have never really heard that ABS makes a
car stop shorter.

Leon responds:

I have never known or thought a car with ABS would stop shorter and I have
the background for working in the automotive industry for 23 years. It
simply helps you maintain control of the vehicle particularly when on an
inconsistent or slick surface. I have never really heard that ABS makes a
car stop shorter.

Well, I've been piddling with cars for more than twice that long, though not
often from an industry standpoint. But I had thought that ABS was supposed to
keep that sucker in a straight line, which generally will mean shorter stops
than does skidding, letting up on the brakes and correcting before slamming 'em
down again.

I'd like to see some test results--I'm sure someone did some at some
time--comparing ABS stop distances to an expert driver who pumps away with
abandon.

Of course, part of the problem is the number of drivers who perceive themselves
as experts, when most of them aren't even competent beginners when it comes to
emergency maneuvers.

Charlie Self
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire." Sir Winston
Churchill

Doug Miller wrote:

In article , "J. Clarke"
wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
In article , "ted harris" wrote:
[snip]

I wonder how
many times Steve Gass had to borrow money to feed his family and keep
the electricity on?

My money is on "zero". The guy's a lawyer, for pete's sake, and the
United States isn't exactly overrun with starving lawyers.

You might be surprised. I used to work with an engineer who had passed
the
bar--engineering paid better. [...] "passed the bar" != "well off
financially".

And "engineering paid better" != "had to borrow money to feed his family
and keep the electricity on".

Which was my point, WRT ted harris's over-the-top bulls**t.

But the guy who went to Yale, who I also mentioned, and who succesfully
defends asbestos suits _is_ about to lose his house. His wife is
supporting him working as a nurse, which given the state of her health is
likely to kill her.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

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

Leon wrote:


"patrick conroy" wrote in message news:i7r392-

Not to jump into the middle of this arg - but IIRC, one of the rags (C&D
and
R&T) had some fun here. They had run across some Driving School where the
instruction was to "lock 'em up and lock 'em up hard." I think they
brought
in some "semi-pro" drivers and tried to see who could stop shorter with
the
most control. A pro who put the foot down to the limit of locking, or an
amature who just stomped on the pedal.

The conditions were dry - and the locked up brakes consistently stopped
shorter.

I have never known or thought a car with ABS would stop shorter and I have
the background for working in the automotive industry for 23 years. It
simply helps you maintain control of the vehicle particularly when on an
inconsistent or slick surface. I have never really heard that ABS makes a
car stop shorter.

Coefficient of static friction is higher than coefficient of sliding
friction?

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

Charlie Self wrote:

Leon responds:

I have never known or thought a car with ABS would stop shorter and I have
the background for working in the automotive industry for 23 years. It
simply helps you maintain control of the vehicle particularly when on an
inconsistent or slick surface. I have never really heard that ABS makes a
car stop shorter.

Well, I've been piddling with cars for more than twice that long, though
not often from an industry standpoint. But I had thought that ABS was
supposed to keep that sucker in a straight line, which generally will mean
shorter stops than does skidding, letting up on the brakes and correcting
before slamming 'em down again.

Actually, it does a bit more than that--it allows steering control during
maximum performance braking. I remember Mercedes demonstrating the
original system--Rudi Uhlenhaut (apologies if I've misspelled his name)
took a new Mercedes flat out around the track at Indianapolis, with one of
the corners wetted down, slammed on the brakes coming into the wet curve,
and steered right through it with the brake pedal all the way down.

The old Bendix system that worked only on the back wheels kept it straight
but let the fronts lock and thus there was no steering control.

I'd like to see some test results--I'm sure someone did some at some
time--comparing ABS stop distances to an expert driver who pumps away with
abandon.

Of course, part of the problem is the number of drivers who perceive
themselves as experts, when most of them aren't even competent beginners
when it comes to emergency maneuvers.

Charlie Self
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire." Sir
Winston Churchill

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

"Charlie Self" wrote in message
...
Leon responds:

I have never known or thought a car with ABS would stop shorter and I have
the background for working in the automotive industry for 23 years. It
simply helps you maintain control of the vehicle particularly when on an
inconsistent or slick surface. I have never really heard that ABS makes a
car stop shorter.

Well, I've been piddling with cars for more than twice that long, though
not
often from an industry standpoint. But I had thought that ABS was supposed
to
keep that sucker in a straight line, which generally will mean shorter
stops
than does skidding, letting up on the brakes and correcting before
slamming 'em
down again.

ABS aslo greatly assists breaking when cornering if the need arises. The
ABS purpose is to keep all the wheels spinning until all have equal drag.
If one wheel locks up the vehicle will start to rotate. On a slick surface
you can easily loose control.

I'd like to see some test results--I'm sure someone did some at some
time--comparing ABS stop distances to an expert driver who pumps away with
abandon.

There is that Pumping term again.. LOL.. I recall my parents talking about
pumping the brakes. My recallolection of pumping brakes is sitting in a car
up on a lift and pumping the brake pedal then holding it down while the
mechanic opened the bleed valves on the wheel cylinders and calipers to
remove the air from the system. Those were the days when a brake job
automatically included rebuilding the wheel cylinders and calipers.
Anyway, I always applied the pressure to the brake pedal until I heard or
felt a change in the tires sound or felt a change in tire traction. For
most people I believe that stopping distances can be improved with ABS but
all things being equal sometimes skidding on a rough and stable surface can
stop a car rather quickly. In Houston you can lock up the tires on the
"Concrete" freeways and come to a stop rather quickly, then drive off with
flat sopts on your tires.


Of course, part of the problem is the number of drivers who perceive
themselves
as experts, when most of them aren't even competent beginners when it
comes to
emergency maneuvers.

Yeah...exactly. Houston is loaded with these people. I learned this
morning that there are 5,000 accidents every year in Houston simply from
people running stop lights. Basically when a light turns red it means 3
more cars are permitted to enter and cross the intersection. I missed that
in drivers ed and still cannot fint hat rule written anywhere. ;~) If you
stop for a red light when it turns red you might get rear ended.

"Charlie Self" wrote in message
...
Leon responds:

I have never known or thought a car with ABS would stop shorter and I have
the background for working in the automotive industry for 23 years. It
simply helps you maintain control of the vehicle particularly when on an
inconsistent or slick surface. I have never really heard that ABS makes a
car stop shorter.

Well, I've been piddling with cars for more than twice that long, though
not
often from an industry standpoint. But I had thought that ABS was supposed
to
keep that sucker in a straight line, which generally will mean shorter
stops
than does skidding, letting up on the brakes and correcting before
slamming 'em
down again.

that's for rear wheel only abs. 4 wheel abs lets you stop in turns.
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/proble...absbrakes.html

I'd like to see some test results--I'm sure someone did some at some
time--comparing ABS stop distances to an expert driver who pumps away with
abandon.

abs pulses at 10 times/second. i'm not sure an expert can do that, and they
for sure can't just pump the brake at a single wheel that is slipping. most
things i've read is that it is just about equal to an expert driver. it also
depends upon the surface: on loose sand/snow, abs can lengthen the stop
distance.

Of course, part of the problem is the number of drivers who perceive
themselves
as experts, when most of them aren't even competent beginners when it
comes to
emergency maneuvers.

Charlie Self
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire." Sir
Winston
Churchill

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 19:34:06 -0800, ted harris wrote:
In newsave Hinz typed:
snip
Public good is _not_ their motivation. That's fine, really it is, but
pretending it is is what gets me.

You mean the way the manufacturers that won't use the technology?...

WHAT technology, Ted? It doesn't ****ing work. They can't ship units.
They want to force people to use something that they can't even manufacture.

I cannot believe the **** I am reading here...
Sawstop was apparently invented around 1998 or so. This guy and his
employees have been fought around every corner for the last 7 yeays by
skeptical woodworkers, and muscled by the manufacturers.

If they can't get a workable product in 7 years, they either don't know
what they're doing, or they're trying to do something impossible.

Looks to me like
he has devoted his life to getting this thing going. Now, after almost a
decade of rejection, sawstop is delivering saws as we speak.

To whom, exactly? All I see on the website is a pre-order form, not a
"shipping today" saw. Hand-assembled demo units are all well and good,
but where's the beef?

I wonder how
many times Steve Gass had to borrow money to feed his family and keep the
electricity on? I'll be that even now he is in debt up to his eyeballs. He
believes in this technology so much that he stuck his finger in it twice.
Someday, all you naysayers and the rest of the world will view this
technology as one of the most important advances in rotational cutting
safety. Enough of your ridiculous conspiracy theories!

There's nothing "conspiracy theory" about saying that to date, Sawstop
is all talk and no product.

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 00:55:48 GMT, patrick conroy wrote:

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

Yes, it does. Hey Patrick, was this the empty parking lot at State Fair
Park, by any chance? ISTR we're both Milwaukee locals.

No, sorry. This is when I lived in that 'Far North Chicago Suburb' - Lake
Geneva. Seem to recall it was either the High School or Sentry grocery
store.

Gotcha. Why did I think you're from MKE then I wonder? Did you used to
have an execpc address?

Ya know - now that I'm out *here* - they've actually done something pretty
cool. See: http://www.winterdrive.com/

That _is_ cool. Looks like a lot of fun.

I came out here, via a long layover in Texas and suggested that most of them
ought'a invest in the school.

Neve hurts to know how the machine will handle.

Dave

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 22:09:28 -0500, Hank Gillette wrote:
In article ,
Dave Hinz wrote:

I'm not in favor of requiring safety equipment that hasn't been proven.

You're not? You seemed to be before.

I'm sorry that I gave that impression. My point was supposed to be that
mandatory safety equipment is not inherently bad. I also assumed that it
was a given that it should be proven to work before being required.

Then how do you reconcile this with supporting the Sawstop non-product
folks?

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 09:47:02 -0500, J. Clarke wrote:
Leon wrote:

I have never known or thought a car with ABS would stop shorter and I have
the background for working in the automotive industry for 23 years. It
simply helps you maintain control of the vehicle particularly when on an
inconsistent or slick surface. I have never really heard that ABS makes a
car stop shorter.

Coefficient of static friction is higher than coefficient of sliding
friction?

Depends on the surface, doesn't it? Ice vs. asphault, for instance?

ABS will thresshold brake on each of the four wheels, independantly. The
best driver can only thresshold brake on the slipperiest of the four
wheels. With ABS you've got 4 times as many inputs/outputs, and faster
reactions on top of it.

On 15 Dec 2004 14:28:31 GMT, Charlie Self wrote:

I'd like to see some test results--I'm sure someone did some at some
time--comparing ABS stop distances to an expert driver who pumps away with
abandon.

Well, the expert driver isn't "pumping with abandon", they're pushing _just_
shy of the skid point. ABS does the same thing, it's just better at measuring
it, and has four feet to push with instead of just one.

Of course, part of the problem is the number of drivers who perceive themselves
as experts, when most of them aren't even competent beginners when it comes to
emergency maneuvers.

Yup. I visit them regularly in ditches. The majority are drunk and/or
inexperienced, but I bet they think they're _all_ better than average
drivers.

Dave Hinz

In article , Dave Hinz wrote:

Yup. I visit them regularly in ditches. The majority are drunk and/or
inexperienced, but I bet they think they're _all_ better than average
drivers.

I remember reading a few years ago that a survey conducted by AAA showed that
somewhere in the vicinity of 80% of motorists think that they are better
drivers than average.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

Well, the expert driver isn't "pumping with abandon", they're pushing
_just_
shy of the skid point. ABS does the same thing, it's just better at
measuring
it, and has four feet to push with instead of just one.

Actually the driver regardless of how experienced is doing the braking of a
vehicle with
ABS. The ABS simply monitors the wheels from that point and insures that
they are all turning at the same speed. Typically it eases up on the wheel
or wheels that that are turning slower than the others.
That is probably what you were saying.

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 22:22:28 GMT, "Leon"
wrote:

Actually the driver regardless of how experienced is doing the braking of a
vehicle with
ABS. The ABS simply monitors the wheels from that point and insures that
they are all turning at the same speed. Typically it eases up on the wheel
or wheels that that are turning slower than the others.
That is probably what you were saying.

If you want to defeat most ABS systems just hit the brakes *real*
hard, immediately release them and nail them again. On most systems
you can get all four wheels stopped with this tactic. The system then
detects no differences in rotational speed (all are stopped) so
doesn't do anything while you merrily skid down the road.

Tim Douglass

http://www.DouglassClan.com

In article ,
Dave Hinz wrote:

I'm not in favor of requiring safety equipment that hasn't been proven.

You're not? You seemed to be before.

I'm sorry that I gave that impression. My point was supposed to be that
mandatory safety equipment is not inherently bad. I also assumed that it
was a given that it should be proven to work before being required.

Then how do you reconcile this with supporting the Sawstop non-product
folks?

Because I don't think they are evil just because the tried for the
government regulation. I don't know their true motivation. While I'm
sure that they would have been happy to get the regulation enacted, that
may not have been their primary motive. They may have been looking for
the publicity to get their product noticed. In that, they seemed to have
had some success.

My assumption was also that the government would not be so stupid as to
make a requirement for something unless it had been proven to be
available and reliable, and that the regulation would not be written in
such a way that would preclude the use of an alternate product should
one be developed.

As for their 'non-product' status, they are trying to get a complete
quality machine made, starting from scratch. If some of the existing
manufacturers had decided to license the product, it probably would have
been available much sooner.

--
Hank Gillette