|
In article , "ted harris" wrote:
In news:Doug Miller typed: SawStop has petitioned the Consumer Product Safety Commission to make their proprietary technology *mandatory*. How they finance it is irrelevant. The problem many of us have with their behavior is that having first failed in the marketplace, they are now attempting to use the government to force the adoption of a product that the free market decided it didn't want. Right, and the petition was rejected. As it should have been. Now they are manufacturing their own line of tooling with sawstop. Besides, the free market never decided they did not want it, it was once again the manufacturers lack of concern for the safety of the consumer that decided they did not want it. How is that a failure? So now you claim to be privy to the manufacturers' decision-making processes, and in your omniscience you can state with certainty that their rejection of SS was based entirely on lack of concern for safety. Economic reasons had nothing at all to do with it. Riiiiiiiiight. We' shall see if the free market wants it or not. -- 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. |
In article , Bruce Barnett wrote:
"J. Clarke" writes: There is no "false dilemma". If your saw doesn't work then you have to do something about it and the only real solution that does not involve fixing the saw is to [buy] a new saw. Why is this the "only real solution?" There are others as well. Care to suggest any? Seems obvious enough that if the saw doesn't work, the options are limited to: 1) repair it 2) replace it 3) don't use it -- 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. |
wrote in message ... On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 03:23:41 GMT, "Mike Marlow" wrote: "Doug Miller" wrote in message om... In article , "ted harris" wrote: In news:Doug Miller typed: In article , "ted harris" wrote: Sounds great to me...can't wait to order mine! You can *order* one any time you like, no waiting. It's actually *getting* one that you have to wait for. No, they are being delivered as we speak!! Are they really? Or is that more of their hype? C'mon Doug - didn't Steve Gass say he has two of them in the field... even as we speak? Meaning what, precisely? That he has two hand-built prototypes out for testing? He did not say they were in production. He did not say they were shipping. He did not say they were in inventory. This is the kind of statement you need to be very suspicious of. It sounds like more than it's actually saying. Ahem... psssssttt... that was (not-so)cleverly disguised sarcasm. You're expressing my point. Those two - or what ever number (small) though they may be, are the ones that have been there since the beginning. It's very suspicious when you hear claims that make it sound like production is up, things are shipping, stuff in the field and then the only information you can find points to the same two or three that have been there for a couple of years. That's getting some mileage out of those units. Credibility suffers. -- -Mike- |
"Doug Miller" wrote in message m... In article , "Mike Marlow" wrote: C'mon Doug - didn't Steve Gass say he has two of them in the field... even as we speak? I'm really not interested in what Steve Gass claims, as he's hardly an unbiased source. I'd put much more stock in a statement by someone not affiliated with SawStop, who says that he actually has one in his shop. I haven't seen that yet. G'dambit Doug - quit bending over when I'm taking aim... -- -Mike- |
Mike wrote:
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 21:06:06 -0500, "J. Clarke" wrote: If Delta put the Sawstop on the Unisaw at no change in price, would the presence of the Sawstop dissuade you from buying it? Delta also puts a splitter on that saw and that didn't stop me from buying it either. Of course I haven't seen the splitter since the day I bought the saw. To answer your question, no. I'm pretty sure though that Sawstop has some interest in being paid or they would have sent us all one by now. The suggestion I was making was that it be approached on a razor blade model-include it in the saw at no additional charge and make your profit on the consumables. Most of us could come up with an overpriced product that nobody wants. Not many of us could sell it and so far, neither can Sawstop. Mike -- --John Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) |
Bruce Barnett wrote:
"J. Clarke" writes: There is no "false dilemma". If your saw doesn't work then you have to do something about it and the only real solution that does not involve fixing the saw is to [buy] a new saw. Why is this the "only real solution?" There are others as well. Which are? It is a SawStop saw that they sell. That _who_ sell? We're talking about a saw with a Sawstop. It doesn't have to be _their_ saw, it could be a Delta or a Jet or a Grizzly or a Craftsman. The assumption is just that for whatever reason the saw that you have has a Sawstop on it. If a $1600 saw becomes a fused pile of metal, then this would be a major marketing problem. I would assume there is a warranty. While that is true, it is irrelevant and I don't understand why you bring it up. I'm not sure what point you think you are addressing. The fact that a Sawstop cartridge destroys itself when it activates and has to be replaced at a cost of approximately $100 is claimed by Sawstop. If you think they are lying about that then you should take it up with them. One might have purchased an extended service contract. Someone may buy the used one from you for half price and fix it themselves. There may be an after-market kit to fix it. There _is_ "after-market kit to fix it". It's called a "Sawstop cartridge" and Sawstop gets $100 for it. It's patented, there's no other source for it than Sawstop or one of their licensees. If one purchased an "extended service contract" it's debatable whether that would cover the Sawstop cartridge, which is designed to destroy itself when it operates, and which I would expect to be considered a consumable part like brake pads on a car. In any case, one would still have to replace the cartridge. If someone buys the used one from you and fixes it himself, you are still without a saw until you buy a new one. You are talking about a possible consequence that there is no evidence that is it real. I'm sorry, but what "consequence" is that? You do something that triggers the Sawstop, the Sawstop triggers--that's its purpose and it is designed to do that and if it fails to do that then the manufacturer would be open to serious liability claims. When the Sawstop triggers, the cartridge destroys itself while stopping the blade. That is not a matter of conjecture, that is the manner in which the manufacturer claims that it operates, and one would assume that he would know this about his product. To replace the cartridge will cost you or the warranty company or _somebody_ $100. That again is not a matter of conjecture. That is the amount that the manufacturer of the Sawstop says that he is going to charge for the replacement part. Again, one may assume that he knows this about his product. So I fail to understand what "possible consequence that there is no evidence that is it real" you are talking about. You might as well say "Yeah, but the blade might come loose and go flying through the air at 100 miles an hour" or "It might start a fire and burn my house down" or "The God of woodworkers might strike me down for being disrespectful to the Law of Fingers." If the manufacturer of the Sawstop claimed that it would make the blade come loose and go flying through the air at 100 miles an hour or that it would start a fire and burn the house down or that it would make the God of woodworkers strike one down for being disrespectful to the Law of Fingers then it would be reasonable to discuss those as normal consequences of its use. He does not claim that. He claims that when it activates, the cartridge must be replaced at a cost of $100. So, when it fires, your choice is to replace the cartridge for $100 out of your pocket or out of somebody's pocket, get a new saw that works without your having to replace the cartridge, or to not saw. I see no room for conjecture here. -- --John Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) |
J wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message ... J wrote: If there were 300,000 saws that required re-activation and new blades every year (and you are talking US only) at a cost of several hundred dollars each, you would see the price of pre-sawstop saws go through the roof. You would also likely see a class action suit from users of expensive sawblades for damage due to false positives. If in fact the blade is damaged. Does the current version of the Sawstop damage the blade? When I looked at it the answer was yes. Is that still the case? I did my research. Your turn. If you blow a fuse, you do not have a breaker to flip. Right. This is why I replaced my fused electrical service with a set of circuit breakers. I still have a box of fuses. If you want them let me know. You have to unscrew or unplug the old fuse and put a new one in. If you don't have a replacement fuse you have to go get one. If this happens on your car at midnight in a blizzard on a rareley travelled road, then you're screwed. Actually, since fuses are a dime a piece and there are always some extras included in the fuse compartment this isn't much of an issue unless you forget to replace them a number of times. And in the situation where you really truly don't have a fuse you just take one from something that you don't need. Power windows for example. I have done this on more than one occasion. On another occasion I blew a big starter fuse which was unusual enough that I didn't have a spare and that most auto parts stores don't carry. I fashioned one out of some wire I had in the trunk. In none of these cases was I carrying around a spare part which cost a substantial fraction of the car's original cost. So you don't carry a spare tire, which costs about the same as a Sawstop cartridge? The point is that if you know you might need the cartridge and you don't have one reasonably accessible, that is your choice to make and your error. Sure it is an interesting idea, but it doesn't have practicallity on it's side. Saw manufacturers want to sell saws. They do not want to have to deal with servicing saws. Saw buyers want to use saws. They do not want to wait for service which they can not perform themselves. So they put the in themselves. Nobody has said anything about "waiting for service". You disagree with me. That is OK. I'm just glad I don't HAVE to buy one if I don't want one. I don't particularly like the product or the company and probably would not make it a consideration in purchasing a saw. I was merely speculating on a way that the company might persuade saw manufacturers to use their product. But your objections for the most part do not appear to be valid. Then why didn't the saw makers buy into this device? This may come as a shock to you but the fact that _your_ objections are not valid does not mean that there are not other objections that _are_ valid. Presumably the saw manufacturers did not buy into it because they saw no good reason to do so. Why didn't the CPSC approve their petition? Perhaps because they felt that it was not adequately supported? Or perhaps during the public comment period enough people said "over my dead body" or words to that effect that they decided that the public did not want such a regulation to be implemented? Why aren't people lining up to buy this saw? Because they don't want it? Can it all just be conspiracy? Maybe it can be that we just don't want the thing. Go ask Occam. -j -- --John Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) |
J wrote:
Don't try and backpedal to try and make us believe that you did not say that the saw had to be shipped here or there...? I mean, if you know that there is a possiblity that the sawstop device is going to be activated and you don't stock an extra cartridge and blade? Well then, maybe you shouldn't be allowed to operate ANY power tool? So really the cost of this device is twice what it appears? Regulation about who can use tools based on how well supplied with spares they are... No, based on the fact that they are so stupid that they would go into an isolated location without an adequate supply of consumable items. What a concept. This will reduce the number of contractors in business by an order of magnitude. On the positive side, no excuse to head off to the store and then out for a cup of coffee. Average reaction time when feeding your hand into a saw blade is 2.5 fingers. At that point you might as well throw them into the garbage. Is it really? Can you show me where you got this data from, or are you just making things up? Actually, Steve Gass of sawstop stated in a post on Sawmill Creek that "People regularly push three fingers right through the blade before they can flinch. Human reaction time is about 25-50 times slower than SawStop, so even if you are going fast, the accident will likely be far less significant with SawStop than without it." I am quite sure that if you email him, he will be glad to support any statement he has made with research, links, proof, etc. So you base your statement on hearsay from someone who has a substantial vested interest in the topic? I'm still trying to figure out how the math works out from what he said to "2.5 fingers". Word problems... what can you do! I suspect that one could run a statistical analysis on the Consumer Product Safety Commission database, however I do not know if he has done that. Again, where do you get this idea from? Have you been to their website and read it thoroughly? Yes. Perhaps you can show me where it says that the device is user-serviceable. Just because it is in a cartridge does not mean that it is user-serviceable. Their site has a fair amount of speculation to it. It has been that way for a long time. This makes me think that they are not progressing well. Since you are so familiar with it, please point out the part where it says they are user serviceable. u -j You could email them at , instead of speculating here on the internet, and perpetuating yet another "urban legend" and find out, No, you claimed it is user serviceable. Perhaps you can stop speculating and find out. The general belief seems to be that it is user serviceable. If you do not buy the conventional wisdom then it's up to you to disprove it. My suspicion is that you don't have the balls to man up and do some research like Steve Gass has, so just keep putting YOUR spin on this issue, instead of getting the facts. I'm not interested in the facts. In that case, plonk If I was I wouldn't be wasting my time debating you. -j -- --John Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) |
"J. Clarke" wrote in message You assume that the alternatives are to pay $100 or to get a finger cut off. Talk about "false dilemmas". OK, now we're getting close. Go back to the original analogy about having a PBJ jammed down your throat. That was the false dilemma. |
J wrote:
If the choice was that or 1600 bucks for a new saw, then the answer is obvious. Why would that be the only choice? Do you buy a new saw when you have an accident on it? If the accident does $100 worth of damage to the saw then the choice is to pay the $100 to fix it or to get a new saw. Same situation. ??? really? Yes, really. The sawstop fires, you now have a saw that won't run until you fix it, same as if anything else went wrong with it. I thought you said the choice was to buy a new saw for $1600? That is why I said really. Which one is it? Huh? Where did I say that? If you look at the third line of this post you will see that I said "If the choice was that or 1600 bucks for a new saw . . ." The part that you snipped clearly indicates that the "that" in that sentence was "pay $100 for a new Sawstop cartridge". An equally valid choice would be pay $100 or have a peanut butter and jelly sandwich rammed down your throat by a purple titanium robot while you are sleeping. How is that an "equally valid choice"? It makes absolutely no sense as an analogy. Hey! That is what I was trying to say! What is what you were trying to say? I hate false dilemmas. What "false dilemma"? If one has a saw equipped with a Sawstop, then the choice is to replace the cartridge for 100 bucks, replace the saw for whatever is the price of a new saw, defeat the absent cartridge, or don't saw. I don't see another option. Now you offer 4 choices. You understand that this proves that the first post with only two choices was a false dilemma, don't you? I understand that you seem more interested in the cleverness of your own argument than in any kind of discourse. Life's too short. You started it. Started what? I made a comment on a possible marketing strategy. Then you come in here with all this bull**** about "false dilemmas" when it is clear that your real problem is comprehension of the English language. -j -- --John Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) |
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message You assume that the alternatives are to pay $100 or to get a finger cut off. Talk about "false dilemmas". OK, now we're getting close. Go back to the original analogy about having a PBJ jammed down your throat. That was the false dilemma. Not _my_ false dilemma. "J" was using that to make some point that I never quite understood and referring to my statement that if you have a Sawstop saw and the Sawstop fires your choice is to replace the Sawstop cartridge or buy a new saw as the "false dilemma". -- --John Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) |
If Saw-stop can't create a market for their product, then it should be appropriately relegated to a niche - and if they can't survive in that niche, c'est la vie. They certainly should _not_ rely on OSHA or any federal or state regulation to create their market for them. scott ========================================= I agree... The idea of the Saw Stop is darn good....and aparently it works..... BUT Seatbelts are similar ...AND .By Law the auto manufacturers have to install them... and by State Law I have to buckle up or face a fine If I held the patient for the saw stop you bet I would be doing everything possible to protect everyone from danger... AND at the same time I would of course be making my bank account a lot bigger.... Bob Griffiths BTW... I have no use for a Saw Stop AND I do use my seat belts in MOST of my cars.. My old Corvette left the factory before they were required by law.... |
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 02:52:13 GMT, Mike Marlow wrote:
I keep reading that from people, but how many times have you heard anyone say that they drive more recklessly because they have an airbag in their car? Or even really had reason to believe they do? It isn't human nature to behave that way. Right. The stupid people who aren't wearing seatbelts now "because I has airbags, yuh see", are the same stupid people who weren't wearing seatbelts before airbags came along. Technology doesn't make stupid people more, or less, stupid. It just changes what they're going to be stupid about. |
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 22:05:49 -0800, J wrote:
I don't think that safety devices do this, but "performance accessories" like a new set of big fat tires or a huge wing on the back DO encourage reckless driving. As long as tablesaws don't have spoilers or big fart pipes on the back I think we are all responsible enough not to work dangerously. You are confusing correlation with causation. The wings don't make the drivers idiots, but the idiot drivers are more likely to buy wings. |
Bruce Barnett writes:
(Scott Lurndal) writes: Isn't easier to just not put your fingers in the blade rather than add hardware to stop the blade when you do? You should ask that question to those who have lost fingers/hands, shouldn't you? Why? scott |
"ted harris" writes:
In news:J typed: You are so passionate and your argument is so well reasoned that I'm going to give it a second look. Do they have one for hammers? -j As opposed to your argument that is based on supposition and falsehoods? You mean like your supposition about the reasons that manufacturers don't put SS on their saws? Are you really a SS employee? You're certainly pushing them pretty hard here on the group (and you seem to be the only one, too). scott |
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 02:52:13 GMT, "Mike Marlow"
wrote: I keep reading that from people, but how many times have you heard anyone say that they drive more recklessly because they have an airbag in their car? Or even really had reason to believe they do? Don't know about airbags, but I know a whole boatload of people who drive more recklessly because they have 4WD. I have been passing them upside down in ditches for years. Ask any cop or tow truck operator and they will tell that more 4WDs end up off the road in the snow than anything else. This may or may not be a relevant data point. Tim Douglass http://www.DouglassClan.com |
If the choice was that or 1600 bucks for a new saw, then the
answer is obvious. Why would that be the only choice? Do you buy a new saw when you have an accident on it? If the accident does $100 worth of damage to the saw then the choice is to pay the $100 to fix it or to get a new saw. Same situation. ??? really? Yes, really. The sawstop fires, you now have a saw that won't run until you fix it, same as if anything else went wrong with it. I thought you said the choice was to buy a new saw for $1600? That is why I said really. Which one is it? Huh? Where did I say that? If you look at the third line of this post you will see that I said "If the choice was that or 1600 bucks for a new saw . . ." The part that you snipped clearly indicates that the "that" in that sentence was "pay $100 for a new Sawstop cartridge". An equally valid choice would be pay $100 or have a peanut butter and jelly sandwich rammed down your throat by a purple titanium robot while you are sleeping. How is that an "equally valid choice"? It makes absolutely no sense as an analogy. Hey! That is what I was trying to say! What is what you were trying to say? I hate false dilemmas. What "false dilemma"? If one has a saw equipped with a Sawstop, then the choice is to replace the cartridge for 100 bucks, replace the saw for whatever is the price of a new saw, defeat the absent cartridge, or don't saw. I don't see another option. Now you offer 4 choices. You understand that this proves that the first post with only two choices was a false dilemma, don't you? I understand that you seem more interested in the cleverness of your own argument than in any kind of discourse. Life's too short. You started it. Started what? I made a comment on a possible marketing strategy. Then you come in here with all this bull**** about "false dilemmas" when it is clear that your real problem is comprehension of the English language. -j Yes, it is clear that Sawstop's marketing approach is failing due to my comprehension of the English language. I shouldn't have been sleeping through the part when they were talking about the gerund. My apologies to you and Sawstop. -j |
"Dave Hinz" wrote in message ... On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 22:05:49 -0800, J wrote: I don't think that safety devices do this, but "performance accessories" like a new set of big fat tires or a huge wing on the back DO encourage reckless driving. As long as tablesaws don't have spoilers or big fart pipes on the back I think we are all responsible enough not to work dangerously. You are confusing correlation with causation. The wings don't make the drivers idiots, but the idiot drivers are more likely to buy wings. Can someone here help me spell facetious? -j |
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 21:30:13 -0800, "ted harris"
wrote: Don't try and backpedal to try and make us believe that you did not say that the saw had to be shipped here or there...? I mean, if you know that there is a possiblity that the sawstop device is going to be activated and you don't stock an extra cartridge and blade? Well then, maybe you shouldn't be allowed to operate ANY power tool? Let's see, a replacement cartridge is supposed to be about $70, and replacement WWII will be somewhere around $100. That is starting to push the limits as far as what most people (or even a lot of shops) want to have sitting around "just in case". Actually, Steve Gass of sawstop stated in a post on Sawmill Creek that "People regularly push three fingers right through the blade before they can flinch. Human reaction time is about 25-50 times slower than SawStop, so even if you are going fast, the accident will likely be far less significant with SawStop than without it." I am quite sure that if you email him, he will be glad to support any statement he has made with research, links, proof, etc. It's a bit misleading, in that he totally ignores all the injuries that don't involve pushing fingers through the blade. By far the majority of table saw accidents involving contact with the spinning blade (the only ones that matter for SS) do *not* involve amputation. My guess (based on experience of people I know) is that the majority don't even make it to the doctor or e-room. Yes. Perhaps you can show me where it says that the device is user-serviceable. Just because it is in a cartridge does not mean that it is user-serviceable. Their site has a fair amount of speculation to it. It has been that way for a long time. This makes me think that they are not progressing well. Since you are so familiar with it, please point out the part where it says they are user serviceable. u -j You could email them at , instead of speculating here on the internet, and perpetuating yet another "urban legend" and find out, but I suspect that you have no interest in the truth anyway. Steve Gass has stated that it only takes a "few seconds" to change the cartridge when switching between a regular blade and a dado blade." I don't see why it would take much longer to change the cartridge when it misfires. My suspicion is that you don't have the balls to man up and do some research like Steve Gass has, so just keep putting YOUR spin on this issue, instead of getting the facts. I think that there is some sort of fundamental design issue with SS. It relies on stopping the blade by interacting with the blade and drops the blade below the table as a backup. I suspect it would be quite easy to make a device that uses a similar detection methodology that employs spring loaded trunnions that will snap the entire trunnion assembly down into the saw at a touch. If properly designed it should be easy to make it resettable and the design would then tend to "fail safe", that is, if the system won't work the blade can't be locked into the "up" position. SawStop may be a good product, but I think there are a lot of other ways to try to solve the problem. Because SS holds the patent on using induction (?) or whatever to detect contact with the blade they have the industry in a stranglehold. A year or so ago it seems that one of the saw manufacturers said they were interested in the detection technology, but wanted to develop their own blade stopping system. SS, at that time, would only license the right to install SS, not to develop a different system based on part of the SS patent. Personally, I do not think that SS is likely the best way to solve this problem, but I'm afraid that they have sewed things up in such a way that they are probably going to be the only game in town. If SS becomes mandatory (especially the way their SPSC petition was written) it could well be illegal to try to do something else, effectively stifling innovation. Look at the emissions controls on today's cars for examples of how legislation can destroy innovation and lock us into second-best solutions. Tim Douglass http://www.DouglassClan.com |
In none of these cases was I carrying around a spare part which cost a substantial fraction of the car's original cost. So you don't carry a spare tire, which costs about the same as a Sawstop cartridge? (spare tire/cost of car) (sawstop cartridge + new blade/cost of saw) Call me a cheap ******* but I'm not carrying around a spare transmission or engine. My beef isn't with the cost of sawstop anyway. It is their business practices. The point is that if you know you might need the cartridge and you don't have one reasonably accessible, that is your choice to make and your error. Similarly, I could carry around hot tea on my head and it would be my error if I spill it on my face. Thank goodness no one is legislating that. But your objections for the most part do not appear to be valid. Then why didn't the saw makers buy into this device? This may come as a shock to you but the fact that _your_ objections are not valid does not mean that there are not other objections that _are_ valid. Presumably the saw manufacturers did not buy into it because they saw no good reason to do so. Perhaps if you are so good at determining that my objections are not valid, you may be able to supply some objections which are valid as an example. I'm just trying to learn here. Please, give an example. Why didn't the CPSC approve their petition? Why aren't people lining up to buy this saw? Because they don't want it? Oh, so they don't want it is a valid objection, but my personal reasons why I don't want it are not valid. OK. I've learned something. Can it all just be conspiracy? Maybe it can be that we just don't want the thing. Why? -j |
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 21:06:06 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote: If Delta put the Sawstop on the Unisaw at no change in price, would the presence of the Sawstop dissuade you from buying it? At this point, probably. I try not to buy beta or .0 releases. If SS has a good track record after being in the workplace for 5 years in significant numbers then I'd be willing. Tim Douglass http://www.DouglassClan.com |
Average reaction time when feeding your hand into a saw blade is 2.5
fingers. At that point you might as well throw them into the garbage. Is it really? Can you show me where you got this data from, or are you just making things up? Actually, Steve Gass of sawstop stated in a post on Sawmill Creek that "People regularly push three fingers right through the blade before they can flinch. Human reaction time is about 25-50 times slower than SawStop, so even if you are going fast, the accident will likely be far less significant with SawStop than without it." I am quite sure that if you email him, he will be glad to support any statement he has made with research, links, proof, etc. So you base your statement on hearsay from someone who has a substantial vested interest in the topic? I'm still trying to figure out how the math works out from what he said to "2.5 fingers". Word problems... what can you do! I suspect that one could run a statistical analysis on the Consumer Product Safety Commission database, however I do not know if he has done that. I am starting to think I'm being trolled. You are the one who stated that the average reaction time is 2.5 fingers. Now you are saying that no one really knows. Come on. Stop playing around. Again, where do you get this idea from? Have you been to their website and read it thoroughly? Yes. Perhaps you can show me where it says that the device is user-serviceable. Just because it is in a cartridge does not mean that it is user-serviceable. Their site has a fair amount of speculation to it. It has been that way for a long time. This makes me think that they are not progressing well. Since you are so familiar with it, please point out the part where it says they are user serviceable. u -j You could email them at , instead of speculating here on the internet, and perpetuating yet another "urban legend" and find out, No, you claimed it is user serviceable. Perhaps you can stop speculating and find out. The general belief seems to be that it is user serviceable. If you do not buy the conventional wisdom then it's up to you to disprove it. No, it is not. Really, this is where I think you are trolling. You imply it is on their website, so I go there and check it out. It says nothing of the sort. Then you say write Sawstop and find out. You are the one speculating that it possesses an attribute which is not documented anywhere. I'm tired of being trolled. Show me the facts that back up your argument. -j |
Obviously from this discussion not everyone would buy it, but I
certainly would as long as it wan't cost prohibitive. A year and a half ago I cut the tip of a finger off on my PM66. I really wish I had been working on a sawstop equipped saw. Sawstop isn't a hard sell to me at all. $100/cartridge + a new blade? So what? Want to know how much cutting my fingertip off cost? About $6000. Mosly covered by insurance, but cost to me was still more than the $200 it would have cost to get back on track after a sawstop trigger. In other words I would be _very_ happy to shell out $200 every time I would have cut my fingers off but didn't because the brake triggered. Clearly the general strategy would be to never get into a situation in which you triggered the thing at all, but as I have learned sometimes accidents happen. I think the reason saw manufacturers don't want to use it is probably one of two things: 1) the manufacturers are really lazy 2) the terms being offered to them to license the technology are too expensive Lazy? My theory is that the manufacurers are loathe to redesign their products and retool their production facilities, because that is way more trouble than just continuing to pump out what they already make. The reason the PM 66 is called the 66 is because it hasn't been substantially changed in design for the last 38 freaking years. Comparing my '72 PM66 and my friend's new one, the few minor changes I noticed were obviously to slightly cut production cost, not to improve the design. It would be pretty straightforward to redesign the arbor casting and cradle to accomodate at the least a riving knife. But they haven't even bothered to do that, much less the more serious modifications that would be required to design in sawstop. Terms too steep? Some saws/brands have higher margins than others, but generally I bet the manufacturers are not making a huge profit on such a commodity product. Adding cost to the production would mean either cutting their margins or charging way more by the time distribution and retail markups are included. I think of this technology exactly like airbags in cars. It adds some cost. Some people don't think the cost is worth it. You can certainly buy cars without airbags. But I am willing to pay a little extra for that additional protection. Hopefully you never even have the opportunity to get your money's worth out of the system, but it is there in case you need it. (I actually don't have a car though, so we'll see in the future I guess). The other comment I had the number of table saw injuries. Most table saw injuries are related to kickback, which sawstop woudn't help with in most cases. However, the second place injury is lacerations, which along with kickback related incidents where the kickback drags people's hands into the blade would be helped by sawstop. -Holly |
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 10:26:05 -0800, J wrote:
"Dave Hinz" wrote in message ... You are confusing correlation with causation. The wings don't make the drivers idiots, but the idiot drivers are more likely to buy wings. Can someone here help me spell facetious? I thought you might have been, but it's _so_ hard to tell on Usenet. There are people who apparently think that way, and eventually they always find out about "tha intarweb thing". |
here's another question about sawstop's machines.
does the extra mechanism for dropping the blade introduce another source of slop in the trunnion? I can't see how it wouldn't, especially over time. |
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 18:51:03 -0800, "ted harris"
wrote: In news:Bob typed: Would you pay $100 for everytime Sawstop fired or misfired to replace the parts? Would you be comfortable installing safety mechanisms yourself? Personally, I would answer No to both questions and therein lies the dilemma for being commercially viable in the hobbyist market. Bob In my case it would be $70- for the cartridge, and $110- for the blade...and I would like to state emphatically "yes" that I would gladly pay that many times to keep my fingers and limbs intact. Is there really any other way to look at it? Maybe for someone that was so cheap that they can justify not spending the money to keep their digits and limbs there is a different answer...but I don't think so! ok, ted, your fingers are worth more than a couple hundred bucks. granted. what isn't known is the rate of false positives. that information *cannot* be known until the machine has been in use in actual workshop use for some time. how many times would you pay $180 for a cartridge and blade before you started thinking about either replacing the saw or just disabling the thing. a cabinet saw costs about $2000. that's about 11 false positives. if it does it once a month it's costing you something like 4 new saws a year. how many times HAVE you cut off your fingers on your table saw, anyway? |
I keep reading that from people, but how many times have you heard anyone
say that they drive more recklessly because they have an airbag in their car? Or even really had reason to believe they do? It isn't human nature to behave that way. Whenever I heard that argument the first thought that comes to my mind is that it's a hollow argument from someone who simply does not like an idea, but has not real argument against it. Well, I don't think it's a conscious thing, no one would say "Wow, I drive worse with an airbag." But it's a well-documented effect that safety in one place can squeeze out into previously unexpected dangers. The canonical example is with "child-proof" caps on aspirin. Prior to "child-proof" caps, parents were always very careful to keep aspirin where kids couldn't reach them it at all. In 1970 they made "child proof" caps mandatory, and it basically had no effect on aspirin poisinings in kids. The explanation I like best for this is that parents depend on the caps and don't keep the drugs out of reach - but the caps fail (or are used improperly), so some number of kids get poisened anually, anyway. An article about this effect is he http://www.libertyhaven.com/politics...tprotect.shtml It's a pretty common effect that when a new safety measure is introduced, the law of unintended consequences results in something undesirable happening. Maybe it's a wash (as with aspirin safety caps), maybe it's more desireable than what was happening but less stellar than hoped for. For example, airbags have certainly saved some lives, but they've inflicted injuries and in some small number of cases caused deaths that would've been otherwise avoided. On balance, I suspect we're better with them than without (although I personally wish they were smaller and designed for people who will use them with seatbelts, which are much more effective at preventing injuries in crashes). But it's naive to think that they are an unclouded good. Just to be clear - I'm actually not arguing against Saw Stop (although I think their current regulatory attempts are misguided, at best). If it had been available as an option when I bought my saw, I'd've definitely gotten one - I'm real big on safety devices. I'd strive to treat my tablesaw with just as much respect as I do now, although it's impossible to say what level of pure terror has anything to do with my current level of safety consciousness ;). Based on past experience with other safety mandates, though, if it were a required item, I'd be very surprised if we didn't have some sort of other "squeeze out" in injuries - perhaps not nearly as bad as amputations - as a result of unintended consequences from Saw Stops. This is not necessarily an argument against the Saw Stop, it's just a reminder that there are no silver bullets. -BAT |
Charlie Self wrote:
LOL. With the table saw, the unit drops back into the saw's underside, a particular emphasis and part of the sales pitch. I kind of wonder how that's going to work with radial arm saws, miter saws, et al. Obviously, the brake mechanism can be easily varied. But dropping the unit below the table top? Man, that variation is NOT going to be easy with a radial arm saw! I just had a vision of hitting something unexpected with a circular saw and having it fly across the shop... ;) -BAT |
Brett A. Thomas wrote:
I keep reading that from people, but how many times have you heard anyone say that they drive more recklessly because they have an airbag in their car? Or even really had reason to believe they do? It isn't human nature to behave that way. Whenever I heard that argument the first thought that comes to my mind is that it's a hollow argument from someone who simply does not like an idea, but has not real argument against it. Well, I don't think it's a conscious thing, no one would say "Wow, I drive worse with an airbag." But it's a well-documented effect that safety in one place can squeeze out into previously unexpected dangers. The canonical example is with "child-proof" caps on aspirin. Prior to "child-proof" caps, parents were always very careful to keep aspirin where kids couldn't reach them it at all. In 1970 they made "child proof" caps mandatory, and it basically had no effect on aspirin poisinings in kids. The explanation I like best for this is that parents depend on the caps and don't keep the drugs out of reach - but the caps fail (or are used improperly), so some number of kids get poisened anually, anyway. I think that the real reason is that the caps aren't "child proof". No, the kid's not strong enough to open it with his hand, but he's quite capable of opening it with a pair of pliers, a nutcracker, a screwdriver, a hammer, a knife, a saw, or any number of other varieties of mechanical assistance. The cap and container may not be good for much after he's gotten it open, but you think the kid really cares about that? An article about this effect is he http://www.libertyhaven.com/politics...tprotect.shtml It's a pretty common effect that when a new safety measure is introduced, the law of unintended consequences results in something undesirable happening. Maybe it's a wash (as with aspirin safety caps), maybe it's more desireable than what was happening but less stellar than hoped for. For example, airbags have certainly saved some lives, but they've inflicted injuries and in some small number of cases caused deaths that would've been otherwise avoided. On balance, I suspect we're better with them than without (although I personally wish they were smaller and designed for people who will use them with seatbelts, which are much more effective at preventing injuries in crashes). But it's naive to think that they are an unclouded good. Just to be clear - I'm actually not arguing against Saw Stop (although I think their current regulatory attempts are misguided, at best). If it had been available as an option when I bought my saw, I'd've definitely gotten one - I'm real big on safety devices. I'd strive to treat my tablesaw with just as much respect as I do now, although it's impossible to say what level of pure terror has anything to do with my current level of safety consciousness ;). Based on past experience with other safety mandates, though, if it were a required item, I'd be very surprised if we didn't have some sort of other "squeeze out" in injuries - perhaps not nearly as bad as amputations - as a result of unintended consequences from Saw Stops. This is not necessarily an argument against the Saw Stop, it's just a reminder that there are no silver bullets. -BAT -- --John Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) |
Doug, do you propose that we eliminate all building codes and let the
"free market" dictate what we build? Eliminate required safety equipment on autos, airplanes, etc. and simply leave it at "buyer beware? Drop requirements for standards of care in hospitals and simply let the free market decide what quality of surgery you get?.... and many other examples? I suspect that many "free market" folks would be at the head of the line screaming for government help in your world. Doug Miller wrote: In article , tzipple wrote: Not quite true, but even if it was, so what? The "free market" would allow or reject many things that are not in the common good. If SawStop can make a buck by using existing government mechanism that are designed to protect the common good, what is the harm? "Not quite true" eh? What part, exactly? What is the harm, you ask? If you don't see the harm in using the power of the government to force people to buy a product that they don't want, I suppose there isn't much basis for a continued discussion. SawStop has petitioned the Consumer Product Safety Commission to make their proprietary technology *mandatory*. How they finance it is irrelevant. The problem many of us have with their behavior is that having first failed in the marketplace, they are now attempting to use the government to force the adoption of a product that the free market decided it didn't want. -- 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. -- 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. |
|
On 15 Dec 2004 15:56:00 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 02:52:13 GMT, Mike Marlow wrote: I keep reading that from people, but how many times have you heard anyone say that they drive more recklessly because they have an airbag in their car? Or even really had reason to believe they do? It isn't human nature to behave that way. Right. The stupid people who aren't wearing seatbelts now "because I has airbags, yuh see", are the same stupid people who weren't wearing seatbelts before airbags came along. Unfortunately the publicity campaign for air bags has given some people the idea that air bags are a substitute for seat belts. This is massively untrue, but a lot of people believe it. Technology doesn't make stupid people more, or less, stupid. It just changes what they're going to be stupid about. True, but PR campaigns that misinform can make even fairly bright people act in truly stupid ways. --RC Projects expand to fill the clamps available -- plus 20 percent |
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 14:47:41 -0700, s wrote:
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 18:51:03 -0800, "ted harris" wrote: In news:Bob typed: Would you pay $100 for everytime Sawstop fired or misfired to replace the parts? Would you be comfortable installing safety mechanisms yourself? Personally, I would answer No to both questions and therein lies the dilemma for being commercially viable in the hobbyist market. Bob In my case it would be $70- for the cartridge, and $110- for the blade...and I would like to state emphatically "yes" that I would gladly pay that many times to keep my fingers and limbs intact. Is there really any other way to look at it? Maybe for someone that was so cheap that they can justify not spending the money to keep their digits and limbs there is a different answer...but I don't think so! ok, ted, your fingers are worth more than a couple hundred bucks. granted. what isn't known is the rate of false positives. that information *cannot* be known until the machine has been in use in actual workshop use for some time. snip There's another problem here. Technology which is rushed into wide use by government mandate may not be completely understood and hence not fully developed. This happened with air bags and produced a lot of injuries. See: http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/90/10/1575 --RC Projects expand to fill the clamps available -- plus 20 percent |
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 01:20:49 GMT, igor wrote:
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 12:55:13 -0500, Hank Gillette wrote: I may be overly suspicious, but I think the saw manufacturers don't want to put it on their saws because in effect they would be admitting that their previous saws were unsafe. Hank -- Assuming that the technology works, then I can see the saw companies coming to this very conclusion (with a number of twists and turns in the analysis) as a reason to not go that way. A lawsuit may come from any direction. You can just as easily make the argument that a saw company may be sued because it *could* have installed Sawstop but didn't. So I don't believe that fear of lawsuits was the primary rationale for turning down Sawstop. I would bet on cost being the primary reason. ...... But base on looking at what US-based companies bring to market, the _general_ view is that "safety" only sells to a marginal group. Su just look at the reaction in this ng. |
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 22:47:19 GMT, "Vic Baron"
wrote: I'm 67 years old and have been making noise and sawdust for over 40 years - still have all ten complete digits. If I get to 67 - and I'm not that far away - I will see even less clearly than I do now, my reactions will be even slower, my strength will have diminshed even further, my thought processes will be slower, and my sense of balance will be even worse. So I will assume that the chance that I will have a digit-subtracting accident will be considerably higher than when I was 35. |
"J" wrote:
snip My apologies to you and Sawstop. There's a simple miscommunication here, amplified by the powers of USENET. I just saw a 12/14" PM go for $900 at auction. No way I'm spending $2500 for a saw that can't cut a hot dog. JP |
|
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 19:07:05 -0500, Allen Epps
wrote: As someone mentioned it might be a hard sell for the hobbiest. But think about the pro shop getting an insurance discount for an "Sawstop" shop. There might be an economic incentive to migrate the tools. That may well be true. Much is being read into the fact that Sawstop has not shipped any machines yet. There are some pretty straightforward issues here, tho, that have nothing to do with the safety gizmo and all to do with it being a brand new company in this business. I wonder how long it took Grizzly to release its first product from the day it formed itself ? That's one aspect. Another is the fear by potential customers that they will end up with an orphan saw: how many of us would buy the first product from a brand-new company that, like all brand-new companies, has a high probability of failure ? And in addition to its stupid attempt to assure success by regulation, though one that has a long tradition in the US, it will also be hurt by the knee-jerk reaction to a product whose primary "selling point" is an attempt to reduce injury. I don't think that the name helps it much either: are they selling a saw or an add-on ? The implication of the name is that the saw itself is secondary and perhaps did not receive the attention that the device did. But still, I hope they succeed, and if they're around for a few years I will most likely buy one. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:46 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter