In article , "ted harris" wrote:
In newsoug 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.

"ted harris" wrote in message
...
In news:J typed:

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.

-j

So that explains the 3,000 amputations every year caused by contact with
the
rotating cutter, huh?

I'd be interested in more detail behind the 3,000 amputations. Perhaps if
you could provide information about the degree of amputation, etc. I
realize it's a statistic, but it's also being bannered about here as if it
has some meaning. As it stands today, the phrase 3,000 amputation has no
meaning whatsoever and in fact has nothing more than shock value. That's
one of the things I like least about what I see Gass doing. Those who have
to resort to that type of tactic only do so because something else isn't up
to par in their claim.
--

-Mike-

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 newsoug 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.

The most insightful posting in the thread! Thanks Holly.

wrote:

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 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

wrote:

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.

Dude, are you, like, a civil litigator?

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.