It just occurred to me that the replacement parts for the Sawstop could be a
profit center for saw manufacturers. Especially if it falses occasionally.
Probably be able to make as much margin on those as on a blade.

Wonder if he tried to sell it that way? The razor and blades approach.
Give away the sawstop and figure enough people are hamfingered enough to
make up the cost in consumables?

Be interesting to see some market research on that.

If there are 30,000 table-saw related injuries that require a hospital visit
every year (and presumably most of those would have triggered the sawstop
if it was present) how many more were there that did not require a hospital
visit but would have triggered the sawstop? There seem to be about ten
non-amputations for every amputation, if that carries through to
non-hospital then there would be about 300,000 Sawstop activations a year.
So what is that in terms of percentage of the installed base of saws?

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

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 article ,
"J. Clarke" wrote:

It just occurred to me that the replacement parts for the Sawstop could be a
profit center for saw manufacturers. Especially if it falses occasionally.
Probably be able to make as much margin on those as on a blade.

Wonder if he tried to sell it that way? The razor and blades approach.
Give away the sawstop and figure enough people are hamfingered enough to
make up the cost in consumables?

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 Gillette

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
It just occurred to me that the replacement parts for the Sawstop could be
a
profit center for saw manufacturers. Especially if it falses
occasionally.
Probably be able to make as much margin on those as on a blade.

Wonder if he tried to sell it that way? The razor and blades approach.
Give away the sawstop and figure enough people are hamfingered enough to
make up the cost in consumables?

Be interesting to see some market research on that.

If there are 30,000 table-saw related injuries that require a hospital
visit
every year (and presumably most of those would have triggered the sawstop
if it was present) how many more were there that did not require a
hospital
visit but would have triggered the sawstop? There seem to be about ten
non-amputations for every amputation, if that carries through to
non-hospital then there would be about 300,000 Sawstop activations a year.
So what is that in terms of percentage of the installed base of saws?

--
--John

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. I'm not sure how users on a
remote site would take to having their saw shut down because someone screwed
up and used it to cut a ham sandwich. Would you be willing to wait for
either the saw to be shipped to an authorized service center, fixed and
returned (and you still have to buy a new blade) or wait for someone to come
out and fix it (and you still have to buy a new blade)?. Or would you rather
wrap your knuckle in a starbucks napkin and run a few layers of masking tape
over it and get on with your work?

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.

-j

Have you taken a look at their website? http://www.sawstop.com/

They're pushing their own line of contractor saws and cabinet saws now and
tehy've got sawstop for bandsaws. What's next? A sawstop for my tv
remote, to keep me from injuring my finger while channel surfing , maybe?


"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
It just occurred to me that the replacement parts for the Sawstop could be
a
profit center for saw manufacturers. Especially if it falses
occasionally.
Probably be able to make as much margin on those as on a blade.

Wonder if he tried to sell it that way? The razor and blades approach.
Give away the sawstop and figure enough people are hamfingered enough to
make up the cost in consumables?

Be interesting to see some market research on that.

If there are 30,000 table-saw related injuries that require a hospital
visit
every year (and presumably most of those would have triggered the sawstop
if it was present) how many more were there that did not require a
hospital
visit but would have triggered the sawstop? There seem to be about ten
non-amputations for every amputation, if that carries through to
non-hospital then there would be about 300,000 Sawstop activations a year.
So what is that in terms of percentage of the installed base of saws?

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

Bob wrote:

Would you pay $100 for everytime Sawstop fired or misfired to replace
the parts?

If the choice was that or 1600 bucks for a new saw, then the answer is
obvious.

Would you be comfortable installing safety mechanisms
yourself?

From what the sawstop people say, replacing the cartridge is in the same
order of difficulty as replacing a fuse. No "installing" required beyond
pull out the old one, stick in the new one. If it's more complicated than
that they've got a problem.

Personally, I would answer No to both questions and therein
lies the dilemma for being commercially viable in the hobbyist market.

How about in a pro market?

Bob

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

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
It just occurred to me that the replacement parts for the Sawstop could be
a
profit center for saw manufacturers.

How many people buy a sawblade from the manufacturer of the saw when they
need a replacement? Not many. A lot of woodworkers buy third party blades
when the saw is new Those that leave the factory blade on their saws will
most likely just drive down to the borg and buy a replacement blade when
they need one.

Frank

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Bob wrote:

Would you pay $100 for everytime Sawstop fired or misfired to replace
the parts?

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?

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. I hate false dilemmas.

-j

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 09:56:38 -0800, "J" wrote:


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.


That is quite true, but the "idea" you are describing here
has very little relationship to what Sawstop is supposedly
selling.

J wrote:

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Bob wrote:

Would you pay $100 for everytime Sawstop fired or misfired to replace
the parts?

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.

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.

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.

-j

--
--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
...
It just occurred to me that the replacement parts for the Sawstop could
be
a
profit center for saw manufacturers. Especially if it falses
occasionally.
Probably be able to make as much margin on those as on a blade.

Wonder if he tried to sell it that way? The razor and blades approach.
Give away the sawstop and figure enough people are hamfingered enough to
make up the cost in consumables?

Be interesting to see some market research on that.

If there are 30,000 table-saw related injuries that require a hospital
visit
every year (and presumably most of those would have triggered the sawstop
if it was present) how many more were there that did not require a
hospital
visit but would have triggered the sawstop? There seem to be about ten
non-amputations for every amputation, if that carries through to
non-hospital then there would be about 300,000 Sawstop activations a
year. So what is that in terms of percentage of the installed base of
saws?

--
--John

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?

I'm not sure how users on a
remote site would take to having their saw shut down because someone
screwed up and used it to cut a ham sandwich. Would you be willing to wait
for either the saw to be shipped to an authorized service center, fixed
and returned (and you still have to buy a new blade) or wait for someone
to come out and fix it (and you still have to buy a new blade)?.

Uh, why would you not just have a replacement cartridge on the shelf? Who
said that the saw has to be "shipped to an authorized service center" or
that you had to "wait for someone to come out and fix it"? You don't do
either of those when you blow a fuse do you?

Or would
you rather wrap your knuckle in a starbucks napkin and run a few layers of
masking tape over it and get on with your work?

I'm sorry, but I thought we were talking about a marketing strategy, not
about my personal preferences. And if the site has a starbucks nearby then
it wouldn't seem to be so remote that getting a tech to come out would be
an insurmountable difficulty.

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".

-j

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

Frank Ketchum wrote:


"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
It just occurred to me that the replacement parts for the Sawstop could
be a
profit center for saw manufacturers.

How many people buy a sawblade from the manufacturer of the saw when they
need a replacement? Not many. A lot of woodworkers buy third party
blades when the saw is new Those that leave the factory blade on their
saws will most likely just drive down to the borg and buy a replacement
blade when they need one.

But who said that the cartridge has to be universal? Could be like
batteries for cordless tools. And there's a much better case for it being
that way than there is with cordless tools.

Frank

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

"GregP" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 09:56:38 -0800, "J" wrote:


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.


That is quite true, but the "idea" you are describing here
has very little relationship to what Sawstop is supposedly
selling.

OK, so if it is self service, customers don't want to have to have a
replacement module and extra saw blade if they don't need to. I'm not saying
sawstop is a bad thing. I'm just trying to give some reasons why
manufacturers might not want to include it.

-j

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
J wrote:

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Bob wrote:

Would you pay $100 for everytime Sawstop fired or misfired to replace
the parts?

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?


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!

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?

-j

"J. Clarke" wrote in message


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.


That is the point he is making. You'd happily pay $100 or more if it save
your finger from being amputated. Yes, you'd be very PO'd on a false
reaction, but I'd put $1000 in the till if it saves a finger.

IMO, the idea if fantastic and I'd be willing to pay a premium to have it on
my saw. Just like airbags in a car and life vests on a boat. BUT . . . yes,
that is a BUT I want to see it as proven technology that it will save my
skin and not give false tripping.

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.

I'm not sure how users on a
remote site would take to having their saw shut down because someone
screwed up and used it to cut a ham sandwich. Would you be willing to
wait
for either the saw to be shipped to an authorized service center, fixed
and returned (and you still have to buy a new blade) or wait for someone
to come out and fix it (and you still have to buy a new blade)?.

Uh, why would you not just have a replacement cartridge on the shelf? Who
said that the saw has to be "shipped to an authorized service center" or
that you had to "wait for someone to come out and fix it"? You don't do
either of those when you blow a fuse do you?

No, you just flip the breaker. If the breaker blows, then yes, it usually
means a trip to the store plus some serious thought about why that happened.
Some may want an electrician to do this.

Or would
you rather wrap your knuckle in a starbucks napkin and run a few layers
of
masking tape over it and get on with your work?

I'm sorry, but I thought we were talking about a marketing strategy, not
about my personal preferences. And if the site has a starbucks nearby
then
it wouldn't seem to be so remote that getting a tech to come out would be
an insurmountable difficulty.

The suggestion is that parts dealers would not be so numerous as starbucks.

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.

-j

My problem with the saw stop is definitely their marketing approach. They
designed a product, good or bad is your own choice, then they did demos and
touted the product and all sorts of marketing techniques. For whatever the
reason, probably cost, the woodworking community was less than enthusiastic
about the product.
Then, if I recall the order correctly, they tried to force the manufacturers
to install the product on their product. Failing that they decided to market
their own saw, at the same time lobbying to get a law passed requiring the
product be put on new ( and old?) saws.

I may have some of the facts screwed up a bit but the gist of it is the
same. All in all, it is NOT a product I'd have any interest in. I'm 67 years
old and have been making noise and sawdust for over 40 years - still have
all ten complete digits.

Just MHO,

Vic Baron

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
It just occurred to me that the replacement parts for the Sawstop could be
a
profit center for saw manufacturers. Especially if it falses
occasionally.
Probably be able to make as much margin on those as on a blade.

Wonder if he tried to sell it that way? The razor and blades approach.
Give away the sawstop and figure enough people are hamfingered enough to
make up the cost in consumables?

Be interesting to see some market research on that.

If there are 30,000 table-saw related injuries that require a hospital
visit
every year (and presumably most of those would have triggered the sawstop
if it was present) how many more were there that did not require a
hospital
visit but would have triggered the sawstop? There seem to be about ten
non-amputations for every amputation, if that carries through to
non-hospital then there would be about 300,000 Sawstop activations a year.
So what is that in terms of percentage of the installed base of saws?

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

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.


That happened to you TOO??

Personally I have no problem with someone trying to earn a living.
Manufacturing their own line? - more power to them. It's when they try to
get the legislature to force others to use it that I draw the line.

Vic

"Makinwoodchips" wrote in message
...
Have you taken a look at their website? http://www.sawstop.com/

They're pushing their own line of contractor saws and cabinet saws now and
tehy've got sawstop for bandsaws. What's next? A sawstop for my tv
remote, to keep me from injuring my finger while channel surfing , maybe?


"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
It just occurred to me that the replacement parts for the Sawstop could
be
a
profit center for saw manufacturers. Especially if it falses
occasionally.
Probably be able to make as much margin on those as on a blade.

Wonder if he tried to sell it that way? The razor and blades approach.
Give away the sawstop and figure enough people are hamfingered enough to
make up the cost in consumables?

Be interesting to see some market research on that.

If there are 30,000 table-saw related injuries that require a hospital
visit
every year (and presumably most of those would have triggered the
sawstop
if it was present) how many more were there that did not require a
hospital
visit but would have triggered the sawstop? There seem to be about ten
non-amputations for every amputation, if that carries through to
non-hospital then there would be about 300,000 Sawstop activations a
year.
So what is that in terms of percentage of the installed base of saws?

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

"Vic Baron" wrote in message
. com...
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.


That happened to you TOO??



Nah, I have invented the
"PurpleTitaniumRobotWithPeanutButterAndJellySandwi chStop". It works great.
As a side benefit, my weiner hasn't been cut off since I've had it.
Currently I'm in negotiations to make it mandatory so that no one else will
be traumatized again.

-j

In article , J. Clarke
wrote:

It just occurred to me that the replacement parts for the Sawstop could be a
profit center for saw manufacturers. Especially if it falses occasionally.
Probably be able to make as much margin on those as on a blade.

Wonder if he tried to sell it that way? The razor and blades approach.
Give away the sawstop and figure enough people are hamfingered enough to
make up the cost in consumables?

Be interesting to see some market research on that.

If there are 30,000 table-saw related injuries that require a hospital visit
every year (and presumably most of those would have triggered the sawstop
if it was present) how many more were there that did not require a hospital
visit but would have triggered the sawstop? There seem to be about ten
non-amputations for every amputation, if that carries through to
non-hospital then there would be about 300,000 Sawstop activations a year.
So what is that in terms of percentage of the installed base of saws?

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.

Allen
Catonsville, MD

"Vic Baron" wrote in message
. com...
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.


That happened to you TOO??


No, I just paid the Hundred


.......enjoy

"ted harris" writes:
In news:J typed:
OK, so if it is self service, customers don't want to have to have a
replacement module and extra saw blade if they don't need to. I'm not
saying sawstop is a bad thing. I'm just trying to give some reasons why
manufacturers might not want to include it.

-j

Do you just like to hear yourself talk? Why don't you do some research
before you perpetuate this crap? It is people like you that hold up the
evolutionary process.
Maybe manufacturers don't want to include it because they don't give a crap
about whether or not you keep your limbs...ever think of that?

Do you just like to hear yourself talk? It's the bottom line that
drives the feature set of any product, including a tablesaw (and the
bottom line is a calculation consisting of "what a customer will pay
for a given set of features" minus "what it costs to produce
a given set of features").

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

"ted harris" writes:
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.

The "right way" to look at it is statistically. There are X tablesaws
being used in a given geographical area. There are Y tablesaw injuries
in that same geographical area. Of those Y injuries, there are Z that
would have been prevented by SawStop. Unless Z is a significant
fraction of X, SS will likely not find much traction amongst the X
tablesaw owners.

Isn't easier to just not put your fingers in the blade rather than add
hardware to stop the blade when you do? A couple of home-made pushsticks
accomplish the same goals as the Saw-Stop, and the SS can't prevent
all tablesaw injuries (such as those caused by kickback) and may infact
cause more because of operator complacency.


scott

In article , "ted harris" wrote:

Maybe manufacturers don't want to include it because they don't give a crap
about whether or not you keep your limbs...ever think of that?

If so, it's a peculiar business model, in that amputees are rather less likely
than the general woodworking population to become repeat customers.

--
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 , "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.

--
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 , "ted harris" wrote:
They are not relying on OSHA!

True. They're not relying on OSHA. That was a misstatement by Scott. They're
actually relying on the CPSC.

No one is regualting anything to create their
market. They are financing it themselves.

False.

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.

"ted harris" wrote in message
...
In news:J typed:
OK, so if it is self service, customers don't want to have to have a
replacement module and extra saw blade if they don't need to. I'm not
saying sawstop is a bad thing. I'm just trying to give some reasons why
manufacturers might not want to include it.

-j

Do you just like to hear yourself talk?

I usually don't sound out the words when I'm typing or reading, so no. In
fact I can even read without moving my lips.

Why don't you do some research
before you perpetuate this crap?

Perpetuate what? I just mentioned some reasons which might explain why
manufacturers rejected this product. Do you have another explanation?

It is people like you that hold up the evolutionary process.

I know you are patiently waiting for your turn to evolve into human form,
but I can't help it that the guy in front of me is asking all sorts of dumb
questions so stop pushing.

Maybe manufacturers don't want to include it because they don't give a
crap
about whether or not you keep your limbs...ever think of that?

Did I ever contend that they did? Are you trying to imply that the white hat
Sawstop folks are doing battle against the evil saw manufacturers who design
machinery specifically to maim and disfigure you? No, I think that the issue
boils down to the fact that SawStop has been vaporware for a long time which
makes me doubt it's feasibility and that requesting that the government
legislate a monopoly for your product is a sleazy business practice. Maybe
these are what are preventing it from becoming a hit product rather than my
de-evolutionary rantings. I'm sorry, you just can't blame me for their
failure to deliver.

Go ahead and buy the damn thing if you want it. Support SawStop! Just don't
bitch about it to me or make me buy one if I don't want to.

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?

--
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:
snip nonsense
Would you be willing to
wait for either the saw to be shipped to an authorized service center,
fixed and returned (and you still have to buy a new blade) or wait for
someone to come out and fix it (and you still have to buy a new blade)?.

Replacing the cartridge is as easy as changing the blade. I don't know
where you get that it has to be shipped here and there and everywhere...

If you are here, and the replacement cartridge is there, then how does the
replacement cartridge get to you? Can it walk? Do they have an alternate
method which doesn't involve shipping? It is basic engineering that the more
complex the system, the more opportunities there are for failure. I'm not
making that up.

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?

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.

-j

"ted harris" wrote in message
...
In news:Makinwoodchips typed:
Have you taken a look at their website? http://www.sawstop.com/

They're pushing their own line of contractor saws and cabinet saws now
and
tehy've got sawstop for bandsaws. What's next? A sawstop for my tv
remote, to keep me from injuring my finger while channel surfing ,
maybe?

Here is text taken directly from their FAQ page;
http://www.sawstop.com/faq.htm#1

Can the SawStop system be used with other types of woodworking equipment?

The SawStop system can be used with practically any type of woodworking
equipment, such as miter saws, chop saws, radial arm saws, circular saws,
sliding table saws, jointers, band saws, shapers and the like. The
electronics, detection and firing systems are the same, with the brake
mechanism tending to vary between different types of woodworking
equipment.

CSounds great to me...can't wait to order mine!
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

Ted,

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

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 12:55:13 -0500, Hank Gillette
wrote:

In article ,
"J. Clarke" wrote:

It just occurred to me that the replacement parts for the Sawstop could be a
profit center for saw manufacturers. Especially if it falses occasionally.
Probably be able to make as much margin on those as on a blade.

Wonder if he tried to sell it that way? The razor and blades approach.
Give away the sawstop and figure enough people are hamfingered enough to
make up the cost in consumables?

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.

Given today's litigatious climate, that's probably a real
consideration.

--RC
Projects expand to fill the clamps available -- plus 20 percent

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. After all, they might
have offered two lines -- one w/, one w/o. Certainly there is some
substantial market out there for this feature. (Of course, as always, there
are costing issues.) Actually, I would take a slightly different view than
yours: Not so much that adding sawstop would say that past TSs were unsafe,
but that a significant market would still want the less expensive saws w/o
this dealie and that selling w/ and w/o versions would look bad -- that is
what the companies may have concluded.

While car companies have offered air bags as optional equipment on some
cars, maybe from a jury perspective a "safe" saw and an "unsafe" saw could
not be justified. People think they understand cars; even some of us who
use TSs are still working out all the dynamics.

Think about how various safety features of today's cars came to market,
from collapsing steering columns, padded dashboards, and crumple zones, to
airbags. Generally, there was industry opposition and eventually courts,
Congress, or stockholders required them. At least until maybe 10-15 years
ago, safety was not embraced; it was eventually accepted, IMO. Think about
roll cages in minivans. They make huge sense in light of the fact that
minivans are sold to families, yet Detroit did not rush to design them into
minivans. IIRC, the feds eventually set a deadline. Sure, there have been
some companies to jump on a new safety opportunity -- the Germans and the
Japanese often are in this group. But base on looking at what US-based
companies bring to market, the _general_ view is that "safety" only sells
to a marginal group.

There can be an irony in the law about such things. If the sawstop
technology does work and it catches on, then if a company that does not
sell sawstop is sued for its "plain" TS, the plaintiff can say, "They could
have added this new technology but they refused." OTOH, if the same
company had licensed sawstop and then was sued, the fact that it had added
a sawstop line would not be admissible in court. YMMV, depending on your
state, but that irony exists in many states. FWIW. -- Igor

Scott Lurndal wrote:
Isn't easier to just not put your fingers in the blade rather than add
hardware to stop the blade when you do? A couple of home-made pushsticks
accomplish the same goals as the Saw-Stop, and the SS can't prevent
all tablesaw injuries (such as those caused by kickback) and may infact
cause more because of operator complacency.

Yeah, that's my biggest concern with the SawStop. I think it's an
interesting idea, but I wouldn't be surprised if, if we ever have a
world where it's mandatory, the net number of injuries stays about
constant, as people depend on the SS to save them instead of being
really aware of what they're doing. The tablesaw is still a dangerous
machine even if it won't cut off your finger.

-BAT

People had the same worries about airbags in cars. False discharges,
failure to discharge, injuries from discharges... all happened
sometimes. But the odds were (and still are) that they save enough in
injuries to be worthwhile. The big problem for manufacturers is that you
can not retrofit these easily on existing designs. There is a big cost
to redesign to accommodate SawStop.

That being said, if the technology works and is, when in wide use, under
$150 in extra cost, it will be on the large majority of saws within 10
years. The case for reducing the risk of disfiguring, disabling,
painful, expensive injuries would be too compelling for manufacturers or
the feds to ignore.


J wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...

It just occurred to me that the replacement parts for the Sawstop could be

a

profit center for saw manufacturers. Especially if it falses

occasionally.

Probably be able to make as much margin on those as on a blade.

Wonder if he tried to sell it that way? The razor and blades approach.
Give away the sawstop and figure enough people are hamfingered enough to
make up the cost in consumables?

Be interesting to see some market research on that.

If there are 30,000 table-saw related injuries that require a hospital

visit

every year (and presumably most of those would have triggered the sawstop
if it was present) how many more were there that did not require a

hospital

visit but would have triggered the sawstop? There seem to be about ten
non-amputations for every amputation, if that carries through to
non-hospital then there would be about 300,000 Sawstop activations a year.
So what is that in terms of percentage of the installed base of saws?

--
--John


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. I'm not sure how users on a
remote site would take to having their saw shut down because someone screwed
up and used it to cut a ham sandwich. Would you be willing to wait for
either the saw to be shipped to an authorized service center, fixed and
returned (and you still have to buy a new blade) or wait for someone to come
out and fix it (and you still have to buy a new blade)?. Or would you rather
wrap your knuckle in a starbucks napkin and run a few layers of masking tape
over it and get on with your work?

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.

-j

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'm not sure how users on a
remote site would take to having their saw shut down because someone
screwed up and used it to cut a ham sandwich. Would you be willing to
wait
for either the saw to be shipped to an authorized service center, fixed
and returned (and you still have to buy a new blade) or wait for
someone to come out and fix it (and you still have to buy a new
blade)?.

Uh, why would you not just have a replacement cartridge on the shelf?
Who said that the saw has to be "shipped to an authorized service center"
or
that you had to "wait for someone to come out and fix it"? You don't do
either of those when you blow a fuse do you?

No, you just flip the breaker. If the breaker blows, then yes, it usually
means a trip to the store plus some serious thought about why that
happened. Some may want an electrician to do this.

If you blow a fuse, you do not have a breaker to flip. 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.

Or would
you rather wrap your knuckle in a starbucks napkin and run a few layers
of
masking tape over it and get on with your work?

I'm sorry, but I thought we were talking about a marketing strategy, not
about my personal preferences. And if the site has a starbucks nearby
then
it wouldn't seem to be so remote that getting a tech to come out would be
an insurmountable difficulty.

The suggestion is that parts dealers would not be so numerous as
starbucks.

They don't have to be. In any case, if this is a real issue for you and you
don't keep a spare cartridge on hand then that's your problem.

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.

-j

--
--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:

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Bob wrote:

Would you pay $100 for everytime Sawstop fired or misfired to
replace the parts?

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.

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.


-j

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

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?



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.

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:


"J. Clarke" wrote in message


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.


That is the point he is making.

What is the point?

You'd happily pay $100 or more if it save
your finger from being amputated. Yes, you'd be very PO'd on a false
reaction, but I'd put $1000 in the till if it saves a finger.

Don't presume to tell me what I would do, sir.

IMO, the idea if fantastic and I'd be willing to pay a premium to have it
on
my saw. Just like airbags in a car and life vests on a boat. BUT . . .
yes, that is a BUT I want to see it as proven technology that it will save
my skin and not give false tripping.

Agreed. But it _is_ going to trigger under circumstances where no injury
would have occured.

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

ted harris wrote:

In news:J. Clarke typed:
But who said that the cartridge has to be universal? Could be like
batteries for cordless tools. And there's a much better case for it
being that way than there is with cordless tools.

Frank

More unresearched supposition...

Where is the "supposition"? Are you claiming that there is some natural law
that requires that the cartridge be identical for all saws? Or that there
is some compelling reason other than making bucks for there being different
contacts on each brand of battery of a given voltage intended for use in
cordless tools, or that since the sawstop would have to be engineered into
the saw it would give the designer greater freedom to be able to specify
the shape of the cartridge to match the particular design of his housing?

If you have a point to make, make it. Otherwise sod off.

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