There's a lot of heat in the debate over SawStop, but not a lot of
data. In an effort to do something about this, I went surfing.

Since there is remarkably little hard information available on SawStop
-- aside from what we get from the inventor -- the best source we have
for both sides of the debate is probably the public comments on
SawStop's petition to the Consumer Product Safety Commission to
mandate the use of the device on table saws.

There's page after page of stuff that mostly translates into 'good
idea' or 'bad idea', but there's also some hard information both from
SawStop's inventors and the people who are unconvinced or in
opposition.

First, a block diagram of how SawStop works is at:
http://www.sensorsmag.com/articles/0901/10/main.shtml

The CPSC filings are at:

http://www.cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/FOIA/FOI.../REDUCEPT1.pdf
(the petition, index and the first of the comments)

http://www.cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/FOIA/FOI.../REDUCEPT2.pdf
(perhaps the most interesting section, containing the comments of
Underwriters Laboratories and various companies and industry groups)

http://www.cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/FOIA/FOI.../REDUCEPT3.pdf
(a short continuation of section 2)

In reading this over several interesting things come to light.

1) UL refused to act on SawStop, saying it needed more development and
testing.

2) In its petition to the CPSC, SawStop misrepresented UL's concern,
claiming UL said it didn't have the ability to test the device.

3) According to SawStop there is already an industrial chop saw on the
market which uses a quick-retract safety mechanism. (I haven't looked
up the references yet.)

4) As a technical matter, granting SawStop's petition would have
violated the CPSC's mandate by establishing a design rather than a
performance standard.

5) Despite claims made here to the contrary that no one is working on
saw safey, the saw manufacturers have had an on-going 'multi-million
dollar' program to develop a safety device to prevent major injuries.
One difference is the manufacurers have agreed to pool their patents
to make any such device widely available.

6) According to SawStop the royalty they are asking is 8 percent of
the wholesale price of each saw.
(NB: Based on my experience this is a rather high royalty for a
'big-ticket' item like a table saw. 1 or 2 percent is more common, I
believe. --RC)

7) According to the power tool manufacturers, saw makers who tested
SawStop reported an unacceptably large number of false responses --
both false positives (tripping unnecessarily) and false negatives (not
tripping when it should. They also found a lot of other design issues
and pointed out the SawStop would have particular problems with
direct-drive or geared saws.

8) According to SawStop most woodworkers would need more than one
module since the modules are matched to the blade type. A dado blade
needs a different module from a regular blade, for example.

Anyway, read through the filings and you'll have a much better idea
about SawStop.

--RC

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

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 07:15:03 GMT, wrote:

There's a lot of heat in the debate over SawStop, but not a lot of
data. In an effort to do something about this, I went surfing.

Since there is remarkably little hard information available on SawStop
-- aside from what we get from the inventor -- the best source we have
for both sides of the debate is probably the public comments on
SawStop's petition to the Consumer Product Safety Commission to
mandate the use of the device on table saws.

There's page after page of stuff that mostly translates into 'good
idea' or 'bad idea', but there's also some hard information both from
SawStop's inventors and the people who are unconvinced or in
opposition.

[snip for space]

How DARE you burden us with facts!!!

Great work, actually. That 8% royalty is huge, IMO and IME. It would be
"merely" rich if it were for the wholesale price of an entire product that
the licensor had invented. Or 8% of it imputed value within the TS. For
it to be on the entire price of the TS, to which the sawstop inventor had
contributed much less than the full value, places it in a land I've never
heard of before. Perhaps if TSs were entirely fungible. And perhaps if
the license was exclusive. But for a non-exlcusive license on an
improvement (versus an entire product), it is quite interesting. FWIW, if
that is truly the bottom line deal that the sawstop people offered behind
closed doors, then it tells me that the guy has a peculiar sense of reality
-- at least in the realm of licensing, which leads me to color my view of
anything else I might hear him say. Thanks for taking the initiative to
dig this stuff up and to review it. -- Igor

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 07:54:25 GMT, igor wrote:

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 07:15:03 GMT, wrote:

There's a lot of heat in the debate over SawStop, but not a lot of
data. In an effort to do something about this, I went surfing.

Since there is remarkably little hard information available on SawStop
-- aside from what we get from the inventor -- the best source we have
for both sides of the debate is probably the public comments on
SawStop's petition to the Consumer Product Safety Commission to
mandate the use of the device on table saws.

There's page after page of stuff that mostly translates into 'good
idea' or 'bad idea', but there's also some hard information both from
SawStop's inventors and the people who are unconvinced or in
opposition.

[snip for space]

How DARE you burden us with facts!!!

Yeah, I know. Violates the Internet Code or something. :-)

One of the wonderful things about the World Wide Web is the way it
lets you go fishing for information on the spur of the moment.
Potentially it has the ability to add a whole new dimension to our
discourse.

Great work, actually. That 8% royalty is huge, IMO and IME. It would be
"merely" rich if it were for the wholesale price of an entire product that
the licensor had invented. Or 8% of it imputed value within the TS. For
it to be on the entire price of the TS, to which the sawstop inventor had
contributed much less than the full value, places it in a land I've never
heard of before. Perhaps if TSs were entirely fungible. And perhaps if
the license was exclusive. But for a non-exlcusive license on an
improvement (versus an entire product), it is quite interesting. FWIW, if
that is truly the bottom line deal that the sawstop people offered behind
closed doors, then it tells me that the guy has a peculiar sense of reality
-- at least in the realm of licensing, which leads me to color my view of
anything else I might hear him say. Thanks for taking the initiative to
dig this stuff up and to review it. -- Igor

Thank you for your kind words.

--RC

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

On 17 Dec 2004 10:01:53 GMT, otforme (Charlie Self)
wrote:


Yeah, it is, partly because it amounts to about half the mark-up the retailer
gets for stocking and selling the saw (mark-up on tools in the major table saw
price range run from maybe 11% to 17%).

The question is, from what number?

I've got several large dealers, including the actual bricks and mortar
for two large web vendors, in the neighborhood. The webbie's stores
actually resemble indoor flea markets more than a spiffy retail
operation like Woodcraft. In fact, the floor demos at one of them are
often put together finger-tight! Both stores were in business before
the web as discount tool dealers, both also have Home Depot stores
across the street.

Both web vendors sell brands like Delta, Powermatic, and Jet locally
for 20% less than the other guys, often at lower prices than Amazon /
Tool Crib. The last time I checked, neither web vendor had filed as a
503(c) with the IRS. G

Barry

Barry responds:

Yeah, it is, partly because it amounts to about half the mark-up the
retailer
gets for stocking and selling the saw (mark-up on tools in the major table
saw
price range run from maybe 11% to 17%).

The question is, from what number?

I've got several large dealers, including the actual bricks and mortar
for two large web vendors, in the neighborhood. The webbie's stores
actually resemble indoor flea markets more than a spiffy retail
operation like Woodcraft. In fact, the floor demos at one of them are
often put together finger-tight! Both stores were in business before
the web as discount tool dealers, both also have Home Depot stores
across the street.

Both web vendors sell brands like Delta, Powermatic, and Jet locally
for 20% less than the other guys, often at lower prices than Amazon /
Tool Crib. The last time I checked, neither web vendor had filed as a
503(c) with the IRS. G


I don't know how they do it. Power tools in general have lower margins than
hand tools and accessories, and the larger the tool, generally as above, the
lower the margin. Of course, there are always exceptions, and some of these
small dealers may band together to get a special deal better than that the
larger dealers get (sure!). It's also possible that they stocked up when the
manufacturer was offering the dealers a sale.

I don't see an HD across the street as necessarily a negative for a tool
dealer. Increases interested traffic in the area.

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

wrote in message
...

Thanks for taking the time to post all of this.


First, a block diagram of how SawStop works is at:
http://www.sensorsmag.com/articles/0901/10/main.shtml


From the text :
"It is always on, unless the operator activates a bypass switch to allow
cutting of metal or metal-claý materials."

This answers one of my questions. I wondered how it would allow an operator
to change the blade of the saw without firing the second the operator
touches the blade. My assumption was that when the power switch is off, the
sawstop is disabled. I am not sure if this is the case because some
injuries happen after power is turned off and the blade is free wheeling to
a stop. So I guess maybe the sawstop is not disabled when the power is off
and to change a blade you are supposed to activate the bypass switch? Does
it make sense to offer / legislate a safety device with an automatic, built
in, easy to use bypass? Maybe. Maybe not.

Frank

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 07:15:03 GMT, wrote:

There's a lot of heat in the debate over SawStop, but not a lot of
data. In an effort to do something about this, I went surfing.


Thanks, that's good stuff. Not so good for SawStop :-)

On 17 Dec 2004 10:01:53 GMT, otforme (Charlie Self)
wrote:

igor notes:

That 8% royalty is huge, IMO and IME.

Yeah, it is, partly because it amounts to about half the mark-up the retailer
gets for stocking and selling the saw (mark-up on tools in the major table saw
price range run from maybe 11% to 17%).

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


That's getting close to the auto industry range. I wonder if
there are volume discounts and/or rebates ? "High end"
audio gear (which can run into the 6 figures) and expensive
flyfishing gear is usually in the 25 to 35 percent range.

Frank Ketchum wrote:


wrote in message
...

Thanks for taking the time to post all of this.


First, a block diagram of how SawStop works is at:
http://www.sensorsmag.com/articles/0901/10/main.shtml


From the text :
"It is always on, unless the operator activates a bypass switch to allow
cutting of metal or metal-claý materials."

This answers one of my questions. I wondered how it would allow an
operator to change the blade of the saw without firing the second the
operator
touches the blade. My assumption was that when the power switch is off,
the
sawstop is disabled. I am not sure if this is the case because some
injuries happen after power is turned off and the blade is free wheeling
to
a stop. So I guess maybe the sawstop is not disabled when the power is
off
and to change a blade you are supposed to activate the bypass switch?
Does it make sense to offer / legislate a safety device with an automatic,
built
in, easy to use bypass? Maybe. Maybe not.

One would hope that it doesn't fire if the saw is not spinning (considering
that it has a computer onboard that's really not that hard to implement).
The bypass switch is for cutting metals and other stuff that triggers the
sawstop. Of course you may not know that something is going to trigger it
until after you've replaced a cartridge.

Frank

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

On 17 Dec 2004 13:59:30 GMT, otforme (Charlie Self)
wrote:

I don't see an HD across the street as necessarily a negative for a tool
dealer. Increases interested traffic in the area.

Neither do they!

One of them has a sign at the traffic light out front that says
"Attention Depot Shoppers..."

Barry

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 10:51:02 -0500, GregP
wrote:

That's getting close to the auto industry range. I wonder if
there are volume discounts and/or rebates ? "High end"
audio gear (which can run into the 6 figures) and expensive
flyfishing gear is usually in the 25 to 35 percent range.

$8000 bicycles can run 35%.

Barry

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...

One would hope that it doesn't fire if the saw is not spinning
(considering
that it has a computer onboard that's really not that hard to implement).

Right, except I don't recall seeing any sort of sensor which monitors
whether the blade is in motion or not. It looks like the only sensors are
the ones which detect a capacative change in the blade (ie, a finger or
hotdog touching it). It would also need to know if the blade is spinning or
not. This is why I believe the bypass switch is there. I of course am
uncertain which is why I raise the question in the first place.

Frank

wrote in message
...

The CPSC filings are at:

http://www.cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/FOIA/FOI.../REDUCEPT1.pdf
(the petition, index and the first of the comments)


While browsing through this document, one thing in the petition jumped out
at me.

"2) .... so that a person will be cut no deeper than 1/8th of an inch when
contacting or approaching the blade at any point above the table and from
any direction at a rate of one foot per second"

I take this to be the spec that the device performs at, or close to it. One
foot per second is a very slow hand movement. When industrial OEMs install
light screens on dangerous equipment such as presses, they must do a safe
distance calculation to determine how far away from the hazard point the
light screen must be installed. The reaction time of the machine must be
taken into consideration as well as the speed that a person's hand can move.
The constant value that is used for such calculations is 2000 mm/second.
This is equal to 6.56 feet/second. Think about it. Move your hand at about
one foot per second. Slow isn't it? Is that the speed that you move around
the workshop? No.

It appears that the spec of 1/8" cut at 1 ft/second is off by a factor of
6.5. To me is seems that in a real situation, a person could get cut
1/8x6.5 or a little more than 3/4". This obviously does not really do a
whole lot to protect you.

The more I read about this thing, the more I am convinced it is a POS. That
being said, it may eventually lead to something worthwhile.

Frank

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 17:58:30 -0800, "ted harris"
wrote:

In news:Frank Ketchum typed:
wrote in message
...

The CPSC filings are at:

http://www.cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/FOIA/FOI.../REDUCEPT1.pdf
(the petition, index and the first of the comments)


While browsing through this document, one thing in the petition jumped out
at me.

"2) .... so that a person will be cut no deeper than 1/8th of an inch when
contacting or approaching the blade at any point above the table and from
any direction at a rate of one foot per second"

The more I read about this thing, the more I am convinced it is a POS.
That being said, it may eventually lead to something worthwhile.

Frank

Do you feed your wood throught the saw at one foot per second? I think not.

do all saw injuries occur while feeding wood? I think not.

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 16:15:49 -0800, "ted harris"
wrote:


What would YOU expext them to say...
Can you name any manufacturer that has not resisted safety before laws were
enacted to protect the workers and consumer?


Maybe there are some US companies that one would qualify. I do not know.
But I do know that BMW, Saab, Mercedes Benz, Volvo would qualify. I think
it is BMW that designed and is selling this incredible instant roll bar in
its sports-style cars convertibles. When the sensors sense that a roll is
happening, the roll bar deploys -- it hinges up, 90 degrees. I saw a video
taken by an autobahn monitor camera of a guy flipping his car and being
saved by this technology. Overall, I do not think that any US federal car
safety requirement in the last 40 years that did not involve a technology
already on the market -- so someone went first w/o prodding. FWIW. -- Igor

"ted harris" wrote in message
...

Do you feed your wood throught the saw at one foot per second? I think
not.


I sure don't. That is obviously the speed in which the device is designed
around. What percentage of amputations do you suppose are from people
feeding the stock through the blade and continuing on right into their
fingers? The more I think about this the more I think that the hand speed
constant of 2000 mm/sec is inadequate. That is a hand moving under it's own
power. Many injuries happen from kickback which can "throw" a persons hand
into the blade.

Frank

Frank Ketchum wrote:


"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...

One would hope that it doesn't fire if the saw is not spinning
(considering
that it has a computer onboard that's really not that hard to implement).

Right, except I don't recall seeing any sort of sensor which monitors
whether the blade is in motion or not. It looks like the only sensors are
the ones which detect a capacative change in the blade (ie, a finger or
hotdog touching it). It would also need to know if the blade is spinning
or
not. This is why I believe the bypass switch is there. I of course am
uncertain which is why I raise the question in the first place.

The purpose of the bypass switch is stated repeatedly in their literature.
They never say anything about using it to change blades.

As to a sensor, I have never seen a photo or illustration that shows enough
detail to be able to tell. They may be assuming that nobody would have his
hands near the blade after he turns off the saw--not necessarily a valid
assumption. But there are other circumstances under which you can get hurt
with a Sawstop-equipped saw so they have clearly made _some_ assumptions
about its use.

Frank

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

Bridger:
do all saw injuries occur while feeding wood? I think not.


I came within a red cubic hair of severing the itty-bitty
tendon (tenon in wreckspeak) running up my middle finger and
not only was the saw unplugged the blade was off.

And that's about all I say of the matter except that saw
maintenance can get a wee bit hairy at times.

UA100

In typed:
1) UL refused to act on SawStop, saying it needed more development and
testing.

Isn't testing what they do?

2) In its petition to the CPSC, SawStop misrepresented UL's concern,
claiming UL said it didn't have the ability to test the device.

Does UL have the ability to test it? If they do, why didn't they?

3) According to SawStop there is already an industrial chop saw on the
market which uses a quick-retract safety mechanism. (I haven't looked
up the references yet.)

There is a video of it on the Sawstop website.

4) As a technical matter, granting SawStop's petition would have
violated the CPSC's mandate by establishing a design rather than a
performance standard.

The CPSC did award Sawstop a safety commendation for "developing innovative
safety technology for power saws intended to prevent finger amputations and
other serious injury."
Sawstop has also received awards for Challengers Distinguished Achievement
Award as one of the most innovative new products in woodworking at the
International Woodworking Fair in Atlanta, Georgia in August 2000.

5) Despite claims made here to the contrary that no one is working on
saw safey, the saw manufacturers have had an on-going 'multi-million
dollar' program to develop a safety device to prevent major injuries.
One difference is the manufacurers have agreed to pool their patents
to make any such device widely available.

Good luck...

6) According to SawStop the royalty they are asking is 8 percent of
the wholesale price of each saw.
(NB: Based on my experience this is a rather high royalty for a
'big-ticket' item like a table saw. 1 or 2 percent is more common, I
believe. --RC)

By big ticket you mean a saw that retails for $150-, sawstop would be
getting $12-. Does the industry sell more saws for $150- to $1000-, or over
$1000-? At $1000- they would be getting still only $80-. Sounds like a lot
less than the $100-to $150- it would add to the cost of a saw listed on
their website. What does a $150- or a $1000- saw wholesale for anyway?
even less? Seems to me like it balances out in the manufacturers favor.
Now I am sure that sawstop has the numbers for how many of this and that are
sold and has figured out that in the long run they are going to make money,
but it is not near as much as you would like us to believe.
Since when is 8% high...when a sports figure can get 7% of Nike with no
sweat equity in the produxt?

7) According to the power tool manufacturers, saw makers who tested
SawStop reported an unacceptably large number of false responses --
both false positives (tripping unnecessarily) and false negatives (not
tripping when it should. They also found a lot of other design issues
and pointed out the SawStop would have particular problems with
direct-drive or geared saws.

What would YOU expext them to say...
Can you name any manufacturer that has not resisted safety before laws were
enacted to protect the workers and consumer?

8) According to SawStop most woodworkers would need more than one
module since the modules are matched to the blade type. A dado blade
needs a different module from a regular blade, for example.

And your point is...? (rhetorical)

Anyway, read through the filings and you'll have a much better idea
about SawStop.

--RC

Thanks, but I read it weeks ago as I was doing a term paper for the
manufacturing classes I am taking at the local college. The first time I
ran into the website, I thought it was an exceptional product. Didn't
change my mind one bit. In fact, it reinforced my original feelings about
sawstop. It is clearly a case of David versus Goliath...
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

In news:GregP typed:
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 07:15:03 GMT, wrote:

There's a lot of heat in the debate over SawStop, but not a lot of
data. In an effort to do something about this, I went surfing.


Thanks, that's good stuff. Not so good for SawStop :-)

You must have landed at tyhe wrong address
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

"ted harris" writes:
In news:Frank Ketchum typed:

"2) .... so that a person will be cut no deeper than 1/8th of an inch when
contacting or approaching the blade at any point above the table and from
any direction at a rate of one foot per second"

The more I read about this thing, the more I am convinced it is a POS.
That being said, it may eventually lead to something worthwhile.

Frank

Do you feed your wood throught the saw at one foot per second? I think not.

Does that have anything to do with how fast one moves ones hands
over the blade when it is running? What makes you think the only time
tablesaw accidents happen is while one is feeding a board through?

scott

In news:Frank Ketchum typed:
wrote in message
...

The CPSC filings are at:

http://www.cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/FOIA/FOI.../REDUCEPT1.pdf
(the petition, index and the first of the comments)


While browsing through this document, one thing in the petition jumped out
at me.

"2) .... so that a person will be cut no deeper than 1/8th of an inch when
contacting or approaching the blade at any point above the table and from
any direction at a rate of one foot per second"

The more I read about this thing, the more I am convinced it is a POS.
That being said, it may eventually lead to something worthwhile.

Frank

Do you feed your wood throught the saw at one foot per second? I think not.
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

"ted harris" wrote:

In news:Frank Ketchum typed:
wrote in message
...

The CPSC filings are at:

http://www.cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/FOIA/FOI.../REDUCEPT1.pdf
(the petition, index and the first of the comments)


While browsing through this document, one thing in the petition
jumped out at me.

"2) .... so that a person will be cut no deeper than 1/8th of an inch
when contacting or approaching the blade at any point above the table
and from any direction at a rate of one foot per second"

The more I read about this thing, the more I am convinced it is a
POS. That being said, it may eventually lead to something worthwhile.

Frank

Do you feed your wood throught the saw at one foot per second? I
think not.

If your hand slips? Which, of course, is an incident where you really
need the protection.

Mark Jerde wrote:

....
(Seriously) How do you spend $8k on a bicycle? ...

Ask Lance, et al.

Custom-built alloy frames are a good start...

Ba r r y wrote:
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 10:51:02 -0500, GregP
wrote:

That's getting close to the auto industry range. I wonder if
there are volume discounts and/or rebates ? "High end"
audio gear (which can run into the 6 figures) and expensive
flyfishing gear is usually in the 25 to 35 percent range.

$8000 bicycles can run 35%.

(Seriously) How do you spend $8k on a bicycle? I recall saving to buy a $36
"Sting Ray" knock-off in about 1968, and spending about $300 for a Liberia
10-speed in 1977. $8k is much more than just adjusting for inflation...
;-)

-- Mark, who has a $4k laptop and $3.5k desktop because of the features
required by a software developer

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 22:06:55 GMT, "Frank Ketchum"
wrote:


"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...

One would hope that it doesn't fire if the saw is not spinning
(considering
that it has a computer onboard that's really not that hard to implement).

Right, except I don't recall seeing any sort of sensor which monitors
whether the blade is in motion or not. It looks like the only sensors are
the ones which detect a capacative change in the blade (ie, a finger or
hotdog touching it). It would also need to know if the blade is spinning or
not. This is why I believe the bypass switch is there. I of course am
uncertain which is why I raise the question in the first place.

Frank

IIRC there is a spinning blade sensor, a Hall effect thing. This is
discussed in some of the reports in the CPSC filings.

One of the reservations expressed by several of the testers was the
design and programming of the system. Apparently it's not up to the
standards expected of safety equipment.

(I was wrong, btw, to say that SawStop hadn't been tested. It was
tested by two engineering companies whose reports were attached to the
petition by SawStop, by the CPSC staff and by the manufacturers.)

What all the groups that tested SawStop agreed on -- with varying
degrees of vehemence -- is that it is a long way from being a
deployable product. The general consensus was that in its present
state it can't even be completely tested because so many of the
details haven't been reduced to production status.

After reading the descriptions I'd say what we've got here is closer
to a late-stage proof-of-principle device than a fully developed
prototype. I suspect this is the reason the manufacturers are so
unenthusasistic about putting it on table saws, although the very high
royalty doesn't help.

--RC


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

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 18:26:44 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

Frank Ketchum wrote:


"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...

One would hope that it doesn't fire if the saw is not spinning
(considering
that it has a computer onboard that's really not that hard to implement).

Right, except I don't recall seeing any sort of sensor which monitors
whether the blade is in motion or not. It looks like the only sensors are
the ones which detect a capacative change in the blade (ie, a finger or
hotdog touching it). It would also need to know if the blade is spinning
or
not. This is why I believe the bypass switch is there. I of course am
uncertain which is why I raise the question in the first place.

The purpose of the bypass switch is stated repeatedly in their literature.
They never say anything about using it to change blades.

As to a sensor, I have never seen a photo or illustration that shows enough
detail to be able to tell. They may be assuming that nobody would have his
hands near the blade after he turns off the saw--not necessarily a valid
assumption. But there are other circumstances under which you can get hurt
with a Sawstop-equipped saw so they have clearly made _some_ assumptions
about its use.

Frank

There's a lot more detail in the CPSC filings, if you're willing to
wade through thoses.

--RC

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

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 16:17:05 -0800, "ted harris"
wrote:

In news:GregP typed:
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 07:15:03 GMT, wrote:

There's a lot of heat in the debate over SawStop, but not a lot of
data. In an effort to do something about this, I went surfing.


Thanks, that's good stuff. Not so good for SawStop :-)

You must have landed at tyhe wrong address

Why do you say that?
Having read through all the CPSC information, I'd say it's painfully
obvious this isn't a fully developed product. Read the information,
especially the engineering reports and you'll see what I mean.

--RC

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

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 16:15:49 -0800, "ted harris"
wrote:

In typed:
1) UL refused to act on SawStop, saying it needed more development and
testing.

Isn't testing what they do?

If you read the reports, both from the CPSC and the ones SawStop
attached to its petition, you'll see that the constant refrain is that
much of the system _can't_ be tested because it isn't there yet. That
is the pieces haven't been designed or built to production standard.

2) In its petition to the CPSC, SawStop misrepresented UL's concern,
claiming UL said it didn't have the ability to test the device.

Does UL have the ability to test it? If they do, why didn't they?

At this point no one has the ability to test it, except as a
proof-of-concept device. There's too much development work still to be
done.

3) According to SawStop there is already an industrial chop saw on the
market which uses a quick-retract safety mechanism. (I haven't looked
up the references yet.)

There is a video of it on the Sawstop website.

4) As a technical matter, granting SawStop's petition would have
violated the CPSC's mandate by establishing a design rather than a
performance standard.

The CPSC did award Sawstop a safety commendation for "developing innovative
safety technology for power saws intended to prevent finger amputations and
other serious injury."
Sawstop has also received awards for Challengers Distinguished Achievement
Award as one of the most innovative new products in woodworking at the
International Woodworking Fair in Atlanta, Georgia in August 2000.

None of those awards were given after testing. They were given because
SawStop looks like a neat, innovative device.

And I notice you dodged the point. By law CPSC is prohibited from
establishing 'design' standard -- which this clearly was. They can
only establish performance standards.

5) Despite claims made here to the contrary that no one is working on
saw safey, the saw manufacturers have had an on-going 'multi-million
dollar' program to develop a safety device to prevent major injuries.
One difference is the manufacurers have agreed to pool their patents
to make any such device widely available.

Good luck...

Do you have any proof this is not the case?


6) According to SawStop the royalty they are asking is 8 percent of
the wholesale price of each saw.
(NB: Based on my experience this is a rather high royalty for a
'big-ticket' item like a table saw. 1 or 2 percent is more common, I
believe. --RC)

By big ticket you mean a saw that retails for $150-, sawstop would be
getting $12-. Does the industry sell more saws for $150- to $1000-, or over
$1000-? At $1000- they would be getting still only $80-. Sounds like a lot
less than the $100-to $150- it would add to the cost of a saw listed on
their website.

That is only the royalty. It does not include the cost of designing
and manufacturing the devices.

What does a $150- or a $1000- saw wholesale for anyway?
even less? Seems to me like it balances out in the manufacturers favor.

Not even close. The SawStop royalty is extremely high by industry
standards, especially for something which is only part of the product.

Now I am sure that sawstop has the numbers for how many of this and that are
sold and has figured out that in the long run they are going to make money,
but it is not near as much as you would like us to believe.

Excuse me? I'm quoting the facts from the CPSC filings. What you
believe is (fortunately!) a matter of some indifference to me.

Since when is 8% high...when a sports figure can get 7% of Nike with no
sweat equity in the produxt?

Because the company figures that sports figures endorsement can boost
the sales of the product by a huge amount. And the sports figure is
not getting that percentage only everything Nike makes, only on the
brand of shoes advertised with his name and likeness.

Apples and oranges.

7) According to the power tool manufacturers, saw makers who tested
SawStop reported an unacceptably large number of false responses --
both false positives (tripping unnecessarily) and false negatives (not
tripping when it should. They also found a lot of other design issues
and pointed out the SawStop would have particular problems with
direct-drive or geared saws.

What would YOU expext them to say...
Can you name any manufacturer that has not resisted safety before laws were
enacted to protect the workers and consumer?

8) According to SawStop most woodworkers would need more than one
module since the modules are matched to the blade type. A dado blade
needs a different module from a regular blade, for example.

And your point is...? (rhetorical)

My point is that that's another expense to the customer. At $60 or $70
a pop those modules aren't cheap.


Anyway, read through the filings and you'll have a much better idea
about SawStop.

--RC

Thanks, but I read it weeks ago as I was doing a term paper for the
manufacturing classes I am taking at the local college. The first time I
ran into the website, I thought it was an exceptional product.

The web site does indeed make SawStop sound like an exceptional
product. But then that's its job.

Didn't change my mind one bit.

May I respectfully suggest you invest in a reading comprehension
course? I'm sure your collect has an excellent one.

In fact, it reinforced my original feelings about sawstop.

Then you have a very peculiar sense of what makes an exceptional
product. A more reasonable perspective would be that while it's an
exceptional idea, it is not yet a product of any sort.

It is clearly a case of David versus Goliath...

You might try being a little more realistic and less romantic about
the situation.

At this point I don't know what's driving you but it's clearly not the
facts.

--RC


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

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 23:16:47 GMT, igor wrote:

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 16:15:49 -0800, "ted harris"
wrote:


What would YOU expext them to say...
Can you name any manufacturer that has not resisted safety before laws were
enacted to protect the workers and consumer?

Well, let's see. How about four-wheel brakes? More crash-resistant
body designs of welded steel? How about 12 Volt electricial systems
with concomittant brighter headlights?

Or, closer to home, how about guards on table saws?

I could go on at some length.

Maybe there are some US companies that one would qualify. I do not know.
But I do know that BMW, Saab, Mercedes Benz, Volvo would qualify. I think
it is BMW that designed and is selling this incredible instant roll bar in
its sports-style cars convertibles. When the sensors sense that a roll is
happening, the roll bar deploys -- it hinges up, 90 degrees. I saw a video
taken by an autobahn monitor camera of a guy flipping his car and being
saved by this technology. Overall, I do not think that any US federal car
safety requirement in the last 40 years that did not involve a technology
already on the market -- so someone went first w/o prodding. FWIW. -- Igor

In fact American automobile manufacturers had been making
progressively safer cars for decades before the government even got
involved in safety regulations. As shown by the declining death rates
in auto accidents. And also by declining death rates in industrial
accidents.

--RC


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

Mark Jerde wrote:

Ba r r y wrote:
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 10:51:02 -0500, GregP
wrote:

That's getting close to the auto industry range. I wonder if
there are volume discounts and/or rebates ? "High end"
audio gear (which can run into the 6 figures) and expensive
flyfishing gear is usually in the 25 to 35 percent range.

$8000 bicycles can run 35%.

(Seriously) How do you spend $8k on a bicycle? I recall saving to buy a
$36 "Sting Ray" knock-off in about 1968, and spending about $300 for a
Liberia
10-speed in 1977. $8k is much more than just adjusting for inflation...
;-)

Well, a stock Trek Madone has a suggested retail price of about $7600.
Custom can get expensive.

-- Mark, who has a $4k laptop and $3.5k desktop because of the features
required by a software developer

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

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 04:21:35 GMT, wrote:


In fact American automobile manufacturers had been making
progressively safer cars for decades before the government even got
involved in safety regulations. As shown by the declining death rates
in auto accidents. And also by declining death rates in industrial
accidents.


I think that our road infrastructure had a lot to do with
this. And until spurred by competition from overseas.
US manufacturers did precious little other than to change
body design

Barry ...

I've got several large dealers, including the actual bricks and mortar
for two large web vendors, in the neighborhood. The webbie's stores
actually resemble indoor flea markets more than a spiffy retail
operation like Woodcraft. In fact, the floor demos at one of them are
often put together finger-tight! Both stores were in business before
the web as discount tool dealers, both also have Home Depot stores
across the street.

I know one is Coastal. Who is the other?

Lee


--
To e-mail, replace "bucketofspam" with "dleegordon"

GregP responds:

And until spurred by competition from overseas.
US manufacturers did precious little other than to change
body design

Simply not true.

The list of improvements start with body changes and design, and,
unfortunately, the annual model change, which we all have now come to expect.

But among non-mandated changes, U.S. manufacturers made intensive improvements
in straight line performance year-after-year. As a kid, I saw Chevy finally
introduce a V8, the small block 265, that is still, nearly 50 years later, one
helluva popular engine. Engine technology didn't pace the Europeans, but
neither did gasoline prices, so getting sufficient power out of small engines
was left for the motorcycle manufacturers, none of which by the '60s and '70s,
was based in the U.S. (I know, I know, Hardly-Ableson, but that's currently a
government construct that keeps overall motorcycle prices up, and it is working
primarily on '30s engine technology).

But auto development has been spotty, in response to demand too often, with
U.S. manufacturers not taking the lead, though they did on occasion do so, so
stating that body changes were the only things going on is wrong.

Charlie Self
"Absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power." Eric Hoffer

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 03:04:20 GMT, "Mark Jerde"
wrote:

Ba r r y wrote:

$8000 bicycles can run 35%.

(Seriously) How do you spend $8k on a bicycle?

A $3-4000 titanium or carbon fiber frame, $2000 on the tippie toppie
drivetrain, $1800 for carbon or titanium wheels, and maybe another
$500-750 on sundries like computer, pedals, saddle, handlebar, tires,
etc... A heart rate monitoring system and or power tap, sometimes
with altitude data, can run $200-900. Some of these bikes are so
light (sub 14 pounds), they're under the limit for races like the Tour
de France.

The Seven Cycles bike that John Kerry was often photographed riding
was probably $5500-6000 new, possibly more, as every Seven is custom
fit and built for the individual rider. The off the rack carbon Trek
Fuel 100 mountain bike that Bush crashed was probably $4500.

Personally, I ride a Trek carbon bike, with wheels I built myself,
that lists for about $3500. I can't tell the difference between my
bike and the 2x priced bike when riding. I _can_ tell the difference
between a $2000 and $3500 bike.

FWIW, Calfee Designs now makes a carbon fiber tandem, with custom
geometry to the riders, that lists for almost 20k. High end bicycles
can get as crazy as Harley's, only the owners often are in better
shape. G

Baryy

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 00:13:28 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

Well, a stock Trek Madone has a suggested retail price of about $7600.

The owner of the shop I work at would dance a jig if we could sell an
out of the box Madone SSL for that. G Once we hit the $7000
line, most customers seem to want a Calfee or Seven with custom
geometry, or a Colnago, Look, etc... This means a whole lot more
work for us, laying out the entire build.

We typically sell a Dura Ace equipped Madone SL for ~$5300, it seems
that not a lot of people want a $7600 Trek.

Barry

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 00:39:45 -0500, GregP
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 04:21:35 GMT, wrote:


In fact American automobile manufacturers had been making
progressively safer cars for decades before the government even got
involved in safety regulations. As shown by the declining death rates
in auto accidents. And also by declining death rates in industrial
accidents.


I think that our road infrastructure had a lot to do with
this.

Improved road design definitely contributed to the decreasing death
rate as well.

And until spurred by competition from overseas.
US manufacturers did precious little other than to change
body design

Well, no. Overseas competition didn't begin to be noticed until the
1960s. The safety improvements I cited pre-dated that.

It seems to me that as a general rule safety does sell -- as long as
the safety advantages are obvious or, if unobvious, can be effectively
and dramatically explained.

And for most of the history of the automobile you're incorrect that
manufacturers did little except change body design. The
change-the-body-annually school of design was a phenomenon that began
in the early-to-mid 50s.

It followed a huge surge in improvements to car design that started
when passenger car production resumed after World War II. Cars had
been improved steadly since their introduction, but after 1946 there
was a backlog of technical innovation that was either ready for market
or almost ready for market. The manufacturers went to a schedule of
yearly models as a compromise between manufacturing economics and
getting these new innovations to customers who were clamoring for
them.

Which was fine until, say, 1954, at which time the innovation curve
leveled off and the auto makers were hooked on the big sales that came
with new models every year.

--RC

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

On 18 Dec 2004 10:46:11 GMT, otforme (Charlie Self)
wrote:

GregP responds:

And until spurred by competition from overseas.
US manufacturers did precious little other than to change
body design

Simply not true.

The list of improvements start with body changes and design, and,
unfortunately, the annual model change, which we all have now come to expect.

But among non-mandated changes, U.S. manufacturers made intensive improvements
in straight line performance year-after-year. As a kid, I saw Chevy finally
introduce a V8, the small block 265, that is still, nearly 50 years later, one
helluva popular engine. Engine technology didn't pace the Europeans,

Actually I'd say that's incorrect. Where the Americans excelled was at
producing engines which were not only more powerful, but much more
reliable than the European engines. The Europeans not only had an
incentive to produce high-output and low gasoline consumption out of
small displacement, but they didn't have anything like our incentive
to produce extremely reliable engines that could sustain very high
speeds day after day.

A number of sports car designers realized this early on and the result
was the marriage of American engines with European chassis in vehicles
like the Cad-Allard, the Sunbeam Tiger and, most famously, the Ford-AC
Cobra.

but neither did gasoline prices, so getting sufficient power out of small engines
was left for the motorcycle manufacturers, none of which by the '60s and '70s,
was based in the U.S. (I know, I know, Hardly-Ableson, but that's currently a
government construct that keeps overall motorcycle prices up, and it is working
primarily on '30s engine technology).

But auto development has been spotty, in response to demand too often, with
U.S. manufacturers not taking the lead, though they did on occasion do so, so
stating that body changes were the only things going on is wrong.

Charlie Self
"Absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power." Eric Hoffer

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

wrote:

On 18 Dec 2004 10:46:11 GMT, otforme (Charlie Self)
wrote:

GregP responds:

And until spurred by competition from overseas.
US manufacturers did precious little other than to change
body design

Simply not true.

The list of improvements start with body changes and design, and,
unfortunately, the annual model change, which we all have now come to
expect.

But among non-mandated changes, U.S. manufacturers made intensive
improvements in straight line performance year-after-year. As a kid, I saw
Chevy finally introduce a V8, the small block 265, that is still, nearly
50 years later, one helluva popular engine. Engine technology didn't pace
the Europeans,

Actually I'd say that's incorrect. Where the Americans excelled was at
producing engines which were not only more powerful, but much more
reliable than the European engines. The Europeans not only had an
incentive to produce high-output and low gasoline consumption out of
small displacement, but they didn't have anything like our incentive
to produce extremely reliable engines that could sustain very high
speeds day after day.

A number of sports car designers realized this early on and the result
was the marriage of American engines with European chassis in vehicles
like the Cad-Allard, the Sunbeam Tiger and, most famously, the Ford-AC
Cobra.

American engines got their power from large displacement, which let them run
in an incredibly mild state of tune, leading to the remarkably
dependability they exhibit. Take that same 427 that's in grandma's station
wagon and tune it to the same level as a Ferrari and watch out because it's
going to be putting out 600+ reliable horsepower. As Enzo found to his
dismay after he made the mistake of ticking off some yahoo named Henry Ford
II. But that's just the beginning. There's another thousand or two in
there if you look hard enough for it.

The potential of those old 50's vintage American engine designs even today
is quite remarkable. The fastest gasoline powered wheel-driven car in the
world, at well over 400 MPH, is powered by one GM 454, basically a bored
and stroked version of the Chevy 427 that was competing against Ford in
Nascar in the early '60s. There's a street-legal TransAm tooling around
southern California that was clocked at 268 mph for the two-way average and
277 through the traps at Bonneville (and, no-Eurofans, that is _not_
kilometers). The same guy who built that one used to carry parts around in
a 6-cylinder S-15 pickup truck that had been clocked at 210, and lately
he's been driving a diesel pickup that also has been proven to be able to
exceed 200.

but neither did gasoline prices, so getting sufficient power out of small
engines
was left for the motorcycle manufacturers, none of which by the '60s and
'70s, was based in the U.S. (I know, I know, Hardly-Ableson, but that's
currently a government construct that keeps overall motorcycle prices up,
and it is working primarily on '30s engine technology).

But auto development has been spotty, in response to demand too often,
with U.S. manufacturers not taking the lead, though they did on occasion
do so, so stating that body changes were the only things going on is
wrong.

Charlie Self
"Absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power." Eric Hoffer

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

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

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 03:04:20 GMT, "Mark Jerde"
calmly ranted:

Ba r r y wrote:
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 10:51:02 -0500, GregP
wrote:

That's getting close to the auto industry range. I wonder if
there are volume discounts and/or rebates ? "High end"
audio gear (which can run into the 6 figures) and expensive
flyfishing gear is usually in the 25 to 35 percent range.

$8000 bicycles can run 35%.

(Seriously) How do you spend $8k on a bicycle?

Q: How do you spend double on an item via Ebay?
Q: How do you spend $10,000,000 on a small jet and another
$8,000,000 to outfit it?

A1: You don't shop around to determine value first.
A2: You get the newest, fanciest alloys/gearing/cabling/seats/
suspension/tires/electronics/veneers, etc. which are always
4x-400x the price of the normal goodies.


--
Sex is Evil, Evil is Sin, Sin is Forgiven.
Gee, ain't religion GREAT?
---------------------------------------------
http://diversify.com Sin-free Website Design