In the beginning, Gass presented this product to a large number of manufactures at the same time. All of them at the time with a their lawyers involved, panned his invention. You've obviously done precious little reading on this subject. I suggest you do so and then come back with your observations.
I stopped over at the saw stop site and took a look at their products. Interesting little gizmo, expensive, but very interesting.
I think if you're looking for an absolutely safe saw (from the blade anyway) this puppy just might be the ticket... Though I didn't see saftey bumpers on the corners, soft side cushions on the case, or an airbag type appliance incase of kick backs. And WHAT ABOUT THOSE BLASTED SPINTERS??
Ok I'll be serious for a moment, well as serious as I can be anyway... It looks like somebody put a lot of thought into this and if it works as claimed will save many a person from having to answer questions from their grandkids about why they have to take their shoes off to count to ten. However, with all new technology it's expensive. And anytime you ask a typical woodworker to lay out more cash...Well, let's just say it's not a good thing and leave it at that.
As for mandating that it be installed on all saws. That's an entirely different thing. Now you're encroaching on our rights to injure and maim ourselves in creative and painful ways as we see fit. I agree with everybody above who says "if it's that good a system, it will sell it's self and everybody will install it" The price will come down and like also stated above it will be just like any other feature "standard" on the saws.
Trying to mandate something in the US does tend to raise most folks hackles, we're a bit stiff necked about things when somebody comes up and says "This is how you're gonna do this, by the way you don't have a choice". Even if it's for our own good, we tend to be stuborn types.
I am kinda curious about a few technical aspects of the system. Not everybody keeps their shop in absolute perfect condition, some aren't weather tight, some are damp basements... How does this system handle adverse conditions. If it's relying on monitoring an electrical current through the blade will rust effect it?
What about nails? (I realize we should inspect our wood etc, but it does happen) Will hitting a nail in a piece of wood cause the safety to trip? I'm thinking hitting metal will cause a rather abrupt spike in conductivity and there by blow the stop. A block of aluminum hitting a spinning blade means that blade is toast, at $70 a reload plus $50 (or more) for a new blade, that's an expensive mistake. Does the saw function if you don't reload the cartridge?
For industry I'm thinking they're doomed to have to incorporate it. Insurance companies will make it happen if nobody else does. As with all things it will eventually trickle down to consumer level products. But just like the gaurds that are supposed to be on our saws now, how many are actually in place? I think that that will be the fate of this device as well for most of them.
My humbe two pennies worth of rambling... Take it as you will. :-)
I can't argue with that Ed, but, answer me one question. If you'd invented this product and knowing how many injuries it could prevent, would you have given it away completely for free? I don't call it greed for someone to invent something that will benefit people, but also want to profit from it at the same time. I call that just a natural human instinct to want to benefit from what we create.
And I doubt I'm wrong in thinking that it would be tantamount to impossible to give such a device away for free. Corporate business would find a way to take it over or profit from it one way or another. Along the same lines, how many similar inventions can you say were given away for free? From Drug companies with their life saving concoctions to almost any industry you want to mention in North America, it's all founded on a business model.
Ohhhh, the patronizing brush off. Right... it's my lack of knowledge, not your faulty logic, that's the problem.
Again, when a manufacturer, whether individually or by the bushel barrel, decides to pass on a product, that does not constitute a conspiracy to eliminate a product from the marketplace. The proof is in its availability to the individual consumer.
Well, let's see, the pharmeceutical companies gave away about $2.5 billion in free medications to about 8 million folks last year.
Profit yes, but how much is too much. That is one of the unknowns here. If you go back in history, you can find examples of all sorts of situations from the scientist that labored out of the desire to help humanity to the ones purely profit motivated.
About a year ago, one of the auto manufacturers (maybe Mercedes?) was getting advertising mileage by stating they gave away the technology for safety devices. Details don't seem to be stored in the brain cells right now.
You're suggesting that the drug companies are a philanthropic business? 8 million folks. Wow, that adds up to how much, less than 0.03 of the US population? Har, don't make me laugh. Suggest you look into how many billions those same drug companies take in. The few billion dollars of product they might freely distribute are given solely for appearance purposes.
I guess it will all come out eventually. We'll just have to wait and see.
I'll grant you it might have happened, but there's one important difference. They were/are already in business in a big way. What's the likelihood of it happening if they were a fledgling organization trying to survive?
Yes you did, you just worded it differently.
"They won't buy my device so I'll just force everyone to, so there". Waaaa Waaaaa Waaaa He has a dispute with other manufacturers and seeing that he can't win there, takes it out on the public. You and King George would get along just fine.
So what? He presented his device to potential customers and they didn't buy it. Do you buy everything someone tries to sell you? If you do, let's talk. Have I got a deal for you.
He is and has been completely free to sell it. If that's what the public wants, all they have to do is call his company and order one. I'm beginning to think that you believe that the general public is just to stupid to know what is good for them. You and Mr. Gass, of course, are the enlightened ones.
Nope.
It adds up to 8 million folks who couldn't afford their medications..
You find the plight of those in poverty funny? Or the manufacturers that provide the assistance?
When you are fully read up on the subject, get back to me...... gee, that patronization technique works well.
You're too stupid obviously. Let's keep everything free choice. To hell with seat belts. Forget laws against driving under the influence. Everybody should own an UZI. Even better, let's arm everybody with their own personal armoury of surface to air missiles. Freedom for all I say. CW says it should be that way so let's do it. Absolutely everybody with the choice to do what they want. Wouldn't it be glorious?
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Guess that's one that got by you. Maybe in your next fantasy.
sigh
Yep, that's right; giving the consumer the choice of whether or not to purchase a Sawstop is tantamount to allowing folks to be armed with surface to air missles, or the freedom to drive drunk.
The choice to do whatever one wants is NOT the issue. The issue is consumer choice.
Wow, you just throw out these pearls regardless of their relevance. Straw men just blow away.
Yeah, but they were *in the business* because they di the hard work the old fashion way. And, we would have to ask *why* is SS a fledgling operation....because the product is not needed or wanted by the masses. A niche market, yes. Gass cannot accept that, cannot go out and make the world understand that his product is superior, to compete in the marketplace.
Those same flimsy comparisons. Regulations for seat belts and DUI laws, and UZI's for that matter protect us against third party injury. The operation of power equip is soley in the hands of the operator. Follow procedure and you won't be injured...period.
It justifies none, of course. It's difficult to see how Sawstop's efforts are _illegal_, unles you regard lobbying the government as illegal. As for unethical, that's sort of a judgement call: there may be very good reasons to mandate an important safety feature on tablesaws.
Since this is a "one shot" cartridge I wonder how many people would be enamoured with it after a couple false triggers and being "down" until you get a new cartridge. I'm sure there will be a way to bypass it on the internet but that defeats the whole purpose.
David,
I used to feel the way you do about mandated safety, seat belts in particular. But I have swung the other way due to the outrageous cost to all of us in terms of health care. I lost the dip joint in the ring finger of my left hand to a TS, but thanks to the amazing skill of somebody like you, it isn't too bad. I count myself lucky for having learned a valuable lesson at a relatively small cost.
-Jim
Thats a good point. Around my world I only know of one SS. I heard
-third party- that it misfired once already.
Actually there are two issues that make me oppose the technology-
1) If it adds significant cost 2) If it misfires, and as you say, leaves me stranded. And, then there is the cost of replacing it. I recently replaced my TS with a Grizzly 12" 5hp. However, if down the road, I need to replace and this technology is required on all saws, I will disable it if possible.
Thanks for the valued insight Dr. David. You may have read my responses above where I try to explain that accidents do not happen when the operator follows proper procedure. If one is so inclined there are many documented cases of injuries related to TS operation to review. I cannot find a single case where the operator was anywhere near proper procedure. It defies logic to suggest that such an accident could take place. I would not want to go as far as to say it would be physically impossible, but rather, extremely unlikely.
Thanks for posting!
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.