New TS regulations will require Riving Knives on future saws in the US

Page 3 of 3  
On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 08:55:00 -0500, "Leon"

Don't have a strong opinion on riving knives, never used one, however, anything the market drives is probably OK. Anything that a regulator requires is suspect. Keep in mind that it is not necessary to have a UL listing to sell the product, and, I know at least a few years, ago most of the industrial cabinet saw manufacturers did not have the listing. UL listing used to mean some really strange and useless restrictions. As an example, cannot manufacture a saw without a blade. So, instead reducing the cost of the saw and of letting you purchase the blade of your choice for your particular operation, the manufacturer of a listed unit has to "guess" what you want and include that (usually a cheap combo) in their offering. Another example is that none of the very good after market guards, which are much better than the "approved" supplied guards could be UL approved to offer as an option with the saw as a single number package. They can be swung out of the way for unguarded operations and will not "automatically fall back in place"
Things may have changed.
Frank

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Leon, (or others) (and please be kind to me if you think my question is rooted in ignorance) Are riving knives any safer than removable splitters? I know that they sit closer to the back of the blade tha a splitter - like my Biesemeyer - but aside from that, what makes them better? Marc

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I have never used a riving knife but many will raise and lower with the blade. Safer? I don't know.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

My guess is that they're safer than a splitter. As well as some raising and lowering with the blade, they usually match the curvature of the blade. Seems to be a much more encompassing protection against kickback.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

mac
Please remove splinters before emailing
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

My guess is that they're safer than a splitter. As well as some raising and lowering with the blade, they usually match the curvature of the blade. Seems to be a much more encompassing protection against kickback.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

My guess is that they're safer than a splitter. As well as some raising and lowering with the blade, they usually match the curvature of the blade. Seems to be a much more encompassing protection against kickback.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Leon wrote:

Look at the second picture on this page. http://web.hypersurf.com/~charlie2/X31/X31.html Note that the riving knife a) is close the the blade and wraps around almost all of the top rear quarter of the blade - where the teeth that typically start a kickback are located b) is attached to the saw arbor so as the blade is raised or lowered - or tilted, the riving knife stays close to the blade
A splitter on the other hand is often a) increases the distance between it and the back of the blade as the depth of cut gets smaller b) may or may not follow the blade when it's tilted (the ones attached to the throat plate don't work when the blade is tilted)
charlie b
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Ok... I'm getting educated here.. My saw has a splitter, not a riving knife..
mac
Please remove splinters before emailing
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

For any safety device to ultimately be effective, it needs to be more convenient to use than not.
For that reason I would think the safety factor of a riving knife is marginally greater, mainly because of its "convenience".
IOW, since it rises and lowers with the blade and doesn't extend over the top of the blade, it is a lot more convenient to leave on for most type of cuts, and if you don't have to remove it, you won't forget to put it back on for the next cut.
You could also probably argue that a riving knife, which usually rides closer to the back of the blade, leaves less room between it and the blade for something to get caught in.
I'm all for their incorporation into TS technology ... wish my Uni was so equipped.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 6/1/07
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Good point. That's something that isn't mentioned too often, but it is one of the more important factors. You can come up with all the improvements in the world, but it they're not convenient to use, then they're mostly discarded. As humans, we're a lazy bunch of SOB's aren't we? :)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I sure am... *g*
I remember Shopsmith sending me a metal blade shroud and DC port thingy years ago as a safety upgrade..
Never used it because it would add at least 10 minutes to the changeover time when you were doing anything BUT sawing...
mac
Please remove splinters before emailing
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Same for my General.
I have yet to see a negative for a riving knife, other than the 50-60 year old designs of most of our saws.
--------------------------------------------- ** http://www.bburke.com/woodworking.html ** ---------------------------------------------
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
RE: Subject
Remember the cartoon of a few years ago which showed a riding horse equipped with all the OHSA guards attached?
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Leon wrote:

http://blogs.popularwoodworking.com/editorsblog/PermaLink%2Cguid%2C9b634723-de5d-426f-b372-2c034afd30b9.aspx
I looks like the "requirement" is voluntary and was recommended on January 31, 2005. See:
http://www.cpsc.gov/volstd/tablesaws/tablesaws.html
--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Leon wrote:

http://blogs.popularwoodworking.com/editorsblog/PermaLink%2Cguid%2C9b634723-de5d-426f-b372-2c034afd30b9.aspx
Since when does UL write binding rules?
It is a private company that inspects merchandise for insurance purposes. It is not a government agency.
Dang ... the hook fell off the line ... lookit that, Vern!
--
I'm not not at the above address.
http://nmwoodworks.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"> Since when does UL write binding rules?

True, and on certain and many jobsites, the tools have to be UL listed for the insurance coverage of the site ( workman's comp, liability, etc). I was working on a hotel recently in which the tile guy was temporarily kicked off for not having a UL listed tile saw. I would imagine that the same could be held to be true in wood working shops that employ as well. Insurance companies denying coverage or raising premiums sky high because you aren't using a UL listed saw.
Allen
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It 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.