SawStop

Page 5 of 6  


My question is, would there be adequate protection if all that happened is the blade dropping (or being pulled) below the table? It seems to me that you might actually get pretty close to the same level of protection without a system that destroys your blade and cartridge.
Tim Douglass
http://www.DouglassClan.com
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tim Douglass wrote:

If there is 3 inches of blade exposed it takes .13 seconds for it to drop below the table assuming it's being dropped by gravity with no friction and no power assist. At that exposure when your finger touches the blade it will be 4.6 inches from the centerline. To reach the centerline with .5 inch of blade still exposed your finger would have to reach the centerline in .11 seconds. That means moving 41 inches per second or 3.48 feet per second or 2.38 miles per hour. While you might not want to move wood that fast, that is less than a slow walking pace, so moving your hand into the blade that fast is _very_ easy to do.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Joe wrote:

But was it going a lot faster than your hand would be going if you slipped and shoved it into the blade while trying to catch your balance?

If it was their salesman then it _was_ "the demo".
Survival 101, never, _ever_ believe the advertising if its being in error could bring you to harm.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Yes he pushed it that fast, watching him gave me a feeling like he was being reckless if that saw had failed he would have had a problem. Also the machine it self was a very well built heavy duty machine. They did the demo every hour on the hour for the three days I was there Joe
(Charlie Self) wrote in message > >While

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

Just curious John - I'm not understanding the point you're trying to relay with this argument. I don't question the argument itself, but it's purpose. I've read the sawstop articles, seen the web site, etc. and I've never heard a claim that it will prevent every conceivable form of table saw accident, guaranteed, 100%. That one can define a set of circumstances under which one can overwhelm the advantages of the machine does not do much to disupte the otherwise admitable benefits of that machine. At best, it only defines the limitations.

Well, as a sales guy, I know first hand the benefits of demos. Though not exhaustive and typically not designed to point out the weakness or limitations of a product, they do give clear and appropriate evidence of the intended benefits. It is as much incumbant upon the viewer to realize the intention of the demo as it is for the demonstrator to articulate that intention.

That's the point I'm questioning in your position John - where is the advertising in error? Or even misleading?
--

-Mike-
snipped-for-privacy@alltel.net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

But Mike, you're not going to calmly and deliberately run your finger into the blade, you're going to hit the blade _because_ something went wrong.

Well, I'm not John, but it seems to me it's an example of showing that it'll protect against something that isn't the situation where it'll really be needed.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Indeed Dave, but without any sort of statistical evidence on my side, I would intuitively believe that most accidents with a table saw are the result of the operator losing focus on the job and getting into the blade at normal feed speeds, getting loose clothing drawn in, or doing too many things at once and getting into a blade while reaching across the table for a cutoff, and not by other accidents such as falling.

That's the part I'm not so sure of Dave. As I said, I would believe that most accidents do happen more in the wood cutting process than by falls, etc. Even so - they aren't advertising it to be something that it's not. They're advertising it to control a specific type of contact. Even if that type of contact only happened 2% of the time, it's still not an advertising error. Worst case would be that it would be a device that really didn't have much of a market.
--

-Mike-
snipped-for-privacy@alltel.net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mike Marlow wrote:

Will the Sawstop be effective in preventing serious injuries resulting from "getting loose clothing drawn in"?

How fast is one's hand moving while "reaching across the table for a cutoff"?

What one believes and what is true are not always the same.

Nobody has claimed that it is "an advertising error". They want me to give them my money and put up with their potentially annoying and inconvenient gadget in order to be more safe. It's their job to answer my objections. If they best they can do is "maybe that kind of accident is rare but we don't really know" then they're not doing so effectively.

Bingo.
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I don't know. I'd guess it could - just based on the way it works otherwise. Maybe not preventing all serious injury, but quite possibly reducing the amount of injury. But then again - they don't claim that it will prevent serious injury from loose clothing being drawn in.

Generally, pretty slowly. Somewhere around the speed that it feeds at. Again - how would the speed of a person's hand be in conflict with what they are offering?

Quite true, but do you have any more evidence than I do which would suggest that my beliefs are incorrect?

Actually, I took those three words directly from a preceeding post, so somebody did indeed suggest that.

What they do want, that I think we both vehamently disagree with is to force their proprietary technology on all new saws. In that, I agree with your objections, but for a different reason. I object in the name of not needing a nanny to decide what safety devices I need to have - especially when that nanny is the one who stands to benefit soley if such a requirement came to be. That said, the claims that they have put on the table seem to be valid claims. They haven't claimed to address all forms of accident, only certain forms.
--

-Mike-
snipped-for-privacy@alltel.net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mike Marlow wrote:

If you want to trust your personal safety to guesswork be my guest.

Or possibly making it more severe as the blade drops below the table with the clothing entangled?

You're the one who brought that up as a possible scenario.

They state it stops the saw in a certain time--not "instantly" but in a 5 milliseconds. One's hand moves a certain distance in 5 milliseconds. If it moves far enough then one loses a finger before the saw stops. I'd have a lot more confidence in it if it stopped the blade in 50 microseconds--even a major league pitcher or a martial arts expert (both of whom can move their hands unusually fast) _trying_ to cut himself wouldn't be able to get more than 1/8 inch or so into the blade in that time, but at 5 ms one can lose a finger at remarkably low speeds.

I don't really care what you personally believe.

Well then take it up with them.

Do those "certain forms" need to be addressed more urgently than other forms?
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I never suggested or stated that I was anxious to trust my safety to anything outside of myself. In fact, I state exactly otherwise.

Perhaps. Like I said, or more accurately, as my position implies, I don't know, but I'm willing to consider it and to watch for the evidence rather than demean it absent that evidence.

Yes, but what does that matter? I was speaking to the accuracy of their claims as objected to by you. Or perhaps as questioned by you.

Yes, they can. As well, they can incur only very minor injuries. The argument works both ways. My only point in entering this discussion was to point out that they only claimed very specific benefits and the discussion prior to that was that they weren't meeting other standards of protection, even though they never claimed to.

Then why throw the comment on the floor that you did? OK... I'm guilty of a little rhetoric from time to time myself.

I believe I did.

Not unless they're trying to be all things to all people - and they are not. They are very specifically attempting to address one common form of injury. It's easy to overlook that and to assign bigger and more encompassing objectives for them, but the error in that is that neither you nor I work for them and we don't have the luxury of defining what the objective of their product is. It's really quite simple. The product seems to do a certain thing that they claim it will do. What it does not do outside of that scope is irrelevant. Seat belts hold you in place during a sudden stop. Are they at all worthwhile? Are there times when they do not prevent an injury or even lessen an injury? Do they prevent all other injuries that can occur in a car? No. That does not make the use of seatbelts a waste of time. All it does is define their application and their benefit. Remember - the concept is not to eliminate injury, it's to reduce injury. If sawstop works as it appears to, then it will have accomplished that objective in the same manner as seat belts contribute to reduced injuries in cars.
--

-Mike-
snipped-for-privacy@alltel.net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mike Marlow wrote:

If you are going to rely on slowness of movement for safety then there is no need for the Sawstop at all. If you move your hand into the blade slowly enough then you can stop at exactly the same point at which the hot dog is stopped in the demonstrations.

And this is not about their claims, it is about the efficacy of their device.

Huh? I don't recall stating in any post that I cared the slightest iota what you thought about the Sawstop. In fact even if I had, your attitude is making me care less and less.

Then why did you take it up with me?

Are they? Is the "form of injury" that they "address" in fact "common"? Or is that just your uninformed opinion?

If you don't work for them then why are you working so hard at defending them?

I'm sorry, but you are once again going off on a tangent by assuming without any proof whatsoever that the circumstance in which the Sawstop is effective is one that occurs commonly enough to be a matter of concern.

So how many injuries will it "reduce"? Do you have a number? Or just more hot air?
I'm sorry, but it's clear that you are more concerned with truth in advertising than with safety. Which is what I expect from an incompetent salesman who would rather spend time arguing with strangers on the Internet than serviceing his paying customers. That being the case it is abundantly clear that you have nothing to say that is worth my time to listen to. G'day.
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

My attitude? What exactly is "my attitude"? Througout this discourse you are the one who has thrown sarcasm in. I merely left your sarcasm in the included text in order to address the point or lack thereof that you posed.

Have you looked at the included text? It was your comment. It was included in my reply.

Tag, you're it. I've already admitted that I had no statistical evidence on my side and was only speaking from what I believed to be the case. Now - you opinion is somehow more informed?

I'm not - why are you working so hard to defame something you no nothing of and have yet to present a credible argument against?

Your evidence? Besides your assertion, that is. You may have it for all I know and if you do, I will be the first to acknowledge that and credit you for being educated in that area. But... so far you haven't presented any, just an objection to the product based on nothing.

You are just being difficult John. I entered this discussion hoping for a reasonable adult discussion and it's really clear from your contributions that you don't share that hope. Go ahead, keep throwing a bunch of irrelevant side tracks out there, all it does is demonstrate that you really don't have anything to say, you just want to be difficult.

Clearly no clue. And just what are you doing? John, you have presented yourself to be a complete ass in this entire discussion. You would shit to know how successful I've been. You'd just hate salesmen all the more because you'd have something more to be jealous of and resentful of. For all of your "concern for safety", I didn't see your name on any patents for safety devices. Yeah - all hot air and distractions, that's all you've presented here. You're right - Good day.
--

-Mike-
snipped-for-privacy@alltel.net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mike Marlow wrote:

And Sawstop does not "define the limitations" or even suggest that there are any. Nor do they provide any evidence that their device will actually be effective in the majority of real accidents.

As a consumer I know not to trust sales guys.

The thing is, this device is supposed to prevent accidents that can be maiming or life-threatening. The fact that it can protect a hot dog in a canned demonstration does not mean that it will actually prevent such accidents.
Regardless, I am "realizing the intention of the demo" and you seem to be berating me for it.

I did not claim that it was in error or misleading. I stated that one should not, as a matter of principle, trust advertising if the advertising being incorrect can bring one to harm. It's up to the advertiser to prove that his advertising is accurate, not up to the consumer to disprove it.
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That's where we probably disagree in principle. I don't believe they are under any obligation to define the limitations or suggest there are any. They advertise and demonstrate it in a very specific way. That is the extent of their claim. Anything, no... everything has limitations, yet how often do you see an exhaustive list of them in a product advertisement? There's no need to. When the advertising and demonstrations of a product make clear what its intent is, then it's kind of simple. Of course, once the liability lawyers get done with this there will be all sorts of disclaimors, but that's because we live in a world of stupid people who are smart enough to sue over their own stupidity.

That's a funny statement.

Berating? Geeze, I only made one comment and that was in direct response to your comment.

I misunderstood your previous comment. Sorry.
--

-Mike-
snipped-for-privacy@alltel.net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mike Marlow wrote:

This is not about the legal obligations of advertisers. They've made a claim. I don't buy their claim. If you do that's your business.

Says the sales guy with the vested interest in being trusted. How does one say "screw you" in Salesmanese? "Trust me".

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You are certainly entitled not to buy their claim. But... it was you that raised the strawman argument obligations and advertising. Reference you quote above where you state that sawstop does not state their limitations, or even suggest there are any. Throughout this, I've never suggested or stated that I buy any of their claims, that I believe in their product or anything of the like. All I have done is question initially, why you seemed to hold such a contrary opinion of the product and then subesequently, I responded to a series of red herrings and strawmen that you threw out. So far, you've really presented a pretty unconvincing argument, but that's ok because I don't believe you were actually trying to convince anyone else not to buy a sawstop saw. Good thing.

Don't know much about sales do you? But then again, it's always easier to hang on some cliche - it has more rhetorical value.
--

-Mike-
snipped-for-privacy@alltel.net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mike Marlow wrote:

I'm sorry, but you're the one raising the strawman--do yourself a favor and don't waste your time trying to sell me anything--I don't respond to that approach.
I did not say that they were "obligated" to do anything, I said that they had not done certain things. It is you who are twisting that into some kind of argument about "obligation".

Contrary to what? I hold a _negative_ opinion of the product. That is only "contrary" if the majority opinion is positive, which it does not appear to be, at least not in this community.

Please quote these "red herrings and strawmen". The thing is being marketed as being a safety device. That being the case it is legitimate to question its effectiveness in that role.

I haven't presented any "argument" at all. I've questioned its utility. And rather than addressing any question of utility you have kept on about the obligations of advertisers. If anyone is presenting "red herrings and straw men" it is you.
Let me reiterate--I don't give a hoot in Hell what they advertise or whether they are obligated to advertise anything. I care whether the damned thing works well enough to be useful. And their advertising has not made a convincing case for this.

If you want to buy one be my guest. But don't come crying to me when you lose your hand in it.

More than you clearly. Because if the approach you are using is what you call "salesmanship" then, well, if you had been in my office trying to sell me something then about three posts back I would have made sure the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
Another one you haven't learned. Don't argue with the customer. If he has a low opinion of salesmen and your behavior reinforces that opinion, which your behavior is doing, then you are _not_ going to get the sale.

Trust me.
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Not to worry John - the stuff I sell requires that I meet with people who can conduct an inteligent discussion and actually know something. Confrontational people like you are best left to the competition.

You really should not try to teach sales courses John. First you have to actually understand something about the field.
--

-Mike-
snipped-for-privacy@alltel.net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jeff P. wrote:

Well of _course_ it does. How many do you think they would sell if it cut the hot dog in half? The question is not what happens in the sales demonstration, it's what happens in the real world.
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
  Click to see the full signature.
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.