SawStop?

Page 4 of 7  


That's possible. But he's not tooled up, he's contracting it out to Taiwan or China, the same as the major tool companies. Without the patent protection, what's to keep them from contracting with the same Asian manufacturers? It's hard to believe that they couldn't get it made cheaper without having to pay a patent license.
And, if they would buy it from him anyway, then there's no reason for him to put his patents in the public domain.
--
Hank Gillette

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

A Taiwanese shop tooled up to produce 10,000 of something can still sell them for less than ten Taiwanese shops tooled up to produce 1,000 each. Sure, the tool manufacturers could each have a shop tool up to make their lot, but one that has a contract with Sawstop would likely have a non-compete clause in the contract.

Of course there is. It's called a "symbolic gesture" or "act of good faith".
--
--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

Go to the original poster's reference, the NPR story, below. Once there, look on the left side of the page for a sidebar that talks about the Sawstop company's filing with the Government to mandate its usage. They even convieniently link you to the actual filings. You can begin loathing now.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyIdA82602
Daver Hall
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Apparently the SawStop folks, when the saw makers decided to NOT jump on board, then went to the Consumer Safety Commision to try and get the inclusion of THEIR product on ALL tablesaws, claiming that all tablesaws WITHOUT their device were inherently unsafe and a life and limb hazard to owners.
Although the idea and even this solution has appeal, that attitude of if the market didn't want their product, they would cram it down everyone's throat by manipulating the govbernment produced a massive backlash, making myself and many folks state that it would be a cold day in hell before I would even think about buying/using their product
That plus it costs you a bunch to get your saw back up and running once the SawStop fires, and they have NO long term statistics on this thing firing when it is NOT needed makes a strong case against it
That plus the fact that many folks saw other things than just wood on their table saw makes one wonder if this is going to prevent me from using my table saw to cut something like aluminum track with my table saw
Bottom line, I certainly will NOT look at this product due to their (in my opinion) unethical conduct in trying to generate sales by forcing it down the consumer's throat via regulation/legislation
John
wrote:

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

Carving the Christmas Goose is out!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That is a potential problem If it save a finger, I'll gladly pay may times the cost of a blade and cartridge. OTOH, if it goes off for no good reason, I'd be red with rage at them.
False activation was a concern with air bags years ago. They've proven themselves over many years now. My guess is the SawStop will take a few years of a good track record to become a consideration for the masses. I can also see down the road that OSHA and workman's comp insurance companies would demand such a thing once the technology has proven itself if it truly does. Ed
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Me too, so I'd like someone else to work out the bugs before I buy one. <G>
Barry
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Also, WHO are you going to SUE when it doesn't work and you lose a finger anyway, OR get more than the tiny cut they show with the wiener demos?? Of course, right NOW the only one who is open for that lawsuit is going to be SawStop. Wonder what their liability insurance is running them per saw??
If it is NOT going ot be 100% then it is going to be a MAJOR liability source, I can just see the lawyers flocking to class action suits when the first failure with injury occurs - and I sincerely doubt that any waivers they require folks to sign are going to be worth the paper they are printed on
John
wrote:

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

I'd might be really peeved if I did something stupid and ended up wit a chuck of aluminum welded to an expensive carbide tipped blade...bu then, I probably wouldn't be worrying about the blade much as scrambled to find half of my finger in the bag of my dust collector!
Improvements in safety technology are generally a good thing, until th goverment starts mandating their use.
One day, all that is legislated to protect us from ourselves is goin to upset the delicate balance of natural selection
-- makesawdust
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
makesawdust notes:

Probably not. When things get more idiotproof, we raise a higher grade of idiot.
Charlie Self "Man is the only animal that blushes. Or needs to." Mark Twain
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

How many cars would have air bags or seat belts today, if the government hadn't made them mandatory? In fact, the air bag technology languished for several years, essentially unused until they were made mandatory?
It's a nice thought that the market will support safety devices on their own merits, but history has shown that not to be the case. If not for the government regulations, how much safety would there be in the average commercial wood shop?
--
Hank Gillette

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Hank Gillette" wrote in message

Nope. The "government" didn't make them mandatory, the people did.
Problem is, for every action there's a reaction. We've now proven that the more you protect fools from themselves, the more fools you will have.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Airbag technology was implemented in the US before it was ready. Seat belts, on the other hand, were in use in the 1940s by some, but weren't mandated until much later. Some European makes had 3-point belts in all 4 seating positions back in the early '60s, which wasn't mandated in the US until at least 15 years later.
Car companies who felt that safety was a valid design requirement were using these things before they were mandatory. I'm not sure your point holds water.

Nobody forces me to wear eye and ear protection when using certain machines, but I do. So, I'd say "quite a bit;what's your point"?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Are you talking about your home shop or your workplace (they may be the same, I don't know)?
If it's a shop where you work as an employee, how much say do you have in how good a dust collection system is installed? Does your employer take input from employees on emergency exits and whether they are unlocked during working hours? The number of fire extinguishers available and how often they are certified?
You really don't have to look too hard to see that employee safety and the public good are not very high on the priority list of most companies. You can have the great majority of mining companies dedicated to protecting the environment and employee safety, but if those things aren't regulated, they are going to have trouble competing with the companies that don't care, because people are going to gravitate for the most part to the best price. It's hard to justify paying more for a load of coal (or whatever) when you don't see the dead miners or live near the polluted streams.
To bring this back to the specific from the general, I don't know if the SawStop (or a similar technology) should be mandatory, but I don't dismiss it out of hand. I see too many areas where companies don't have my best interests at heart.
--
Hank Gillette

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

Home shop(s). But you seemed to be saying that people don't take precautions unless forced to by governmental decree, and I think that the fact that it's a home shop shows even more so that they will.

When I worked in manufacturing, the employers most certainly did listen to that sort of suggestion. One, a tiny company, the other a huge international mega-corp whose name rhymes with, say, "GE".

My personal experience differs profoundly with your statement.

If you say so.

Right now, they can't even make it _work_ so why should I be forced to buy one for all of my saws?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That wasn't my intent to say that. My intent was to say that it's not always that high a priority with a company.

So GE dumped all of those PCBs in the Hudson River for the public good?
--
Hank Gillette

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

Companies have more incentive to have a safe environment than Joe Woodshop has. You've heard of OSHA, I assume? They don't put up with the crap that was going on in, say, the Triangle Shirt Factory.

That would be the PCBs that, at the time, weren't known to be a problem, that independant scientists agree are better left _undisturbed_ than stirred up, and that people who feel about things rather than think about them want dug up anyways, those PCBs?
I also notice you just morphed the issue from "employee safety" to "seeing into the future to avoid environmental problems", was that intentional?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Those would be the ones. While they may have not known that they were a problem, I doubt GE actually thought they were doing anyone a favor (other than themselves) by dumping them in the river.
As to whether they are better off left undisturbed, a cursory look on the Internet indicates that GE might have distorted the kind of dredging that would be done. The final order from the EPA came during the George W. Bush administration, and dredging was supported by Governor Pataki.

No, I didn't morph anything. I said earlier that "You really don't have to look too hard to see that employee safety and the public good are not very high on the priority list of most companies." It's just easier to point out the cases where the public good is involved, because they get more publicity.
As far as looking in the future, do you really believe that GE thought PCBs were totally benign? Or was it just cheaper for them to look the other way and dump their waste into the river as long as they could get away with it?
--
Hank Gillette

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

Lots of industrial processes involve wastewater going into the local river or creek. If not there, into the municipal wastewater system which eventually goes to...anyone? Anyone?

I suspect that neither you I know enough actual facts on said situation to make an informed judgement.

And yet, without knowing that a byproduct of whatever process will, _in the future_ be found to be a hazard, it's impossible to consider use of said chemical to be a disregard for public good. If we discover tomorrow that Peanut Butter causes, oh, I dunno, wombat cancer, are you going to say that Jif, in the 1970s, wasn't concerned about public safety?

GE: "Hey, any problem with this?" EPA: "Nope, not that we know of." GE: "Okey-dokey then." (years pass) EPA "Um, hey, how's it going. About that process...we need to talk..."
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 21:37:22 -0500, Hank Gillette

They had no inkling they were doing any harm. And again, please note, GE was not 'dumping' PCBs in the conventional sense. The problem stemmed from contaminated wash water, not dumping the stuff directly in the river.
<snip>

In the quantities they were putting into the water, definitely yes. Remember for most of that time the only known health risk from PCBs was chloracne in workers who were exposed to large amounts of the chemical.
GE was simply letting waste water from floor washing (and occasionally from washing out capacitors damaged in floods ) flow down the drain. There was no reason to think this was a problem for anyone.
It wasn't until the end of this period that the possibility of other dangers was raised and it's worthwhile to note that it's hard to get agreement on just what the dangers of PCBs in the environment actually are. Originally it was thought to be a serious carcinogen, but more recent work (including studies not financed by GE -- a fact some people like to leave out) have found this apparently isn't so. Now the danger is claimed to be an estrogen-like effect that messes up growth and reproduction. The jury's still out on that one, much less the doses that cause the problem.
(Note that the standards for PCB exposure were set under the impression that it was both a powerful carcinogen and was causing eggshell thinning in birds -- neither of which is now thought to be true. They bear little or no relationship to the currently perceived 'problem' with the stuff.)
The other thing to keep in mind is that for most of the period we couldn't even measure the bio-accumulation of PCBs. It wasn't until the 1960s that we even had instruments sensitive enough to measure that.
The big problem with PCBs, and the reason everyone agrees it's a good idea to control them, is that they do bio-accumulate, especially in species toward the top of the food chain. But again, this wasn't discovered until the end of the period in question.

Only if you assume the people at GE were able to see the future and detect possible problems decades before they were discovered by scientists.
--RC
Projects expand to fill the clamps available -- plus 20 percent
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.