Sawstop--the wrong marketing approach?

Page 9 of 13  
In instead of speculating here on the internet, and perpetuating yet another "urban legend" and find out, but I suspect that you have no interest in the truth anyway. Steve Gass has stated that it only takes a "few seconds" to change the cartridge when switching between a regular blade and a dado blade." I don't see why it would take much longer to change the cartridge when it misfires. My suspicion is that you don't have the balls to man up and do some research like Steve Gass has, so just keep putting YOUR spin on this issue, instead of getting the facts.
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

So really the cost of this device is twice what it appears? Regulation about who can use tools based on how well supplied with spares they are... What a concept. This will reduce the number of contractors in business by an order of magnitude. On the positive side, no excuse to head off to the store and then out for a cup of coffee.

So you base your statement on hearsay from someone who has a substantial vested interest in the topic? I'm still trying to figure out how the math works out from what he said to "2.5 fingers". Word problems... what can you do!

No, you claimed it is user serviceable. Perhaps you can stop speculating and find out.

I'm not interested in the facts. If I was I wouldn't be wasting my time debating you.
-j
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
J wrote:

No, based on the fact that they are so stupid that they would go into an isolated location without an adequate supply of consumable items.

I suspect that one could run a statistical analysis on the Consumer Product Safety Commission database, however I do not know if he has done that.

The general belief seems to be that it is user serviceable. If you do not buy the conventional wisdom then it's up to you to disprove it.

In that case, <plonk>

--
--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 am starting to think I'm being trolled. You are the one who stated that the average reaction time is 2.5 fingers. Now you are saying that no one really knows. Come on. Stop playing around.

No, it is not. Really, this is where I think you are trolling. You imply it is on their website, so I go there and check it out. It says nothing of the sort. Then you say write Sawstop and find out. You are the one speculating that it possesses an attribute which is not documented anywhere.
I'm tired of being trolled. Show me the facts that back up your argument.
-j
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In instead of

Getting as little rattled are we? Rattled enough to not even know who you are responding to, huh?
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yeah, you should see me. Spittle dripping out of the corner of my mouth as I utter in a guttural croak "damn that pool cue repair guy" Really, really, really rattled. uh... right.
-j
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In instead of speculating

ROTFLMAO!
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 21:30:13 -0800, "ted harris"

Let's see, a replacement cartridge is supposed to be about $70, and replacement WWII will be somewhere around $100. That is starting to push the limits as far as what most people (or even a lot of shops) want to have sitting around "just in case".

It's a bit misleading, in that he totally ignores all the injuries that don't involve pushing fingers through the blade. By far the majority of table saw accidents involving contact with the spinning blade (the only ones that matter for SS) do *not* involve amputation. My guess (based on experience of people I know) is that the majority don't even make it to the doctor or e-room.

I think that there is some sort of fundamental design issue with SS. It relies on stopping the blade by interacting with the blade and drops the blade below the table as a backup. I suspect it would be quite easy to make a device that uses a similar detection methodology that employs spring loaded trunnions that will snap the entire trunnion assembly down into the saw at a touch. If properly designed it should be easy to make it resettable and the design would then tend to "fail safe", that is, if the system won't work the blade can't be locked into the "up" position.
SawStop may be a good product, but I think there are a lot of other ways to try to solve the problem. Because SS holds the patent on using induction (?) or whatever to detect contact with the blade they have the industry in a stranglehold. A year or so ago it seems that one of the saw manufacturers said they were interested in the detection technology, but wanted to develop their own blade stopping system. SS, at that time, would only license the right to install SS, not to develop a different system based on part of the SS patent.
Personally, I do not think that SS is likely the best way to solve this problem, but I'm afraid that they have sewed things up in such a way that they are probably going to be the only game in town. If SS becomes mandatory (especially the way their SPSC petition was written) it could well be illegal to try to do something else, effectively stifling innovation. Look at the emissions controls on today's cars for examples of how legislation can destroy innovation and lock us into second-best solutions. Tim Douglass
http://www.DouglassClan.com
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In wrote:

Plenty of the other injuries you refer to as the ones that don't matter would be far less serious as demonstrated in the videos on the sawstop website.

Well then, where is your invention and patent? ..or are you just offering lip service here...

Another perfect example of why the manufacturers greed rules how evolution of innovation goes. Poor poor manufacturer got beat to the punch. Guess they were just too busy stufing their pockets with money to worry about whether or Harry homeowner keeps his fingers or not...what a joke!

I don't think it's sawstop that is stifling innovation. In fact, it's the manufacturers that are stifling it, by not even offering up the idea of stopping the blade prior to sawstops invention. Oh, how I weep for the billion dollar machinery industry! LOLOLOL... The idea of legislating manufacturers into advancement is not such a bad concept, especially considering that most all of the choices they make are about appearing to be concerned about safety, while not accomodating an operable safety system because they did not come up with it first. Maybe someone else is goign to make a score this time. I personally hope the little guy wins this one. Ever since the industrial revolution began, the manufacturers have exploited the common man. Now the common man has smartened up a bit, andis using the laws to get better protection. I see nothing wrong with that at all...
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 23:25:30 -0800, "ted harris"

Sure, but is it worth the cost to reduce a two stitch injury to a band-aid one? Or a band-aid cut to a smaller band-aid? Remember that it will cost you at least $75 - $70 for the cartridge and $5 for a HF blade.

SawStop has raised the issue. It remains for others to try to innovate around the concept. I'm not one of those others, but there will be different approaches tried. Unless....

The point is that the manufacturers looked at the technology and said "we can do better on part of this" but SS won't let them try. They offered an all or nothing approach and ended up with the nothing. If they had licensed the detection part you might right now be seeing unisaws with something the equivalent of SawStop - or maybe not - but SS pretty much guaranteed that no one else will try. This isn't about correcting a defective tool, it is about adding entirely unproven technology that would lock them into design changes and tie them completely to a small, start-up company forever. *No* smart businessman would take that deal. If SawStop really was interested in helping woodworkers keep their fingers they would do everything they could - including licensing parts of their technology - to see that manufacturers added *some sort* of blade stopping device.

Any law that specifies a particular device to solve a problem is a poor law. Legislation should establish goals and allow the engineers, etc. to find ways to accomplish those goals. I would accept SawStop's proposed legislation on only one condition, that they made the design public domain so that anyone could build it. When the government just hands a company the keys to the safe bad things happen - see Halliburton. From where I sit SawStop looks just as greedy and corrupt as any of the big manufacturers - and just as uninterested in the fingers of the woodworking crowd.
Tim Douglass
http://www.DouglassClan.com
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It's a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy!!!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Lobby Dosser wrote:

Fnord.
--
--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
In typed:

That's the most well thought out and best executed post you've made so far...signs of intelligence!
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Glad to see you have a sense of humor. I was beginning to wonder.
On a more serious note:
I consider the chainsaw far more dangerous than the tablesaw, but don't use it as frequently. Wonder if the SawStop sensor mechanism would work on a chainsaw? All they'd have to do is shut down the motor.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In typed:

This is a very serious subject...

I think it wilol work on anything that has a rotational blade. If it works on a bandsaw, it should work on a chainsaw too.
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

So every time you hit a nail you need a new chainsaw blade? And since the sawstop needs to be disabled when cutting metallic substances, what happens when you hit a nail in a piece of barnwood? New blade and unit required?
scott
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:

Seems to me that the chainsaw is a different animal. Stop the motor and the chain stops within one(?) rotation. Probably enough to keep you from taking off your foot.
As to barnwood, you'll probably need a pretty good metal detector.

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

I really don't know a thing about chainsaws, so I can't comment.
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That hasn't stopped you so far. Why start now?
-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 17:24:39 -0800, "ted harris"

I would fear that trying to stop the chain that quickly would tend to create an unacceptably high risk of having chain parts flying around. Add to that the fact that chain saws operate in environments that are far from controlled, often in the rain, snow, mud etc. and cut green wood a lot I can see *way* too many opportunities for false positives for it to be a practical solution on a chain saw. Add the need to keep it as small and light as possible and I think it's a complete non-starter. Current chain-braking technology works acceptably well for most circumstances that matter with a chain saw (kickback) and is unlikely to be greatly improved on by adding complexity.
Tim Douglass
http://www.DouglassClan.com
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.