Table Saw purchase question

[krw]

Oh, good grief!

[Ed Pawlowski]

Our workman's comp carrier is recommending SawStop and may require them in the future

[Max]

It occurs to me to wonder whether the other saw manufacturers considered this: If they began installing the SawStop device on their machines and someone with a previous machine lost a finger and sued because his machine wasn't recalled and retrofitted with the device...well...you know.

[none]

I read your crap for its entertainment value. You don't like what I post? Take some of your own advice and don't read it.

Not that I expected anything different, but you really are a senile old fool aren't you?

[none]

In your opinion which is almost always crap;

As usual, your emotions and your senility rule you.

[none]

It will be an irreversible tide. Some time ago, Lee Valley swapped all their store's tablesaws out for SawStops. We all want to blame the lawyers, but the insurance industry is equally as complicit.

[none]

Fact is, you are a liar. You twist what's been said, ignore pertinent statements and outright lie when it serves your purpose. Coupled with your ongoing senility, any discussion where there's even the slightest disagreement, you go off the deep and start fabricating bullshit.

[Swingman]

The insurance companies only because they have to payout the liability the lawyers sue for.

So yes, it is "lawyers" at the root of the problem.

[Leon]

I can see an insurance company recommending the SawStop but to demand what equipment you use will probably not fly. Unless laws dictates such, they too could be found liable in a case where the SawStop might fail for what ever reason.

[Leon]

Agreed, I don't think an insurance company can dictate what brand products you sell or use. Their pricing to insure you might do that however.

Precicely

[Leon]

Yes there are LOT"S not to like. Given that, there is a thing or two that is of benefit to some one.

Gass lobbied to have his technology mandated after being turned down and or the deals fell through prior to him actually manufacturing the product himself.

And on another note it could be assumed that given the methods he used to bring the product to market and the fact that he is a patent attorney might dictate that his product be damn well effective and no cost cutting measures be used if there is possibility of those measures affecting the performance of the saw. Imagine the vengeance that would be directed toward him or his company should there be and injury and any proof of tampering or change of design to save production costs.

In my case more of a deduction. Given my previous profession and decision making on a daily basis there was not time for emotion. I still think this way, for the most part, and probably why I have a bit of a different attitude towards the SawStop political side.

That would be an assumption but not a fact. Because no contracts are in effect no one knows what might have been. Believing/thinking that he had no intention of being flexible during a real negotiation would be like a similar assumption that the company that he actually did have a deal with was strong armed by the other manufacturers to not go through with the agreement. A reasonable assumption but only an assumption.

I do believe that cost was the prime factor. BUT not necessarily only the cost of paying Gass. There are many many other costs that could have and probably were factored in. What would the cost be for additional product liability for something that they had not developed themselves. What would be the cost of having double inventory and manufacturing capability for the saws with and with out technology. What would tooling cost to reinvent their product to be compatible with the technology. There are countless down the road expenses that come into play other than simply the cost of to use the technology. Changing your product is quite expensive in itself. You really don't see many changes in these type products through out the life of the basic design. The Unisaw saw is quite old and kept it's basic design for many many years. Only recently did Delta change that design drastically and it appears that the new design is not on every ones wish list. Sales of the old Unisaw design were probably better than the new Unisaw design.

Well there is no proof actually. That would be another assumption. Do you know exactly why the deal fell through? Have you seen the written reason that the company used to withdraw from the agreement?

Yes it does seem to look that way. And my thoughts just above, about why the deal/deals fell through, are just an assumption.

Not sure I follow, could you be more explicit?

[Leon]

Precisely. With any business decision and deal and especially as monumental as this one, there are many many other cost factors to be considered other than simply the cost of the license.

[Leon]

No, I'll agree with him considering the fact that he, in that sentence, did not indicate that the only cost would be the one to pay Gass. There are many many other costs to consider short and long term when changing the design of a product. Given Delta's financial state it may have been more than they could have afforded to simply change tooling even of Gass had not charged for the technology. Liability costs and issues probably came into play given this technology was not proven with the test of time.

Oddly when all of this negotiating was happening I thought the figures tossed out there to buy the technology was not at all out of line.

Today seeing how many of the manufacturers are really struggling to stay afloat I can see how the possibility of buying in now would be a struggle. To me it looks like the manufacturers put too much emphasis on cost 10 or so years ago vs. investing in their futures. If that was the case, most probably made a bad business decision and they appear to be falling farther behind. And given the talk about the technology being too expensive to buy for the consumer it appears that the consumer is not as concerned with the cost of the SawStop as many had thought. I seriously doubt that the SawStop technology will ever be mandated. The SawStop seems to be a complete success story and the direction that SawStop is going will lead the industry. I believe that the vast majority of the people will want a saw with this technology.

[none]

On Tue, 11 Mar 2014 08:13:06 -0500, Leon

I was thinking back to when Rob Lee was giving me a tour of the new downtown Toronto store. It had a new SawStop down one of the seminar rooms. Apparently, the company's insurance company had coerced the use of SawStops in all the stores.

This was several years ago, before any SawStop related payouts had hit the industry.

[none]

On Tue, 11 Mar 2014 09:09:12 -0500, Leon

To me, it's common sense just like a seatbelt. A seatbelt has saved my life in the past. And, aside from all the rhetoric about costs, SawStop seems like a common sense item too.

[none]

On Tue, 11 Mar 2014 10:56:34 -0400, "Mike Marlow"

Because Rob Lee told me that they 'recommended' them.

[Ed Pawlowski]

Most likely they would have the demand in the form of premiums.

If you insure with us and you use SawStop (or equal) $X If you keep your old equipment where you took the guards off, $X times 10.

[FrozenNorth]

It is no different than my insurance company, they stopped covering a fuel oil tank in my basement, of course the rate didn't drop. But they will cover it still, if I pay for a separate rider on my policy, price was crazy stupid.

[Max]

It will still be a cost-benefit decision. Those who can afford $1000

*maximum* for a saw will be limited in what they choose. A business, however, will have a different perspective.

[Leon]

It is absolutely a common sense thing. But many people let their emotions factor in on their decisions. If you simply factor in nothing but facts the choice become more clear. For example new car dealers want you to take that test drive. The excitement of driving a new vehicle helps to sell the vehicle. Now having said that we had to help bail out GM and many people are not going to want to have any thing to do with a company that had to be bailed out by the government. Does this make their vehicles a bad choice? Yes if you now hate GM, "maybe not' if you look strictly at the vehicle itself.

This whole disagreement on the SawStop is mostly based on whether you have a dislike for the SawStop product because of it's owner or if you simply judge the product on it's own merits. Again if you let emotion play a part of your decision making you may not get the best deal on paper. As with anything you buy if you are happy with your decision you got a good deal for you. We like to buy what we like whether what we like is a good product or not. When we put aside the good feeling and look only at the facts we make better decisions.