Re: SawStop files with GPO/CPSC for mandatory use in US

[Sam Chambers]

Well of course it is, since their product is the only one on the market that detects human flesh and stops a spinning blade. I did read the petition, and in my opinion, it stops whort of mandating use of one system. For example, it states that the system must be, "capable of detecting contact or dangerous proximity between a person and the saw blade..." It doesn't state how such detection must be accomplished. In theory, someone could come up with an infrared ro laser based system that detects close proximity to the blade, and meet this requirement.

The petition also states that the system must have, "a reaction system to perform some action upon detection of such contact or dangerous proximity, such as stopping or retracting the blade..." Again, the petition does not state exactly how this requirement is to be met. Perhaps a system could be developed that uses a brake system similar to the disc brakes in your car, rather than one that works directly on the teeth of the saw blade. If so, this requirement would be met, and not infringe upon SawStop's patents in any way.

I think it's worded broadly enough to allow for competition to crop up. Don't you think that, since SawStop approached them a few years ago, Delta, Jet/Powermatic, Dewalt and others have been exploring ways of accomplishing the same thing?

[JackD]

Doug,

Actually most diesels that I am familiar with are equipped with such devices and have been for decades. Mercedes diesels have had this since before the invention of the transistor. The rev limiter is meant to protect the engine rather than to prevent you from going too fast. It is a reliability mechanism, not a safety device.

-Jack

[Leon]

Give up my freedom... No. That is a very broad term. I am only talking about adding 1 more to the thousands of already government mandated requirements. This certainly is not the first of or the last of these type proposals. I just happen to go along with it. You on the other hand choose not to go along with it. That is OK with me. Yes. I would voluntarily give up my freedom to choose a TS with or with out this feature. That's it in a nut shell. If I have to sacrifice having a choice for what I would consider a better out come, I have no problem with that. I guess this is the beauty of living in the US. You have the freedom to voice your preferences most of the time.

Now, changing the subject a bit and to give you an example of some thing you may or may not be aware of. My professional career was in the Automotive industry. I was in upper management and successfully retired at age 40. If you recall back in the 80's the Freon used in automotive air conditioning systems was called R-12. There was a big deal about this freon damaging the environment so a new type refrigerent was Mandated by the government so that the R-12 would be phased out. That is what the manufacturers wanted you to know. Actually the patent for R-12 ran out for the manufacturer and every one was able to make it and sell it. The manufacturer lobbied and convinced that govermant that the R-12 was damaging the environment and should be phased out and replaced with a more friendly refrigerant which they already had a new patent on. Then the new refrigerant was introduced under a new patent and that company is all warm and fuzzy again. One problem with this is that while the new refrigerant is more friendly to the environmant, it is more dangerous to be around if you are a human being. If you will notice, with the new refrigerent, mechanics are required if possible to recapture the freon gas if he has to open up the AC system. This is mostly for his long term health. If the new Freon gas is so much friendlier, why not let it excape into the atmosphere like the old freon gas was allowed to do.

Now this is a great example of a manufacturer making up a reason to require the government to become involved. No one really benefits from this mandate expept the manufacturer.

[Leon]

That would be great....But they know nothing of my thoughts so my opinion is not much of a defense for them. ;~)

[Leon]

Great decision Tim, that is what works best for you and you seem to have actually thought this out.

[Bay Area Dave]

I just quickly counted how many posts to this thread you have already made--over 44! You are making this a full time crusade, I take it?? Go have a beer and stay away from sharp tools for a while. Everyone has their opinion on this SawStop thing.

dave

Le> snip

[Leon]

With all respect Doug, You don't know WTF you're talking about. If you reread what I wrote. I did not say all cars. I invite you to go to a GM dealership or the store and pick up any automotive magazine that tests the performance cars, I was addressing the fact that the module does and has existed for many years already. In particular look for the magazine that shows top speed. In almost every case some of the cars top speed is governed and limited. This is done by limiting engine RPMS dependant on what gear the car or truck is in.

[Leon]

"Chris Johnson" > >

Sounds good to me.

I wonder why the electric break on so many miter saws could not be beefed up to perform as well as the saw stop. A simple pin ingauges a hole in the blade or arbor and stops the blade. No, I have not read the whole petition but From what every one is saying, I would be inclined to think that the petition requires "LIKE" or better performance and not the same way to achieve "LIKE " performance. A little imagination should acomplish the same thing.

Well Chris if you loose the choice to buy a new saw with the modifications or not, you will still have the choice to voice you openion.

[Charlie Spitzer]

that top speed is limited to: what the driver can do with installed tires on some specific track, aerodynamic forces relating to the frontal area and drag of the body, size of the engine installed, size of cojones of the driver, or other factors. it almost isn't ever a speed limiter on the engine.

[Jim Helfer]

Well Leon, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. If you think that free peoples in a free society making their own decisions in a free market is somehow "arrogant" (at least that's what I can gather from the parts of your post that aren't self-contradictory), that's fine. You don't really _have_ to make any decisions, just please don't be so cavalier about giving away other people's ability to do so.

Jim H Pittsburgh PA

[Leon]

So you think I make a convincing case do you? LOL May be I should...I wonder what the pay is? ;~)

[I really hate spam.]

Leon, you don't seem to see a very important distinction between these things and Sawstop. All of these government mandates, along with required auto liability insurance, act to prevent other people from hurting me. Water quality mandates prevent my city from mishandling water and making me sick, electrical codes prevent the electrician from doing substandard work in my home and burning down my house, and liability insurance prevents everybody from legally driving without making sure that they have some way to compensate me if they hurt me while driving improperly. Sawstop is not at all similar...it is a device meant to save me only from me. The best analogies are seat belt, air bag, and helmet laws. Yes, those are imposed on us all of the time. It does not mean that everybody agrees with that imposition. It only means that legislatures did what many people see as wrong. Frankly, I don't much care for those laws; I would use a seat belt whether it was mandated or not, and I don't ride a motorcycle, but I certainly wouldn't want to without a helmet...even though my state does not require it. Similarly, when I can buy a tablesaw, I probably will want Sawstop. But I want it to succeed on its own, I don't want it to be forced on us. This is not an area where the government needs to step in.

But what really

Eric Ryan E-mail me at eryan /at/ qconline /dot/ com

[Doug Winterburn]

I haven't heard anyone saying you don't have the right to express an opinion. You're confusing that with them expressing their differing opinions, or expressing their opinion that you're misguided.

-Doug

[Leon]

accomplishing

I think that the problem with the petition is that it was not worded in a way that everyone understands with out perhaps an attorney to help out. I believe a lot may be being read into the petition.

I agree that if the performance modification is mandated, which will guarantee a market also, other people much smarter than me will jump at the opportunity to offer a better mouse trap. I have thought of the laser detection and that seems pretty reasonable as laser are pretty inexpensive now days, or a device similar to what garage door openers use to reverse the door if you break the beam. The trick here would be to determine if a hand or wood was in the path of the blade. As for brakes, a disk and caliper on the opposite side of the arbor sounds like a great idea or a simple pin to engage into a blade hole or arbor hole.

[Leon]

"Doug Miller"

That is yor assumption.. You read a lot into what you read that does not exist.

I will buy one with my next saw purchase.

Sure I do and Capitolism is alive and well. And SawStop is apparently doing every thing with in their rights and the law. If you are so opposed to the setup and method of delivery stop the name calling and do something about it. Fight the petition and quit whining.

That too and them from you.

[Bay Area Dave]

that's 50 posts!

dave

Le> "Doug Miller"

[Leon]

It has come to not being about safety... Seems to have come to a few thinking they are loosing their entire rights as they always use the rights in a plural term.

No, I don't insist. I simply hope this product or one like it is still on the market when I decide to buy again. My openion is that if the government makes it manditory, I will not have to worry about this feature disappearing.

You make a good point. But, Oldsmobile had the air bag in the early 70's on the Toronado. Ford and Chrysler did also IIRC n certain vehicles. But, we did not see the air bags become main stream until they were government mandated. Also, the air bags came one at a time so to speek. Frst the one in the steering wheel..then some years later, the passenger side air bag, then the side air bags, then the back seat air bags. For what ever reason, Air bags did not become a common feature for a good 15 years after they were introduced. All these corporations are huge and had the money to do the research and development and were already in the car building business. Saw Stop is a start up company with much less capitol and an equally effective safety device. I would hate to see it disappear because of lack of capitol or the inability to hold out for 15 years like the automotive industry did.

Perhaps they could try to make it better and cheaper so that people

I believe that they have taken that route. The have attended numerous trade shows, contacted most all the saw manufacturing companies and while the trade shows appear to have been successful with the puplic, the saw manufacturers apparently felt that our safety was not warrented and would not take the first step. I would be willing to bet that if the manufacturers had taken a survey of their dealers, and customers, we would see the option today. So IMHO part of the blame can be cast towards the saw manufacturers. While I would prefer to see the devices offered as options, the saw manufacturers have decided not to voluntarily offer the option. Why are we not jumping down their throats to offer a similar device of their own design? I believe that if the product dis become readily available the saws with out the feature would eventually be gone from production.

[Leon]

Actually air bags have available since the early 70's and were offered on select vehicles by the big 3. IIRC one of the big 3 had royalty rights to the bag. That might explain why it took 20 to 25 years or so before it became common to see air bags on a wider variety of cars.

The government is the last say as to whether a company is a monopoly. And, since SawStop has offered the petition with all particulars to the government, the government will determine if the company would operate as a monopoly and may or may not grant the petition dependent on its decision. I feel confident that if the government grants the petition and mandates the modification, that it felt that particulars would not be preventing competition to develop alternatives to perform in an equal manner. You can bet that the saw manufacturers attorneys will be all over this and point out obvious problems with the petition if there are in any actuality problems with competition being able to compete. IMHO SawStop is above board in that it has legally petitioned the government and that the attorneys of possible or future competitors should be examining this quite closely.

[edfan]

Yes, Jack, I think that's EXACTLY what comes next, after SawStop becomes mandatory. EverythingStop is on the Long Term To Do list, no doubt.

> >

[Wilson]

The government has been slowly taking away our common sense. Gads, you can't even celebrate July 4 without heavy, heavy safety regulations. I guess the government can do a better job thinking for us than we can. My god, how did I live so long?