As someone mentioned it might be a hard sell for the hobbiest. But think about the pro shop getting an insurance discount for an "Sawstop" shop. There might be an economic incentive to migrate the tools.
Allen Catonsville, MD
No, I just paid the Hundred
......enjoy
Do you just like to hear yourself talk? It's the bottom line that drives the feature set of any product, including a tablesaw (and the bottom line is a calculation consisting of "what a customer will pay for a given set of features" minus "what it costs to produce a given set of features").
If Saw-stop can't create a market for their product, then it should be appropriately relegated to a niche - and if they can't survive in that niche, c'est la vie. They certainly should _not_ rely on OSHA or any federal or state regulation to create their market for them.
scott
The "right way" to look at it is statistically. There are X tablesaws being used in a given geographical area. There are Y tablesaw injuries in that same geographical area. Of those Y injuries, there are Z that would have been prevented by SawStop. Unless Z is a significant fraction of X, SS will likely not find much traction amongst the X tablesaw owners.
Isn't easier to just not put your fingers in the blade rather than add hardware to stop the blade when you do? A couple of home-made pushsticks accomplish the same goals as the Saw-Stop, and the SS can't prevent all tablesaw injuries (such as those caused by kickback) and may infact cause more because of operator complacency.
scott
If so, it's a peculiar business model, in that amputees are rather less likely than the general woodworking population to become repeat customers.
-- 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.
You can *order* one any time you like, no waiting.
It's actually *getting* one that you have to wait for.
-- 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.
True. They're not relying on OSHA. That was a misstatement by Scott. They're actually relying on the CPSC.
False.
SawStop has petitioned the Consumer Product Safety Commission to make their proprietary technology *mandatory*. How they finance it is irrelevant. The problem many of us have with their behavior is that having first failed in the marketplace, they are now attempting to use the government to force the adoption of a product that the free market decided it didn't want.
-- 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.
I usually don't sound out the words when I'm typing or reading, so no. In fact I can even read without moving my lips.
Perpetuate what? I just mentioned some reasons which might explain why manufacturers rejected this product. Do you have another explanation?
I know you are patiently waiting for your turn to evolve into human form, but I can't help it that the guy in front of me is asking all sorts of dumb questions so stop pushing.
Did I ever contend that they did? Are you trying to imply that the white hat Sawstop folks are doing battle against the evil saw manufacturers who design machinery specifically to maim and disfigure you? No, I think that the issue boils down to the fact that SawStop has been vaporware for a long time which makes me doubt it's feasibility and that requesting that the government legislate a monopoly for your product is a sleazy business practice. Maybe these are what are preventing it from becoming a hit product rather than my de-evolutionary rantings. I'm sorry, you just can't blame me for their failure to deliver.
Go ahead and buy the damn thing if you want it. Support SawStop! Just don't bitch about it to me or make me buy one if I don't want to.
Are they really? Or is that more of their hype?
-- 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.
If you are here, and the replacement cartridge is there, then how does the replacement cartridge get to you? Can it walk? Do they have an alternate method which doesn't involve shipping? It is basic engineering that the more complex the system, the more opportunities there are for failure. I'm not making that up.
Is it really? Can you show me where you got this data from, or are you just making things up?
Yes. Perhaps you can show me where it says that the device is user-serviceable. Just because it is in a cartridge does not mean that it is user-serviceable. Their site has a fair amount of speculation to it. It has been that way for a long time. This makes me think that they are not progressing well. Since you are so familiar with it, please point out the part where it says they are user serviceable.
-j
to give it a second look. Do they have one for hammers?
-j
Given today's litigatious climate, that's probably a real consideration.
--RC Projects expand to fill the clamps available -- plus 20 percent
Hank -- Assuming that the technology works, then I can see the saw companies coming to this very conclusion (with a number of twists and turns in the analysis) as a reason to not go that way. After all, they might have offered two lines -- one w/, one w/o. Certainly there is some substantial market out there for this feature. (Of course, as always, there are costing issues.) Actually, I would take a slightly different view than yours: Not so much that adding sawstop would say that past TSs were unsafe, but that a significant market would still want the less expensive saws w/o this dealie and that selling w/ and w/o versions would look bad -- that is what the companies may have concluded.
While car companies have offered air bags as optional equipment on some cars, maybe from a jury perspective a "safe" saw and an "unsafe" saw could not be justified. People think they understand cars; even some of us who use TSs are still working out all the dynamics.
Think about how various safety features of today's cars came to market, from collapsing steering columns, padded dashboards, and crumple zones, to airbags. Generally, there was industry opposition and eventually courts, Congress, or stockholders required them. At least until maybe 10-15 years ago, safety was not embraced; it was eventually accepted, IMO. Think about roll cages in minivans. They make huge sense in light of the fact that minivans are sold to families, yet Detroit did not rush to design them into minivans. IIRC, the feds eventually set a deadline. Sure, there have been some companies to jump on a new safety opportunity -- the Germans and the Japanese often are in this group. But base on looking at what US-based companies bring to market, the _general_ view is that "safety" only sells to a marginal group.
There can be an irony in the law about such things. If the sawstop technology does work and it catches on, then if a company that does not sell sawstop is sued for its "plain" TS, the plaintiff can say, "They could have added this new technology but they refused." OTOH, if the same company had licensed sawstop and then was sued, the fact that it had added a sawstop line would not be admissible in court. YMMV, depending on your state, but that irony exists in many states. FWIW. -- Igor
Yeah, that's my biggest concern with the SawStop. I think it's an interesting idea, but I wouldn't be surprised if, if we ever have a world where it's mandatory, the net number of injuries stays about constant, as people depend on the SS to save them instead of being really aware of what they're doing. The tablesaw is still a dangerous machine even if it won't cut off your finger.
-BAT
People had the same worries about airbags in cars. False discharges, failure to discharge, injuries from discharges... all happened sometimes. But the odds were (and still are) that they save enough in injuries to be worthwhile. The big problem for manufacturers is that you can not retrofit these easily on existing designs. There is a big cost to redesign to accommodate SawStop.
That being said, if the technology works and is, when in wide use, under $150 in extra cost, it will be on the large majority of saws within 10 years. The case for reducing the risk of disfiguring, disabling, painful, expensive injuries would be too compelling for manufacturers or the feds to ignore.
J wrote:
Is that still the case?
If you blow a fuse, you do not have a breaker to flip. You have to unscrew or unplug the old fuse and put a new one in. If you don't have a replacement fuse you have to go get one. If this happens on your car at midnight in a blizzard on a rareley travelled road, then you're screwed.
They don't have to be. In any case, if this is a real issue for you and you don't keep a spare cartridge on hand then that's your problem.
I don't particularly like the product or the company and probably would not make it a consideration in purchasing a saw. I was merely speculating on a way that the company might persuade saw manufacturers to use their product.
But your objections for the most part do not appear to be valid.
Yes, really. The sawstop fires, you now have a saw that won't run until you fix it, same as if anything else went wrong with it.
What is what you were trying to say?
I understand that you seem more interested in the cleverness of your own argument than in any kind of discourse.
Life's too short.
Not quite true, but even if it was, so what? The "free market" would allow or reject many things that are not in the common good. If SawStop can make a buck by using existing government mechanism that are designed to protect the common good, what is the harm?
What is the point?
Don't presume to tell me what I would do, sir.
Agreed. But it _is_ going to trigger under circumstances where no injury would have occured.
Where is the "supposition"? Are you claiming that there is some natural law that requires that the cartridge be identical for all saws? Or that there is some compelling reason other than making bucks for there being different contacts on each brand of battery of a given voltage intended for use in cordless tools, or that since the sawstop would have to be engineered into the saw it would give the designer greater freedom to be able to specify the shape of the cartridge to match the particular design of his housing?
If you have a point to make, make it. Otherwise sod off.
HomeOwnersHub website 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.