I'm really not interested in what Steve Gass claims, as he's hardly an unbiased source. I'd put much more stock in a statement by someone not affiliated with SawStop, who says that he actually has one in his shop.
I haven't seen that yet.
-- 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.
As it should have been.
So now you claim to be privy to the manufacturers' decision-making processes, and in your omniscience you can state with certainty that their rejection of SS was based entirely on lack of concern for safety. Economic reasons had nothing at all to do with it.
Riiiiiiiiight.
-- 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 should ask that question to those who have lost fingers/hands, shouldn't you?
Yes, it will. But we don't know the numbers, and we won't until it's been field tested for years. There will be problems. Either they will fix the problems, or they are unfixable.
Can't we just say "I'm not personally convinced it's a good idea. I will wait until I see the numbers before deciding one way of the other."
Seems like this would eliminate a lot of the flames.
Why is this the "only real solution?" There are others as well.
It is a SawStop saw that they sell. If a $1600 saw becomes a fused pile of metal, then this would be a major marketing problem. I would assume there is a warranty.
One might have purchased an extended service contract. Someone may buy the used one from you for half price and fix it themselves. There may be an after-market kit to fix it.
You are talking about a possible consequence that there is no evidence that is it real. You might as well say "Yeah, but the blade might come loose and go flying through the air at 100 miles an hour" or "It might start a fire and burn my house down" or "The God of woodworkers might strike me down for being disrespectful to the Law of Fingers."
Care to suggest any?
Seems obvious enough that if the saw doesn't work, the options are limited to:
1) repair it 2) replace it 3) don't use it-- 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.
Your argument makes no sense to me. When you buy a saw, blades are extra. Having to buy "an extra blade" won't make manufacturer's change their mind. That's what they do now.
I'd be interested in more detail behind the 3,000 amputations. Perhaps if you could provide information about the degree of amputation, etc. I realize it's a statistic, but it's also being bannered about here as if it has some meaning. As it stands today, the phrase 3,000 amputation has no meaning whatsoever and in fact has nothing more than shock value. That's one of the things I like least about what I see Gass doing. Those who have to resort to that type of tactic only do so because something else isn't up to par in their claim.
Ahem... psssssttt... that was (not-so)cleverly disguised sarcasm. You're expressing my point. Those two - or what ever number (small) though they may be, are the ones that have been there since the beginning. It's very suspicious when you hear claims that make it sound like production is up, things are shipping, stuff in the field and then the only information you can find points to the same two or three that have been there for a couple of years. That's getting some mileage out of those units. Credibility suffers.
G'dambit Doug - quit bending over when I'm taking aim...
The suggestion I was making was that it be approached on a razor blade model-include it in the saw at no additional charge and make your profit on the consumables.
Which are?
That _who_ sell? We're talking about a saw with a Sawstop. It doesn't have to be _their_ saw, it could be a Delta or a Jet or a Grizzly or a Craftsman. The assumption is just that for whatever reason the saw that you have has a Sawstop on it.
While that is true, it is irrelevant and I don't understand why you bring it up. I'm not sure what point you think you are addressing. The fact that a Sawstop cartridge destroys itself when it activates and has to be replaced at a cost of approximately $100 is claimed by Sawstop. If you think they are lying about that then you should take it up with them.
There _is_ "after-market kit to fix it". It's called a "Sawstop cartridge" and Sawstop gets $100 for it. It's patented, there's no other source for it than Sawstop or one of their licensees.
If one purchased an "extended service contract" it's debatable whether that would cover the Sawstop cartridge, which is designed to destroy itself when it operates, and which I would expect to be considered a consumable part like brake pads on a car. In any case, one would still have to replace the cartridge.
If someone buys the used one from you and fixes it himself, you are still without a saw until you buy a new one.
I'm sorry, but what "consequence" is that? You do something that triggers the Sawstop, the Sawstop triggers--that's its purpose and it is designed to do that and if it fails to do that then the manufacturer would be open to serious liability claims. When the Sawstop triggers, the cartridge destroys itself while stopping the blade. That is not a matter of conjecture, that is the manner in which the manufacturer claims that it operates, and one would assume that he would know this about his product. To replace the cartridge will cost you or the warranty company or _somebody_ $100. That again is not a matter of conjecture. That is the amount that the manufacturer of the Sawstop says that he is going to charge for the replacement part. Again, one may assume that he knows this about his product.
So I fail to understand what "possible consequence that there is no evidence that is it real" you are talking about.
If the manufacturer of the Sawstop claimed that it would make the blade come loose and go flying through the air at 100 miles an hour or that it would start a fire and burn the house down or that it would make the God of woodworkers strike one down for being disrespectful to the Law of Fingers then it would be reasonable to discuss those as normal consequences of its use. He does not claim that. He claims that when it activates, the cartridge must be replaced at a cost of $100.
So, when it fires, your choice is to replace the cartridge for $100 out of your pocket or out of somebody's pocket, get a new saw that works without your having to replace the cartridge, or to not saw. I see no room for conjecture here.
So you don't carry a spare tire, which costs about the same as a Sawstop cartridge?
The point is that if you know you might need the cartridge and you don't have one reasonably accessible, that is your choice to make and your error.
This may come as a shock to you but the fact that _your_ objections are not valid does not mean that there are not other objections that _are_ valid. Presumably the saw manufacturers did not buy into it because they saw no good reason to do so.
Perhaps because they felt that it was not adequately supported? Or perhaps during the public comment period enough people said "over my dead body" or words to that effect that they decided that the public did not want such a regulation to be implemented?
Because they don't want it?
Maybe it can be that we just don't want the thing.
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,
OK, now we're getting close. Go back to the original analogy about having a PBJ jammed down your throat. That was the false dilemma.
Huh? Where did I say that? If you look at the third line of this post you will see that I said "If the choice was that or 1600 bucks for a new saw . . ." The part that you snipped clearly indicates that the "that" in that sentence was "pay $100 for a new Sawstop cartridge".
Started what? I made a comment on a possible marketing strategy. Then you come in here with all this bullshit about "false dilemmas" when it is clear that your real problem is comprehension of the English language.
Not _my_ false dilemma. "J" was using that to make some point that I never quite understood and referring to my statement that if you have a Sawstop saw and the Sawstop fires your choice is to replace the Sawstop cartridge or buy a new saw as the "false dilemma".
========================================= I agree...
The idea of the Saw Stop is darn good....and aparently it works.....
BUT
Seatbelts are similar ...AND .By Law the auto manufacturers have to install them... and by State Law I have to buckle up or face a fine
If I held the patient for the saw stop you bet I would be doing everything possible to protect everyone from danger...
AND at the same time I would of course be making my bank account a lot bigger....
Bob Griffiths BTW... I have no use for a Saw Stop AND I do use my seat belts in MOST of my cars.. My old Corvette left the factory before they were required by law....
Right. The stupid people who aren't wearing seatbelts now "because I has airbags, yuh see", are the same stupid people who weren't wearing seatbelts before airbags came along.
Technology doesn't make stupid people more, or less, stupid. It just changes what they're going to be stupid about.
You are confusing correlation with causation. The wings don't make the drivers idiots, but the idiot drivers are more likely to buy wings.
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.