Sawstop--the wrong marketing approach?

[J]

Yep, my point exactly. You can take orders in advance, but you better be ready to ship within a few months or you are going to end up with unhappy ex-customers.

-j

[GregP]

I have no idea how long it took from the day a few people said "hey, let's sell tools" to the day that the first one was sold to a customer, but I suspect that it was a good two years. I also have no idea when the Sawstop people decided to go into the ts retail business.

That is now, but that is different from what I asked.

[J. Clarke]

I once met a fellow who had two Nobel Prizes in Physics. One time some psychology department or other decided to evaluate his IQ. According to him it was 96.

I'm sorry, but the fact that a certain percentage of the population has a certain IQ does not justify a set of laws that run so many pages that you need a forklift to move the set.

[J. Clarke]

That's your choice.

[J. Clarke]

They won't stop because people like you take the attitude that anybody who disagrees with you is "an absolute moron not capable of operating any power tool". Which leads those who fall into that category to develop toward you an attitude of "Jo Mama".

[Scott Lurndal]

I've known several carpenters who couldn't find their way out of a paper bag. Saw-stop wouldn't save them from their own stupidity. Next you'll be all gung-ho over a nail-stop device which attaches to a nail gun and prevents one from shooting oneself in the head.

scott

[Charlie Self]

GregP responds:

What did you ask?

SawStop has been sitting on their product for at least four years that I know of...make that five. I somehow doubt the owner of Grizzly spent anything like two years putting things together to sell tools, but if he did, he made no public announcements beforehand about his products.

I've met Mr. Balolia (sp?) a couple times, and one thing I learned about him is that he does not like wasting time. AFAIK, he's sole owner of Grizzly, so he would have made the decisions and got things going ASAP, after deciding he was going to sell imported tools in the U.S. It might have taken him two years to put the financing together...I have absolutely NO idea about that.

Charlie Self "He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire." Sir Winston Churchill

[igor]

That is what I said later in my same post. Here it is:

"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."

In my experience following such industry developments, in fact suits DO come from both directions, yet companies generally only predict those coming from the first direction -- i.e., that a "new safety technology" will suggest that their existing products are defective. If they can kill that new tech, then when a lawsuit comes they can say that the technology was "unproven", "too costly", etc. But if they do not kill it -- i.e., if their refusal to license it does not prevent it somehow coming to market eventually -- then they really can end up being hit harder in court. Please also note my initial caveat: "Assuming the technology works". -- Igor

[GregP]

My starting point was when he decided to sell tools, not when he decided to add a single product to his line.

So it sounds like two years, maybe even longer, is realistic.

[ted harris]

First off, anyone that thinks that having a saw that will reduce an accident on a saw from one that requires anything from stiches, on up to amputations to a cut that is 1/32 in depth at a cost of no more than the cost of a new cartridge and a saw blade is a bad idea, is an absolute moron not capable of operating any power tool, IMHO. So no, I don't think the flames will stop.

[ted harris]

Are you implying that none of the 3000 + people that have amputations are not professional woodworkers? I know several carpenters and professional woodworkers that have had fingers disappear, or get serious enough cuts that require them not to work. Don't you?

[ted harris]

Please understand that I am not involved at all in the political side of this argument. I personally could care less whether or not the government makes it required or not...all I know is, I will have this system on any machinery in my shop that it can be put on, when it becomes available.

[ted harris]

If I was worried about false alarms, I would like to find out what testing has been done to prove that it will not misfire. I am quite positive that there are saws somewhere that have been in real woodshops being used in real working conditions since the day it was invented, not to mention possibly even some testing center that was hired to test it. Basically, I am saying that befoe I pursued purchasing the machine I would like to see evidence of testing, or some sort of proof that misfires are some very small percentage or even not possible. I would pay it at least once, and then I would have to figure out whether or not I actually touched the blade, before I pursued other avenues. If I did not touch the blade, I would be on the phone talking to Steve Gass. I am quite sure that he is a reasonable man, and could be convinced one way, cannot be the only way. The reason I know this is because of his invention of the very system we are debating. The system would not even exist if he thought that the possiblity for something that seemed impossible was in fact possible.

Never, but I have touched an alternating tip blade while it was running and not even received a scratch from it.

[ted harris]

Yeah, but now there are 6 billion people on this rock, and half of them have an IQ of 100 or less...

[rcook5]

No, just an experienced observer.

I was a newspaper and wire service reporter an editor for many years, including the period when seat belts were first mandated.

Bismarck's old adage about sausage and politics goes double for public policy.

--RC

Projects expand to fill the clamps available -- plus 20 percent

[rcook5]

Well, we can start with a 1983 quote from Joan Claybrook, former NHTSA adminstrator

Air bags, (she insisted on CNN in 1983), are ''much better than seat belts'' because they ''would protect all front-seat occupants in those types of crashes where 55 percent of the public is now killed.'' She called them ''the best solution,'' since ''they fit all different sizes and types of people, from little children up to ... very large males. So they really work beautifully and they work automatically and I think that that gives you more freedom and liberty.''

(I'll note additionally in passing that this contains several major untruths, whether Claybrook knew they were untrue or not. And as former NHTSA administrator she should have known they were untrue.)

Or this, from Public Citizen, one of the Naderite groups that spread the misinformation about air bags.

"Protection of Unbelted Occupants Original purpose of air bags"

That's from their 1999 fact sheet on air bags at

the effect? A lot of people were left with a very false impression about air bags.

"Survey of Americans Shows Use and Safety of Air Bags Misunderstood" Is the headline on a 1997 release from the Harvard School of Public Health.

>>>Technology doesn't make stupid people more, or less, stupid. It just

If they're acting on widespread misinformation then their responsibility is at least lessened. People were widely misinformed about the effects of airbags because their advocates vastly overstated their case.

See the examples above. People were told, or as much as told, that air bags would protect you even if you weren't buckled in. They weren't told -- until years after air bags were mandated -- that air bags could also kill you and your children.

Your argument is valid in regards to air bags circa 2004 because of a massive education campaign in the last five years. (The first public mention of these dangers from a government source I could find was in a 1995 release.) Before then it was simply wrong -- because of the widespread misinformation.

--RC Projects expand to fill the clamps available -- plus 20 percent

[rcook5]

While it's a charming suggestion. (I particularly like the idea of Joan Claybrook in the dock for reckless homicide of dozens of children) I don't think it goes to the real root of the problem.

In the case of air bags some people certainly understood the dangers. Early in the campaign for air bags during the Carter administration, Chrysler Corp. produced a study estimating that air bags would kill about 200 people a year. (Fortunately that was way too high -- in part because we developed better sensors before we deployed air bags.) This information was ignored and derided because it came from an obviously partisan source.

The problem is not what a few people know, it is building a consensus that can be acted on. One of the best ways to do that is to conduct enough research and tests to make sure the technology is fully understood and appropriately developed.

The next step should be a full, public and careful review of what we know about the technology and the implications. This simply doesn't happen under present conditions. Instead new technology is often mandated on the basis of an inadequate process conducted in a witch hunt atmosphere.

The third step is to constantly review the regulations and their underlying premises in the light of new evidence -- and a willingness to completely change the regulations when it becomes obvious a different approach gives better results.

Fat chance!

--RC Projects expand to fill the clamps available -- plus 20 percent

[rcook5]

Which you could do if you had freedom of choice. You wouldn't if the government mandated this thing.

Your faith is touching, but I suspect misplaced. At this point Steve Gass, no matter how reasonable he might be, is deeply emotionally committed to SawStop. His very natural inclination would be to explain away or simply ignore any evidence of problems. So I doubt seriously you'd get any satisfaction from him -- or indeed anyone else in his position.

(My personal belief, based on Mr. Gass' actions, is that he is not nearly as reasonable as you think.)

Financial interest aside, people invest in ideas and once they are deeply invested it is extremely difficult to change their opinions.

--RC

Projects expand to fill the clamps available -- plus 20 percent

[rcook5]

You will also have far more experience, even more ingrained safety habits and have developed patterns of working to compensate for your physical and mental failings.

Older age groups famously have fewer accidents than younger ones.

--RC

Projects expand to fill the clamps available -- plus 20 percent

[rcook5]

If you really want to know the answer check out the SawStop patent and look at the filing date. Then count backwards anywhere from six months to two years.

If you want a more reasonable number, look at when the company was incorporated. If it's been several years and they're still not shipping, then there's a problem.

Don't discount the possibility that this is another example of a small company built around a good story whose primary business is to get money from investors. There are a lot of those out there.

--RC

Projects expand to fill the clamps available -- plus 20 percent