In instead of speculating here
on the internet, and perpetuating yet another "urban legend" and find out,
but I suspect that you have no interest in the truth anyway. Steve Gass has
stated that it only takes a "few seconds" to change the cartridge when
switching between a regular blade and a dado blade." I don't see why it
would take much longer to change the cartridge when it misfires.
My suspicion is that you don't have the balls to man up and do some research
like Steve Gass has, so just keep putting YOUR spin on this issue, instead
of getting the facts.
So really the cost of this device is twice what it appears?
Regulation about who can use tools based on how well supplied with spares
they are... What a concept. This will reduce the number of contractors in
business by an order of magnitude. On the positive side, no excuse to head
off to the store and then out for a cup of coffee.
So you base your statement on hearsay from someone who has a substantial
vested interest in the topic? I'm still trying to figure out how the math
works out from what he said to "2.5 fingers". Word problems... what can you
No, you claimed it is user serviceable. Perhaps you can stop speculating and
I'm not interested in the facts. If I was I wouldn't be wasting my time
I am starting to think I'm being trolled. You are the one who stated that
the average reaction time is 2.5 fingers. Now you are saying that no one
really knows. Come on. Stop playing around.
No, it is not. Really, this is where I think you are trolling. You imply it
is on their website, so I go there and check it out. It says nothing of the
sort. Then you say write Sawstop and find out.
You are the one speculating that it possesses an attribute which is not
I'm tired of being trolled. Show me the facts that back up your argument.
Let's see, a replacement cartridge is supposed to be about $70, and
replacement WWII will be somewhere around $100. That is starting to
push the limits as far as what most people (or even a lot of shops)
want to have sitting around "just in case".
It's a bit misleading, in that he totally ignores all the injuries
that don't involve pushing fingers through the blade. By far the
majority of table saw accidents involving contact with the spinning
blade (the only ones that matter for SS) do *not* involve amputation.
My guess (based on experience of people I know) is that the majority
don't even make it to the doctor or e-room.
I think that there is some sort of fundamental design issue with SS.
It relies on stopping the blade by interacting with the blade and
drops the blade below the table as a backup. I suspect it would be
quite easy to make a device that uses a similar detection methodology
that employs spring loaded trunnions that will snap the entire
trunnion assembly down into the saw at a touch. If properly designed
it should be easy to make it resettable and the design would then tend
to "fail safe", that is, if the system won't work the blade can't be
locked into the "up" position.
SawStop may be a good product, but I think there are a lot of other
ways to try to solve the problem. Because SS holds the patent on using
induction (?) or whatever to detect contact with the blade they have
the industry in a stranglehold. A year or so ago it seems that one of
the saw manufacturers said they were interested in the detection
technology, but wanted to develop their own blade stopping system. SS,
at that time, would only license the right to install SS, not to
develop a different system based on part of the SS patent.
Personally, I do not think that SS is likely the best way to solve
this problem, but I'm afraid that they have sewed things up in such a
way that they are probably going to be the only game in town. If SS
becomes mandatory (especially the way their SPSC petition was written)
it could well be illegal to try to do something else, effectively
stifling innovation. Look at the emissions controls on today's cars
for examples of how legislation can destroy innovation and lock us
into second-best solutions.
Plenty of the other injuries you refer to as the ones that don't matter
would be far less serious as demonstrated in the videos on the sawstop
Well then, where is your invention and patent? ..or are you just offering
lip service here...
Another perfect example of why the manufacturers greed rules how evolution
of innovation goes. Poor poor manufacturer got beat to the punch. Guess
they were just too busy stufing their pockets with money to worry about
whether or Harry homeowner keeps his fingers or not...what a joke!
I don't think it's sawstop that is stifling innovation. In fact, it's the
manufacturers that are stifling it, by not even offering up the idea of
stopping the blade prior to sawstops invention. Oh, how I weep for the
billion dollar machinery industry! LOLOLOL...
The idea of legislating manufacturers into advancement is not such a bad
concept, especially considering that most all of the choices they make are
about appearing to be concerned about safety, while not accomodating an
operable safety system because they did not come up with it first. Maybe
someone else is goign to make a score this time. I personally hope the
little guy wins this one.
Ever since the industrial revolution began, the manufacturers have exploited
the common man. Now the common man has smartened up a bit, andis using the
laws to get better protection. I see nothing wrong with that at all...
Sure, but is it worth the cost to reduce a two stitch injury to a
band-aid one? Or a band-aid cut to a smaller band-aid? Remember that
it will cost you at least $75 - $70 for the cartridge and $5 for a HF
SawStop has raised the issue. It remains for others to try to innovate
around the concept. I'm not one of those others, but there will be
different approaches tried. Unless....
The point is that the manufacturers looked at the technology and said
"we can do better on part of this" but SS won't let them try. They
offered an all or nothing approach and ended up with the nothing. If
they had licensed the detection part you might right now be seeing
unisaws with something the equivalent of SawStop - or maybe not - but
SS pretty much guaranteed that no one else will try. This isn't about
correcting a defective tool, it is about adding entirely unproven
technology that would lock them into design changes and tie them
completely to a small, start-up company forever. *No* smart
businessman would take that deal. If SawStop really was interested in
helping woodworkers keep their fingers they would do everything they
could - including licensing parts of their technology - to see that
manufacturers added *some sort* of blade stopping device.
Any law that specifies a particular device to solve a problem is a
poor law. Legislation should establish goals and allow the engineers,
etc. to find ways to accomplish those goals. I would accept SawStop's
proposed legislation on only one condition, that they made the design
public domain so that anyone could build it. When the government just
hands a company the keys to the safe bad things happen - see
Halliburton. From where I sit SawStop looks just as greedy and corrupt
as any of the big manufacturers - and just as uninterested in the
fingers of the woodworking crowd.
Glad to see you have a sense of humor. I was beginning to wonder.
On a more serious note:
I consider the chainsaw far more dangerous than the tablesaw, but don't use
it as frequently. Wonder if the SawStop sensor mechanism would work on a
chainsaw? All they'd have to do is shut down the motor.
So every time you hit a nail you need a new chainsaw blade? And since
the sawstop needs to be disabled when cutting metallic substances, what
happens when you hit a nail in a piece of barnwood? New blade and unit required?
Seems to me that the chainsaw is a different animal. Stop the motor and
the chain stops within one(?) rotation. Probably enough to keep you from
taking off your foot.
As to barnwood, you'll probably need a pretty good metal detector.
That hasn't stopped you so far. Why start now?
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 would fear that trying to stop the chain that quickly would tend to
create an unacceptably high risk of having chain parts flying around.
Add to that the fact that chain saws operate in environments that are
far from controlled, often in the rain, snow, mud etc. and cut green
wood a lot I can see *way* too many opportunities for false positives
for it to be a practical solution on a chain saw. Add the need to keep
it as small and light as possible and I think it's a complete
non-starter. Current chain-braking technology works acceptably well
for most circumstances that matter with a chain saw (kickback) and is
unlikely to be greatly improved on by adding complexity.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It 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.