SawStop article

[Ej101]

I didn't find any previous reference to this, so...

Inc. magazine had an article in the July issue called
"He took on the whole power industry. Why wasn't anyone interested in building a safer saw." About Stephen Gass and trying to make the SawStop technology standard. Interesting read.

(http://www.inc.com/magazine/20050701...ptor-gass.html)

from the article..."So, four years later, why isn’t SawStop on every table saw on the market? That’s the funny thing about better mousetraps. Build one, and the other mousetrap makers will probably hate your guts. They might even try to squeeze you out of the mousetrap business altogether."

-Eric

[Pappy]

The Saw stop has been discussed a few times. From the mfg's side, it would mean major retooling to adapt the system. From a user point of view, extended down time and expensive reset costs.

Not saying the idea of a safer saw is bad, just that it isn't ready to be accepted by the industry or the public. At one point, he pushed for legislation to force his idea on everyone. That hurt him in the long run.

[BobSch]

My only concern with anything that claims to make a tool safer is that in some cases it makes the operator sloppier. Kind of along the lines of, "Heck, the blade's going to stop before it hurts me, so why use a blade guard/push-stick/common sense/etc." Not saying it's a universal problem or that safety devices are a waste of time and money, but to even consider legislating something like that is nuts.

[Jim-Iowa]

I read a review on the sawstop and it is a really neat idea.
My concern was once it stopped the saw, it trashed the mechanism and required a new cartridge. My budget does not always allow for a $80-$100 expenditure to get the saw back up and running.
And a saw that won`t work is just so much junk sitting around, no matter how pretty it is.

[Mainemarc]

quote:Originally posted by Jim-Iowa

I read a review on the sawstop and it is a really neat idea.
My concern was once it stopped the saw, it trashed the mechanism and required a new cartridge. My budget does not always allow for a $80-$100 expenditure to get the saw back up and running.
And a saw that won`t work is just so much junk sitting around, no matter how pretty it is.

I don't mean to rehash the entire discussion we had a few months ago, but think about what you're saying, Jim. If you say you can't afford the $80-100 expenditure to get the saw back up and running, what about the $25,000 - $50,000 in medical bills for your dismemembered fingers? More than that if you're lucky enough to get them reattached?

We blithefully talk about the circumstances of "once it stopped the saw" like it's some sort of nuisance event. If you accept for argument's sake that the technology works as advertised, then the saw stops when it's saving your God-given appendages.

Argue the merits of the technology or Steven Gass's strategy to implement the technology in the marketplace, but if it saves even the tip of your pinky finger, $80 - $100 is absolute peanuts.

[stoli]

Marc,

I agree with your argument about the relative costs of a finger vs a new cartrige. However, one figure I have not yet seen is the rate of false positives (i.e. how frequently will the mechanism trip when no fingers are nearby). I would hazard a guess that the system was designed to limit false negatives (i.e. not tripping when a finger is present) at the expense of false positives.

-=[doug]=-

[Jim-Iowa]

Marc I can hardly argue with your logic, your right.
However at the purchase price of the saw, and cost of maintainence It is not in my budget.
No doubt the man is onto something, but I think the market is not yet ready to embrace this idea. Many good ideas, never get accepted in the market.
It may well be the 53 Studebaker(90`s streamlinined design 40 yrs early,Corvette`s of the 90`s looked simular) of the saw market.

[Mainemarc]

Jim and Doug:

Those I think *are* valid points. If the cartridge fires during almost any circumstances beyond actual contact with your flesh, that's a problem. And Jim, the initial and ongoing maintenance costs of the Sawstop are certainly beyond the reach of many consumers, present company included.

All I know is if it works, it's a great idea and the "cost prohibitive" arguments ignore the financial and human price of what the technology is designed to prevent.

And don't you suspect that the per unit costs would plummet if the technology were adopted on a widespread scale? Anyone remember when the auto industry complained that airbags and antilock brake technology were way too expensive to implement on anything other than luxury cars?

[gary]

quote:Originally posted by stoli

Marc,

I agree with your argument about the relative costs of a finger vs a new cartrige. However, one figure I have not yet seen is the rate of false positives (i.e. how frequently will the mechanism trip when no fingers are nearby). I would hazard a guess that the system was designed to limit false negatives (i.e. not tripping when a finger is present) at the expense of false positives.

At one time, Sawstop said they would give you a free cartridge in the event of a false positive. I don't know if they still do but it would take away much of your argument if they still do.

[LarryG]

A question I would have is, how good are the saws themselves? If the SawStop were a $200 option (and there I'm just grabbing what seems like a reasonable figure out of the air) on a Unisaw or Powermatic 66, it'd no doubt get lots of takers. Same $200 option on a DeWalt hybrid or Delta contractor's saw, ditto. All those saws are known quantities. As wonderful as the safety device may be, I'd need to know a lot more about how these new SawStop brand saws perform before I'd put my money into one.

[Ej101]

The points that I found interesting in the article were that Ryobi actually licensed the idea and that the industry is reluctant to license it now due to the fact that it shifts the liability burden onto the manufacturer and not the woodworker (as BobSch stated above.)Kinda like building a safer cigarette now says something about how they weren't that safe before.

-Eric

[vaking]

There are plenty of safety improvements for table saws available as after-market add-ons. The Shark guard is the example everybody here knows but there are others as well. If saw stop is so wonderful why isn't it offered as an add-on? Why does it have to be pushed as a legislative measure onto saw manufacturers instead of just offered to public? This would give a direct indication of what public is ready to pay for safety and it will be independent of what manufacturers think. I wouldn't like a proposition that RYOBI is now obligated to install a few hundred dollar safety device on BT and pass the cost to me. I did not look close at technical description of device but blade brake and electronic sensor based on current through the blade and human body sound expensive. I also have doubts about the false positives - how well does the sensor perform if the saw body is grounded for instance.

[430752]

dunno about making the operator more sloppy since they feel safer. sure could be true, but did the seat belt, air bags, anti0lock brakes do this for auto drivers? Did the guard on radial arm saws do this? does the shark guard do this for us?

as far as the legislative stuff, I remember automobile mfr's not wanting to put in airbags despite having been developed in the 70's. I think some 60 minutes story in the 80's got a congressional investigation and then mfr's started "seeing the light". plus, congressional law might be needed to answer the question of, if safe now, everything before was not. a law might be passed stating that prior models/technologies are exempt, only going forward do things change. I dunno.

curt j.

[LarryG]

quote:Originally posted by vaking

If saw stop is so wonderful why isn't it offered as an add-on?

It's not just a simple add-on, at least not in its current form. The arbor and blade drops completely and instantly below the table when the mechanism is triggered. This eight-second video shows it in operation.

[Tequila]

First off, why don't table saws come packaged with a pair of safety goggles? That would probably prevent more injuries than a Sawstop, and would cost under $5 per saw.

I've seen a lot of people talk about what a great system Sawstop is (and I agree with that based on the little that I've seen.)

But what I haven't seen yet is anybody here buy one. Has anybody even seriously considered one? If not, why not - is it just the price?

Price seems to be the big argument FOR this device ($100 is cheaper than $25k in medical bills) but when it comes down to it, people seem to be keeping their money in their pocket and claiming that the price is too high to purchase or maintain it. Show of hands: Who would buy this as an addon to their current saw if it cost $200?

I think this device has a place in manufacturing where injury is not just a matter of personal responsibility. In the home shop though, there's plenty of people who make cuts with no safety goggles and the blade guard removed. If weekenders don't use the safety devices provided, you can bet that there's going to be plenty of people who disable the sawstop to save themselves the cost of a new blade and brake.

I've had a couple close calls as many of you probably have. Most of the times it was because I was trying to save time and did something stupid. Fortunately I survived and now experience has made me realize that saving time is not as important as avoiding injury.

But I still don't think I'd buy a SawStop right now.