On 2/8/2017 1:07 PM, woodchucker wrote:
> The man offered all the companies the licensing rights. none took him up
> on it.
>
> I don't begrudge him. You do.. that's your problem.
Maybe. I have no idea of the terms he wanted. Over the years so
patents were offered free of royalty because they had the potential to
save lives. Being a generous sort of guy, I once offered a meal to a
starving homeless person for only $30.
http://jalopnik.com/volvo-gave-away-their-most-important-invention-to-save-1069825878
On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 3:49:15 PM UTC-6, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>=20
> OTOH, Obama care requires us to buy insurance or pay a fine. If that=20
> can get by Congress a shop safety device is not much different.
And all of the states require you to have a state issued driver's license t=
o operate a vehicle on the roads. And other licenses to operate a truck. =
There is about a 100% chance everyone will use health care. So having insu=
rance to cover the costs makes sense. States require liability insurance t=
o drive a car. States require you to buy insurance!!! No one doubts the a=
bility of government to pass laws governing the safety aspects of products.=
The legal question is whether the law can require a patented device be ma=
ndated.
Can anyone give an example of a law that required using a patented, license=
d device? Seatbelts, airbags, ABS were all long past their patents when th=
ey were required by law to be included on cars.
On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 1:21:29 PM UTC-5, woodchucker wrote:
> On 2/7/2017 8:50 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 5:28:42 PM UTC-5, Leon wrote:
> >> http://www.toolsofthetrade.net/power-tools/benchtop-tools/the-fate-of-=
reaxx_o
> >
> > Wait a minute...there is hope.
> >
> > The article states this:
> >
> > "The decision of the ITC will now move to the United States Trade Repre=
sentative
> > (USTR), as delegated by the President, who must approve or disapprove t=
he ITC=E2=80=99s
> > final decision in sixty (60) days. The USTR rarely goes against the ITC=
, having
> > disapproved of the ITC=E2=80=99s determination once in nearly 30 years.=
"
> >
> > If the past few weeks are any indication, it may not be "business as us=
ual"
> > (minor pun intended) in Washington. Recent events seem to indicate that=
we
> > can no longer let history be our guide.
> >
> >
> >
>=20
> I don't see how the President would side with Bosch, as it's a German=20
> company over SawStop an American company.
>=20
> --=20
> Jeff
>=20
There you go again, assigning rationality to an irrational situation. ;-)
(I'm not getting political here, I'm just having fun.)=20
On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 09:08:31 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>On 2/8/2017 10:05 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 Feb 2017 21:58:22 -0500, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/8/2017 8:37 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
>>>> On 2/8/17 1:37 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>>> On 2/8/2017 1:07 PM, woodchucker wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The man offered all the companies the licensing rights. none took
>>>>>> him up on it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't begrudge him. You do.. that's your problem.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe. I have no idea of the terms he wanted. Over the years so
>>>>> patents were offered free of royalty because they had the potential
>>>>> to save lives. Being a generous sort of guy, I once offered a meal
>>>>> to a starving homeless person for only $30.
>>>>> http://jalopnik.com/volvo-gave-away-their-most-important-invention-to-save-1069825878
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> It's your choice, it's their choice, it's anyone's choice to do so.
>>>> Anything other than that-- having the choice to do so-- is communism,
>>>> plain and simple.
>>>>
>>>> If someone offers their patented technology for free for the "better
>>>> good," good for them they are to be commended for their generosity.
>>>>
>>>> If someone else decides to make a profit off of their hard work and
>>>> intellectual property, then good for them, they deserve it.
>>>>
>>>> If someone else judges that person for making money off their hard work
>>>> and invention instead of giving it away, the fu@& you for judging them
>>>> and wanting them to give their hard earned property away for free. If
>>>> you choose to give something away which you rightly earned, then good
>>>> for you. If you sanctimoniously judge someone for keeping the money
>>>> they earn, then you are the problem, not them.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Like I said, MAYBE. We don't know the terms. Sure, he invested in the
>>> technology and should have some return. It may have been $2 a unit, it
>>> may have been $800 a unit. In life we are faced with a myriad of
>>> circumstances and we have a choice as what to do. Our choice can make
>>> us a hero or a schmuck. I don't know where he falls.
>> Ryobi in Jan 2002 balked at a 3% royalty at the wholesale level
>> with no upfront fees. I'd call that a pretty fair deal.
>> That would have given them all the engineering and the right to use it
>> - on ANY saw they produced
>>
>
>And thinking about that a bit more, If there is indeed documentation
>that Ryobi was on board and balked at 3% I can see how the attorneys
>would have used that information against them when they lost that big
>suit over they flooring guy that cut his finger off.
>
>Ryobi was probably projected as the company that did not want to spend a
>few dollars for the safety of their customers.
>
>And yes a few dollars, 3% of cost to be able to add a very nice selling
>feature with no R&D for that feature is cheap.
>
>
>
Cheap??? At 3%, Glass was GIVING the technology away, figuring to make
a bit of money on the volume. The only reason it didn't fly was
because he was a lawyer, and he stressed the liability and litigation
issues over the intrensic safety of the device.
When companies like Ryobi were scared they would have to use the
technology on EVERY saw they built, I suspect their lawyers and
accountants decided it was safer NOT to have the technology in their
"bag of tricks"
The American litigatious legal situation and corporate greed (on the
part of Ryobi, not SawStop) killed the deal, in my opinion.
On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 08:14:40 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>
Hear you go Leon, and anyone else interested:
>> Ryobi in Jan 2002 balked at a 3% royalty at the wholesale level
>> with no upfront fees. I'd call that a pretty fair deal.
>> That would have given them all the engineering and the right to use it
>> - on ANY saw they produced
>>
>
>Yeah, I would pay 3% in a heart beat. Do you have a link to that
>specific information?
>
>I always thought that the offer was probably fair in so much that they
>or another company almost went forward. I really think that they
>decided to not be the only ones and that this would all blow over and
>not happen.
>
>
From FairWarning.org:
Negotiations were held with several companies. Talks with Ryobi
advanced farthest, then collapsed under mysterious circumstances.
A leading manufacturer and supplier to Home Depot, Ryobi is based in
Anderson, S.C., and is a subsidiary of Techtronics, Inc. of Hong Kong.
In January, 2002, Ryobi sent SawStop a signed licensing agreement. It
called for Ryobi to investigate SawStops feasibility, and to
incorporate it in Ryobi saws within 18 months if it proved feasible.
SawStop would get a royalty equal to 3 percent of the wholesale cost
of each saw, with the fee rising as high as 8 percent should the
technology be widely adopted.
Gass said a small typo led him to return the contract to Ryobis
general counsel, who Gass said told him he would immediately fix the
mistake and mail the contract back. Days turned into weeks, then
months. Gass said he got repeated assurances that Ryobi wanted to
proceed, but the contract never came back.
Years later, in the trial of a lawsuit against Ryobi, a company lawyer
explained it this way: Ryobi decided that it did not want to go
forward with this project, he said. Ryobi was going through a
corporate acquisition, the SawStop deal took a back seat, and
eventually Ryobi lost interest.
Robert Bugos, the former general counsel Gass said had strung him
along, put it another way in a deposition. There was negotiation back
and forth, Bugos said. Our position was always that SawStop was
asking too much.
From WikiPedia, very similar:
In January 2002, SawStop appeared to come close to a licensing
agreement with Ryobi, who agreed to terms that involved no up-front
fee and a 3% royalty based on the wholesale price of all saws sold
with SawStop's technology; the royalty would grow to 8% if most of the
industry also licensed the technology.[1] According to Gass, when a
typographical error in the contract had not been resolved after six
months of effort by Gass to get Ryobi to sign the proposed deal, Gass
gave up on the effort in mid-2002.[1] Some subsequent licensing
negotiations were deadlocked when the manufacturers insisted that Gass
should "indemnify them against any lawsuit if SawStop malfunctioned",
something Gass wouldn't agree to since he would not be manufacturing
the saws."[1]
The failure to license it to Ryobi or another manufacturer prompted
SawStop to start its own company; over two years later, the company's
first saw was produced by a Taiwanese manufacturing plant in November
2004; by 2005 SawStop had grown to "eight people out of a two-story
barn Gass built himself."[1]
From "Fine Woodworking" Nov 29, 2011:
In October, Gass demonstrated a SawStop prototype for Ryobi
representatives in Anderson, S.C. He also gave Ryobi a prototype to
test. Gass wasnt interested in selling the technology to just one
company. Instead, he was looking for a larger sales opportunity and to
change the industry for the better, he said. We did not want to see
it on just one brand of saws, he said, and so we were unwilling to
give an exclusive license to any one company. It was our feeling that
this technology, like air bags or something like that, should be on
every saw.
In 2001, Gass sent the CPSC a prototype of the SawStop. After testing
it, the CPSC awarded SawStop the Chairmans Commendation for product
safety.
While negotiations with Ryobi went on, Gass said he pitched his
product to other tablesaw manufacturers. To entice as many as he
could, he asked for what he considered a low 3% royalty at first, to
help offset the additional costs of incorporating the technology. That
royalty would increase if more tablesaw makers adopted SawStop (when
market share reached 25% the royalty would go to 5%; 75% share would
increase the royalty to 8%).
To avoid litigation, manufacturers believed they would have to equip
every saw in their lines with the new technology, a process that would
require redesigning the saws and retooling the factories where theyre
made. And yet Gasss invention hadnt yet been proven to work in the
real world. It was a tough decision.
In 2002, SawStop and Ryobi came close to a licensing agreement.
However, the deal was never closed, and people involved in the
negotiations differ as to why. According to witnesses who testified in
a recent legal case (Osorio vs. One World Technologies, Inc.), Ryobi
chose to work with other members of the PTI on a joint venture to
design a flesh-sensing alternative to SawStop, as well as a better
guard system. David Peot, former director of advanced technology for
Ryobi, testified that such cooperation among PTI members was
unprecedented. The people who belong to the Power Tool Institute are
very fierce competitors. Never in my 30, 35 years of working with
[them] had I ever been exposed to something where they said lets get
together and develop something.
After the Ryobi deal fell through and with no responses from other
tablesaw makers, Gass and his partners decided to develop their own
brand. While they were working with designers on a saw, Gass and his
partners petitioned the CPSC in 2003 to do something about the large
number of tablesaw accidents that were occurring yearly. They told the
CPSC that current table saws pose an unacceptable risk of severe
injury because they are inherently dangerous and lack an adequate
safety system to protect users from accidental contact with the
blade. They asked the CPSC to require performance standards for a
system to reduce or prevent injuries from contact with the blade of a
table saw. In essence they were asking for a mandatory ruling that
would require all tablesaws to have some sort of flesh-sensing
technology and blade-stopping device.
In 2004, SawStop rolled out its first model, a cabinet saw. Then, in
the spring of 2005, an accident on a Lexington, Mass., job site
cracked open the floodgates on the tablesaw safety debate and its
legal fallout.
J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <DcGdnYJ3FedvAgbFnZ2dnUU7-
> [email protected]>, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
> says...
>>
>> On 2/8/2017 12:04 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Tue, 7 Feb 2017 22:39:35 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/7/2017 8:00 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 6:50:15 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/7/2017 5:28 PM, Leon wrote:
>>>>>>> http://www.toolsofthetrade.net/power-tools/benchtop-tools/the-fate-of-reaxx_o?utm_source=newsletter&utm_content=Article&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=TOTT_020717%20(1)&he=bec4d8d422980f163c46356739c05c6eecb92632
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Steve Gass continues to make friends. I wonder if someone losing a
>>>>>> finger will sue Gass for not allowing Bosch to sell here.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is there a shortage of Saw Stop saws here? Is the price of Saw Stop so
>>>>> prohibitive here that anyone who would have bought a Reaxx for the
>>>>> safety feature can't/won't buy a Saw Stop?
>>>>>
>>>>> IOW, I don't see how anyone could sue the company that offers a comparable
>>>>> product to the banned one. If someone wants the technology, and a Saw Stop
>>>>> is available at roughly the same price, why would Gass be liable if someone
>>>>> chooses not to buy his product? How did Gass cause that finger to be lost?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Its just the absurdity if holding a grudge for a person that long.
>>>
>>> Grudge? What's a gruge got to do with it? Once a scum-sucking
>>> lawyer, always a scum-sucking lawer. There is no statute of
>>> limitations on staying clear of bottom-feeding rent-seeking scum.
>>>
>>
>> Do you have pictures of Gass sucking scum or is that just something you
>> made up. Ther is an old saying, It takes one to call one.
>
> The default with lawyers is scum-sucking. Do
> you have evidence that he is different from
> other lawyers?
>
Life must really be hard for you at times.
J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <q5udnSfPRuWIwgbFnZ2dnUU7-
> [email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>>
>> On 2/7/2017 9:39 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>> On 2/7/2017 9:00 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 6:50:15 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>>> On 2/7/2017 5:28 PM, Leon wrote:
>>>>>> http://www.toolsofthetrade.net/power-tools/benchtop-tools/the-fate-of-reaxx_o?utm_source=newsletter&utm_content=Article&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=TOTT_020717%20(1)&he=bec4d8d422980f163c46356739c05c6eecb92632
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Steve Gass continues to make friends. I wonder if someone losing a
>>>>> finger will sue Gass for not allowing Bosch to sell here.
>>>>
>>>> Is there a shortage of Saw Stop saws here? Is the price of Saw Stop so
>>>> prohibitive here that anyone who would have bought a Reaxx for the
>>>> safety feature can't/won't buy a Saw Stop?
>>>>
>>>> IOW, I don't see how anyone could sue the company that offers a
>>>> comparable
>>>> product to the banned one. If someone wants the technology, and a Saw
>>>> Stop
>>>> is available at roughly the same price, why would Gass be liable if
>>>> someone
>>>> chooses not to buy his product? How did Gass cause that finger to be
>>>> lost?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Bosch is a smaller saw easily taken to the jobsite. Not so much for
>>> SawStop.
>>>
>> Wrong , sawstop makes a jobsite saw.
>>
>>> SawStop is a good product. Gass in more interested in making money than
>>> saving fingers or he would be selling his technology at reasonable
>>> prices so the world would be a safer place.
>>
>> So you don't like the capitalistic system? He offered the license.. no
>> one took it. He patented it like normal inventors do, now you don't like
>> that.
>> GET REAL
>
> I'm fine with capitalism. I'm not fine with
> some asshole saying "I'm out to save fingers,
> that's all I care about" and then showing that
> all he really cares about is lining his own
> pockets. It's called hypocrisy.
>
>
>
Have you looked in the mirror lately, to see why people treat you like an
ass hole?
J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <q5udnSTPRuXqwwbFnZ2dnUU7-
> [email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>>
>> On 2/7/2017 9:05 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> In article <a426cc09-91ce-4c80-8853-e44571ca2ad9
>>> @googlegroups.com>, [email protected] says...
>>>>
>>>> On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 6:50:15 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>>> On 2/7/2017 5:28 PM, Leon wrote:
>>>>>> http://www.toolsofthetrade.net/power-tools/benchtop-tools/the-fate-of-reaxx_o?utm_source=newsletter&utm_content=Article&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=TOTT_020717%20(1)&he=bec4d8d422980f163c46356739c05c6eecb92632
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Steve Gass continues to make friends. I wonder if someone losing a
>>>>> finger will sue Gass for not allowing Bosch to sell here.
>>>>
>>>> Is there a shortage of Saw Stop saws here? Is the price of Saw Stop so
>>>> prohibitive here that anyone who would have bought a Reaxx for the
>>>> safety feature can't/won't buy a Saw Stop?
>>>>
>>>> IOW, I don't see how anyone could sue the company that offers a comparable
>>>> product to the banned one. If someone wants the technology, and a Saw Stop
>>>> is available at roughly the same price, why would Gass be liable if someone
>>>> chooses not to buy his product? How did Gass cause that finger to be lost?
>>>
>>> You can sue anybody for anything. Doesn't mean
>>> you'll win.
>>>
>>> We just want something horrible to happen to
>>> Gass.
>>>
>> Speak for yourself.
>> The man offered all the companies the licensing rights. none took him up
>> on it.
>
> He "offered" them for a high price intended to
> enrich Gass. If you want to see how someone who
> actually cares about public safety handles it,
> look at how Daimler-Benz handled the patents on
> antiskid braking systems.
>
>> I don't begrudge him. You do.. that's your problem.
>
> I begrudge anybody who wants laws passed that
> have the effect of putting money in their own
>
Oh boo hoo.
>
On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 5:28:42 PM UTC-5, Leon wrote:
> http://www.toolsofthetrade.net/power-tools/benchtop-tools/the-fate-of-rea=
xx_o
Wait a minute...there is hope.
The article states this:
"The decision of the ITC will now move to the United States Trade Represent=
ative=20
(USTR), as delegated by the President, who must approve or disapprove the I=
TC=E2=80=99s=20
final decision in sixty (60) days. The USTR rarely goes against the ITC, ha=
ving=20
disapproved of the ITC=E2=80=99s determination once in nearly 30 years."
If the past few weeks are any indication, it may not be "business as usual"
(minor pun intended) in Washington. Recent events seem to indicate that we
can no longer let history be our guide.
On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 4:40:20 PM UTC-6, Leon wrote:
>
> > The man offered all the companies the licensing rights. none took him u=
p
>=20
> The other companies were betting against this getting off the ground and=
=20
> lost, lost really big. One was about to pull the trigger to get the=20
> license and got cold feet. I would imagine that the cost was not too=20
> much for them but probably pulled out when every one else looked the=20
> other way. I bet they are kicking themselves in the butt now.
>=20
> Either way the patents will run out sooner than later.
>=20
Not sure they are kicking themselves or not. Any competent company looked =
at the cost for the license, cost for the extra material/technology to buil=
d the saw, and did some kind of estimate for potential sales and/or gains f=
rom having the SawStop on their saws. They decided it did not make economi=
c sense to buy the SawStop license because the return/profit would not be e=
nough.
SawStop is a going concern now. But no one knows how much money the compan=
y is making. No one knows how many table saws are being sold. Total numbe=
r of SawStops sold and total of all table saws sold. New and used. Cost p=
er saw. Only this Gass person knows how much he could have sold the SawSto=
p technology to a company and how much he is making as a business. Money d=
ecides whether it was smart or foolish to do it the way he did. He could e=
asily be kicking himself if he was offered ten million for the license and =
refused, and then opened his own business and is only making one hundred th=
ousand net. He will have to run his business for 100 years to break even.
On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 7:44:46 PM UTC-6, Leon wrote:
>=20
> Well you are close to correct. Any competent company would look into=20
> all of this prior to starting the process. They would not have been=20
> close to committing had the figures not already been considered.
>=20
Close to committing? What does that mean? Where did that information come=
from? There are only two outcomes in the negotiating process. Deal done.=
Or no deal. Black or white. No gray.
>=20
>=20
> >
> > SawStop is a going concern now. But no one knows how much money the
> > company is making.
>=20
> Actually most manufactures and retail sales stores know exactly how many=
=20
> are being sold. That is where I got my information.
>=20
All manufacturers and retail outlets report all sales of every saw to an au=
thority that aggregates the data and makes it available to the public for a=
nalysis? Or do manufacturers report total dollars of woodworking type equi=
pment. And retailers report total dollars of revenue. Why would Jet/Power=
matic give the volume and dollars and models of table saw sales to Delta an=
d General and SawStop? Who makes them give this detailed business informat=
ion?
> > Total number of SawStops sold and total of all table saws sold. New
> > and used.
>=20
> Only New are being compared. No manufacturer sells used equipment that
Prices of new equipment will affect sales of used equipment. Sales of used=
equipment affect demand for new equipment. They are all interrelated.
On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 5:04:51 PM UTC-5, [email protected] wrote:
> Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
> > On 2/8/2017 2:49 PM, woodchucker wrote:
> >
> >>>
> >>> Maybe. I have no idea of the terms he wanted. Over the years so
> >>> patents were offered free of royalty because they had the potential
> >>> to save lives. Being a generous sort of guy, I once offered a meal
> >>> to a starving homeless person for only $30.
> >>> http://jalopnik.com/volvo-gave-away-their-most-important-invention-to
> >>> -save-1069825878
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >> That's a great story.
> >>
> >> Today you have lane departure, auto braking, all are covering with
> >> patents and you pay for it in the car purchase.
> >>
> >> So things have changed quite a bit.
> >>
> >> I would have given the homeless guy a free meal, I would not have
> >> charged him the $30 ;-)
> >>
> >
> > My lawyer said I'm entitled to a profit.
>
> I did something similar, but didn't charge him the $30. About a week
> later, a holy man came to my door. Just like you, my lawyer told me I
> was entitled to a prophet.
>
> Puckdropper
You are obviously not an atheist.
Atheism is a non-prophet organization.
J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <uImdnUr596UJ2AbFnZ2dnUU7-
> [email protected]>, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
> says...
>>
>> On 2/8/2017 9:59 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>> On 2/7/2017 11:35 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Bosch is a smaller saw easily taken to the jobsite. Not so much for
>>>>> SawStop.
>>>>
>>>> Really?
>>>>
>>>> https://www.protoolreviews.com/tools/power/corded/saws/bosch-reaxx-1041a-vs-sawstop-jss-mca/14982/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I was unaware of that model.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> SawStop is a good product. Gass in more interested in making money than
>>>>> saving fingers or he would be selling his technology at reasonable
>>>>> prices so the world would be a safer place.
>>>>
>>>> True, but not relevant (as a lawyer would say) to this particular
>>>> lawsuit discussion.
>>>>
>>> Relevance and 12 jurors are different things. If a big company is a bad
>>> guy, relevance, truth, and fact mean little.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Absolutely true but with the fact that SawStop is so successful, it is
>> obvious that the vast majority will see SS as the good guy. There are
>> only a handful of people with issues that don't seem to be able to let
>> things go. Those type jurors would most likely be eliminated during
>> jury selection.
>
> Any jurors familiar with Sawstop or having any
> opinion concerning it would likely be eliminated
> during jury selection. That doesn't mean that
> the ones who have been selected cannot be
> convinced that Gass is a flaming asshole who
> deserves to rot in Hell.
>
Have you thought about getting therapy?
On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 4:52:54 AM UTC-6, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>=20
> Gass wanted Congress to pass a law that every tablesaw should have a=20
> safety device (his). Certainly would have helped his economic condition.
I am not sure that can be done. Legal issues. Government laws can require=
safety devices. Airbags and seatbelts in cars being an example. But I do=
ubt the law can require a specific patented device be installed. With airb=
ags and seatbelts, the patents had long expired and the devices were actual=
ly in use and production before the law took effect requiring them to be in=
stalled in all cars.
On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 11:38:36 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 2/10/2017 8:44 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>> In article <P5KdnQygW5wVXwDFnZ2dnUU7-
>> [email protected]>, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
>> says...
>>>
>>> On 2/10/2017 4:52 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>> On 2/9/2017 10:05 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 2:50:59 PM UTC-6, Ed Pawlowski
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/9/2017 2:35 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The issue is not Gass making money. The issue is Gass'
>>>>>>>> rent-seeking.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not sure what "rent-seeking" means.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> noun 1. the fact or practice of manipulating public policy or
>>>>>> economic conditions as a strategy for increasing profits. "cronyism
>>>>>> and rent-seeking have become an integral part of the way our
>>>>>> biggest companies do business" adjective
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I can understand the manipulating public policy. Public policy
>>>>> meaning government rules and regulations and laws. Lobbyists do
>>>>> this. Not sure what economic conditions anyone can manipulate.
>>>>
>>>> Gass wanted Congress to pass a law that every tablesaw should have a
>>>> safety device (his). Certainly would have helped his economic condition.
>>>
>>>
>>> Absolutely and an absolute dream come true for every entrepreneur or
>>> business owner, CEO ect.
>>>
>>> What businesses fit this mold? Who has lobbied the government to have
>>> an on going advantage?
>>>
>>> Insurance companies.
>>> All Energy providing companies.
>>> TV entertainment providers.
>>> Communication providers.
>>> The automobile industry.
>>> The building industry.
>>> The food industry.
>>> The medical industry...
>>> The entertainment industry
>>> The recycling industry.
>>
>> So which of these have succesfully lobbied for
>> "If you purchase something of this kind it
>> _must_ have this expensive feature"?
>
>Think about it.
>
>Can you own and drive an automobile with out having liability insurance?
> That is state law in Texas. The insurance industry was instrumental
>in getting that law.
>
>TV entertainment providers. Cable has long had government in their
>pockets to protect their interests and prevent competition. In Texas, I
>suspect else where, if you subscribe to cable TV you only have one
>choice. No other cable providers can compete.
>
>>
>> If you want a model, it wouldn't be any of
>> those, it would be the airbag industry.
>
>The air bag industry as we all commonly know it is the automotive
>industry. Now back up cameras have or will shortly become mandatory on
>new vehicles.
>
>
As well as stability control, lane guideance, TPMS systems, and
(already) ABS.
>
>>
>>> Mr. Gass is no different except he is the
>>> little guy that has come up
>>> with a great product and is successful.
>>
>> And he would have been more successful if he had
>> just made his product and sold it without all
>> the legal shenanigans before he started making
>> it. Personally I will never, ever buy a Sawstop
>> product not because of any concerns about the
>> Sawstop but because I refuse to put a penny in
>> that asshole's pocket.
>
>That is your choice. An emotional one but all the same, your choice.
>
> I'm sure there are
>> others who feel the same.
>>
>Yes there are.
>
>
>
On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 1:45:27 PM UTC-5, [email protected] wrote:
...snip...
> Can't remember how we do yard waste.
...snip...
I carry mine over to the woods across the street and toss it down the hill. By
the next season, it's all composted down to nothing.
35 years and have never bagged a leaf (and we have a lot of trees!) or
grass clipping. :-)
I give and I take. The woods are a great source of kindling for our fire
pit. There's some downed trees too, but the hill is way too steep to bring
anything up.
On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 2:50:59 PM UTC-6, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 2/9/2017 2:35 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>=20
> >> The issue is not Gass making money. The issue is Gass' rent-seeking.
> >
> > Not sure what "rent-seeking" means.
> >
>=20
> noun
> 1.
> the fact or practice of manipulating public policy or economic=20
> conditions as a strategy for increasing profits.
> "cronyism and rent-seeking have become an integral part of the way our=20
> biggest companies do business"
> adjective
> 1.
> engaging in or involving the manipulation of public policy or economic=20
> conditions as a strategy for increasing profits.
> "rent-seeking lobbyists"
I can understand the manipulating public policy. Public policy meaning gov=
ernment rules and regulations and laws. Lobbyists do this. Not sure what =
economic conditions anyone can manipulate. Can you influence interest rate=
s? GDP? Trade deficits? Government deficits or surplus? I suppose you c=
an influence demand with advertising. And influence supply with the govern=
ment laws to outlaw all competitor products from being sold.
On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 14:47:06 -0500, Bill <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> On 2/11/2017 1:48 PM, Bill wrote:
>>> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>> On 2/11/2017 12:57 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 9:55:24 PM UTC-6, [email protected]
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Driving has long been considered a privelege, not a right. Your
>>>>>> comparison doesn't hold water.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you consider using a table saw a right? I'd classify it as a
>>>>> privilege too. There is some document written hundreds of years ago
>>>>> talking about the pursuit of happiness. Maybe table saws fall under
>>>>> that saying. Using table saws is a privilege. The government can
>>>>> mandate insurance and/or safety devices.
>>>>
>>>> I see it as a right.
>>>
>>> Your insurance company could say they wouldn't accept liability
>>> associated with it
>>
>>
>> So? They haven't. I do know our carrier for Workmen's Comp is asking
>> customers to buy a SawStop or equal but have not stopped insuring.
>> That is anecdotal as we don't have saws at work.
>>
>> Still a right
>
>Some say smoking is a "right". But if they charge $10 a pack, hasn't the
>right been taken away from you?
You have a right to buy food an water, too. It's not free and usually
taxed. I still don't get your point.
On 2/9/2017 1:24 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 7:44:46 PM UTC-6, Leon wrote:
>>
>> Well you are close to correct. Any competent company would look
>> into all of this prior to starting the process. They would not
>> have been close to committing had the figures not already been
>> considered.
>>
>
> Close to committing? What does that mean? Where did that
> information come from? There are only two outcomes in the
> negotiating process. Deal done. Or no deal. Black or white. No
> gray.
>
Clare provided the information in another section of this thread, In a
nut shell, Ryobi apparently sent a signed license agreement to SawStop
and then would consider the feasibility, but they knew the cost up front.
I would say a signed license agreement was very close to committing.
>>>
>>> SawStop is a going concern now. But no one knows how much money
>>> the company is making.
>>
>> Actually most manufactures and retail sales stores know exactly how
>> many are being sold. That is where I got my information.
>>
>
> All manufacturers and retail outlets report all sales of every saw to
> an authority that aggregates the data and makes it available to the
> public for analysis? Or do manufacturers report total dollars of
> woodworking type equipment. And retailers report total dollars of
> revenue. Why would Jet/Powermatic give the volume and dollars and
> models of table saw sales to Delta and General and SawStop? Who
> makes them give this detailed business information?
I was referring to your comment,
No one knows how many table saws are being sold. Total number of
SawStops sold and total of all table saws sold.
On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 9:39:06 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 2/7/2017 9:00 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 6:50:15 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> >> On 2/7/2017 5:28 PM, Leon wrote:
> >>> http://www.toolsofthetrade.net/power-tools/benchtop-tools/the-fate-of-reaxx_o?utm_source=newsletter&utm_content=Article&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=TOTT_020717%20(1)&he=bec4d8d422980f163c46356739c05c6eecb92632
> >>>
> >>
> >> Steve Gass continues to make friends. I wonder if someone losing a
> >> finger will sue Gass for not allowing Bosch to sell here.
> >
> > Is there a shortage of Saw Stop saws here? Is the price of Saw Stop so
> > prohibitive here that anyone who would have bought a Reaxx for the
> > safety feature can't/won't buy a Saw Stop?
> >
> > IOW, I don't see how anyone could sue the company that offers a comparable
> > product to the banned one. If someone wants the technology, and a Saw Stop
> > is available at roughly the same price, why would Gass be liable if someone
> > chooses not to buy his product? How did Gass cause that finger to be lost?
> >
>
> Bosch is a smaller saw easily taken to the jobsite. Not so much for
> SawStop.
Really?
https://www.protoolreviews.com/tools/power/corded/saws/bosch-reaxx-1041a-vs-sawstop-jss-mca/14982/
>
> SawStop is a good product. Gass in more interested in making money than
> saving fingers or he would be selling his technology at reasonable
> prices so the world would be a safer place.
True, but not relevant (as a lawyer would say) to this particular
lawsuit discussion.
Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
> On 2/8/2017 2:49 PM, woodchucker wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Maybe. I have no idea of the terms he wanted. Over the years so
>>> patents were offered free of royalty because they had the potential
>>> to save lives. Being a generous sort of guy, I once offered a meal
>>> to a starving homeless person for only $30.
>>> http://jalopnik.com/volvo-gave-away-their-most-important-invention-to
>>> -save-1069825878
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> That's a great story.
>>
>> Today you have lane departure, auto braking, all are covering with
>> patents and you pay for it in the car purchase.
>>
>> So things have changed quite a bit.
>>
>> I would have given the homeless guy a free meal, I would not have
>> charged him the $30 ;-)
>>
>
> My lawyer said I'm entitled to a profit.
I did something similar, but didn't charge him the $30. About a week
later, a holy man came to my door. Just like you, my lawyer told me I
was entitled to a prophet.
Puckdropper
--
http://www.puckdroppersplace.us/rec.woodworking
A mini archive of some of rec.woodworking's best and worst!
On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 9:05:18 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <a426cc09-91ce-4c80-8853-e44571ca2ad9
> @googlegroups.com>, [email protected] says...
> >
> > On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 6:50:15 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> > > On 2/7/2017 5:28 PM, Leon wrote:
> > > > http://www.toolsofthetrade.net/power-tools/benchtop-tools/the-fate-of-reaxx_o?utm_source=newsletter&utm_content=Article&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=TOTT_020717%20(1)&he=bec4d8d422980f163c46356739c05c6eecb92632
> > > >
> > >
> > > Steve Gass continues to make friends. I wonder if someone losing a
> > > finger will sue Gass for not allowing Bosch to sell here.
> >
> > Is there a shortage of Saw Stop saws here? Is the price of Saw Stop so
> > prohibitive here that anyone who would have bought a Reaxx for the
> > safety feature can't/won't buy a Saw Stop?
> >
> > IOW, I don't see how anyone could sue the company that offers a comparable
> > product to the banned one. If someone wants the technology, and a Saw Stop
> > is available at roughly the same price, why would Gass be liable if someone
> > chooses not to buy his product? How did Gass cause that finger to be lost?
>
> You can sue anybody for anything. Doesn't mean
> you'll win.
I'm offended by that answer. My attorney will be in touch with your attorney.
Expect a letter from Screwem Goode & Hart
>
> We just want something horrible to happen to
> Gass.
On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 12:32:27 -0800 (PST), "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 4:52:54 AM UTC-6, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>
>> Gass wanted Congress to pass a law that every tablesaw should have a
>> safety device (his). Certainly would have helped his economic condition.
>
>I am not sure that can be done. Legal issues. Government laws can require safety devices. Airbags and seatbelts in cars being an example. But I doubt the law can require a specific patented device be installed. With airbags and seatbelts, the patents had long expired and the devices were actually in use and production before the law took effect requiring them to be installed in all cars.
Exactly what's going to stop them. The fact is that it doesn't even
take a law. The FTC could ban saws without Gass' device, all by
themselves. ...and that's exactly what they tried to do.
On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 10:54:04 AM UTC-6, Leon wrote:=20
>=20
> I mentioned the recyclable trash bags that the City of Houlston requires=
=20
> for yard waste. they are patented and required by the city if you are=20
> going to throw away yard waste.
>=20
> While not a vehicle component it is an example of a product that has to=
=20
> be used with the city's approval code, if you are going to throw yard=20
> refuse away.
I guess the refuse bags sort of, kind of meet what I was asking. Although =
I doubt plastic bags are patented. They are specifically marked for Housto=
n use. But anyone could make a similar bag out of petroleum and put the sa=
me markings on the bag and sell it for refuse use in Houston. And I suspec=
t other landfills in your area or another county will accept yard waste wit=
hout the specific Houston bag. I'm guessing the bags are required only if =
you want the city of Houston to pick up the waste from your curb. You are =
buying their service and are required to use their procedures. When I buy =
my cable TV I have to use their receiver box. With waste pickup its built =
into the water bill you get each month so not really a choice. In my city =
for picking up Christmas trees on the curb you have to buy a special ribbon=
and tie it onto the tree for the city workers to pick up the tree. Can't =
remember how we do yard waste. Might be the same as Houston.
On 2/9/2017 10:05 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 2:50:59 PM UTC-6, Ed Pawlowski
> wrote:
>> On 2/9/2017 2:35 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>> The issue is not Gass making money. The issue is Gass'
>>>> rent-seeking.
>>>
>>> Not sure what "rent-seeking" means.
>>>
>>
>> noun 1. the fact or practice of manipulating public policy or
>> economic conditions as a strategy for increasing profits. "cronyism
>> and rent-seeking have become an integral part of the way our
>> biggest companies do business" adjective
>
> I can understand the manipulating public policy. Public policy
> meaning government rules and regulations and laws. Lobbyists do
> this. Not sure what economic conditions anyone can manipulate.
Gass wanted Congress to pass a law that every tablesaw should have a
safety device (his). Certainly would have helped his economic condition.
On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 16:08:55 -0500, Bill <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> On 2/11/2017 2:47 PM, Bill wrote:
>>> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>> On 2/11/2017 1:48 PM, Bill wrote:
>>>>> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/11/2017 12:57 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>> On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 9:55:24 PM UTC-6, [email protected]
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Driving has long been considered a privelege, not a right. Your
>>>>>>>> comparison doesn't hold water.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you consider using a table saw a right? I'd classify it as a
>>>>>>> privilege too. There is some document written hundreds of years ago
>>>>>>> talking about the pursuit of happiness. Maybe table saws fall under
>>>>>>> that saying. Using table saws is a privilege. The government can
>>>>>>> mandate insurance and/or safety devices.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I see it as a right.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your insurance company could say they wouldn't accept liability
>>>>> associated with it
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So? They haven't. I do know our carrier for Workmen's Comp is asking
>>>> customers to buy a SawStop or equal but have not stopped insuring.
>>>> That is anecdotal as we don't have saws at work.
>>>>
>>>> Still a right
>>>
>>> Some say smoking is a "right". But if they charge $10 a pack, hasn't the
>>> right been taken away from you?
>>
>> No, just made more expensive. I gave it up 40+ years ago. You can
>> grow your own tobacco if you want.
>
>If you don't agree that some would use taxation to take away you rights,
>you may just not have seen high enough rates yet... Charge a "birth
>tax" and see if you can't affect population growth.
No one said that taxes don't change behavior. Only lefties believe
that twaddle.
OTOH, death taxes haven't stopped people from dying. ;-)
On 2/14/2017 9:48 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> writes:
>> On 2/12/2017 12:45 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 10:54:04 AM UTC-6, Leon wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I mentioned the recyclable trash bags that the City of Houlston
>>>> requires for yard waste. they are patented and required by the
>>>> city if you are going to throw away yard waste.
>>>>
>>>> While not a vehicle component it is an example of a product that
>>>> has to be used with the city's approval code, if you are going to
>>>> throw yard refuse away.
>>>
>>> I guess the refuse bags sort of, kind of meet what I was asking.
>>> Although I doubt plastic bags are patented. They are specifically
>>> marked for Houston use. But anyone could make a similar bag out of
>>> petroleum and put the same markings on the bag and sell it for refuse
>>> use in Houston.
>>
>> Well a reasonable person would assume that.
>
> Actually, I disagree. It's quite clear that a bag designed
> for yard-waste would need to be made from a substance that
> will quickly break down into environmentally benign
> byproducts. That precludes petroleum-based bags.
I actually was referring that any one should be able to make the bag
like the city wants. But the city approved poiduct is so substandard
that no reputable company would want to put their names on it.
>
>> IIRC the bags had a patent
>> pending number, had a seal, Approved by the city of Houston.
>
> Yard waste, right? They compost it, so the bags must also
> be compostable.
Yes, but the bag does not really need to decompose faster than the
contents. These bags are not totally unlike the thin produce bags that
you find in the grocery to bag your vegetables. Ultra thin. There are
many other brand non approved bags that are stronger and specifically
designed to decompose. And just to state again, the approved bags must
not get wet as their decomposition begins immediately with the presence
of moisture. If they set out side for more than a day or two they will
come apart.
>
>> There
>> were/are several other heavier/thicker mil recycleable refuse bags
>> available and much less expensive. But if you used those bags a warning
>> label was attached and the bag was not picked up.
>
> Of course, since they'd contaminate the compost.
Maybe not. I don't think paper bags would contaminate yard trash.
>
>> The really unfortunate thing about the city of Housotn bags was that
>> they were so thin that the humidity/condensation would cause them to
>> begin melting from sitting out for just one one night and totally forget
>> it it rained.
>
> The bags are designed to be biodegradable.
>
Understood, but they have to last at least a few days and hold more than
2 bushels.
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Feb 2017 16:47:07 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>
>> On 2/8/2017 12:04 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Tue, 7 Feb 2017 22:39:35 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/7/2017 8:00 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 6:50:15 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/7/2017 5:28 PM, Leon wrote:
>>>>>>> http://www.toolsofthetrade.net/power-tools/benchtop-tools/the-fate-of-reaxx_o?utm_source=newsletter&utm_content=Article&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=TOTT_020717%20(1)&he=bec4d8d422980f163c46356739c05c6eecb92632
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Steve Gass continues to make friends. I wonder if someone losing a
>>>>>> finger will sue Gass for not allowing Bosch to sell here.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is there a shortage of Saw Stop saws here? Is the price of Saw Stop so
>>>>> prohibitive here that anyone who would have bought a Reaxx for the
>>>>> safety feature can't/won't buy a Saw Stop?
>>>>>
>>>>> IOW, I don't see how anyone could sue the company that offers a comparable
>>>>> product to the banned one. If someone wants the technology, and a Saw Stop
>>>>> is available at roughly the same price, why would Gass be liable if someone
>>>>> chooses not to buy his product? How did Gass cause that finger to be lost?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Its just the absurdity if holding a grudge for a person that long.
>>>
>>> Grudge? What's a gruge got to do with it? Once a scum-sucking
>>> lawyer, always a scum-sucking lawer. There is no statute of
>>> limitations on staying clear of bottom-feeding rent-seeking scum.
>>>
>>
>> Do you have pictures of Gass sucking scum or is that just something you
>> made up. Ther is an old saying, It takes one to call one.
>
> Yes, in fact we all did. He *is* a lawyer, after all.
>
Could you share ?
On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 10:59:17 AM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 2/7/2017 11:35 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
>
> >> Bosch is a smaller saw easily taken to the jobsite. Not so much for
> >> SawStop.
> >
> > Really?
> >
> > https://www.protoolreviews.com/tools/power/corded/saws/bosch-reaxx-1041a-vs-sawstop-jss-mca/14982/
> >
>
> I was unaware of that model.
>
>
> >>
> >> SawStop is a good product. Gass in more interested in making money than
> >> saving fingers or he would be selling his technology at reasonable
> >> prices so the world would be a safer place.
> >
> > True, but not relevant (as a lawyer would say) to this particular
> > lawsuit discussion.
> >
> Relevance and 12 jurors are different things. If a big company is a bad
> guy, relevance, truth, and fact mean little.
OK, so tell me on what grounds a person could expect to win a suit against
Gass if they cut off a finger on non-Saw Stop saw? Would it go something
like this:
"Your honor, my client could have bought a SawStop and avoided this terrible
accident, but he thinks Gass is an A-Hole and didn't want to give him any money.
Surely you can see how that is the fault of Gass and that he should be held responsible
for my client's injuries. "
On Wed, 8 Feb 2017 21:37:32 -0500, "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] says...
>>
>> On 2/8/17 1:37 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> > On 2/8/2017 1:07 PM, woodchucker wrote:
>> >
>> >> The man offered all the companies the licensing rights. none took
>> >> him up on it.
>> >>
>> >> I don't begrudge him. You do.. that's your problem.
>> >
>> >
>> > Maybe. I have no idea of the terms he wanted. Over the years so
>> > patents were offered free of royalty because they had the potential
>> > to save lives. Being a generous sort of guy, I once offered a meal
>> > to a starving homeless person for only $30.
>> > http://jalopnik.com/volvo-gave-away-their-most-important-invention-to-save-1069825878
>> >
>> >
>> It's your choice, it's their choice, it's anyone's choice to do so.
>> Anything other than that-- having the choice to do so-- is communism,
>> plain and simple.
>>
>> If someone offers their patented technology for free for the "better
>> good," good for them they are to be commended for their generosity.
>>
>> If someone else decides to make a profit off of their hard work and
>> intellectual property, then good for they, they deserve it.
>>
>> If someone else judges that person for making money off their hard work
>> and invention instead of giving it away, the fu@& you for judging them
>> and wanting them to give their hard earned property away for free. If
>> you choose to give something away which you rightly earned, then good
>> for you. If you sanctimoniously judge someone for keeping the money
>> they earn, then you are the problem, not them.
>
>The problem isn't that he wants to make a
>profit, it's that he pretends that he's an
>altruist and that he was forced to it only after
>all the evil businessmen spurned his offer to
>separate them from their capital.
Don't forget his back room dealings with the FTC.
On Tue, 7 Feb 2017 18:50:13 -0500, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 2/7/2017 5:28 PM, Leon wrote:
>> http://www.toolsofthetrade.net/power-tools/benchtop-tools/the-fate-of-reaxx_o?utm_source=newsletter&utm_content=Article&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=TOTT_020717%20(1)&he=bec4d8d422980f163c46356739c05c6eecb92632
>>
>
>Steve Gass continues to make friends. I wonder if someone losing a
>finger will sue Gass for not allowing Bosch to sell here.
After reading Gass' patents, I didn't see how anyone could get around
them. They are *really* broad and without a *huge* pile of cash, Gass
was in an unassailable position WRT patents.
I don't see how anyone can sue Gass. They could buy a SawStop.
On 2/8/2017 5:49 PM, Leon wrote:
> On 2/8/2017 1:46 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> On 2/8/2017 1:21 PM, woodchucker wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't see how the President would side with Bosch, as it's a German
>>> company over SawStop an American company.
>>>
>>
>> Yeah, just add the 20% import tariff
>> Where is a SawStop table saw made?
>> SawStop is a US-owned company, and each table saw is engineered at our
>> headquarters just south of Portland, Oregon. Every table saw is built in
>> Taiwan to an unmatched set of tolerances.
>
>
> I suspect that 20% more for a SawStop will not deter sales.
agreed, many shops have switched due to the lower insurance costs, or
the benefit of the employee safety. Many have not.
I was going to get one when my son got out of school that was the deal
with the wife, but I am still getting lots of flack over it.
--
Jeff
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 10:52:15 -0500, "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <JeGdnfjPOcDF5AHFnZ2dnUU7-
>[email protected]>, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
>says...
>>
>> On 2/8/2017 10:05 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> > On Wed, 8 Feb 2017 21:58:22 -0500, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 2/8/2017 8:37 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
>> >>> On 2/8/17 1:37 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> >>>> On 2/8/2017 1:07 PM, woodchucker wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> The man offered all the companies the licensing rights. none took
>> >>>>> him up on it.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> I don't begrudge him. You do.. that's your problem.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Maybe. I have no idea of the terms he wanted. Over the years so
>> >>>> patents were offered free of royalty because they had the potential
>> >>>> to save lives. Being a generous sort of guy, I once offered a meal
>> >>>> to a starving homeless person for only $30.
>> >>>> http://jalopnik.com/volvo-gave-away-their-most-important-invention-to-save-1069825878
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>> It's your choice, it's their choice, it's anyone's choice to do so.
>> >>> Anything other than that-- having the choice to do so-- is communism,
>> >>> plain and simple.
>> >>>
>> >>> If someone offers their patented technology for free for the "better
>> >>> good," good for them they are to be commended for their generosity.
>> >>>
>> >>> If someone else decides to make a profit off of their hard work and
>> >>> intellectual property, then good for them, they deserve it.
>> >>>
>> >>> If someone else judges that person for making money off their hard work
>> >>> and invention instead of giving it away, the fu@& you for judging them
>> >>> and wanting them to give their hard earned property away for free. If
>> >>> you choose to give something away which you rightly earned, then good
>> >>> for you. If you sanctimoniously judge someone for keeping the money
>> >>> they earn, then you are the problem, not them.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> Like I said, MAYBE. We don't know the terms. Sure, he invested in the
>> >> technology and should have some return. It may have been $2 a unit, it
>> >> may have been $800 a unit. In life we are faced with a myriad of
>> >> circumstances and we have a choice as what to do. Our choice can make
>> >> us a hero or a schmuck. I don't know where he falls.
>> > Ryobi in Jan 2002 balked at a 3% royalty at the wholesale level
>> > with no upfront fees. I'd call that a pretty fair deal.
>> > That would have given them all the engineering and the right to use it
>> > - on ANY saw they produced
>> >
>>
>> Yeah, I would pay 3% in a heart beat. Do you have a link to that
>> specific information?
>>
>> I always thought that the offer was probably fair in so much that they
>> or another company almost went forward. I really think that they
>> decided to not be the only ones and that this would all blow over and
>> not happen.
>
>3 percent growing to 8 percent if the rest of
>the industry goes along. Most businesses shoot
>for 20 percent profit so an 8 percent royalty is
>HUGE.
>
But a 3 or 8 percent royalty translates to 100% profit. At one time,
IBM made $1B/yr on their patents. It was all profit (and in many
years, the *only* profit).
On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 8:26:24 PM UTC-6, [email protected] wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Feb 2017 12:21:27 -0800 (PST), "[email protected]"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>=20
> >My opinion. Ha Ha. I want the SawStop or Bosch technology on every saw=
ever made and ever will be made. I want saws to not cut people. I want s=
afety. Hopefully the patents expire sometime soon and every saw maker in t=
he world will be able to make saws with this safety device on it. And hope=
fully they can make it cheaper, easier for the replacement cartridges. Not=
that anyone should ever need a replacement cartridge if they follow safe s=
mart cutting methods. I want a SawStop or Bosch safety saw. But I want a =
real European sliding saw more because I think its safer and far more funct=
ional than the old outdated American style saw. So I will have to wait awh=
ile longer until a European company puts the SawStop technology onto their =
sliding table saw. Until then I will have to work with my older Delta Cont=
ractor saw and use safe handling methods to cut wood. Thinking is importan=
t when using a saw.
>=20
> The important patents expire in a couple of years, IIRC.
That is good. Hopefully all saws will have this safety device. I want saf=
e saws. Safe European sliding saws. Not USA style cabinet saws.
>=20
> >I personally know lawyers and a judge. They are all very fine people. =
So being a lawyer does not automatically make someone evil. Businesses are=
not good or evil either. Whether the inventor of the technology tried to =
make a huge amount of money is not important either. I try to make money e=
very day too.
>=20
> The issue is not Gass making money. The issue is Gass' rent-seeking.
Not sure what "rent-seeking" means.
On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 5:38:20 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <abcadb55-9a41-4a69-bb74-f991ea42fa73
> @googlegroups.com>, [email protected] says...
> >=20
> > On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 9:35:05 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote:
> > > In article <bf2808e1-6340-44e8-800e-f0585fa92f44
> > > @googlegroups.com>, [email protected] says...
> > > >=20
> > > > On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 2:37:36 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wr=
ote:
> > > > > On 2/8/2017 1:07 PM, woodchucker wrote:
> > > > >=20
> > > > > > The man offered all the companies the licensing rights. none to=
ok him up
> > > > > > on it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't begrudge him. You do.. that's your problem.
> > > > >=20
> > > > >=20
> > > > > Maybe. I have no idea of the terms he wanted. Over the years so=
=20
> > > > > patents were offered free of royalty because they had the potenti=
al to=20
> > > > > save lives. Being a generous sort of guy, I once offered a meal =
to a=20
> > > > > starving homeless person for only $30.
> > > > > http://jalopnik.com/volvo-gave-away-their-most-important-inventio=
n-to-save-1069825878
> > > >=20
> > > > That gesture was over half a century ago. I'm curious as to whether=
Volvo would be so=20
> > > > quick to give away their City Safety technology today.=20
> > > >=20
> > > > I have no idea how it compares with other auto-braking technologies=
out there, but that's=20
> > > > not the point. In an apples-to-apples modern day comparison, do you=
know if Volvo is giving
> > > > away what they call their "in-house developed unique technology for=
avoiding low-speed
> > > > collisions"? I don't think they are, so why not use that as a compa=
rable to the Saw-Stop=20
> > > > situation instead of a 50+ year old gesture?
> > >=20
> > > When you say "Volvo" you mean "Zhejiang Geely=20
> > > Holding Group". Volvo ceased to exist as an=20
> > > indpendent company in 1999.
> >=20
> > How is it that you know what *I* meant? Are you a mind reader?
> >=20
> > In any case...
> >=20
> > From: http://www.volvocars.com/intl/about/our-company/heritage/innovati=
ons
> >=20
> > Copyright =C2=A9 2017 Volvo Car Corporation (or its affiliates or licen=
sors).
> >=20
> > 2008 ? City Safety
> >=20
> > "Here are some amazing statistics ? 75% of all reported collisions take=
=20
> > place at speeds of up to 30km/h and in 50% of rear-enders, the driver=
=20
> > behind hasn?t braked at all. We saw an opportunity to make a great=20
> > difference ? our City Safety system uses laser detection to work out=20
> > whether a collision with the car in front is likely, and if the driver=
=20
> > doesn?t brake, the car will do it. And the system works up to 50km/h."
> >=20
> > Hint: I don't really care who the parent company of Volvo Cars is. When=
I
> > said Volvo, I meant Volvo.
> >=20
> > http://www.volvocars.com/intl/about/our-company/investor-relations/fina=
ncial-results
>=20
> Believe that the Chinese ownership makes no=20
> difference in decisionmaking if you want to. =20
> You probably think that Ford didn't exert any=20
> control either.
Your problem is that you don't get the point of my post.=20
Moving on.
> On 2/12/2017 12:45 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> I guess the refuse bags sort of, kind of meet what I was asking.
>> Although I doubt plastic bags are patented. They are specifically
>> marked for Houston use. But anyone could make a similar bag out of
>> petroleum and put the same markings on the bag and sell it for refuse
>> use in Houston.
Evidently you know little about bags. Most people have no reason to
study them. Yes, some are patented as they use a particular blend of
material, have certain properties or closures. The industry continues
to to advance.
On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 7:59:49 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <9a508518-ed4e-44ed-ab22-
> [email protected]>,=20
> [email protected] says...
> >=20
> > On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 5:38:20 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote:
> > > In article <abcadb55-9a41-4a69-bb74-f991ea42fa73
> > > @googlegroups.com>, [email protected] says...
> > > >=20
> > > > On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 9:35:05 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote=
:
> > > > > In article <bf2808e1-6340-44e8-800e-f0585fa92f44
> > > > > @googlegroups.com>, [email protected] says...
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > > On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 2:37:36 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowsk=
i wrote:
> > > > > > > On 2/8/2017 1:07 PM, woodchucker wrote:
> > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > The man offered all the companies the licensing rights. non=
e took him up
> > > > > > > > on it.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I don't begrudge him. You do.. that's your problem.
> > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > Maybe. I have no idea of the terms he wanted. Over the year=
s so=20
> > > > > > > patents were offered free of royalty because they had the pot=
ential to=20
> > > > > > > save lives. Being a generous sort of guy, I once offered a m=
eal to a=20
> > > > > > > starving homeless person for only $30.
> > > > > > > http://jalopnik.com/volvo-gave-away-their-most-important-inve=
ntion-to-save-1069825878
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > > That gesture was over half a century ago. I'm curious as to whe=
ther Volvo would be so=20
> > > > > > quick to give away their City Safety technology today.=20
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > > I have no idea how it compares with other auto-braking technolo=
gies out there, but that's=20
> > > > > > not the point. In an apples-to-apples modern day comparison, do=
you know if Volvo is giving
> > > > > > away what they call their "in-house developed unique technology=
for avoiding low-speed
> > > > > > collisions"? I don't think they are, so why not use that as a c=
omparable to the Saw-Stop=20
> > > > > > situation instead of a 50+ year old gesture?
> > > > >=20
> > > > > When you say "Volvo" you mean "Zhejiang Geely=20
> > > > > Holding Group". Volvo ceased to exist as an=20
> > > > > indpendent company in 1999.
> > > >=20
> > > > How is it that you know what *I* meant? Are you a mind reader?
> > > >=20
> > > > In any case...
> > > >=20
> > > > From: http://www.volvocars.com/intl/about/our-company/heritage/inno=
vations
> > > >=20
> > > > Copyright =C2=A9 2017 Volvo Car Corporation (or its affiliates or l=
icensors).
> > > >=20
> > > > 2008 ? City Safety
> > > >=20
> > > > "Here are some amazing statistics ? 75% of all reported collisions =
take=20
> > > > place at speeds of up to 30km/h and in 50% of rear-enders, the driv=
er=20
> > > > behind hasn?t braked at all. We saw an opportunity to make a great=
=20
> > > > difference ? our City Safety system uses laser detection to work ou=
t=20
> > > > whether a collision with the car in front is likely, and if the dri=
ver=20
> > > > doesn?t brake, the car will do it. And the system works up to 50km/=
h."
> > > >=20
> > > > Hint: I don't really care who the parent company of Volvo Cars is. =
When I
> > > > said Volvo, I meant Volvo.
> > > >=20
> > > > http://www.volvocars.com/intl/about/our-company/investor-relations/=
financial-results
> > >=20
> > > Believe that the Chinese ownership makes no=20
> > > difference in decisionmaking if you want to. =20
> > > You probably think that Ford didn't exert any=20
> > > control either.
> >=20
> > Your problem is that you don't get the point of my post.=20
> >=20
> > Moving on.
>=20
> I do get the point of your post, which is that=20
> the world has changed so that Volvo would not=20
> have made the same decision now that they did=20
> with regard to three point seat belts.
>=20
> My point is that it is not the world that has=20
> changed, it is Volvo, which has gone through two=20
> changes of ownership since the seat belt=20
> decision was made.
Close, but no cigar. Nice try.
On 2/7/2017 8:50 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 5:28:42 PM UTC-5, Leon wrote:
>> http://www.toolsofthetrade.net/power-tools/benchtop-tools/the-fate-of-reaxx_o
>
> Wait a minute...there is hope.
>
> The article states this:
>
> "The decision of the ITC will now move to the United States Trade Representative
> (USTR), as delegated by the President, who must approve or disapprove the ITCâs
> final decision in sixty (60) days. The USTR rarely goes against the ITC, having
> disapproved of the ITCâs determination once in nearly 30 years."
>
> If the past few weeks are any indication, it may not be "business as usual"
> (minor pun intended) in Washington. Recent events seem to indicate that we
> can no longer let history be our guide.
>
>
>
I don't see how the President would side with Bosch, as it's a German
company over SawStop an American company.
--
Jeff
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
On 2/8/2017 11:05 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> Like I said, MAYBE. We don't know the terms. Sure, he invested in the
>> technology and should have some return. It may have been $2 a unit, it
>> may have been $800 a unit. In life we are faced with a myriad of
>> circumstances and we have a choice as what to do. Our choice can make
>> us a hero or a schmuck. I don't know where he falls.
> Ryobi in Jan 2002 balked at a 3% royalty at the wholesale level
> with no upfront fees. I'd call that a pretty fair deal.
> That would have given them all the engineering and the right to use it
> - on ANY saw they produced
>
3% at the wholesale level translates to 6% at the retail level. This is
added to a saw that now costs more to manufacture with the new
technology. It may be enough to take it out of the intended market for
Ryobi tools. I don't know. GM offers Chevy and Cadillac for a reason. .
On 2/11/2017 2:47 PM, Bill wrote:
> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> On 2/11/2017 1:48 PM, Bill wrote:
>>> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>> On 2/11/2017 12:57 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 9:55:24 PM UTC-6, [email protected]
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Driving has long been considered a privelege, not a right. Your
>>>>>> comparison doesn't hold water.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you consider using a table saw a right? I'd classify it as a
>>>>> privilege too. There is some document written hundreds of years ago
>>>>> talking about the pursuit of happiness. Maybe table saws fall under
>>>>> that saying. Using table saws is a privilege. The government can
>>>>> mandate insurance and/or safety devices.
>>>>
>>>> I see it as a right.
>>>
>>> Your insurance company could say they wouldn't accept liability
>>> associated with it
>>
>>
>> So? They haven't. I do know our carrier for Workmen's Comp is asking
>> customers to buy a SawStop or equal but have not stopped insuring.
>> That is anecdotal as we don't have saws at work.
>>
>> Still a right
>
> Some say smoking is a "right". But if they charge $10 a pack, hasn't the
> right been taken away from you?
No, just made more expensive. I gave it up 40+ years ago. You can grow
your own tobacco if you want.
On 2/11/2017 1:48 PM, Bill wrote:
> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> On 2/11/2017 12:57 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 9:55:24 PM UTC-6, [email protected]
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Driving has long been considered a privelege, not a right. Your
>>>> comparison doesn't hold water.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Do you consider using a table saw a right? I'd classify it as a
>>> privilege too. There is some document written hundreds of years ago
>>> talking about the pursuit of happiness. Maybe table saws fall under
>>> that saying. Using table saws is a privilege. The government can
>>> mandate insurance and/or safety devices.
>>
>> I see it as a right.
>
> Your insurance company could say they wouldn't accept liability
> associated with it
So? They haven't. I do know our carrier for Workmen's Comp is asking
customers to buy a SawStop or equal but have not stopped insuring. That
is anecdotal as we don't have saws at work.
Still a right.
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> writes:
>In article <JeGdnfvPOcBH5AHFnZ2dnUU7-Q-
>[email protected]>, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
>says...
>>
>> On 2/8/2017 8:44 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>> > In article <DcGdnb13FefpPQbFnZ2dnUU7-
>> > [email protected]>, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
>> > says...
>> >>
>> >> On 2/8/2017 1:46 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> >>> On 2/8/2017 1:21 PM, woodchucker wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I don't see how the President would side with Bosch, as it's a German
>> >>>> company over SawStop an American company.
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Yeah, just add the 20% import tariff
>> >>> Where is a SawStop table saw made?
>> >>> SawStop is a US-owned company, and each table saw is engineered at our
>> >>> headquarters just south of Portland, Oregon. Every table saw is built in
>> >>> Taiwan to an unmatched set of tolerances.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I suspect that 20% more for a SawStop will not deter sales.
>> >
>> > But will it be 20 percent? The 20 percent is
>> > for _Mexico_. It might be more for China.
>> >
>>
>> I have no idea, I though you had all the answers.
>
>Geezus, Leon, can't you even come up with a
>decent FLAME?
Could it be possible that someone other than Leon usurped
his newsgroup identity? The posts weren't typical of his
normal style.
In any case, one need not respond.
On 2/8/2017 12:04 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Feb 2017 22:39:35 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>
>> On 2/7/2017 8:00 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 6:50:15 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>> On 2/7/2017 5:28 PM, Leon wrote:
>>>>> http://www.toolsofthetrade.net/power-tools/benchtop-tools/the-fate-of-reaxx_o?utm_source=newsletter&utm_content=Article&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=TOTT_020717%20(1)&he=bec4d8d422980f163c46356739c05c6eecb92632
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Steve Gass continues to make friends. I wonder if someone losing a
>>>> finger will sue Gass for not allowing Bosch to sell here.
>>>
>>> Is there a shortage of Saw Stop saws here? Is the price of Saw Stop so
>>> prohibitive here that anyone who would have bought a Reaxx for the
>>> safety feature can't/won't buy a Saw Stop?
>>>
>>> IOW, I don't see how anyone could sue the company that offers a comparable
>>> product to the banned one. If someone wants the technology, and a Saw Stop
>>> is available at roughly the same price, why would Gass be liable if someone
>>> chooses not to buy his product? How did Gass cause that finger to be lost?
>>>
>>
>>
>> Its just the absurdity if holding a grudge for a person that long.
>
> Grudge? What's a gruge got to do with it? Once a scum-sucking
> lawyer, always a scum-sucking lawer. There is no statute of
> limitations on staying clear of bottom-feeding rent-seeking scum.
>
Do you have pictures of Gass sucking scum or is that just something you
made up. Ther is an old saying, It takes one to call one.
On 2/8/2017 12:07 PM, woodchucker wrote:
> On 2/7/2017 9:05 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>> In article <a426cc09-91ce-4c80-8853-e44571ca2ad9
>> @googlegroups.com>, [email protected] says...
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 6:50:15 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>> On 2/7/2017 5:28 PM, Leon wrote:
>>>>> http://www.toolsofthetrade.net/power-tools/benchtop-tools/the-fate-of-reaxx_o?utm_source=newsletter&utm_content=Article&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=TOTT_020717%20(1)&he=bec4d8d422980f163c46356739c05c6eecb92632
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Steve Gass continues to make friends. I wonder if someone losing a
>>>> finger will sue Gass for not allowing Bosch to sell here.
>>>
>>> Is there a shortage of Saw Stop saws here? Is the price of Saw Stop so
>>> prohibitive here that anyone who would have bought a Reaxx for the
>>> safety feature can't/won't buy a Saw Stop?
>>>
>>> IOW, I don't see how anyone could sue the company that offers a
>>> comparable
>>> product to the banned one. If someone wants the technology, and a Saw
>>> Stop
>>> is available at roughly the same price, why would Gass be liable if
>>> someone
>>> chooses not to buy his product? How did Gass cause that finger to be
>>> lost?
>>
>> You can sue anybody for anything. Doesn't mean
>> you'll win.
>>
>> We just want something horrible to happen to
>> Gass.
>>
> Speak for yourself.
> The man offered all the companies the licensing rights. none took him up
> on it.
Exactly and with out a clue as to what the actual costs were are
suddenly experts at what a license should cost.
The other companies were betting against this getting off the ground and
lost, lost really big. One was about to pull the trigger to get the
license and got cold feet. I would imagine that the cost was not too
much for them but probably pulled out when every one else looked the
other way. I bet they are kicking themselves in the butt now.
Either way the patents will run out sooner than later.
>
> I don't begrudge him. You do.. that's your problem.
>
> His patent covers the method of detection too, which REAXX used.
> same as a gfci... I guess Gass was smart enough to cover that.
>
What I am really happy about is that the SawStop is a high quality
machine. Expensive, YES, but high quality machines are expensive but
not all offer the technology.
On 2/8/2017 1:46 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 2/8/2017 1:21 PM, woodchucker wrote:
>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I don't see how the President would side with Bosch, as it's a German
>> company over SawStop an American company.
>>
>
> Yeah, just add the 20% import tariff
> Where is a SawStop table saw made?
> SawStop is a US-owned company, and each table saw is engineered at our
> headquarters just south of Portland, Oregon. Every table saw is built in
> Taiwan to an unmatched set of tolerances.
I suspect that 20% more for a SawStop will not deter sales.
On 2/10/2017 8:44 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <P5KdnQygW5wVXwDFnZ2dnUU7-
> [email protected]>, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
> says...
>>
>> On 2/10/2017 4:52 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>> On 2/9/2017 10:05 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 2:50:59 PM UTC-6, Ed Pawlowski
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On 2/9/2017 2:35 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> The issue is not Gass making money. The issue is Gass'
>>>>>>> rent-seeking.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not sure what "rent-seeking" means.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> noun 1. the fact or practice of manipulating public policy or
>>>>> economic conditions as a strategy for increasing profits. "cronyism
>>>>> and rent-seeking have become an integral part of the way our
>>>>> biggest companies do business" adjective
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I can understand the manipulating public policy. Public policy
>>>> meaning government rules and regulations and laws. Lobbyists do
>>>> this. Not sure what economic conditions anyone can manipulate.
>>>
>>> Gass wanted Congress to pass a law that every tablesaw should have a
>>> safety device (his). Certainly would have helped his economic condition.
>>
>>
>> Absolutely and an absolute dream come true for every entrepreneur or
>> business owner, CEO ect.
>>
>> What businesses fit this mold? Who has lobbied the government to have
>> an on going advantage?
>>
>> Insurance companies.
>> All Energy providing companies.
>> TV entertainment providers.
>> Communication providers.
>> The automobile industry.
>> The building industry.
>> The food industry.
>> The medical industry...
>> The entertainment industry
>> The recycling industry.
>
> So which of these have succesfully lobbied for
> "If you purchase something of this kind it
> _must_ have this expensive feature"?
Think about it.
Can you own and drive an automobile with out having liability insurance?
That is state law in Texas. The insurance industry was instrumental
in getting that law.
TV entertainment providers. Cable has long had government in their
pockets to protect their interests and prevent competition. In Texas, I
suspect else where, if you subscribe to cable TV you only have one
choice. No other cable providers can compete.
>
> If you want a model, it wouldn't be any of
> those, it would be the airbag industry.
The air bag industry as we all commonly know it is the automotive
industry. Now back up cameras have or will shortly become mandatory on
new vehicles.
>
>> Mr. Gass is no different except he is the
>> little guy that has come up
>> with a great product and is successful.
>
> And he would have been more successful if he had
> just made his product and sold it without all
> the legal shenanigans before he started making
> it. Personally I will never, ever buy a Sawstop
> product not because of any concerns about the
> Sawstop but because I refuse to put a penny in
> that asshole's pocket.
That is your choice. An emotional one but all the same, your choice.
I'm sure there are
> others who feel the same.
>
Yes there are.
On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 13:27:08 -0500, "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, jbstein2
>@comcast.net says...
>>
>> On 2/11/2017 8:48 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> > On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 12:22:43 -0500, "J. Clarke"
>>
>> >>> Just google "abs problems".
>> >>> I've had sensors fail. I've had reluctor wheels split and spin, split
>> >>> and jam, and split and fall off. I've had them rust, and I've had them
>> >>> fill with crud between the teeth - all rendering them inneffective.
>> >>> I've had wires break and connections corrode.. I've had to replace
>> >>> very expensive wheel bearing assemblies because the sensor built into
>> >>> them failed.
>> >>
>> >> What do you _do_ to the poor things? The only
>> >> ABS maintenance my Jeep has needed in 20 years
>> >> was having one cable replaced after it got
>> >> snagged on something or other and got physically
>> >> ripped off.
>> >
>> > I FIX the damned things.
>>
>> GM was never able to (permanently) fix the ABS on my 2001 GMC truck.
>> After numerous repairs and almost killing me several times on dry
>> pavement, I gave up and pulled the ABS fuse to prevent them going off
>> under normal breaking conditions.
>>
>> All you need is to have the ABS go off on a dry day on concrete at 50
>> mph when attempting to make a routine stop behind a line of traffic.
>> This was apparently common with GM as two inspection garages told me it
>> was common and most just pull the fuse and disable the ABS. That
>> "fixed" it, so next, the brake lines rusted out.
>>
>> When your braking ability suddenly is reduced to 50% for no apparent
>> reason other than the ABS deciding to activate for no reason, you learn
>> quickly just how much force your brake peddle can handle w/o
>> breaking/bending. Trust me, it is a lot.
>>
>> GM recalled my truck for the tailgate straps that could (but didn't)
>> rust. No problem with ABS brake failure, or brake lines rusting out,
>> but sure wouldn't want tailgate to drop 6 inches. How is it I have
>> stainless steel exhaust but break lines on every GM product I've owned
>> have rusted out?
>
>Contrary to popular belief, stainless steel
>corrodes under the right circumstances. If you
>want it to last you have to keep it pretty
>clean.
>
>Also look into recall 05V379000.
>
>
>
The copper alloy lines used by many european manufacturers lastrs
virtually forever.(Copper-nickel alloy C70600,)
It is becoming more readily available in the North American Automotive
Aftermarket over the last few years.
On 2/9/2017 7:11 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Feb 2017 13:41:18 -0600, Leon wrote:
>
>> n 2/9/2017 10:19 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> writes:
>>>> In article <JeGdnfvPOcBH5AHFnZ2dnUU7-Q- [email protected]>,
>>>> lcb11211@swbelldotnet says...
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2/8/2017 8:44 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>> In article <DcGdnb13FefpPQbFnZ2dnUU7- [email protected]>,
>>>>>> lcb11211@swbelldotnet says...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2/8/2017 1:46 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/8/2017 1:21 PM, woodchucker wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>
> C'mon people. Every time anyone even mentions Sawstop someone resurrects
> the brouhaha we've had several times now. Whatever your opinion, you're
> not changing others. Can't we just let it go? Get back to woodworking?
> Even a political thread would be more interesting :-).
>
;~)
On 2/8/2017 8:35 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <bf2808e1-6340-44e8-800e-f0585fa92f44
> @googlegroups.com>, [email protected] says...
>>
>> On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 2:37:36 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>> On 2/8/2017 1:07 PM, woodchucker wrote:
>>>
>>>> The man offered all the companies the licensing rights. none took him up
>>>> on it.
>>>>
>>>> I don't begrudge him. You do.. that's your problem.
>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe. I have no idea of the terms he wanted. Over the years so
>>> patents were offered free of royalty because they had the potential to
>>> save lives. Being a generous sort of guy, I once offered a meal to a
>>> starving homeless person for only $30.
>>> http://jalopnik.com/volvo-gave-away-their-most-important-invention-to-save-1069825878
>>
>> That gesture was over half a century ago. I'm curious as to whether Volvo would be so
>> quick to give away their City Safety technology today.
>>
>> I have no idea how it compares with other auto-braking technologies out there, but that's
>> not the point. In an apples-to-apples modern day comparison, do you know if Volvo is giving
>> away what they call their "in-house developed unique technology for avoiding low-speed
>> collisions"? I don't think they are, so why not use that as a comparable to the Saw-Stop
>> situation instead of a 50+ year old gesture?
>
> When you say "Volvo" you mean "Zhejiang Geely
> Holding Group". Volvo ceased to exist as an
> indpendent company in 1999.
>
And what does that have to do with anything.
On 2/8/2017 8:37 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>>
>> On 2/8/17 1:37 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>> On 2/8/2017 1:07 PM, woodchucker wrote:
>>>
>>>> The man offered all the companies the licensing rights. none took
>>>> him up on it.
>>>>
>>>> I don't begrudge him. You do.. that's your problem.
>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe. I have no idea of the terms he wanted. Over the years so
>>> patents were offered free of royalty because they had the potential
>>> to save lives. Being a generous sort of guy, I once offered a meal
>>> to a starving homeless person for only $30.
>>> http://jalopnik.com/volvo-gave-away-their-most-important-invention-to-save-1069825878
>>>
>>>
>> It's your choice, it's their choice, it's anyone's choice to do so.
>> Anything other than that-- having the choice to do so-- is communism,
>> plain and simple.
>>
>> If someone offers their patented technology for free for the "better
>> good," good for them they are to be commended for their generosity.
>>
>> If someone else decides to make a profit off of their hard work and
>> intellectual property, then good for they, they deserve it.
>>
>> If someone else judges that person for making money off their hard work
>> and invention instead of giving it away, the fu@& you for judging them
>> and wanting them to give their hard earned property away for free. If
>> you choose to give something away which you rightly earned, then good
>> for you. If you sanctimoniously judge someone for keeping the money
>> they earn, then you are the problem, not them.
>
> The problem isn't that he wants to make a
> profit, it's that he pretends that he's an
> altruist and that he was forced to it only after
> all the evil businessmen spurned his offer to
> separate them from their capital.
>
I can see how YOU would think that way, given your strange temperament.
On 2/8/2017 7:37 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
> On 2/8/17 1:37 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> On 2/8/2017 1:07 PM, woodchucker wrote:
>>
>>> The man offered all the companies the licensing rights. none took
>>> him up on it.
>>>
>>> I don't begrudge him. You do.. that's your problem.
>>
>>
>> Maybe. I have no idea of the terms he wanted. Over the years so
>> patents were offered free of royalty because they had the potential
>> to save lives. Being a generous sort of guy, I once offered a meal
>> to a starving homeless person for only $30.
>> http://jalopnik.com/volvo-gave-away-their-most-important-invention-to-save-1069825878
>>
>>
>>
> It's your choice, it's their choice, it's anyone's choice to do so.
> Anything other than that-- having the choice to do so-- is communism,
> plain and simple.
>
> If someone offers their patented technology for free for the "better
> good," good for them they are to be commended for their generosity.
>
> If someone else decides to make a profit off of their hard work and
> intellectual property, then good for they, they deserve it.
>
> If someone else judges that person for making money off their hard work
> and invention instead of giving it away, the fu@& you for judging them
> and wanting them to give their hard earned property away for free. If
> you choose to give something away which you rightly earned, then good
> for you. If you sanctimoniously judge someone for keeping the money
> they earn, then you are the problem, not them.
>
>
+8,000 ;~)
On 2/8/2017 10:05 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Feb 2017 21:58:22 -0500, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 2/8/2017 8:37 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
>>> On 2/8/17 1:37 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>> On 2/8/2017 1:07 PM, woodchucker wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The man offered all the companies the licensing rights. none took
>>>>> him up on it.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't begrudge him. You do.. that's your problem.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Maybe. I have no idea of the terms he wanted. Over the years so
>>>> patents were offered free of royalty because they had the potential
>>>> to save lives. Being a generous sort of guy, I once offered a meal
>>>> to a starving homeless person for only $30.
>>>> http://jalopnik.com/volvo-gave-away-their-most-important-invention-to-save-1069825878
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> It's your choice, it's their choice, it's anyone's choice to do so.
>>> Anything other than that-- having the choice to do so-- is communism,
>>> plain and simple.
>>>
>>> If someone offers their patented technology for free for the "better
>>> good," good for them they are to be commended for their generosity.
>>>
>>> If someone else decides to make a profit off of their hard work and
>>> intellectual property, then good for them, they deserve it.
>>>
>>> If someone else judges that person for making money off their hard work
>>> and invention instead of giving it away, the fu@& you for judging them
>>> and wanting them to give their hard earned property away for free. If
>>> you choose to give something away which you rightly earned, then good
>>> for you. If you sanctimoniously judge someone for keeping the money
>>> they earn, then you are the problem, not them.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Like I said, MAYBE. We don't know the terms. Sure, he invested in the
>> technology and should have some return. It may have been $2 a unit, it
>> may have been $800 a unit. In life we are faced with a myriad of
>> circumstances and we have a choice as what to do. Our choice can make
>> us a hero or a schmuck. I don't know where he falls.
> Ryobi in Jan 2002 balked at a 3% royalty at the wholesale level
> with no upfront fees. I'd call that a pretty fair deal.
> That would have given them all the engineering and the right to use it
> - on ANY saw they produced
>
Yeah, I would pay 3% in a heart beat. Do you have a link to that
specific information?
I always thought that the offer was probably fair in so much that they
or another company almost went forward. I really think that they
decided to not be the only ones and that this would all blow over and
not happen.
On 2/8/2017 8:26 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Feb 2017 12:21:27 -0800 (PST), "[email protected]"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> My opinion. Ha Ha. I want the SawStop or Bosch technology on every saw ever made and ever will be made. I want saws to not cut people. I want safety. Hopefully the patents expire sometime soon and every saw maker in the world will be able to make saws with this safety device on it. And hopefully they can make it cheaper, easier for the replacement cartridges. Not that anyone should ever need a replacement cartridge if they follow safe smart cutting methods. I want a SawStop or Bosch safety saw. But I want a real European sliding saw more because I think its safer and far more functional than the old outdated American style saw. So I will have to wait awhile longer until a European company puts the SawStop technology onto their sliding table saw. Until then I will have to work with my older Delta Contractor saw and use safe handling methods to cut wood. Thinking is important when using a saw.
>
> The important patents expire in a couple of years, IIRC.
>
>> I personally know lawyers and a judge. They are all very fine people. So being a lawyer does not automatically make someone evil. Businesses are not good or evil either. Whether the inventor of the technology tried to make a huge amount of money is not important either. I try to make money every day too.
>
> The issue is not Gass making money. The issue is Gass' rent-seeking.
>
You don't like people that rent things to other people?
On 2/8/2017 8:44 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <DcGdnb13FefpPQbFnZ2dnUU7-
> [email protected]>, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
> says...
>>
>> On 2/8/2017 1:46 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>> On 2/8/2017 1:21 PM, woodchucker wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't see how the President would side with Bosch, as it's a German
>>>> company over SawStop an American company.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yeah, just add the 20% import tariff
>>> Where is a SawStop table saw made?
>>> SawStop is a US-owned company, and each table saw is engineered at our
>>> headquarters just south of Portland, Oregon. Every table saw is built in
>>> Taiwan to an unmatched set of tolerances.
>>
>>
>> I suspect that 20% more for a SawStop will not deter sales.
>
> But will it be 20 percent? The 20 percent is
> for _Mexico_. It might be more for China.
>
I have no idea, I though you had all the answers.
On 2/8/2017 10:05 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Feb 2017 21:58:22 -0500, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 2/8/2017 8:37 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
>>> On 2/8/17 1:37 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>> On 2/8/2017 1:07 PM, woodchucker wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The man offered all the companies the licensing rights. none took
>>>>> him up on it.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't begrudge him. You do.. that's your problem.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Maybe. I have no idea of the terms he wanted. Over the years so
>>>> patents were offered free of royalty because they had the potential
>>>> to save lives. Being a generous sort of guy, I once offered a meal
>>>> to a starving homeless person for only $30.
>>>> http://jalopnik.com/volvo-gave-away-their-most-important-invention-to-save-1069825878
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> It's your choice, it's their choice, it's anyone's choice to do so.
>>> Anything other than that-- having the choice to do so-- is communism,
>>> plain and simple.
>>>
>>> If someone offers their patented technology for free for the "better
>>> good," good for them they are to be commended for their generosity.
>>>
>>> If someone else decides to make a profit off of their hard work and
>>> intellectual property, then good for them, they deserve it.
>>>
>>> If someone else judges that person for making money off their hard work
>>> and invention instead of giving it away, the fu@& you for judging them
>>> and wanting them to give their hard earned property away for free. If
>>> you choose to give something away which you rightly earned, then good
>>> for you. If you sanctimoniously judge someone for keeping the money
>>> they earn, then you are the problem, not them.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Like I said, MAYBE. We don't know the terms. Sure, he invested in the
>> technology and should have some return. It may have been $2 a unit, it
>> may have been $800 a unit. In life we are faced with a myriad of
>> circumstances and we have a choice as what to do. Our choice can make
>> us a hero or a schmuck. I don't know where he falls.
> Ryobi in Jan 2002 balked at a 3% royalty at the wholesale level
> with no upfront fees. I'd call that a pretty fair deal.
> That would have given them all the engineering and the right to use it
> - on ANY saw they produced
>
And thinking about that a bit more, If there is indeed documentation
that Ryobi was on board and balked at 3% I can see how the attorneys
would have used that information against them when they lost that big
suit over they flooring guy that cut his finger off.
Ryobi was probably projected as the company that did not want to spend a
few dollars for the safety of their customers.
And yes a few dollars, 3% of cost to be able to add a very nice selling
feature with no R&D for that feature is cheap.
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> On 2/7/2017 5:28 PM, Leon wrote:
> > http://www.toolsofthetrade.net/power-tools/benchtop-tools/the-fate-of-reaxx_o?utm_source=newsletter&utm_content=Article&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=TOTT_020717%20(1)&he=bec4d8d422980f163c46356739c05c6eecb92632
> >
>
> Steve Gass continues to make friends. I wonder if someone losing a
> finger will sue Gass for not allowing Bosch to sell here.
That would be wonderful.
In article <a426cc09-91ce-4c80-8853-e44571ca2ad9
@googlegroups.com>, [email protected] says...
>
> On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 6:50:15 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> > On 2/7/2017 5:28 PM, Leon wrote:
> > > http://www.toolsofthetrade.net/power-tools/benchtop-tools/the-fate-of-reaxx_o?utm_source=newsletter&utm_content=Article&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=TOTT_020717%20(1)&he=bec4d8d422980f163c46356739c05c6eecb92632
> > >
> >
> > Steve Gass continues to make friends. I wonder if someone losing a
> > finger will sue Gass for not allowing Bosch to sell here.
>
> Is there a shortage of Saw Stop saws here? Is the price of Saw Stop so
> prohibitive here that anyone who would have bought a Reaxx for the
> safety feature can't/won't buy a Saw Stop?
>
> IOW, I don't see how anyone could sue the company that offers a comparable
> product to the banned one. If someone wants the technology, and a Saw Stop
> is available at roughly the same price, why would Gass be liable if someone
> chooses not to buy his product? How did Gass cause that finger to be lost?
You can sue anybody for anything. Doesn't mean
you'll win.
We just want something horrible to happen to
Gass.
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> On 2/7/2017 9:00 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 6:50:15 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> >> On 2/7/2017 5:28 PM, Leon wrote:
> >>> http://www.toolsofthetrade.net/power-tools/benchtop-tools/the-fate-of-reaxx_o?utm_source=newsletter&utm_content=Article&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=TOTT_020717%20(1)&he=bec4d8d422980f163c46356739c05c6eecb92632
> >>>
> >>
> >> Steve Gass continues to make friends. I wonder if someone losing a
> >> finger will sue Gass for not allowing Bosch to sell here.
> >
> > Is there a shortage of Saw Stop saws here? Is the price of Saw Stop so
> > prohibitive here that anyone who would have bought a Reaxx for the
> > safety feature can't/won't buy a Saw Stop?
> >
> > IOW, I don't see how anyone could sue the company that offers a comparable
> > product to the banned one. If someone wants the technology, and a Saw Stop
> > is available at roughly the same price, why would Gass be liable if someone
> > chooses not to buy his product? How did Gass cause that finger to be lost?
> >
>
> Bosch is a smaller saw easily taken to the jobsite. Not so much for
> SawStop.
>
> SawStop is a good product. Gass in more interested in making money than
> saving fingers or he would be selling his technology at reasonable
> prices so the world would be a safer place.
And he would have happily greeted Bosch's
alternative design instead of going after them
with lawyers.
But he's a scum sucking bottom
^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^^H^Hlawyer
himself.
In article <DcGdnYJ3FedvAgbFnZ2dnUU7-
[email protected]>, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
says...
>
> On 2/8/2017 12:04 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> > On Tue, 7 Feb 2017 22:39:35 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2/7/2017 8:00 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 6:50:15 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> >>>> On 2/7/2017 5:28 PM, Leon wrote:
> >>>>> http://www.toolsofthetrade.net/power-tools/benchtop-tools/the-fate-of-reaxx_o?utm_source=newsletter&utm_content=Article&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=TOTT_020717%20(1)&he=bec4d8d422980f163c46356739c05c6eecb92632
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Steve Gass continues to make friends. I wonder if someone losing a
> >>>> finger will sue Gass for not allowing Bosch to sell here.
> >>>
> >>> Is there a shortage of Saw Stop saws here? Is the price of Saw Stop so
> >>> prohibitive here that anyone who would have bought a Reaxx for the
> >>> safety feature can't/won't buy a Saw Stop?
> >>>
> >>> IOW, I don't see how anyone could sue the company that offers a comparable
> >>> product to the banned one. If someone wants the technology, and a Saw Stop
> >>> is available at roughly the same price, why would Gass be liable if someone
> >>> chooses not to buy his product? How did Gass cause that finger to be lost?
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> Its just the absurdity if holding a grudge for a person that long.
> >
> > Grudge? What's a gruge got to do with it? Once a scum-sucking
> > lawyer, always a scum-sucking lawer. There is no statute of
> > limitations on staying clear of bottom-feeding rent-seeking scum.
> >
>
> Do you have pictures of Gass sucking scum or is that just something you
> made up. Ther is an old saying, It takes one to call one.
The default with lawyers is scum-sucking. Do
you have evidence that he is different from
other lawyers?
In article <uImdnUr596UJ2AbFnZ2dnUU7-
[email protected]>, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
says...
>
> On 2/8/2017 9:59 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> > On 2/7/2017 11:35 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> >
> >>> Bosch is a smaller saw easily taken to the jobsite. Not so much for
> >>> SawStop.
> >>
> >> Really?
> >>
> >> https://www.protoolreviews.com/tools/power/corded/saws/bosch-reaxx-1041a-vs-sawstop-jss-mca/14982/
> >>
> >>
> >
> > I was unaware of that model.
> >
> >
> >>>
> >>> SawStop is a good product. Gass in more interested in making money than
> >>> saving fingers or he would be selling his technology at reasonable
> >>> prices so the world would be a safer place.
> >>
> >> True, but not relevant (as a lawyer would say) to this particular
> >> lawsuit discussion.
> >>
> > Relevance and 12 jurors are different things. If a big company is a bad
> > guy, relevance, truth, and fact mean little.
> >
>
>
> Absolutely true but with the fact that SawStop is so successful, it is
> obvious that the vast majority will see SS as the good guy. There are
> only a handful of people with issues that don't seem to be able to let
> things go. Those type jurors would most likely be eliminated during
> jury selection.
Any jurors familiar with Sawstop or having any
opinion concerning it would likely be eliminated
during jury selection. That doesn't mean that
the ones who have been selected cannot be
convinced that Gass is a flaming asshole who
deserves to rot in Hell.
In article <q5udnSTPRuXqwwbFnZ2dnUU7-
[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>
> On 2/7/2017 9:05 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> > In article <a426cc09-91ce-4c80-8853-e44571ca2ad9
> > @googlegroups.com>, [email protected] says...
> >>
> >> On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 6:50:15 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> >>> On 2/7/2017 5:28 PM, Leon wrote:
> >>>> http://www.toolsofthetrade.net/power-tools/benchtop-tools/the-fate-of-reaxx_o?utm_source=newsletter&utm_content=Article&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=TOTT_020717%20(1)&he=bec4d8d422980f163c46356739c05c6eecb92632
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Steve Gass continues to make friends. I wonder if someone losing a
> >>> finger will sue Gass for not allowing Bosch to sell here.
> >>
> >> Is there a shortage of Saw Stop saws here? Is the price of Saw Stop so
> >> prohibitive here that anyone who would have bought a Reaxx for the
> >> safety feature can't/won't buy a Saw Stop?
> >>
> >> IOW, I don't see how anyone could sue the company that offers a comparable
> >> product to the banned one. If someone wants the technology, and a Saw Stop
> >> is available at roughly the same price, why would Gass be liable if someone
> >> chooses not to buy his product? How did Gass cause that finger to be lost?
> >
> > You can sue anybody for anything. Doesn't mean
> > you'll win.
> >
> > We just want something horrible to happen to
> > Gass.
> >
> Speak for yourself.
> The man offered all the companies the licensing rights. none took him up
> on it.
He "offered" them for a high price intended to
enrich Gass. If you want to see how someone who
actually cares about public safety handles it,
look at how Daimler-Benz handled the patents on
antiskid braking systems.
> I don't begrudge him. You do.. that's your problem.
I begrudge anybody who wants laws passed that
have the effect of putting money in their own
pockets.
> His patent covers the method of detection too, which REAXX used.
> same as a gfci... I guess Gass was smart enough to cover that.
In article <bf2808e1-6340-44e8-800e-f0585fa92f44
@googlegroups.com>, [email protected] says...
>
> On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 2:37:36 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> > On 2/8/2017 1:07 PM, woodchucker wrote:
> >
> > > The man offered all the companies the licensing rights. none took him up
> > > on it.
> > >
> > > I don't begrudge him. You do.. that's your problem.
> >
> >
> > Maybe. I have no idea of the terms he wanted. Over the years so
> > patents were offered free of royalty because they had the potential to
> > save lives. Being a generous sort of guy, I once offered a meal to a
> > starving homeless person for only $30.
> > http://jalopnik.com/volvo-gave-away-their-most-important-invention-to-save-1069825878
>
> That gesture was over half a century ago. I'm curious as to whether Volvo would be so
> quick to give away their City Safety technology today.
>
> I have no idea how it compares with other auto-braking technologies out there, but that's
> not the point. In an apples-to-apples modern day comparison, do you know if Volvo is giving
> away what they call their "in-house developed unique technology for avoiding low-speed
> collisions"? I don't think they are, so why not use that as a comparable to the Saw-Stop
> situation instead of a 50+ year old gesture?
When you say "Volvo" you mean "Zhejiang Geely
Holding Group". Volvo ceased to exist as an
indpendent company in 1999.
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> On 2/8/17 1:37 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> > On 2/8/2017 1:07 PM, woodchucker wrote:
> >
> >> The man offered all the companies the licensing rights. none took
> >> him up on it.
> >>
> >> I don't begrudge him. You do.. that's your problem.
> >
> >
> > Maybe. I have no idea of the terms he wanted. Over the years so
> > patents were offered free of royalty because they had the potential
> > to save lives. Being a generous sort of guy, I once offered a meal
> > to a starving homeless person for only $30.
> > http://jalopnik.com/volvo-gave-away-their-most-important-invention-to-save-1069825878
> >
> >
> It's your choice, it's their choice, it's anyone's choice to do so.
> Anything other than that-- having the choice to do so-- is communism,
> plain and simple.
>
> If someone offers their patented technology for free for the "better
> good," good for them they are to be commended for their generosity.
>
> If someone else decides to make a profit off of their hard work and
> intellectual property, then good for they, they deserve it.
>
> If someone else judges that person for making money off their hard work
> and invention instead of giving it away, the fu@& you for judging them
> and wanting them to give their hard earned property away for free. If
> you choose to give something away which you rightly earned, then good
> for you. If you sanctimoniously judge someone for keeping the money
> they earn, then you are the problem, not them.
The problem isn't that he wants to make a
profit, it's that he pretends that he's an
altruist and that he was forced to it only after
all the evil businessmen spurned his offer to
separate them from their capital.
In article <q5udnSfPRuWIwgbFnZ2dnUU7-
[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>
> On 2/7/2017 9:39 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> > On 2/7/2017 9:00 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 6:50:15 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> >>> On 2/7/2017 5:28 PM, Leon wrote:
> >>>> http://www.toolsofthetrade.net/power-tools/benchtop-tools/the-fate-of-reaxx_o?utm_source=newsletter&utm_content=Article&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=TOTT_020717%20(1)&he=bec4d8d422980f163c46356739c05c6eecb92632
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Steve Gass continues to make friends. I wonder if someone losing a
> >>> finger will sue Gass for not allowing Bosch to sell here.
> >>
> >> Is there a shortage of Saw Stop saws here? Is the price of Saw Stop so
> >> prohibitive here that anyone who would have bought a Reaxx for the
> >> safety feature can't/won't buy a Saw Stop?
> >>
> >> IOW, I don't see how anyone could sue the company that offers a
> >> comparable
> >> product to the banned one. If someone wants the technology, and a Saw
> >> Stop
> >> is available at roughly the same price, why would Gass be liable if
> >> someone
> >> chooses not to buy his product? How did Gass cause that finger to be
> >> lost?
> >>
> >
> > Bosch is a smaller saw easily taken to the jobsite. Not so much for
> > SawStop.
> >
> Wrong , sawstop makes a jobsite saw.
>
> > SawStop is a good product. Gass in more interested in making money than
> > saving fingers or he would be selling his technology at reasonable
> > prices so the world would be a safer place.
>
> So you don't like the capitalistic system? He offered the license.. no
> one took it. He patented it like normal inventors do, now you don't like
> that.
> GET REAL
I'm fine with capitalism. I'm not fine with
some asshole saying "I'm out to save fingers,
that's all I care about" and then showing that
all he really cares about is lining his own
pockets. It's called hypocrisy.
In article <DcGdnb13FefpPQbFnZ2dnUU7-
[email protected]>, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
says...
>
> On 2/8/2017 1:46 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> > On 2/8/2017 1:21 PM, woodchucker wrote:
> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> I don't see how the President would side with Bosch, as it's a German
> >> company over SawStop an American company.
> >>
> >
> > Yeah, just add the 20% import tariff
> > Where is a SawStop table saw made?
> > SawStop is a US-owned company, and each table saw is engineered at our
> > headquarters just south of Portland, Oregon. Every table saw is built in
> > Taiwan to an unmatched set of tolerances.
>
>
> I suspect that 20% more for a SawStop will not deter sales.
But will it be 20 percent? The 20 percent is
for _Mexico_. It might be more for China.
In article <384812291.508340867.772248.lcb11211-
[email protected]>, lcb11211
@swbell.net says...
>
> J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
> > In article <uImdnUr596UJ2AbFnZ2dnUU7-
> > [email protected]>, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
> > says...
> >>
> >> On 2/8/2017 9:59 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> >>> On 2/7/2017 11:35 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> Bosch is a smaller saw easily taken to the jobsite. Not so much for
> >>>>> SawStop.
> >>>>
> >>>> Really?
> >>>>
> >>>> https://www.protoolreviews.com/tools/power/corded/saws/bosch-reaxx-1041a-vs-sawstop-jss-mca/14982/
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> I was unaware of that model.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> SawStop is a good product. Gass in more interested in making money than
> >>>>> saving fingers or he would be selling his technology at reasonable
> >>>>> prices so the world would be a safer place.
> >>>>
> >>>> True, but not relevant (as a lawyer would say) to this particular
> >>>> lawsuit discussion.
> >>>>
> >>> Relevance and 12 jurors are different things. If a big company is a bad
> >>> guy, relevance, truth, and fact mean little.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> Absolutely true but with the fact that SawStop is so successful, it is
> >> obvious that the vast majority will see SS as the good guy. There are
> >> only a handful of people with issues that don't seem to be able to let
> >> things go. Those type jurors would most likely be eliminated during
> >> jury selection.
> >
> > Any jurors familiar with Sawstop or having any
> > opinion concerning it would likely be eliminated
> > during jury selection. That doesn't mean that
> > the ones who have been selected cannot be
> > convinced that Gass is a flaming asshole who
> > deserves to rot in Hell.
> >
>
> Have you thought about getting therapy?
Have you thought of having your cranio-rectal
inversion corrected?
In article <I6WdnS3nNaZo6gHFnZ2dnUU7-
[email protected]>, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
says...
>
> On 2/8/2017 8:35 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> > In article <bf2808e1-6340-44e8-800e-f0585fa92f44
> > @googlegroups.com>, [email protected] says...
> >>
> >> On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 2:37:36 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> >>> On 2/8/2017 1:07 PM, woodchucker wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> The man offered all the companies the licensing rights. none took him up
> >>>> on it.
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't begrudge him. You do.. that's your problem.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Maybe. I have no idea of the terms he wanted. Over the years so
> >>> patents were offered free of royalty because they had the potential to
> >>> save lives. Being a generous sort of guy, I once offered a meal to a
> >>> starving homeless person for only $30.
> >>> http://jalopnik.com/volvo-gave-away-their-most-important-invention-to-save-1069825878
> >>
> >> That gesture was over half a century ago. I'm curious as to whether Volvo would be so
> >> quick to give away their City Safety technology today.
> >>
> >> I have no idea how it compares with other auto-braking technologies out there, but that's
> >> not the point. In an apples-to-apples modern day comparison, do you know if Volvo is giving
> >> away what they call their "in-house developed unique technology for avoiding low-speed
> >> collisions"? I don't think they are, so why not use that as a comparable to the Saw-Stop
> >> situation instead of a 50+ year old gesture?
> >
> > When you say "Volvo" you mean "Zhejiang Geely
> > Holding Group". Volvo ceased to exist as an
> > indpendent company in 1999.
> >
>
>
> And what does that have to do with anything.
Since you were discussing the likely behavior of
a nonexistent company it has quite a lot to do
woth anything.
In article
<1466913720.508341000.279817.lcb11211-
[email protected]>, lcb11211
@swbell.net says...
>
> J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
> > In article <q5udnSfPRuWIwgbFnZ2dnUU7-
> > [email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> >>
> >> On 2/7/2017 9:39 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> >>> On 2/7/2017 9:00 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> >>>> On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 6:50:15 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> >>>>> On 2/7/2017 5:28 PM, Leon wrote:
> >>>>>> http://www.toolsofthetrade.net/power-tools/benchtop-tools/the-fate-of-reaxx_o?utm_source=newsletter&utm_content=Article&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=TOTT_020717%20(1)&he=bec4d8d422980f163c46356739c05c6eecb92632
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Steve Gass continues to make friends. I wonder if someone losing a
> >>>>> finger will sue Gass for not allowing Bosch to sell here.
> >>>>
> >>>> Is there a shortage of Saw Stop saws here? Is the price of Saw Stop so
> >>>> prohibitive here that anyone who would have bought a Reaxx for the
> >>>> safety feature can't/won't buy a Saw Stop?
> >>>>
> >>>> IOW, I don't see how anyone could sue the company that offers a
> >>>> comparable
> >>>> product to the banned one. If someone wants the technology, and a Saw
> >>>> Stop
> >>>> is available at roughly the same price, why would Gass be liable if
> >>>> someone
> >>>> chooses not to buy his product? How did Gass cause that finger to be
> >>>> lost?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Bosch is a smaller saw easily taken to the jobsite. Not so much for
> >>> SawStop.
> >>>
> >> Wrong , sawstop makes a jobsite saw.
> >>
> >>> SawStop is a good product. Gass in more interested in making money than
> >>> saving fingers or he would be selling his technology at reasonable
> >>> prices so the world would be a safer place.
> >>
> >> So you don't like the capitalistic system? He offered the license.. no
> >> one took it. He patented it like normal inventors do, now you don't like
> >> that.
> >> GET REAL
> >
> > I'm fine with capitalism. I'm not fine with
> > some asshole saying "I'm out to save fingers,
> > that's all I care about" and then showing that
> > all he really cares about is lining his own
> > pockets. It's called hypocrisy.
> >
> >
> >
>
> Have you looked in the mirror lately, to see why people treat you like an
> ass hole?
Coming from the location of your head that is
quite amusing.
In article <JeGdnfvPOcBH5AHFnZ2dnUU7-Q-
[email protected]>, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
says...
>
> On 2/8/2017 8:44 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> > In article <DcGdnb13FefpPQbFnZ2dnUU7-
> > [email protected]>, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
> > says...
> >>
> >> On 2/8/2017 1:46 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> >>> On 2/8/2017 1:21 PM, woodchucker wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't see how the President would side with Bosch, as it's a German
> >>>> company over SawStop an American company.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Yeah, just add the 20% import tariff
> >>> Where is a SawStop table saw made?
> >>> SawStop is a US-owned company, and each table saw is engineered at our
> >>> headquarters just south of Portland, Oregon. Every table saw is built in
> >>> Taiwan to an unmatched set of tolerances.
> >>
> >>
> >> I suspect that 20% more for a SawStop will not deter sales.
> >
> > But will it be 20 percent? The 20 percent is
> > for _Mexico_. It might be more for China.
> >
>
> I have no idea, I though you had all the answers.
Geezus, Leon, can't you even come up with a
decent FLAME?
In article <JeGdnfjPOcDF5AHFnZ2dnUU7-
[email protected]>, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
says...
>
> On 2/8/2017 10:05 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> > On Wed, 8 Feb 2017 21:58:22 -0500, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2/8/2017 8:37 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
> >>> On 2/8/17 1:37 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> >>>> On 2/8/2017 1:07 PM, woodchucker wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> The man offered all the companies the licensing rights. none took
> >>>>> him up on it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I don't begrudge him. You do.. that's your problem.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Maybe. I have no idea of the terms he wanted. Over the years so
> >>>> patents were offered free of royalty because they had the potential
> >>>> to save lives. Being a generous sort of guy, I once offered a meal
> >>>> to a starving homeless person for only $30.
> >>>> http://jalopnik.com/volvo-gave-away-their-most-important-invention-to-save-1069825878
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> It's your choice, it's their choice, it's anyone's choice to do so.
> >>> Anything other than that-- having the choice to do so-- is communism,
> >>> plain and simple.
> >>>
> >>> If someone offers their patented technology for free for the "better
> >>> good," good for them they are to be commended for their generosity.
> >>>
> >>> If someone else decides to make a profit off of their hard work and
> >>> intellectual property, then good for them, they deserve it.
> >>>
> >>> If someone else judges that person for making money off their hard work
> >>> and invention instead of giving it away, the fu@& you for judging them
> >>> and wanting them to give their hard earned property away for free. If
> >>> you choose to give something away which you rightly earned, then good
> >>> for you. If you sanctimoniously judge someone for keeping the money
> >>> they earn, then you are the problem, not them.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> Like I said, MAYBE. We don't know the terms. Sure, he invested in the
> >> technology and should have some return. It may have been $2 a unit, it
> >> may have been $800 a unit. In life we are faced with a myriad of
> >> circumstances and we have a choice as what to do. Our choice can make
> >> us a hero or a schmuck. I don't know where he falls.
> > Ryobi in Jan 2002 balked at a 3% royalty at the wholesale level
> > with no upfront fees. I'd call that a pretty fair deal.
> > That would have given them all the engineering and the right to use it
> > - on ANY saw they produced
> >
>
> Yeah, I would pay 3% in a heart beat. Do you have a link to that
> specific information?
>
> I always thought that the offer was probably fair in so much that they
> or another company almost went forward. I really think that they
> decided to not be the only ones and that this would all blow over and
> not happen.
3 percent growing to 8 percent if the rest of
the industry goes along. Most businesses shoot
for 20 percent profit so an 8 percent royalty is
HUGE.
In article <abcadb55-9a41-4a69-bb74-f991ea42fa73
@googlegroups.com>, [email protected] says...
>
> On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 9:35:05 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote:
> > In article <bf2808e1-6340-44e8-800e-f0585fa92f44
> > @googlegroups.com>, [email protected] says...
> > >
> > > On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 2:37:36 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> > > > On 2/8/2017 1:07 PM, woodchucker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > The man offered all the companies the licensing rights. none took him up
> > > > > on it.
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't begrudge him. You do.. that's your problem.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Maybe. I have no idea of the terms he wanted. Over the years so
> > > > patents were offered free of royalty because they had the potential to
> > > > save lives. Being a generous sort of guy, I once offered a meal to a
> > > > starving homeless person for only $30.
> > > > http://jalopnik.com/volvo-gave-away-their-most-important-invention-to-save-1069825878
> > >
> > > That gesture was over half a century ago. I'm curious as to whether Volvo would be so
> > > quick to give away their City Safety technology today.
> > >
> > > I have no idea how it compares with other auto-braking technologies out there, but that's
> > > not the point. In an apples-to-apples modern day comparison, do you know if Volvo is giving
> > > away what they call their "in-house developed unique technology for avoiding low-speed
> > > collisions"? I don't think they are, so why not use that as a comparable to the Saw-Stop
> > > situation instead of a 50+ year old gesture?
> >
> > When you say "Volvo" you mean "Zhejiang Geely
> > Holding Group". Volvo ceased to exist as an
> > indpendent company in 1999.
>
> How is it that you know what *I* meant? Are you a mind reader?
>
> In any case...
>
> From: http://www.volvocars.com/intl/about/our-company/heritage/innovations
>
> Copyright © 2017 Volvo Car Corporation (or its affiliates or licensors).
>
> 2008 ? City Safety
>
> "Here are some amazing statistics ? 75% of all reported collisions take
> place at speeds of up to 30km/h and in 50% of rear-enders, the driver
> behind hasn?t braked at all. We saw an opportunity to make a great
> difference ? our City Safety system uses laser detection to work out
> whether a collision with the car in front is likely, and if the driver
> doesn?t brake, the car will do it. And the system works up to 50km/h."
>
> Hint: I don't really care who the parent company of Volvo Cars is. When I
> said Volvo, I meant Volvo.
>
> http://www.volvocars.com/intl/about/our-company/investor-relations/financial-results
Believe that the Chinese ownership makes no
difference in decisionmaking if you want to.
You probably think that Ford didn't exert any
control either.
In article <9a508518-ed4e-44ed-ab22-
[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 5:38:20 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote:
> > In article <abcadb55-9a41-4a69-bb74-f991ea42fa73
> > @googlegroups.com>, [email protected] says...
> > >
> > > On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 9:35:05 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote:
> > > > In article <bf2808e1-6340-44e8-800e-f0585fa92f44
> > > > @googlegroups.com>, [email protected] says...
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 2:37:36 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> > > > > > On 2/8/2017 1:07 PM, woodchucker wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > The man offered all the companies the licensing rights. none took him up
> > > > > > > on it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I don't begrudge him. You do.. that's your problem.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Maybe. I have no idea of the terms he wanted. Over the years so
> > > > > > patents were offered free of royalty because they had the potential to
> > > > > > save lives. Being a generous sort of guy, I once offered a meal to a
> > > > > > starving homeless person for only $30.
> > > > > > http://jalopnik.com/volvo-gave-away-their-most-important-invention-to-save-1069825878
> > > > >
> > > > > That gesture was over half a century ago. I'm curious as to whether Volvo would be so
> > > > > quick to give away their City Safety technology today.
> > > > >
> > > > > I have no idea how it compares with other auto-braking technologies out there, but that's
> > > > > not the point. In an apples-to-apples modern day comparison, do you know if Volvo is giving
> > > > > away what they call their "in-house developed unique technology for avoiding low-speed
> > > > > collisions"? I don't think they are, so why not use that as a comparable to the Saw-Stop
> > > > > situation instead of a 50+ year old gesture?
> > > >
> > > > When you say "Volvo" you mean "Zhejiang Geely
> > > > Holding Group". Volvo ceased to exist as an
> > > > indpendent company in 1999.
> > >
> > > How is it that you know what *I* meant? Are you a mind reader?
> > >
> > > In any case...
> > >
> > > From: http://www.volvocars.com/intl/about/our-company/heritage/innovations
> > >
> > > Copyright © 2017 Volvo Car Corporation (or its affiliates or licensors).
> > >
> > > 2008 ? City Safety
> > >
> > > "Here are some amazing statistics ? 75% of all reported collisions take
> > > place at speeds of up to 30km/h and in 50% of rear-enders, the driver
> > > behind hasn?t braked at all. We saw an opportunity to make a great
> > > difference ? our City Safety system uses laser detection to work out
> > > whether a collision with the car in front is likely, and if the driver
> > > doesn?t brake, the car will do it. And the system works up to 50km/h."
> > >
> > > Hint: I don't really care who the parent company of Volvo Cars is. When I
> > > said Volvo, I meant Volvo.
> > >
> > > http://www.volvocars.com/intl/about/our-company/investor-relations/financial-results
> >
> > Believe that the Chinese ownership makes no
> > difference in decisionmaking if you want to.
> > You probably think that Ford didn't exert any
> > control either.
>
> Your problem is that you don't get the point of my post.
>
> Moving on.
I do get the point of your post, which is that
the world has changed so that Volvo would not
have made the same decision now that they did
with regard to three point seat belts.
My point is that it is not the world that has
changed, it is Volvo, which has gone through two
changes of ownership since the seat belt
decision was made.
In article <P5KdnQygW5wVXwDFnZ2dnUU7-
[email protected]>, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
says...
>
> On 2/10/2017 4:52 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> > On 2/9/2017 10:05 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> >> On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 2:50:59 PM UTC-6, Ed Pawlowski
> >> wrote:
> >>> On 2/9/2017 2:35 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> The issue is not Gass making money. The issue is Gass'
> >>>>> rent-seeking.
> >>>>
> >>>> Not sure what "rent-seeking" means.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> noun 1. the fact or practice of manipulating public policy or
> >>> economic conditions as a strategy for increasing profits. "cronyism
> >>> and rent-seeking have become an integral part of the way our
> >>> biggest companies do business" adjective
> >
> >>
> >> I can understand the manipulating public policy. Public policy
> >> meaning government rules and regulations and laws. Lobbyists do
> >> this. Not sure what economic conditions anyone can manipulate.
> >
> > Gass wanted Congress to pass a law that every tablesaw should have a
> > safety device (his). Certainly would have helped his economic condition.
>
>
> Absolutely and an absolute dream come true for every entrepreneur or
> business owner, CEO ect.
>
> What businesses fit this mold? Who has lobbied the government to have
> an on going advantage?
>
> Insurance companies.
> All Energy providing companies.
> TV entertainment providers.
> Communication providers.
> The automobile industry.
> The building industry.
> The food industry.
> The medical industry...
> The entertainment industry
> The recycling industry.
So which of these have succesfully lobbied for
"If you purchase something of this kind it
_must_ have this expensive feature"?
If you want a model, it wouldn't be any of
those, it would be the airbag industry.
> Mr. Gass is no different except he is the
> little guy that has come up
> with a great product and is successful.
And he would have been more successful if he had
just made his product and sold it without all
the legal shenanigans before he started making
it. Personally I will never, ever buy a Sawstop
product not because of any concerns about the
Sawstop but because I refuse to put a penny in
that asshole's pocket. I'm sure there are
others who feel the same.
On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 12:32:39 -0500, Jack <[email protected]> wrote:
>How is it I have
>stainless steel exhaust but break lines on every GM product I've owned
>have rusted out?
Protecting the margin and ignoring the prefered winter treatment on
asphalt and concrete.
In article <FsadnSr3peg7ZwDFnZ2dnUU7-
[email protected]>, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
says...
>
> On 2/10/2017 8:44 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> > In article <P5KdnQygW5wVXwDFnZ2dnUU7-
> > [email protected]>, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
> > says...
> >>
> >> On 2/10/2017 4:52 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> >>> On 2/9/2017 10:05 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> >>>> On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 2:50:59 PM UTC-6, Ed Pawlowski
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>> On 2/9/2017 2:35 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> The issue is not Gass making money. The issue is Gass'
> >>>>>>> rent-seeking.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Not sure what "rent-seeking" means.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> noun 1. the fact or practice of manipulating public policy or
> >>>>> economic conditions as a strategy for increasing profits. "cronyism
> >>>>> and rent-seeking have become an integral part of the way our
> >>>>> biggest companies do business" adjective
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I can understand the manipulating public policy. Public policy
> >>>> meaning government rules and regulations and laws. Lobbyists do
> >>>> this. Not sure what economic conditions anyone can manipulate.
> >>>
> >>> Gass wanted Congress to pass a law that every tablesaw should have a
> >>> safety device (his). Certainly would have helped his economic condition.
> >>
> >>
> >> Absolutely and an absolute dream come true for every entrepreneur or
> >> business owner, CEO ect.
> >>
> >> What businesses fit this mold? Who has lobbied the government to have
> >> an on going advantage?
> >>
> >> Insurance companies.
> >> All Energy providing companies.
> >> TV entertainment providers.
> >> Communication providers.
> >> The automobile industry.
> >> The building industry.
> >> The food industry.
> >> The medical industry...
> >> The entertainment industry
> >> The recycling industry.
> >
> > So which of these have succesfully lobbied for
> > "If you purchase something of this kind it
> > _must_ have this expensive feature"?
>
> Think about it.
>
> Can you own and drive an automobile with out having liability insurance?
> That is state law in Texas. The insurance industry was instrumental
> in getting that law.
However it is not part of the car. And if you
do not drive on public roads then you do not
need it.
> TV entertainment providers. Cable has long had government in their
> pockets to protect their interests and prevent competition. In Texas, I
> suspect else where, if you subscribe to cable TV you only have one
> choice. No other cable providers can compete.
Around here there's Cox and Frontier, both
provide television by wire using different
technologies. DirecTV and Dish provide two
other options.
However you are not required by law to buy any
safety device in order to have cable.
> > If you want a model, it wouldn't be any of
> > those, it would be the airbag industry.
>
> The air bag industry as we all commonly know it is the automotive
> industry. Now back up cameras have or will shortly become mandatory on
> new vehicles.
_SOME_body seems to have missed all of the
lobbying and all of the workarounds that were
tried by what you claim to be "the automotive
industry" before they finally accepted that
airbags were the only way to comply with the
law.
Follow the money on airbags and it goes to Breed
Technology, which held the patent on the
triggering mechanism at the time that airbags
were mandated.
> >> Mr. Gass is no different except he is the
> >> little guy that has come up
> >> with a great product and is successful.
> >
> > And he would have been more successful if he had
> > just made his product and sold it without all
> > the legal shenanigans before he started making
> > it. Personally I will never, ever buy a Sawstop
> > product not because of any concerns about the
> > Sawstop but because I refuse to put a penny in
> > that asshole's pocket.
>
> That is your choice. An emotional one but all the same, your choice.
And the choice of others who if Gass had not
behaved like a greedy jackass and then lied
about his motivations might have been sales
instead.
> I'm sure there are
> > others who feel the same.
> >
> Yes there are.
In article <3nas9chblki4a89kreqtr795ls9s480169@
4ax.com>, [email protected] says...
>
> On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 11:38:36 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> wrote:
>
> >On 2/10/2017 8:44 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> >> In article <P5KdnQygW5wVXwDFnZ2dnUU7-
> >> [email protected]>, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
> >> says...
> >>>
> >>> On 2/10/2017 4:52 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> >>>> On 2/9/2017 10:05 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 2:50:59 PM UTC-6, Ed Pawlowski
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>> On 2/9/2017 2:35 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The issue is not Gass making money. The issue is Gass'
> >>>>>>>> rent-seeking.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Not sure what "rent-seeking" means.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> noun 1. the fact or practice of manipulating public policy or
> >>>>>> economic conditions as a strategy for increasing profits. "cronyism
> >>>>>> and rent-seeking have become an integral part of the way our
> >>>>>> biggest companies do business" adjective
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I can understand the manipulating public policy. Public policy
> >>>>> meaning government rules and regulations and laws. Lobbyists do
> >>>>> this. Not sure what economic conditions anyone can manipulate.
> >>>>
> >>>> Gass wanted Congress to pass a law that every tablesaw should have a
> >>>> safety device (his). Certainly would have helped his economic condition.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Absolutely and an absolute dream come true for every entrepreneur or
> >>> business owner, CEO ect.
> >>>
> >>> What businesses fit this mold? Who has lobbied the government to have
> >>> an on going advantage?
> >>>
> >>> Insurance companies.
> >>> All Energy providing companies.
> >>> TV entertainment providers.
> >>> Communication providers.
> >>> The automobile industry.
> >>> The building industry.
> >>> The food industry.
> >>> The medical industry...
> >>> The entertainment industry
> >>> The recycling industry.
> >>
> >> So which of these have succesfully lobbied for
> >> "If you purchase something of this kind it
> >> _must_ have this expensive feature"?
> >
> >Think about it.
> >
> >Can you own and drive an automobile with out having liability insurance?
> > That is state law in Texas. The insurance industry was instrumental
> >in getting that law.
> >
> >TV entertainment providers. Cable has long had government in their
> >pockets to protect their interests and prevent competition. In Texas, I
> >suspect else where, if you subscribe to cable TV you only have one
> >choice. No other cable providers can compete.
> >
> >>
> >> If you want a model, it wouldn't be any of
> >> those, it would be the airbag industry.
> >
> >The air bag industry as we all commonly know it is the automotive
> >industry. Now back up cameras have or will shortly become mandatory on
> >new vehicles.
> >
> >
>
> As well as stability control, lane guideance, TPMS systems, and
> (already) ABS.
I don't know about the others, but ABS is an
example of a company that could have profited
instead trying to save lives. Mercedes-Benz
held the critical patents for ABS as we know it,
and chose to license them free of charge to any
other auto maker who wanted to implement the
technology.
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> On 2/10/2017 3:32 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> > On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 4:52:54 AM UTC-6, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> >>
> >> Gass wanted Congress to pass a law that every tablesaw should have a
> >> safety device (his). Certainly would have helped his economic condition.
> >
> > I am not sure that can be done. Legal issues. Government laws can require safety devices. Airbags and seatbelts in cars being an example. But I doubt the law can require a specific patented device be installed. With airbags and seatbelts, the patents had long expired and the devices were actually in use and production before the law took effect requiring them to be installed in all cars.
> >
>
> The end result is it never happened. If a law was passed at the time,
> his device was the only one available. Would have been a nice windfall.
> Along the way he pissed off a lot of people.
>
> OTOH, Obama care requires us to buy insurance or pay a fine. If that
> can get by Congress a shop safety device is not much different.
The fine business was the way it was sold. The
courts ruled that it was just another tax.
In article <M_OdnRoTtKJHBwPFnZ2dnUU7-
[email protected]>, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
says...
>
> On 2/10/2017 7:46 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> > In article <FsadnSr3peg7ZwDFnZ2dnUU7-
> > [email protected]>, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
> > says...
> >>
> >> On 2/10/2017 8:44 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> >>> In article <P5KdnQygW5wVXwDFnZ2dnUU7-
> >>> [email protected]>, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
> >>> says...
> >>>>
> >>>> On 2/10/2017 4:52 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> >>>>> On 2/9/2017 10:05 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> >>>>>> On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 2:50:59 PM UTC-6, Ed Pawlowski
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 2/9/2017 2:35 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> The issue is not Gass making money. The issue is Gass'
> >>>>>>>>> rent-seeking.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Not sure what "rent-seeking" means.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> noun 1. the fact or practice of manipulating public policy or
> >>>>>>> economic conditions as a strategy for increasing profits. "cronyism
> >>>>>>> and rent-seeking have become an integral part of the way our
> >>>>>>> biggest companies do business" adjective
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I can understand the manipulating public policy. Public policy
> >>>>>> meaning government rules and regulations and laws. Lobbyists do
> >>>>>> this. Not sure what economic conditions anyone can manipulate.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Gass wanted Congress to pass a law that every tablesaw should have a
> >>>>> safety device (his). Certainly would have helped his economic condition.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Absolutely and an absolute dream come true for every entrepreneur or
> >>>> business owner, CEO ect.
> >>>>
> >>>> What businesses fit this mold? Who has lobbied the government to have
> >>>> an on going advantage?
> >>>>
> >>>> Insurance companies.
> >>>> All Energy providing companies.
> >>>> TV entertainment providers.
> >>>> Communication providers.
> >>>> The automobile industry.
> >>>> The building industry.
> >>>> The food industry.
> >>>> The medical industry...
> >>>> The entertainment industry
> >>>> The recycling industry.
> >>>
> >>> So which of these have succesfully lobbied for
> >>> "If you purchase something of this kind it
> >>> _must_ have this expensive feature"?
> >>
> >> Think about it.
> >>
> >> Can you own and drive an automobile with out having liability insurance?
> >> That is state law in Texas. The insurance industry was instrumental
> >> in getting that law.
> >
> > However it is not part of the car. And if you
> > do not drive on public roads then you do not
> > need it.
>
>
> What is not a part of the car? Insurance? No kidding. I indicated
> that if you drive a car you have to buy liability insurance, An example
> that I listed as one of the type businesses that benefited from lobbying
> the government for minatory compliance.
Since we were talking about mandating the
installation of a sole-source proprietary
component on all devices of a given type, your
example is irrelevant.
>
>
> >
> >> TV entertainment providers. Cable has long had government in their
> >> pockets to protect their interests and prevent competition. In Texas, I
> >> suspect else where, if you subscribe to cable TV you only have one
> >> choice. No other cable providers can compete.
> >
> > Around here there's Cox and Frontier, both
> > provide television by wire using different
> > technologies. DirecTV and Dish provide two
> > other options.
>
> Direct and Dish are not cable providers, they are satellite dish
> providers. Regardless in Houston TX you have no choice of cable
> providers. and again it is not because of a lack of another cable
> company wanting to be here, because the only cable company has
> government protected rights to be the only provider.
>
>
>
> >
> > However you are not required by law to buy any
> > safety device in order to have cable.
>
> You have really missed the point ...... Get some one to explain it to you.
Your point is that you want to be patted on the
head and told what a smart boy you are for
coming up with a bunch of red herrings and straw
men that are irrelevant to the point.
So, <pat pat> what a smart boy you are Leon.
Feel better?
In article <YPydnZkTYdzYAQPFnZ2dnUU7-
[email protected]>, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
says...
>
> On 2/10/2017 8:31 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> > On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 3:49:15 PM UTC-6, Ed Pawlowski
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> OTOH, Obama care requires us to buy insurance or pay a fine. If
> >> that can get by Congress a shop safety device is not much
> >> different.
> >
> > And all of the states require you to have a state issued driver's
> > license to operate a vehicle on the roads. And other licenses to
> > operate a truck. There is about a 100% chance everyone will use
> > health care. So having insurance to cover the costs makes sense.
> > States require liability insurance to drive a car. States require
> > you to buy insurance!!! No one doubts the ability of government to
> > pass laws governing the safety aspects of products. The legal
> > question is whether the law can require a patented device be
> > mandated.
> >
> > Can anyone give an example of a law that required using a patented,
> > licensed device? Seatbelts, airbags, ABS were all long past their
> > patents when they were required by law to be included on cars.
> >
>
>
> Yes. For those that buy into global warming being a trend that will not
> change over a period. and we need to recycle to sove our lives from co2
> and zombies....
> There is the patented yard waste recycle bags. Only the ones that
> Houston has their seal of approval can be used. Those are also the
> worst quality and the most expensive recyclable yard refuse bags money
> can buy. One of past mayors implemented this law just around the time
> he left office.
To what other device is the manufacturer of said
device required to attach that bag?
In article <dc9f137a-2000-4f3e-8836-4f450f8f8e27
@googlegroups.com>, [email protected]
says...
>
> On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 9:55:24 PM UTC-6, [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > Driving has long been considered a privelege, not a right. Your
> > comparison doesn't hold water.
> >
>
> Do you consider using a table saw a right? I'd classify it as a privilege too. There is some document written hundreds of years ago talking about the pursuit of happiness. Maybe table saws fall under that saying. Using table saws is a privilege. The government can mandate insurance and/or safety devices.
>
>
>
>
> > >Can anyone give an example of a law that required using a patented, licensed device?
>
> This question still stands. Does anyone have an example of a government mandated device that was still under license and restricted? ABS, airbags, seatbelts were all public property free to everyone when they were mandated.
The notion that airbags and abs were"public
property" is based in the rather naive notion
that patenting a device that has a certain
function makes it impossible to patent
improvements in such a device. If the airbags
or antiskid brakes that were originally patented
were actually viable in the market they would
have gone into widespread service much sooner.
The fact is that neither went into widespread
service until patented technology was developed
that made them sufficiently inexpensive and
reliable to be viable in the market.
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> > On 2/11/2017 12:57 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> >> On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 9:55:24 PM UTC-6, [email protected]
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Driving has long been considered a privelege, not a right. Your
> >>> comparison doesn't hold water.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Do you consider using a table saw a right? I'd classify it as a
> >> privilege too. There is some document written hundreds of years ago
> >> talking about the pursuit of happiness. Maybe table saws fall under
> >> that saying. Using table saws is a privilege. The government can
> >> mandate insurance and/or safety devices.
> >
> > I see it as a right.
>
> Your insurance company could say they wouldn't accept liability
> associated with it.
So? One is not obligated to have insurance,
except for Obamacare and even that can be
avoided by paying a tax penalty.
On 2/10/2017 7:46 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <FsadnSr3peg7ZwDFnZ2dnUU7-
> [email protected]>, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
> says...
>>
>> On 2/10/2017 8:44 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> In article <P5KdnQygW5wVXwDFnZ2dnUU7-
>>> [email protected]>, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
>>> says...
>>>>
>>>> On 2/10/2017 4:52 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>>> On 2/9/2017 10:05 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>> On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 2:50:59 PM UTC-6, Ed Pawlowski
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/9/2017 2:35 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The issue is not Gass making money. The issue is Gass'
>>>>>>>>> rent-seeking.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not sure what "rent-seeking" means.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> noun 1. the fact or practice of manipulating public policy or
>>>>>>> economic conditions as a strategy for increasing profits. "cronyism
>>>>>>> and rent-seeking have become an integral part of the way our
>>>>>>> biggest companies do business" adjective
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can understand the manipulating public policy. Public policy
>>>>>> meaning government rules and regulations and laws. Lobbyists do
>>>>>> this. Not sure what economic conditions anyone can manipulate.
>>>>>
>>>>> Gass wanted Congress to pass a law that every tablesaw should have a
>>>>> safety device (his). Certainly would have helped his economic condition.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Absolutely and an absolute dream come true for every entrepreneur or
>>>> business owner, CEO ect.
>>>>
>>>> What businesses fit this mold? Who has lobbied the government to have
>>>> an on going advantage?
>>>>
>>>> Insurance companies.
>>>> All Energy providing companies.
>>>> TV entertainment providers.
>>>> Communication providers.
>>>> The automobile industry.
>>>> The building industry.
>>>> The food industry.
>>>> The medical industry...
>>>> The entertainment industry
>>>> The recycling industry.
>>>
>>> So which of these have succesfully lobbied for
>>> "If you purchase something of this kind it
>>> _must_ have this expensive feature"?
>>
>> Think about it.
>>
>> Can you own and drive an automobile with out having liability insurance?
>> That is state law in Texas. The insurance industry was instrumental
>> in getting that law.
>
> However it is not part of the car. And if you
> do not drive on public roads then you do not
> need it.
What is not a part of the car? Insurance? No kidding. I indicated
that if you drive a car you have to buy liability insurance, An example
that I listed as one of the type businesses that benefited from lobbying
the government for minatory compliance.
>
>> TV entertainment providers. Cable has long had government in their
>> pockets to protect their interests and prevent competition. In Texas, I
>> suspect else where, if you subscribe to cable TV you only have one
>> choice. No other cable providers can compete.
>
> Around here there's Cox and Frontier, both
> provide television by wire using different
> technologies. DirecTV and Dish provide two
> other options.
Direct and Dish are not cable providers, they are satellite dish
providers. Regardless in Houston TX you have no choice of cable
providers. and again it is not because of a lack of another cable
company wanting to be here, because the only cable company has
government protected rights to be the only provider.
>
> However you are not required by law to buy any
> safety device in order to have cable.
You have really missed the point ...... Get some one to explain it to you.
On 2/10/2017 4:52 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 2/9/2017 10:05 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 2:50:59 PM UTC-6, Ed Pawlowski
>> wrote:
>>> On 2/9/2017 2:35 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>>> The issue is not Gass making money. The issue is Gass'
>>>>> rent-seeking.
>>>>
>>>> Not sure what "rent-seeking" means.
>>>>
>>>
>>> noun 1. the fact or practice of manipulating public policy or
>>> economic conditions as a strategy for increasing profits. "cronyism
>>> and rent-seeking have become an integral part of the way our
>>> biggest companies do business" adjective
>
>>
>> I can understand the manipulating public policy. Public policy
>> meaning government rules and regulations and laws. Lobbyists do
>> this. Not sure what economic conditions anyone can manipulate.
>
> Gass wanted Congress to pass a law that every tablesaw should have a
> safety device (his). Certainly would have helped his economic condition.
Absolutely and an absolute dream come true for every entrepreneur or
business owner, CEO ect.
What businesses fit this mold? Who has lobbied the government to have
an on going advantage?
Insurance companies.
All Energy providing companies.
TV entertainment providers.
Communication providers.
The automobile industry.
The building industry.
The food industry.
The medical industry...
The entertainment industry
The recycling industry.
And the list goes on.
Mr. Gass is no different except he is the little guy that has come up
with a great product and is successful.
On 2/13/2017 7:54 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <PcqdnbxO4tImoD_FnZ2dnUU7-
> [email protected]>, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
> says...
>>
>> On 2/13/2017 10:14 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>> [email protected] says...
>>>>
>>>> On 2/12/2017 1:27 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>>> GM recalled my truck for the tailgate straps that could (but didn't)
>>>>>>> rust. No problem with ABS brake failure, or brake lines rusting out,
>>>>>>> but sure wouldn't want tailgate to drop 6 inches. How is it I have
>>>>>>> stainless steel exhaust but break lines on every GM product I've owned
>>>>>>> have rusted out?
>>>>
>>>>> Contrary to popular belief, stainless steel
>>>>> corrodes under the right circumstances. If you
>>>>> want it to last you have to keep it pretty
>>>>> clean.
>>>>
>>>> Not true with my exhaust system. The stainless steel exhaust has never
>>>> once been cleaned and it is now 16+ years old, and in the rust belt.
>>>> Surely GM could have used the same stuff in the brake lines, which is
>>>> magnitudes more important than the exhaust system as far as safety goes.
>>>
>>> So you never go through a car wash?
>>
>> In the south a good many car washes do not hit the bottom of the
>> vehicle, only the wheels/wheel wells and the body.
>
> In the south corrosion from road salt is not an
> issue. Driving on the beach on the other hand .
> . .
>
> Town I grew up in (north Florida)had a couple of
> pulp mills. The pulp mills provided a
> drivethrough rinsedown as a courtesy to
> employees to clean the fly ash off their cars.
> The rinsedown hit the underside. Everybody who
> knew about it went over to the pulp mill and ran
> through the rinsedown after driving on the beach
> (it was a different world then--security was a
> lot less stringent).
When I lived 3 miles from the coast we had a very long island, Padre
Island, that allowed vehicles on the beach. As you were leaving the
island there was a 4 way spray wash to go throuhg. And rust was an issue.
Houston, you don't see rust and I have never seen a spray wash any
where, even on Galveston island. I actually don't think they drive on
the beach and if so only a small area.
In article <[email protected]>, jbstein2
@comcast.net says...
>
> On 2/11/2017 8:48 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> > On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 12:22:43 -0500, "J. Clarke"
>
> >>> Just google "abs problems".
> >>> I've had sensors fail. I've had reluctor wheels split and spin, split
> >>> and jam, and split and fall off. I've had them rust, and I've had them
> >>> fill with crud between the teeth - all rendering them inneffective.
> >>> I've had wires break and connections corrode.. I've had to replace
> >>> very expensive wheel bearing assemblies because the sensor built into
> >>> them failed.
> >>
> >> What do you _do_ to the poor things? The only
> >> ABS maintenance my Jeep has needed in 20 years
> >> was having one cable replaced after it got
> >> snagged on something or other and got physically
> >> ripped off.
> >
> > I FIX the damned things.
>
> GM was never able to (permanently) fix the ABS on my 2001 GMC truck.
> After numerous repairs and almost killing me several times on dry
> pavement, I gave up and pulled the ABS fuse to prevent them going off
> under normal breaking conditions.
>
> All you need is to have the ABS go off on a dry day on concrete at 50
> mph when attempting to make a routine stop behind a line of traffic.
> This was apparently common with GM as two inspection garages told me it
> was common and most just pull the fuse and disable the ABS. That
> "fixed" it, so next, the brake lines rusted out.
>
> When your braking ability suddenly is reduced to 50% for no apparent
> reason other than the ABS deciding to activate for no reason, you learn
> quickly just how much force your brake peddle can handle w/o
> breaking/bending. Trust me, it is a lot.
>
> GM recalled my truck for the tailgate straps that could (but didn't)
> rust. No problem with ABS brake failure, or brake lines rusting out,
> but sure wouldn't want tailgate to drop 6 inches. How is it I have
> stainless steel exhaust but break lines on every GM product I've owned
> have rusted out?
Contrary to popular belief, stainless steel
corrodes under the right circumstances. If you
want it to last you have to keep it pretty
clean.
Also look into recall 05V379000.
On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 21:17:52 GMT, [email protected] (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:
>Bill <[email protected]> writes:
>>Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> Bill <[email protected]> writes:
>>>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>> The only reason I ever bought a GM product was price - and it sure
>>>>>> didn't translate to low COST.
>>>>> You were an automotive service manager and you
>>>>> didn't know better?
>>>>
>>>> Okay, now you got my interest with this thread. I've been a Buick owner
>>>> for many years (because I like the headroom and the quiet ride). Am I
>>>> overpaying? What models should I be looking at instead--something from
>>>> Toyota? By the way, I go to the Buick dealership as infrequently as
>>>> possible because I know I can get a better deal elsewhere. Other
>>>> dealerships different?
>>> I sure like my Infiniti M37. 330hp is pretty sweet :-)
>>
>>190 hp has served me well enough... : )
>>
>>> I've had
>>> Nissan cars since 1983 (810 Datsun Maxima, I30 and M37) all of which have
>>> held up very well with zero problems.
>>>
>>> I really loved my 2000 base-model Ford Ranger; I gave it to my
>>> nephew last year and got a Chevy Colorado, which I
>>> don't love much at all - the programmers at Chevy are
>>> incompetent.
>>
>>Wow, that's interesting. I saw the Colorado caught my eye, appearing on
>>a "good value" list.
>>I hate to ask you to think about it, but, for the sake of all who are
>>interested, what bugs you about it?
>>
>
>Oh, it's all little things. From the comfort standpoint, the
>Colorado is a step up from the base-model Ranger that I had. I
>was looking for a domestic manual transmission and the Colorado
>was the -only- option at the time (although Chevy didn't offer
>a regular cab, mine was as base-model is it was possible to get).
>
>On the down side, the gearing ratios aren't designed for people who
>use engine braking (second is too close to first and too far from
>third - which is probably for those who like to start out in second).
>The radio display/backup camera screen is too small. There is
>a very annoying two-second delay between turning the volume knob
>and detecting a change in the sound level. The daylight sensor that
>switches the screen brightness is horrible - passing through the shadow
>of an overpass will dim the screen to unreadability. The entertainment
>system infrequently resets for no apparent reason. The UI is poor.
>
>I had a regular cab on the Ranger, but the colorado has an extended cab
>and the back end sits much higher than the front, which makes rear
>visibility poor (when compared with the excellent visibility in the
>ranger).
>
>There were two recalls in the first eight months I had it (shifter
>lever and hood latch). I'm not particularly happy with the dealership
>either, they had to keep my truck for 24-hours to change the oil and
>do the recalls (and they didn't do the hood-latch one because they
>didn't have the part in stock). On the otherhand, they'll do two
>oil changes for free during the first two years.
>
>Just can't compare with my memories of the 1963 Impala with the 350
>four-barrel.
>
>I hear ford is bringing the ranger back, may have to look into it.
I'd rather drive my 21 year old Ranger than a new Colorado.
On Sunday, February 19, 2017 at 10:29:39 AM UTC-5, Jack wrote:
> On 2/18/2017 9:28 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> > On Sat, 18 Feb 2017 13:09:41 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>
> >> I highly suspect that people dying in auto injuries is less of a result
> >> of complete brake failure.
> >>
> > correct. Mechanical failure is cited in only 10-15% of all automotive
> > accidents (and that includes things like brake or turn signal lamps
> > not working) with tire and wheel problems being the majority and total
> > brake loss WAY down the list.
> >
> > In the list of causes of fatal auto colisions, mechanical failure
> > doesn't even make the top 25.
>
> If only 1% die from brake failure, that would be 3-400 a year. If
> "they" completely banned the use of ALL saws, I think the lives saved
> would be about ZERO.
>
> Proving someone died because their ABS system failed would be next to
> impossible, at least in my truck it was intermittent. Rusted lines
> would be easier to prove, but looking at a mangled wreck, one might
> expect a brake line to be ripped apart. Also, when I was a kid, and
> worked in a collision shop, never once do I remember anyone trying to
> determine if a mechanical failure caused the wreck. This may have
> changed, but I doubt it.
One could assume that with the advancement of accident reconstruction
capabilities it might not be that hard to determine if a rusted brake
line was the cause.
Visual inspection of the brake lines, even if mangled, could show a
difference between "collision mangled" in some sections and "blown out rust
spots" in others. Lack of skid marks, brake fluid upstream from the
accident site, the vehicle's black box, etc. could all help in making the
determination.
Any of the teams from the various CSI's would have it figured out in the
first 10 minutes. ;-)
>
> A friend of my wife ran though the side of a building and she said her
> gas pedal stuck. Could easily have been brake failure IMO. I believe
> it was a Lexus and people were suing them for stuck gas pedals.
>
The daughter of a co-worker recently drove her boyfriend's pick-up into a
utility pole - by choice.
She was driving downhill towards a red light at a very busy intersection.
She applied the brake and the pedal went right to the floor. Being a fairly
young driver (18) and in her first real emergency situation, her first thought
wasn't to try the emergency brake, it was to *not* go through the red light.
She chose the pole instead, which did a real good job of stopping the truck.
Poor kid. She had to quit high school sports because of multiple concussions
and then suffered a serious one during the accident.
On Sat, 18 Feb 2017 13:09:41 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 2/18/2017 11:31 AM, Jack wrote:
>> On 2/17/2017 1:11 PM, Leon wrote:
>>> On 2/17/2017 10:57 AM, Jack wrote:
>>
>>>>> Engineering is always a compromise.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps a few $Billion in fines would help them compromise on the side
>>>> of a safe braking system, rather than $billions for fudging on MPG...
>>>
>>> Don't take this like I am ganging up on you. ;~)
>>>
>>> A billion dollar fine for an auto manufacturer for a brake problem that
>>> I was never aware of when I was in that business, service manager of an
>>> Oldsmobile dealer. And this may actually be more common in recent years
>>> but up until 1995 not really a thing except in isolated cases.
>>
>> Did they even have anti-lock brakes when you were in the business. My
>> 2001 GMC truck was the first vehicle I owned with ABS brakes, and they
>> were a clear safety hazard as they failed routinely.
>
>I do not think so, when I worked for the dealership, cehicles having
>anti lock brakes. But my 97 Chevy Silverado did and they worked as
>advertised on numerous occasions. But that is not to say that there was
>no possibility of a problem. Had this been an inherent problem or
>happening often there certainly would have been a campaign/recall.
>
>
>>
>>> How about a billion dollar fine against all TS manufacturers that did
>>> not care about our safety enough to build a safer saw when they had the
>>> opportunity. I will give you the possibility that it may have been
>>> expensive. But giving you that, the brand that out sells all others in
>>> the USA pretty much is the most expensive saw in it's class.
>>
>> How many died from stubbing their toe, or whacking off a finger on a TS?
>> Many thousands die in auto accidents, and many more are seriously
>> injured, far worse than 99.999% of table saw accidents.
>
>I highly suspect that people dying in auto injuries is less of a result
>of complete brake failure.
>
correct. Mechanical failure is cited in only 10-15% of all automotive
accidents (and that includes things like brake or turn signal lamps
not working) with tire and wheel problems being the majority and total
brake loss WAY down the list.
In the list of causes of fatal auto colisions, mechanical failure
doesn't even make the top 25.
On Sat, 18 Feb 2017 13:13:57 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 2/18/2017 8:47 AM, Brewster wrote:
>> On 2/16/17 8:44 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>> Impossible to pump it dry because it is a split reservoir too - but if
>>> you blow the front system and the rear is out of adjustment (extremely
>>> common - auto adjusters stuck and rear brakes not serviced - or
>>> handbrake never used - required to operate the adjusters) and there is
>>> not enough volume pumped from the bottomed rear piston to fully apply
>>> the rear brakes. If you don't "brain freeze" and get a second pump in,
>>> you have a chance to slow down, if not totally stop
>>>
>>
>> All the drum brakes I'm familiar with are adjusted by hitting the brakes
>> while traveling in reverse. Each event indexes the star adjuster by one
>> notch. Parking brakes, as used with drums, merely mechanically apply
>> force to a lever on the drum mechanism, no effect on the adjuster.
>>
>> -BR
>>
>Parking brakes very often are the method of adjusting parking brakes,
>drum or disk. Many of the hand operated parking brakes on GM vehicles
>adjusted the drum brakes this way. And many of those had no star/screw
>type adjuster, they had a one way friction plate that only adjusted out.
Correct. althogh MOST north anerican built GM cars DID have the
star-wheel
On 2/18/2017 9:28 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Feb 2017 13:09:41 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>> I highly suspect that people dying in auto injuries is less of a result
>> of complete brake failure.
>>
> correct. Mechanical failure is cited in only 10-15% of all automotive
> accidents (and that includes things like brake or turn signal lamps
> not working) with tire and wheel problems being the majority and total
> brake loss WAY down the list.
>
> In the list of causes of fatal auto colisions, mechanical failure
> doesn't even make the top 25.
If only 1% die from brake failure, that would be 3-400 a year. If
"they" completely banned the use of ALL saws, I think the lives saved
would be about ZERO.
Proving someone died because their ABS system failed would be next to
impossible, at least in my truck it was intermittent. Rusted lines
would be easier to prove, but looking at a mangled wreck, one might
expect a brake line to be ripped apart. Also, when I was a kid, and
worked in a collision shop, never once do I remember anyone trying to
determine if a mechanical failure caused the wreck. This may have
changed, but I doubt it.
A friend of my wife ran though the side of a building and she said her
gas pedal stuck. Could easily have been brake failure IMO. I believe
it was a Lexus and people were suing them for stuck gas pedals.
--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com
On 2/19/2017 11:58 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> On Sunday, February 19, 2017 at 10:29:39 AM UTC-5, Jack wrote:
>> Proving someone died because their ABS system failed would be next to
>> impossible, at least in my truck it was intermittent. Rusted lines
>> would be easier to prove, but looking at a mangled wreck, one might
>> expect a brake line to be ripped apart. Also, when I was a kid, and
>> worked in a collision shop, never once do I remember anyone trying to
>> determine if a mechanical failure caused the wreck. This may have
>> changed, but I doubt it.
>
> One could assume that with the advancement of accident reconstruction
> capabilities it might not be that hard to determine if a rusted brake
> line was the cause.
Yes, if anyone wants to undertake the task. Intermittent failure like
my GMC Truck ABS system would be impossible to figure out I'd think,
probably why the recall was to "clean the sensors" which works for a
brief time. Not even sure it works at all as they went off randomly,
not constantly.
> Visual inspection of the brake lines, even if mangled, could show a
> difference between "collision mangled" in some sections and "blown out rust
> spots" in others. Lack of skid marks, brake fluid upstream from the
> accident site, the vehicle's black box, etc. could all help in making the
> determination.
I reckon if the FAA can determine the cause of planes falling out of the
sky, someone given enough time and resources could figure out the cause
of a car falling into a tree. My time spent in a collision shop (many,
many years ago) saw zero efforts made to figure out why someone got dead
in a wreck. Our shop had it in with the local police and all wrecks
were towed by us to our shop unless the owner insisted on someone else.
Dead ones never did... most people never did.
> Any of the teams from the various CSI's would have it figured out in the
> first 10 minutes. ;-)
For sure:-)
> The daughter of a co-worker recently drove her boyfriend's pick-up into a
> utility pole - by choice.
>
> She was driving downhill towards a red light at a very busy intersection.
> She applied the brake and the pedal went right to the floor. Being a fairly
> young driver (18) and in her first real emergency situation, her first thought
> wasn't to try the emergency brake, it was to *not* go through the red light.
>
> She chose the pole instead, which did a real good job of stopping the truck.
> Poor kid. She had to quit high school sports because of multiple concussions
> and then suffered a serious one during the accident.
She's a real hero. Going through the red light could risk multiple
lives, she is one brave girl, good for her. I hope she was driving a
GMC vehicle and the brake lines rusted out, and she sues them for
millions, and they get fined more than VW did for fudging on MPG.
If it was a GM product, and it was rusted brake lines or ABS failure,
tell her I'd be happy to testify on the 100% brake failure on my last 3
GM purchases since 2001, as well as GM's failure to address or fix the
problems.
--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com
In article <srqdndLNJIliLj3FnZ2dnUU7-
[email protected]>, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
says...
>
> On 2/12/2017 12:27 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>, jbstein2
> > @comcast.net says...
> >>
> >> On 2/11/2017 8:48 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 12:22:43 -0500, "J. Clarke"
> >>
> >>>>> Just google "abs problems".
> >>>>> I've had sensors fail. I've had reluctor wheels split and spin, split
> >>>>> and jam, and split and fall off. I've had them rust, and I've had them
> >>>>> fill with crud between the teeth - all rendering them inneffective.
> >>>>> I've had wires break and connections corrode.. I've had to replace
> >>>>> very expensive wheel bearing assemblies because the sensor built into
> >>>>> them failed.
> >>>>
> >>>> What do you _do_ to the poor things? The only
> >>>> ABS maintenance my Jeep has needed in 20 years
> >>>> was having one cable replaced after it got
> >>>> snagged on something or other and got physically
> >>>> ripped off.
> >>>
> >>> I FIX the damned things.
> >>
> >> GM was never able to (permanently) fix the ABS on my 2001 GMC truck.
> >> After numerous repairs and almost killing me several times on dry
> >> pavement, I gave up and pulled the ABS fuse to prevent them going off
> >> under normal breaking conditions.
> >>
> >> All you need is to have the ABS go off on a dry day on concrete at 50
> >> mph when attempting to make a routine stop behind a line of traffic.
> >> This was apparently common with GM as two inspection garages told me it
> >> was common and most just pull the fuse and disable the ABS. That
> >> "fixed" it, so next, the brake lines rusted out.
> >>
> >> When your braking ability suddenly is reduced to 50% for no apparent
> >> reason other than the ABS deciding to activate for no reason, you learn
> >> quickly just how much force your brake peddle can handle w/o
> >> breaking/bending. Trust me, it is a lot.
> >>
> >> GM recalled my truck for the tailgate straps that could (but didn't)
> >> rust. No problem with ABS brake failure, or brake lines rusting out,
> >> but sure wouldn't want tailgate to drop 6 inches. How is it I have
> >> stainless steel exhaust but break lines on every GM product I've owned
> >> have rusted out?
> >
> > Contrary to popular belief, stainless steel
> > corrodes under the right circumstances. If you
> > want it to last you have to keep it pretty
> > clean.
> >
> > Also look into recall 05V379000.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> You are not being specific with the SS you mentioned but it will indeed
> rust if a magnet will stick to it.
I'm not being specific because my statment is
true of _all_ stainless steel. Google "crevice
corrosion".
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> On 2/12/2017 1:27 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> >> >GM recalled my truck for the tailgate straps that could (but didn't)
> >> >rust. No problem with ABS brake failure, or brake lines rusting out,
> >> >but sure wouldn't want tailgate to drop 6 inches. How is it I have
> >> >stainless steel exhaust but break lines on every GM product I've owned
> >> >have rusted out?
>
> > Contrary to popular belief, stainless steel
> > corrodes under the right circumstances. If you
> > want it to last you have to keep it pretty
> > clean.
>
> Not true with my exhaust system. The stainless steel exhaust has never
> once been cleaned and it is now 16+ years old, and in the rust belt.
> Surely GM could have used the same stuff in the brake lines, which is
> magnitudes more important than the exhaust system as far as safety goes.
So you never go through a car wash?
And what pressure does your exhaust have to
withstand? What pressure do your brake lines
have to withstand?
> > Also look into recall 05V379000.
>
> Thanks for that, I never received that recall notice, but did get the
> notice on the tailgate straps. I looked it up and the recall is for
> them to clean the sensors. That works temporarily until they get dirty
> again. They also are to check the wheel speed sensor, which apparently
> doesn't work on my truck, allowing the screwed up ABS system to fire off
> at high speeds? Not sure why it wouldn't go off at high speeds if you
> are sliding, but who knows?
>
> Personally, after several heart stopping misfires on dry pavement, I
> don't want ABS period if there is ever a chance they will fire off at
> the wrong time. I think I'll just leave the fuse out rather than risk my
> life with a defective system.
>
> They sued VW billions for cheating on MPG crap, I think braking systems
> are WAY more important and GM should be sued out of business for the
> crappy ABS stuff and for sure the rusting brake line crap.
It doesn't matter what the brake lines are made
of, a 16 year old vehicle should have them
inspected and replaced as necessary.
You're expecting magic materials to take the
place of proper maintenance.
In article <PcqdnbxO4tImoD_FnZ2dnUU7-
[email protected]>, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
says...
>
> On 2/13/2017 10:14 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > [email protected] says...
> >>
> >> On 2/12/2017 1:27 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> >>>>> GM recalled my truck for the tailgate straps that could (but didn't)
> >>>>> rust. No problem with ABS brake failure, or brake lines rusting out,
> >>>>> but sure wouldn't want tailgate to drop 6 inches. How is it I have
> >>>>> stainless steel exhaust but break lines on every GM product I've owned
> >>>>> have rusted out?
> >>
> >>> Contrary to popular belief, stainless steel
> >>> corrodes under the right circumstances. If you
> >>> want it to last you have to keep it pretty
> >>> clean.
> >>
> >> Not true with my exhaust system. The stainless steel exhaust has never
> >> once been cleaned and it is now 16+ years old, and in the rust belt.
> >> Surely GM could have used the same stuff in the brake lines, which is
> >> magnitudes more important than the exhaust system as far as safety goes.
> >
> > So you never go through a car wash?
>
> In the south a good many car washes do not hit the bottom of the
> vehicle, only the wheels/wheel wells and the body.
In the south corrosion from road salt is not an
issue. Driving on the beach on the other hand .
. .
Town I grew up in (north Florida)had a couple of
pulp mills. The pulp mills provided a
drivethrough rinsedown as a courtesy to
employees to clean the fly ash off their cars.
The rinsedown hit the underside. Everybody who
knew about it went over to the pulp mill and ran
through the rinsedown after driving on the beach
(it was a different world then--security was a
lot less stringent).
>
> But the old exhaust systems rusted from within. Lot's of nasty crap
> coming from inside the exhaust including condensation that mixes to form
> some concoction. Remember the sulfur smell that was very common with GM
> vehicles equipped with catalytic converters in the 70's? These systems
> rusted out quickly and then the stainless steel exhaust systems began
> showing up and the problem has virtually gone away down here.
> The old steel exhaust systems looked fine on the outside but with just a
> little pressure with a pair of channel locks and you could easily crush
> and put a hole in the pipe.
In article <XnsA71C551315151dougmilmaccom@
213.239.209.88>,
[email protected] says...
>
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> > It doesn't matter what the brake lines are made
> > of, a 16 year old vehicle should have them
> > inspected and replaced as necessary.
> >
> > You're expecting magic materials to take the
> > place of proper maintenance.
>
> Nonsense. Metal brake lines are not a "maintenance" item, even on a 16-yo vehicle.
They are or should be an inspection item.
> In more than forty years of doing the vast majority of my own maintenance and repair, I've
> had to replace a corroded brake line exactly once: last March, on the Dodge truck which
> my wife and I bought new shortly after we got married -- in 1985.
That you did your own maintenance and repair
does not mean that you did it right. Did you
perform every maintenance item that the service
manual specified?
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> On 2/13/2017 11:14 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > [email protected] says...
>
> >> Not true with my exhaust system. The stainless steel exhaust has never
> >> once been cleaned and it is now 16+ years old, and in the rust belt.
> >> Surely GM could have used the same stuff in the brake lines, which is
> >> magnitudes more important than the exhaust system as far as safety goes.
> >
> > So you never go through a car wash?
>
> Never, at least not with this truck.
>
> > And what pressure does your exhaust have to
> > withstand? What pressure do your brake lines
> > have to withstand?
>
> The break lines have no problem withstanding pressure, until they RUST!
<sigh>
Never occurs to you that the stresses something
needs to withstand affect the choice of alloy to
be used, does it?
As for the rest, why did you buy a GM product to
begin with?
On Sun, 19 Feb 2017 15:33:19 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 2/19/2017 3:19 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 Feb 2017 10:29:31 -0500, Jack <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/18/2017 9:28 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 18 Feb 2017 13:09:41 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>>
>>>>> I highly suspect that people dying in auto injuries is less of a result
>>>>> of complete brake failure.
>>>>>
>>>> correct. Mechanical failure is cited in only 10-15% of all automotive
>>>> accidents (and that includes things like brake or turn signal lamps
>>>> not working) with tire and wheel problems being the majority and total
>>>> brake loss WAY down the list.
>>>>
>>>> In the list of causes of fatal auto colisions, mechanical failure
>>>> doesn't even make the top 25.
>>>
>>> If only 1% die from brake failure, that would be 3-400 a year. If
>>> "they" completely banned the use of ALL saws, I think the lives saved
>>> would be about ZERO.
>>>
>>> Proving someone died because their ABS system failed would be next to
>>> impossible, at least in my truck it was intermittent. Rusted lines
>>> would be easier to prove, but looking at a mangled wreck, one might
>>> expect a brake line to be ripped apart. Also, when I was a kid, and
>>> worked in a collision shop, never once do I remember anyone trying to
>>> determine if a mechanical failure caused the wreck. This may have
>>> changed, but I doubt it.
>>>
>>> A friend of my wife ran though the side of a building and she said her
>>> gas pedal stuck. Could easily have been brake failure IMO. I believe
>>> it was a Lexus and people were suing them for stuck gas pedals.
>> and 90%+ of those "stuck gas pedals" were stuck to the floor by a
>> panicked driver's right foot.
>> There are virtually NO incidents of a "stuck accellerator pedal"
>> causing an accident without previous signs of trouble like high idle
>> speeds or sticky-notchy accelerator action. They NEVER failed
>> catastrophically with no warning. Whether the driver heeded the
>> warning or not is another question. The failure mode was a gradual
>> deterioration causing slow return to idle and/or stiffer throttle
>> actuation before failure.
>>
>> Many reports said something like "I had both feet on the brake and it
>> STILL would not stop" Brake Idle Algorytm solved that issue by
>> forcing the throttle to idle imediately if the brake pedal was
>> depressed, but made it impossible to drive the vehicle agressively by
>> locking the rear wheels with the foot brake while powering through the
>> "slipperystuff" forcing the vehicle into oversteer. by hanging the
>> rear end out.
>>
>> Whacking the brake pedal in the "marbles" was an effective way of
>> getting the rear to hang out on the R12 rallye car - and simpler than
>> pulling the hand brake.
>>
>
>It is still a mystery to me why they did not simply shift into neutral
>or turn the ignition off.
It's called "panic" and fear that they would have no control with
theengine shut off ( well -duh!!! you have no control now either -
right??)
"common sense" today isn't very common - sadly.
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> On 2/14/2017 8:12 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > [email protected] says...
> >>
> >> On 2/13/2017 11:14 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> >>> In article <[email protected]>,
> >>> [email protected] says...
> >>
> >>>> Not true with my exhaust system. The stainless steel exhaust has never
> >>>> once been cleaned and it is now 16+ years old, and in the rust belt.
> >>>> Surely GM could have used the same stuff in the brake lines, which is
> >>>> magnitudes more important than the exhaust system as far as safety goes.
> >>>
> >>> So you never go through a car wash?
> >>
> >> Never, at least not with this truck.
> >>
> >>> And what pressure does your exhaust have to
> >>> withstand? What pressure do your brake lines
> >>> have to withstand?
> >>
> >> The break lines have no problem withstanding pressure, until they RUST!
> >
> > <sigh>
> >
> > Never occurs to you that the stresses something
> > needs to withstand affect the choice of alloy to
> > be used, does it?
>
> Of course, which is exactly why brake lines should be made from
> stainless steel and not from crap that starts to rust 3 minutes after
> installation.
Which specific alloy of stainless steel should
be used and why that alloy and not some other
alloy?
Engineering is always a compromise.
In article <Rtmdnb7i4qyh3DvFnZ2dnUU7-
[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>
> On 2/16/2017 11:04 AM, Jack wrote:
> > On 2/14/2017 8:12 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> >> In article <[email protected]>,
> >> [email protected] says...
> >>>
> >>> On 2/13/2017 11:14 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> >>>> In article <[email protected]>,
> >>>> [email protected] says...
> >>>
> >>>>> Not true with my exhaust system. The stainless steel exhaust has
> >>>>> never
> >>>>> once been cleaned and it is now 16+ years old, and in the rust belt.
> >>>>> Surely GM could have used the same stuff in the brake lines, which is
> >>>>> magnitudes more important than the exhaust system as far as safety
> >>>>> goes.
> >>>>
> >>>> So you never go through a car wash?
> >>>
> >>> Never, at least not with this truck.
> >>>
> >>>> And what pressure does your exhaust have to
> >>>> withstand? What pressure do your brake lines
> >>>> have to withstand?
> >>>
> >>> The break lines have no problem withstanding pressure, until they RUST!
> >>
> >> <sigh>
> >>
> >> Never occurs to you that the stresses something
> >> needs to withstand affect the choice of alloy to
> >> be used, does it?
> >
> > Of course, which is exactly why brake lines should be made from
> > stainless steel and not from crap that starts to rust 3 minutes after
> > installation.
> >
> >> As for the rest, why did you buy a GM product to
> >> begin with?
> >
> > At the time I didn't know I would be risking my life on substandard GM
> > breaking systems.
> >
>
> Chrysler does the same, steel, my BIL was driving his PU truck and went
> to hit the brakes.... NOTHING.. the lines blew from rust.
>
> Not sure how the Japanese cars treat their brake components.
If there were NO brakes then the system had been
neglected for a long time. Any car or light
truck sold in the US after 1976 is required to
have a split braking system that continues to
work with reduced capability with a brake line
completely missing. After a while you can pump
it dry but you have to pretty much be an idiot
to not notice that there's a brake problem
before that happens.
On 2/13/2017 10:14 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>>
>> On 2/12/2017 1:27 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>> GM recalled my truck for the tailgate straps that could (but didn't)
>>>>> rust. No problem with ABS brake failure, or brake lines rusting out,
>>>>> but sure wouldn't want tailgate to drop 6 inches. How is it I have
>>>>> stainless steel exhaust but break lines on every GM product I've owned
>>>>> have rusted out?
>>
>>> Contrary to popular belief, stainless steel
>>> corrodes under the right circumstances. If you
>>> want it to last you have to keep it pretty
>>> clean.
>>
>> Not true with my exhaust system. The stainless steel exhaust has never
>> once been cleaned and it is now 16+ years old, and in the rust belt.
>> Surely GM could have used the same stuff in the brake lines, which is
>> magnitudes more important than the exhaust system as far as safety goes.
>
> So you never go through a car wash?
In the south a good many car washes do not hit the bottom of the
vehicle, only the wheels/wheel wells and the body.
But the old exhaust systems rusted from within. Lot's of nasty crap
coming from inside the exhaust including condensation that mixes to form
some concoction. Remember the sulfur smell that was very common with GM
vehicles equipped with catalytic converters in the 70's? These systems
rusted out quickly and then the stainless steel exhaust systems began
showing up and the problem has virtually gone away down here.
The old steel exhaust systems looked fine on the outside but with just a
little pressure with a pair of channel locks and you could easily crush
and put a hole in the pipe.
On 2/16/2017 11:04 AM, Jack wrote:
> On 2/14/2017 8:12 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> [email protected] says...
>>>
>>> On 2/13/2017 11:14 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>>> [email protected] says...
>>>
>>>>> Not true with my exhaust system. The stainless steel exhaust has
>>>>> never
>>>>> once been cleaned and it is now 16+ years old, and in the rust belt.
>>>>> Surely GM could have used the same stuff in the brake lines, which is
>>>>> magnitudes more important than the exhaust system as far as safety
>>>>> goes.
>>>>
>>>> So you never go through a car wash?
>>>
>>> Never, at least not with this truck.
>>>
>>>> And what pressure does your exhaust have to
>>>> withstand? What pressure do your brake lines
>>>> have to withstand?
>>>
>>> The break lines have no problem withstanding pressure, until they RUST!
>>
>> <sigh>
>>
>> Never occurs to you that the stresses something
>> needs to withstand affect the choice of alloy to
>> be used, does it?
>
> Of course, which is exactly why brake lines should be made from
> stainless steel and not from crap that starts to rust 3 minutes after
> installation.
>
>> As for the rest, why did you buy a GM product to
>> begin with?
>
> At the time I didn't know I would be risking my life on substandard GM
> breaking systems.
>
Chrysler does the same, steel, my BIL was driving his PU truck and went
to hit the brakes.... NOTHING.. the lines blew from rust.
Not sure how the Japanese cars treat their brake components.
--
Jeff
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> It doesn't matter what the brake lines are made
> of, a 16 year old vehicle should have them
> inspected and replaced as necessary.
>
> You're expecting magic materials to take the
> place of proper maintenance.
Nonsense. Metal brake lines are not a "maintenance" item, even on a 16-yo vehicle.
In more than forty years of doing the vast majority of my own maintenance and repair, I've
had to replace a corroded brake line exactly once: last March, on the Dodge truck which
my wife and I bought new shortly after we got married -- in 1985.
On Tue, 21 Feb 2017 11:31:23 -0500, Jack <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 2/20/2017 1:50 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 10:07:21 -0500, Jack <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> I bought a 1978 GMC Van, and it didn't rust out after about 15 years. I
>>> had it Z-barted immediately after purchase though.
>>
>> Might have been your salvation, but SOME of the Ziebart treatments
>> just guaranteed the vehicle WOULD rust - by blocking drainage holes,
>> and flaking loose after any damage, trapping moisture and salt between
>> the ziebart film and the metal. Has a LOT of "Ziebart Initiated Rust
>> Perforation " up here in those years.
>
>I had a bunch of people tell me that, and is the exact reason I didn't
>get my GMC pick up Z-Barted. Biggest mistake I ever made. My brother
>has a '95 Ford PU he had Z-barted and it looks brand new. One quarter
>panel rusts every other year, and the Z-bart guy fixes it free.
>
>What really pisses me off is I really, really like my off road, 4 wheel
>drive, extended cab with towing package GMC truck. It's drive train is
>perfect, never had and engine or transmission problem.
You arfe one of the lucky ones.
> I put almost no
>miles on it now that I'm old, and would love to keep it the rest of my
>days. Not sure it will not turn into a pile of rust first. I can't
>justify buying another since I don't drive it much anymore, and won't
>likely be around anyway. The same truck today is around 50g's I think.
>Hard to decide, although I would likely will go with a good American
>truck, a Toyota...
I'll keep soaking the bottom of my now 21 year old truck with oily
rust protectants and see if I can get a couple hundred thousand more
Kms on it before I croak. It will turn 350,000km within a week -
definitely on this tank of gas.
I'll likely end up replacing the "wife's car" one more time before we
stop driving. It's 15 years old now and it won't be long before what
needs fixing and what I'm willing to fix on it come to a convergence -
likely another 3 years - 5 at the very best. When the truck finally
dies we will be a one vehicle household.
On Tue, 21 Feb 2017 11:31:23 -0500, Jack <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 2/20/2017 1:50 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 10:07:21 -0500, Jack <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> I bought a 1978 GMC Van, and it didn't rust out after about 15 years. I
>>> had it Z-barted immediately after purchase though.
>>
>> Might have been your salvation, but SOME of the Ziebart treatments
>> just guaranteed the vehicle WOULD rust - by blocking drainage holes,
>> and flaking loose after any damage, trapping moisture and salt between
>> the ziebart film and the metal. Has a LOT of "Ziebart Initiated Rust
>> Perforation " up here in those years.
>
>I had a bunch of people tell me that, and is the exact reason I didn't
>get my GMC pick up Z-Barted. Biggest mistake I ever made. My brother
>has a '95 Ford PU he had Z-barted and it looks brand new. One quarter
>panel rusts every other year, and the Z-bart guy fixes it free.
Z-Bart of the '90s was much different than the Z-Bart of the '70s. It
shouldn't be necessary for most vehicles (galvanized panels) but it
wouldn't surprise me if GM cut corners.
>
>What really pisses me off is I really, really like my off road, 4 wheel
>drive, extended cab with towing package GMC truck. It's drive train is
>perfect, never had and engine or transmission problem. I put almost no
>miles on it now that I'm old, and would love to keep it the rest of my
>days. Not sure it will not turn into a pile of rust first. I can't
>justify buying another since I don't drive it much anymore, and won't
>likely be around anyway. The same truck today is around 50g's I think.
>Hard to decide, although I would likely will go with a good American
>truck, a Toyota...
I went with an F150 because it was at least $15K less than the
competition and just a good, if not better. I don't live in rust
country anymore so that wasn't an issue.
On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 5:07:28 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 2/13/2017 11:14 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>
> >
> > So you never go through a car wash?
> >
> > And what pressure does your exhaust have to
> > withstand? What pressure do your brake lines
> > have to withstand?
> >
>
> >
> > It doesn't matter what the brake lines are made
> > of, a 16 year old vehicle should have them
> > inspected and replaced as necessary.
> >
> > You're expecting magic materials to take the
> > place of proper maintenance.
> >
>
> I'd agree if the lines lasted that long. In 55 years of driving, I
> never replaced corroded brake lines until rather recently. I drove
> plenty of 10 to 15 year old crap cars but two newer cars (2001 and 2010)
> needed brake lines after six years.
>
> That said, the 2001 Buick was falling apart in six years and I ended up
> giving it away. Last GM car for me.
2002 Mitsubishi Galant. Brake lines rusted out, strut towers rusted out, body rusted out, water was leaking in from under the globe compartment. I sold it to my mechanic for the price of
scrap so he could teach his son how to fix cars.
2 weeks later he found out that the frame was rusted out so he rewrote the lesson plan.
He taught his son how to part out junk cars.
On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 12:22:43 -0500, "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Just google "abs problems".
>> I've had sensors fail. I've had reluctor wheels split and spin, split
>> and jam, and split and fall off. I've had them rust, and I've had them
>> fill with crud between the teeth - all rendering them inneffective.
>> I've had wires break and connections corrode.. I've had to replace
>> very expensive wheel bearing assemblies because the sensor built into
>> them failed.
>
>What do you _do_ to the poor things? The only
>ABS maintenance my Jeep has needed in 20 years
>was having one cable replaced after it got
>snagged on something or other and got physically
>ripped off.
I FIX the damned things.
>
>> I've had the actuators fail in Myriad different modes, including a
>> piston unwinding right off the actuator screw, activators seizing, and
>> pump motors (in the activator) burning out. Activator failures are
>> very hard to diagnose - in many of the cases no warning lights came on
>> - the ABS just stopped working -often along with one half of the
>> braking system. On the one with the spun off system I could even bleed
>> the brakes, but could never get any pressure - to the point a leaky
>> line didn't even show up untill the activator was replaced..
>> I've had them so sensitive that replacing a damaged tire with a new
>> one after about 10,000km threw the system into a fit, and in much of
>> our winter driving conditions it is virtually impossible to stop with
>> quite a few vehicles with ABS (particularly with OEM wide tires
>> installed - (even all season or snow tires). All ABS does in those
>> situations is make sure you hit what you hit square on.
>>
>> Benz basically put their patent "into the public domain" because they
>> knew there were so many ways to re-engineer the system to get around
>> their patent that they would spend millions ineffectively trying to
>> defend the patent - due in part to the prior state of the science
>> which rendered the patent almost undefendable. It had all been done,
>> in one way or another, by someone else before them.
>> Their releasing the patent just made it a lot simpler for everyone
>> else yto move ahead without worrying about patent infringement suites
>> like the old Selden Patent fiasco.
>
>
>Uh, huh, right. So there was not one iotia of
>altruism involved, in your opinion.
Absolutely convinced. Have you ever had to deal with Mercedes Benz???
On 2/15/2017 2:11 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 13:45:19 -0500, Bill <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>>> The only reason I ever bought a GM product was price - and it sure
>>>> didn't translate to low COST.
>>> You were an automotive service manager and you
>>> didn't know better?
>>
>>
>> Okay, now you got my interest with this thread. I've been a Buick owner
>> for many years (because I like the headroom and the quiet ride). Am I
>> overpaying? What models should I be looking at instead--something from
>> Toyota? By the way, I go to the Buick dealership as infrequently as
>> possible because I know I can get a better deal elsewhere. Other
>> dealerships different?
>>
>> Bill
> For me it wasn't the cost of service, it was the frequency of
> required REPAIRS that soured it for me. There were little STUPID
> things going wrong all the time - and most of it stuff that had been
> going wrong on GM vehicles for years, if not decades - and were not
> addressed, year after year.
I think number one on the list were blower motors when I was still in
the business, GM. Followed by alternators, and AC compressors.
On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 15:00:25 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 08:20:23 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>SNIPPED
>>>>
>>>>The catalytic converters, are not different from the ones use to make
>>>>sulphuric acid, so we eliminate CO, and make acid that eats metal.
>>> No.
>>>Since sulphur has been removed from motor fuel there is no sulphuric
>>>or sulphurous acid produced by current catalytic converter equipped
>>>vehicles, and even standard steel exhausts now outlast the best
>>>systems of 25 years ago - while stainless steel systems should be
>>>virtually life-time systems. (My GM TranSport had well over half a
>>>million KM on the factory system, and it would have likely gone
>>>another 500,000km if the vehicle could have kept up to it.
>>>My current 21 year old Ford Ranger is at 350,000km and the exhaust is
>>>like new, hear in the central Ontario salt-bowl.
>>
>>I have seen no requirement that sulphur be removed from gasoline in
>>the US, what requirements are up north in Canada I can not speak to.
>>But unless you remove all the sulphur you still will get sulphuric
>>acid.
> Well, I guess you haven't looked, have you?
>
Yep that is right.
On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 11:48:39 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On 17 Feb 2017 16:40:40 GMT, notbob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On 2017-02-17, Jack <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> I should have said "I think you might be over thinging this" That would
>>> have been a better "pun"
>>
>>Ever notice how the punster is the only one who thinks his pun is
>>actually funny? ;)
>>
>Puns are rated upon the groan factor by me.
And actually it was not meant as a pun. Not meant to be funny.
On 17 Feb 2017 16:40:40 GMT, notbob <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 2017-02-17, Jack <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I should have said "I think you might be over thinging this" That would
>> have been a better "pun"
>
>Ever notice how the punster is the only one who thinks his pun is
>actually funny? ;)
>
Puns are rated upon the groan factor by me.
On 17 Feb 2017 16:40:40 GMT, notbob <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 2017-02-17, Jack <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I should have said "I think you might be over thinging this" That would
>> have been a better "pun"
>
>Ever notice how the punster is the only one who thinks his pun is
>actually funny? ;)
>
Everyone else thinks he should get punished.
On Sun, 19 Feb 2017 10:54:58 -0500, Jack <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 2/19/2017 9:31 AM, Brewster wrote:
>
>> This was a few years ago, but I remember the old standby DOT 3 fluid
>> (maybe DOT 4?) was considered permanent and was not prone to being
>> hydroscopic. The newer fluids, synthetic (DOT 5 ?) was very prone to
>> absorbing moisture and had to be changed regularly. Given the much
>> higher cost and no real advantage for non-performance driving. the idea
>> of "upgrading" soon left my thoughts.
>> I had a number of vehicles from the 60's and 70's, all with non
>> stainless lines. Never any problems (though these were all southwest
>> vehicles).
>
>Same here, except my vehicles were in the rust belt, and started in the
>50's rather than the 60's. Actually my first car was a '49 Dodge Truck.
>Everything in Cars from the '50s rusted except the frame and break lines.
>
>Even if newer fluid is more hygroscopic, I still think the rust is
>coming from the outside, not the inside of the lines.
The brake lines on the '57 Fargo (Canadian Dodge) P'Up rusted too. I
replaced them (and rebuilt cyls) for Dad before I left for Africa back
in 1972 - so they were only 15 years old. When my brother redid the
truck circa 1975 the mechanic doing the safety assumed the lines were
original and yanked them off saying they needed replacing. ( just to
show it was common to consider 15 year old lines to have passed their
"best before date") I tore a strip off him about 1/4 inch thick when I
came back from Africa in '75 and the truck was sitting on stands
waiting for wheel cyls and flex hoses, as well as grease seals (it was
a VERY rare Custom Express with heavy duty suspension (basically a 3/4
ton front axle) and the big 241.5 cubic inch flatty -(Same
displacement as the 53-54 Red Ram Hemi).
It was quite possibly a "one of". It took me just over a week to
source all the parts and re-install them - and I told the mechanic and
garage owner (both "family friends") they could tear up any bill
associated with the job AND sign the safety. (Still cost several
hundred dollars in un-necessary parts - as well as delaying my brother
getting it on the road for over 2 months).
I ended up trading my kid brother a 2 or 3 year old Colt wagon for the
truck a couple months later and drove and showed the truck for several
years after completing it.
When I rebuilt my '53 Coronet Sierra (a Van Nuys Californis car) in
1972 I had to replace all of the brake lines as well. - it was only 18
years old..
I scrapped my 1985 LeBaron T&C wagon in about 1994 (it was only 9
years old) when both the brake lines and chassis rotted away.
My 1995 Mystique lost it's brakes due to a rusted line in about 2004
- about 9 years old. It was only a section about 5 or 6 inches long
that had rusted, so I cut the line back to a solid point, flared it,
and spliced in a short hunk of CuNi line I happened to have left over
from another job.
Back when I was an apprentice machanic, back 1968 -1971) I replaced a
LOT of brake and fuel lines on cars from the fifties and sixties.
1959-!961 Chevies were BAD for rust, as were '57--63 Mopars and just
about any Ford newer than 1954. Brake lines, fuel lines, fuel tanks,
and unit bodies - rear spring shackles coming up into the trunk of
Darts and Valiants was pretty common - and Falcons too. And front
fenders developing "zipper fenders" on '63 Ramblers within 3 years.
I got rid of my '63 Valiant when I bought my 2 year old '69 Dart and I
replaced the brake line across the rear axle on that one too - so it
was less than 8 years old when I had to replace rusted lines - and
that was a single system - so when you lost fluid, you lost ALL of the
brakes.
My current vehicles are15 and 21 years old - with all original lines -
I DID need to replace the fuel tank on the 15 year old Taurus due to
rust perforation (just about the only rust on the car)
>
>IF the newer fluid was causing brake line failure, you might think Big
>Brother would be all over it, like they got over freon in air
>conditioners, or VW for fudging the MPG stats.
It's not the fluid causing the line failures. It's a combination
of"cost engineering" and atmospheric conditions. (Road salt, humidity,
etc)
I'd have to say the problems are LESS pervasive now than in earlier
years. I BUY cars now at the age I used to have to sell./scrap cars
50 years ago, and then I drive them up to another 10 or 12 years!!!!
On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 12:18:38 -0500, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 2/15/2017 9:20 AM, Markem wrote:
>
>>
>> I have seen no requirement that sulphur be removed from gasoline in
>> the US, what requirements are up north in Canada I can not speak to.
>> But unless you remove all the sulphur you still will get sulphuric
>> acid.
>>
>
>https://www.epa.gov/gasoline-standards/gasoline-sulfur
>
>Like the Tier 2 program, the Tier 3 program considers the vehicle and
>its fuel as an integrated system to reduce the impacts of motor vehicles
>on air quality and public health. The program sets new vehicle emissions
>standards and lowers the sulfur content of gasoline to a maximum of
>10ppm beginning in 2017. The vehicle standards will reduce both tailpipe
>and evaporative emissions from passenger cars, light-duty trucks,
>medium-duty passenger vehicles, and some heavy-duty vehicles. The
>gasoline sulfur standard will enable more stringent vehicle emissions
>standards and will make emissions control systems more effective. It
>will also reduce the emissions of the existing fleet of vehicles.
Thanks
On Sun, 19 Feb 2017 07:31:44 -0700, Brewster <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 2/16/2017 1:57 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 11:17:16 -0500, Jack <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/14/2017 9:07 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I was told that the brake fluid should be replaced on shedule to keep
>>>>> the brake lines from rotting out.
>>>>
>>>> First I ever heard of that.
>>> Brake fluid is hygroscopic - it attracts moisture -and the moisture
>>> can cause corrosion inside the lines and cyls. The water tends to end
>>> up in the low spots. On newer vehicles where the master reservoirs are
>>> sealed much better thasn in the past (with rubber bellows etc) it is a
>>> LITTLE less critical (3 years rather than 2 often recommended). The
>>> new synthetic brake fluids stand up a wee bit better too.
>>>
>>
>
>This was a few years ago, but I remember the old standby DOT 3 fluid
>(maybe DOT 4?) was considered permanent and was not prone to being
>hydroscopic. The newer fluids, synthetic (DOT 5 ?) was very prone to
>absorbing moisture and had to be changed regularly. Given the much
>higher cost and no real advantage for non-performance driving. the idea
>of "upgrading" soon left my thoughts.
>I had a number of vehicles from the 60's and 70's, all with non
>stainless lines. Never any problems (though these were all southwest
>vehicles).
>
>-BR
>
Dot3 and DOT5 were VERY hygroscopic. Law required fluid only be sold
from a sealed can.( I was a mechanic back in the late sixties)
DOT5 is hydrophobic, meaning moisture is not absorbed.
All fluids up to DOT4 were poly-glycol based while DOT5 is a silicon
based synthetic. NEVER mix Dot5 with Dot4 or below. Dot5.1 is an
acceptable substitute, but NEVER mix it with Dot5. Any vehicle using
DOT5 should be CLEARLY LABELLED as such. It is technically illegal to
use DOT5 in a vehicle not originally built with and spec'd for DOT5
fluid.
NO DOT fluid has EVER been sold as or considered to be a "permanent"
fluid.. Look up "wet boiling point" and "dry boiling point for DOT
Brake Fluid.. PolyGlycol fluids absorb up to 3% water per year....
On 2/18/2017 8:47 AM, Brewster wrote:
> On 2/16/17 8:44 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>>
>> Impossible to pump it dry because it is a split reservoir too - but if
>> you blow the front system and the rear is out of adjustment (extremely
>> common - auto adjusters stuck and rear brakes not serviced - or
>> handbrake never used - required to operate the adjusters) and there is
>> not enough volume pumped from the bottomed rear piston to fully apply
>> the rear brakes. If you don't "brain freeze" and get a second pump in,
>> you have a chance to slow down, if not totally stop
>>
>
> All the drum brakes I'm familiar with are adjusted by hitting the brakes
> while traveling in reverse. Each event indexes the star adjuster by one
> notch. Parking brakes, as used with drums, merely mechanically apply
> force to a lever on the drum mechanism, no effect on the adjuster.
>
> -BR
>
Parking brakes very often are the method of adjusting parking brakes,
drum or disk. Many of the hand operated parking brakes on GM vehicles
adjusted the drum brakes this way. And many of those had no star/screw
type adjuster, they had a one way friction plate that only adjusted out.
On 2/16/17 8:44 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>
> Impossible to pump it dry because it is a split reservoir too - but if
> you blow the front system and the rear is out of adjustment (extremely
> common - auto adjusters stuck and rear brakes not serviced - or
> handbrake never used - required to operate the adjusters) and there is
> not enough volume pumped from the bottomed rear piston to fully apply
> the rear brakes. If you don't "brain freeze" and get a second pump in,
> you have a chance to slow down, if not totally stop
>
All the drum brakes I'm familiar with are adjusted by hitting the brakes
while traveling in reverse. Each event indexes the star adjuster by one
notch. Parking brakes, as used with drums, merely mechanically apply
force to a lever on the drum mechanism, no effect on the adjuster.
-BR
On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 22:15:35 -0500, "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <Rtmdnb7i4qyh3DvFnZ2dnUU7-
>[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>>
>> On 2/16/2017 11:04 AM, Jack wrote:
>> > On 2/14/2017 8:12 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>> >> In article <[email protected]>,
>> >> [email protected] says...
>> >>>
>> >>> On 2/13/2017 11:14 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>> >>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> >>>> [email protected] says...
>> >>>
>> >>>>> Not true with my exhaust system. The stainless steel exhaust has
>> >>>>> never
>> >>>>> once been cleaned and it is now 16+ years old, and in the rust belt.
>> >>>>> Surely GM could have used the same stuff in the brake lines, which is
>> >>>>> magnitudes more important than the exhaust system as far as safety
>> >>>>> goes.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> So you never go through a car wash?
>> >>>
>> >>> Never, at least not with this truck.
>> >>>
>> >>>> And what pressure does your exhaust have to
>> >>>> withstand? What pressure do your brake lines
>> >>>> have to withstand?
>> >>>
>> >>> The break lines have no problem withstanding pressure, until they RUST!
>> >>
>> >> <sigh>
>> >>
>> >> Never occurs to you that the stresses something
>> >> needs to withstand affect the choice of alloy to
>> >> be used, does it?
>> >
>> > Of course, which is exactly why brake lines should be made from
>> > stainless steel and not from crap that starts to rust 3 minutes after
>> > installation.
>> >
>> >> As for the rest, why did you buy a GM product to
>> >> begin with?
>> >
>> > At the time I didn't know I would be risking my life on substandard GM
>> > breaking systems.
>> >
>>
>> Chrysler does the same, steel, my BIL was driving his PU truck and went
>> to hit the brakes.... NOTHING.. the lines blew from rust.
>>
>> Not sure how the Japanese cars treat their brake components.
>
>If there were NO brakes then the system had been
>neglected for a long time. Any car or light
>truck sold in the US after 1976 is required to
>have a split braking system that continues to
>work with reduced capability with a brake line
>completely missing. After a while you can pump
>it dry but you have to pretty much be an idiot
>to not notice that there's a brake problem
>before that happens.
>
Impossible to pump it dry because it is a split reservoir too - but if
you blow the front system and the rear is out of adjustment (extremely
common - auto adjusters stuck and rear brakes not serviced - or
handbrake never used - required to operate the adjusters) and there is
not enough volume pumped from the bottomed rear piston to fully apply
the rear brakes. If you don't "brain freeze" and get a second pump in,
you have a chance to slow down, if not totally stop
On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 13:45:19 -0500, Bill <[email protected]>
wrote:
>J. Clarke wrote:
>>> The only reason I ever bought a GM product was price - and it sure
>>> didn't translate to low COST.
>> You were an automotive service manager and you
>> didn't know better?
>
>
>Okay, now you got my interest with this thread. I've been a Buick owner
>for many years (because I like the headroom and the quiet ride). Am I
>overpaying? What models should I be looking at instead--something from
>Toyota? By the way, I go to the Buick dealership as infrequently as
>possible because I know I can get a better deal elsewhere. Other
>dealerships different?
>
>Bill
For me it wasn't the cost of service, it was the frequency of
required REPAIRS that soured it for me. There were little STUPID
things going wrong all the time - and most of it stuff that had been
going wrong on GM vehicles for years, if not decades - and were not
addressed, year after year. Add that to the FACT that it could not
(with a 3.8 liter engine) tow the trailer thar my previous Ford
Aerostar - which was significantly (well, over 100 lb) heavier, could
tow with a 3 liter with absolutely no problem.
On 2/11/2017 8:48 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 12:22:43 -0500, "J. Clarke"
>>> Just google "abs problems".
>>> I've had sensors fail. I've had reluctor wheels split and spin, split
>>> and jam, and split and fall off. I've had them rust, and I've had them
>>> fill with crud between the teeth - all rendering them inneffective.
>>> I've had wires break and connections corrode.. I've had to replace
>>> very expensive wheel bearing assemblies because the sensor built into
>>> them failed.
>>
>> What do you _do_ to the poor things? The only
>> ABS maintenance my Jeep has needed in 20 years
>> was having one cable replaced after it got
>> snagged on something or other and got physically
>> ripped off.
>
> I FIX the damned things.
GM was never able to (permanently) fix the ABS on my 2001 GMC truck.
After numerous repairs and almost killing me several times on dry
pavement, I gave up and pulled the ABS fuse to prevent them going off
under normal breaking conditions.
All you need is to have the ABS go off on a dry day on concrete at 50
mph when attempting to make a routine stop behind a line of traffic.
This was apparently common with GM as two inspection garages told me it
was common and most just pull the fuse and disable the ABS. That
"fixed" it, so next, the brake lines rusted out.
When your braking ability suddenly is reduced to 50% for no apparent
reason other than the ABS deciding to activate for no reason, you learn
quickly just how much force your brake peddle can handle w/o
breaking/bending. Trust me, it is a lot.
GM recalled my truck for the tailgate straps that could (but didn't)
rust. No problem with ABS brake failure, or brake lines rusting out,
but sure wouldn't want tailgate to drop 6 inches. How is it I have
stainless steel exhaust but break lines on every GM product I've owned
have rusted out?
--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com
On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 17:09:13 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 at 2:43:55 PM UTC-5, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 05:41:45 -0500, "J. Clarke"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <jkd7ac5ofpak6pfr3a3km07p019nfaqir5@
>> >4ax.com>, [email protected] says...
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 20:10:38 -0500, "J. Clarke"
>> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >In article <XnsA71C551315151dougmilmaccom@
>> >> >213.239.209.88>,
>> >> >[email protected] says...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> >> >> news:[email protected]:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > It doesn't matter what the brake lines are made
>> >> >> > of, a 16 year old vehicle should have them
>> >> >> > inspected and replaced as necessary.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > You're expecting magic materials to take the
>> >> >> > place of proper maintenance.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Nonsense. Metal brake lines are not a "maintenance" item, even on a 16-yo vehicle.
>> >> >
>> >> >They are or should be an inspection item.
>> >> >
>> >> >> In more than forty years of doing the vast majority of my own maintenance and repair, I've
>> >> >> had to replace a corroded brake line exactly once: last March, on the Dodge truck which
>> >> >> my wife and I bought new shortly after we got married -- in 1985.
>> >> >
>> >> >That you did your own maintenance and repair
>> >> >does not mean that you did it right. Did you
>> >> >perform every maintenance item that the service
>> >> >manual specified?
>> >> I can tell you from years as a mechanic, including dealer service
>> >> manager - and the ONLY "maintenance item" to do with brake lines is
>> >> changing fluid on a regular basis (every 2 to 5 years, depending) and
>> >> inspecting the rubber hoses for cracks or bulges.
>> >
>> >According to the owner's manual for my car, "at
>> >every oil change", "Inspect brake pads, shoes,
>> >rotors, drums, brake linings, hoses, and parking
>> >brake". Of course it's to your advantage to not
>> >check the pads because if they wear out and
>> >mangle the rotors then you get to sell the
>> >customer rotors in addition to pads. Prince of
>> >a guy you are.
>> Notice that the steal brake LINES are not mentioned? Brake LININGS
>> are friction material. and HOSES are just the flexible rubber bits.
>> The hard lines are not mentioned.
>
>My state's Safety Inspection requirements includes this:
>
>"All brake lines and hoses - check for leaks, cracks, chafing, restrictions,
>and improper support"
And that is TOTALLY different from required or specified "maintenance"
And notice it doesn't manage rust - - - as long as it's not leaking
"yet" it passes.
Here in Ontario visibly obviously rusted lines can be failed.
>
>Of course, it also includes this:
>
>"Brake equalization - test vehicle for a straight stop without significant wheel pull."
>
>I don't recall any vehicle I've ever had inspected being driven as part of the
>inspection process.
EVERY vehicle I ever inspected was driven as part of the inspection -
without exception.. However the safety inspection is only required for
transfer here in Ontario.
>
>On the other hand, I always have my vehicles inspected by one of my 2 trusted
>indys who know that if the vehicle was pulling, I would have told them about it
>long before it became a safety Inspection issue.
On Sat, 18 Feb 2017 07:47:32 -0700, Brewster <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 2/16/17 8:44 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>>
>> Impossible to pump it dry because it is a split reservoir too - but if
>> you blow the front system and the rear is out of adjustment (extremely
>> common - auto adjusters stuck and rear brakes not serviced - or
>> handbrake never used - required to operate the adjusters) and there is
>> not enough volume pumped from the bottomed rear piston to fully apply
>> the rear brakes. If you don't "brain freeze" and get a second pump in,
>> you have a chance to slow down, if not totally stop
>>
>
>All the drum brakes I'm familiar with are adjusted by hitting the brakes
>while traveling in reverse. Each event indexes the star adjuster by one
>notch. Parking brakes, as used with drums, merely mechanically apply
>force to a lever on the drum mechanism, no effect on the adjuster.
>
>-BR
That is true on Bendix and Wagner brakes, as well as DElco Moraine but
not many import brakes and a lot of later model Chrysler brakes that
use a "ratchet" instead of a theaded adjuster and star wheel.
see:
http://www.autozone.com/repairguides/Breeze-Cirrus-Sebring-Convertible-and-Sedan-Stratus-Sedan-1999-2005/Rear-Drum-Brakes/Brake-Shoes/_/P-0996b43f802d6ca5
for one example (Chrysler)
Also, vehicles that have a star wheel adjuster up by the cyl instead
of down at the bottom also adjust by emergency brake application - not
backing up. Homda is an example. These are "fixed anchor" or "dual
servo" brakes.
Toyota works this way too. I was looking for a good picture and found
this one - for a Tundra - showing very clearly it is the hand
brake/parking brake that adjusts the rear drum brakes..
http://www.4x4wire.com/toyota/maintenance/rearbrakes/image30.jpg
and this one shows the old Dodge K car and Omni style.
http://www.ifitjams.com/parking.htm
On 2/17/2017 7:48 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> I had to look up "Fluid Film", which appears to
>> be a water repellant waxy lubricant. The clips
>> are a typical environment for crevice corrosion
>> and something like Fluid Film would potentially
>> be a good countermeasure.
> Not just potentially - has been for decades.
> It is a lanolin based thixotropic lubricant.
> Being thixotropic it stays in place, but works itself into any spot
> where there is movement between parts. It contains NO SOLVENTS so it
> never really dries. It has been used in industry for many years and
> has been the "go to" spray lubricant for fussy mechanics for close to
> 20 years. It has replaced spray lubriplate in all the high end shops
> around here - and on the Canadian East Coast it is used quite
> extensively as and underbody anti-rust treatment on vehicles. It is
> replacing RustChek on a lot of farms for preventing rust on stored
> equipment (like plow moldbords etc)
>
Seems it would be good to use on the inner workings of a table saw.
Thoughts on that?
On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 18:26:37 -0500, "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] says...
>>
>> On 2/16/2017 10:39 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> > On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 19:18:00 -0500, woodchucker <[email protected]>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 2/16/2017 11:04 AM, Jack wrote:
>> >>> On 2/14/2017 8:12 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>> >>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> >>>> [email protected] says...
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> On 2/13/2017 11:14 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>> >>>>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> >>>>>> [email protected] says...
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Not true with my exhaust system. The stainless steel exhaust has
>> >>>>>>> never
>> >>>>>>> once been cleaned and it is now 16+ years old, and in the rust belt.
>> >>>>>>> Surely GM could have used the same stuff in the brake lines, which is
>> >>>>>>> magnitudes more important than the exhaust system as far as safety
>> >>>>>>> goes.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> So you never go through a car wash?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Never, at least not with this truck.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> And what pressure does your exhaust have to
>> >>>>>> withstand? What pressure do your brake lines
>> >>>>>> have to withstand?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> The break lines have no problem withstanding pressure, until they RUST!
>> >>>>
>> >>>> <sigh>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Never occurs to you that the stresses something
>> >>>> needs to withstand affect the choice of alloy to
>> >>>> be used, does it?
>> >>>
>> >>> Of course, which is exactly why brake lines should be made from
>> >>> stainless steel and not from crap that starts to rust 3 minutes after
>> >>> installation.
>> >>>
>> >>>> As for the rest, why did you buy a GM product to
>> >>>> begin with?
>> >>>
>> >>> At the time I didn't know I would be risking my life on substandard GM
>> >>> breaking systems.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> Chrysler does the same, steel, my BIL was driving his PU truck and went
>> >> to hit the brakes.... NOTHING.. the lines blew from rust.
>> >>
>> >> Not sure how the Japanese cars treat their brake components.
>> > They fail too. The lines look perfect, but where they pass through
>> > the clips that hold them to the chassis they rust through. A squirt of
>> > "fluid film" at each clip twice a year will make them last forever.
>> > Fuel lines too
>> >
>> Thy must not be made of stainless, as we now know how that rusts.
>
>I had to look up "Fluid Film", which appears to
>be a water repellant waxy lubricant. The clips
>are a typical environment for crevice corrosion
>and something like Fluid Film would potentially
>be a good countermeasure.
Not just potentially - has been for decades.
It is a lanolin based thixotropic lubricant.
Being thixotropic it stays in place, but works itself into any spot
where there is movement between parts. It contains NO SOLVENTS so it
never really dries. It has been used in industry for many years and
has been the "go to" spray lubricant for fussy mechanics for close to
20 years. It has replaced spray lubriplate in all the high end shops
around here - and on the Canadian East Coast it is used quite
extensively as and underbody anti-rust treatment on vehicles. It is
replacing RustChek on a lot of farms for preventing rust on stored
equipment (like plow moldbords etc)
On Sat, 18 Feb 2017 12:31:11 -0500, Jack <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 2/17/2017 1:11 PM, Leon wrote:
>> On 2/17/2017 10:57 AM, Jack wrote:
>
>>>> Engineering is always a compromise.
>>>
>>> Perhaps a few $Billion in fines would help them compromise on the side
>>> of a safe braking system, rather than $billions for fudging on MPG...
>>
>> Don't take this like I am ganging up on you. ;~)
>>
>> A billion dollar fine for an auto manufacturer for a brake problem that
>> I was never aware of when I was in that business, service manager of an
>> Oldsmobile dealer. And this may actually be more common in recent years
>> but up until 1995 not really a thing except in isolated cases.
>
>Did they even have anti-lock brakes when you were in the business. My
>2001 GMC truck was the first vehicle I owned with ABS brakes, and they
>were a clear safety hazard as they failed routinely. Brake lines
>rusting out is also somewhat new I believe. Never had any rust out
>until the 3 GM vehicles I owned since 2001. So that is 100% brake line
>failure for GM vehicles. The fact you are/were unaware of the problem
>means little to me. The fact I became aware from first hand experience,
>and both garages I go to were also aware of it. I suspect the ABS
>problem has been fixed, not so sure about the brake lines, but I quit
>buying GM products, so won't ever have additional 1st hand experience
>with them. Also, someone sent me the GM recall on the ABS, and the fix
>was to clean the sensors. THAT didn't work, but shows there certainly
>was a problem, besides just my truck.
The problem has not been fixed - and not JUST on GMs. There was ABS on
my '95 Trans Sport, and on my 1995 Mystique as well
>
>snip
>Well, I've never been injured by a table saw in almost 60 years of
>usage, with no safety devices, and I know only one person that has ever
>been cut, and it was not serious, and he was not very handy. Wait, I
>also know a mechanic that got cut on a saw, also not very seriously, but
>he was handy, but also drunk...;;
Don't know anyone personally injured on a table saw, but I know a
friend who lost a few fingers to a handheld circular saw
>
He's not as "handy" as he used to be - - - -
On Sat, 18 Feb 2017 07:47:32 -0700, Brewster <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 2/16/17 8:44 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>>
>> Impossible to pump it dry because it is a split reservoir too - but if
>> you blow the front system and the rear is out of adjustment (extremely
>> common - auto adjusters stuck and rear brakes not serviced - or
>> handbrake never used - required to operate the adjusters) and there is
>> not enough volume pumped from the bottomed rear piston to fully apply
>> the rear brakes. If you don't "brain freeze" and get a second pump in,
>> you have a chance to slow down, if not totally stop
>>
>
>All the drum brakes I'm familiar with are adjusted by hitting the brakes
>while traveling in reverse. Each event indexes the star adjuster by one
>notch. Parking brakes, as used with drums, merely mechanically apply
>force to a lever on the drum mechanism, no effect on the adjuster.
>
The star-wheel doesn't get indexed by a notch at each brake
application, rather only when the brakes have worn enough for the
ratchet to fully index (otherwise the shoes wouldn't last a month ;-).
The point about frozen adjusters is quite valid and applies to both
the brakes and "parking brake". You should notice that the parking
brake isn't working but if you never use it...
On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 17:07:06 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 2/15/2017 2:11 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 13:45:19 -0500, Bill <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>> The only reason I ever bought a GM product was price - and it sure
>>>>> didn't translate to low COST.
>>>> You were an automotive service manager and you
>>>> didn't know better?
>>>
>>>
>>> Okay, now you got my interest with this thread. I've been a Buick owner
>>> for many years (because I like the headroom and the quiet ride). Am I
>>> overpaying? What models should I be looking at instead--something from
>>> Toyota? By the way, I go to the Buick dealership as infrequently as
>>> possible because I know I can get a better deal elsewhere. Other
>>> dealerships different?
>>>
>>> Bill
>> For me it wasn't the cost of service, it was the frequency of
>> required REPAIRS that soured it for me. There were little STUPID
>> things going wrong all the time - and most of it stuff that had been
>> going wrong on GM vehicles for years, if not decades - and were not
>> addressed, year after year.
>
>I think number one on the list were blower motors when I was still in
>the business, GM. Followed by alternators, and AC compressors.
>
>
And intake manifolds and gaskets, and timing cover gaskets - and
basically anything that moves. In 100,000km I replaced the ball joints
and other front end parts twice -0n the TranSport, while never
replacing any parts in 240,000km on each of 2 Aerostarrs and 350,000km
on the ranger, and over 240,000 on my last Chrysler (88 New Yorker) -
and none in 150,000+/- on the PT Cruiser.
And wheel bearings - at leasat 6 on the TranSport and none between
the 3 Fords and 2 Mopars.
A friend has an Impala, a Sierra and a Silverado - and with
relatively low mileage on all three, has spent more on repairs on EACH
of the vehicles than I have on my last 5. _ and that's not counting
the warranty repairs. - and none of mine have had any warranty left
when I bought them.
On Sun, 19 Feb 2017 11:01:22 -0500, Jack <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 2/19/2017 9:37 AM, Brewster wrote:
>> On 2/18/17 7:15 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> One exception was early VW Rabbits where the brake lines ran inside
>>> the car, under the "horsehair" noise cushion - which got soaked when
>>> the cowl leaked up around the windshield. The fuse panels corroded
>>> out, the brake lines rotted out, and so did the floor.
>>> Really a LOUSY design.
>>>
>>
>> This brings back memories!
>>
>> A buddy back in college had a Floridian Rabbit, '75 I think. Total rust
>> bucket. As the car coughed and sputtered, dropping chunks of rust onto
>> the road, my buddies and I riding along would nod at each other and say
>> "farfegnugen, cool!"
>
>My wife bought a '79 Honda Accord. It was car of the year. Nice car but
>a total rust bucket. EVERYTHING rusted out. Hood, fenders, gas tank,
>Strut suspension. I thought my '55 Ford Crown Vic was a rust bucket,
>not even close. Honda fixed most of it under warranty, had to lose
>money on that one. How does a hood rust? So much for Car of the year crap.
Was there a 1979 car you could buy that WASN'T a total rust bucket??
1855 to 1961 - or even 1969, and 1978 to 1986 just about EVERYTHING
was a rust bucket.
In 1982 you could sit on your front porch and listen to your new
Torino rust on the driveway. Not uncommon for the driver's mirror and
about 35 square inches of rust-worm infested sheet metal to fall out
of the door before it was 3 years old.. It wasn't uncommon to see
strips of duct tape around the windsheild on 3 or 4 year old cars to
keep the water from dripping on the driver's foot in the rain - didn't
matter WHO made the car..
The front fenders on my brother's 1977 Dodge AshBin (oops, that was
SUPPOSED to be Aspen) had the front fenders replaced under warranty at
2 years of age due to rust PERFORATION..
They say "they don't make 'em like they used to" - and I say "THANK
GOD!!!!"
On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 16:31:42 -0500, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 2/15/2017 2:49 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>
>> I am a certified auto mechanic (now retired from the trade) and we
>> DID all the maintenance called out for in the book if we could
>> convince the customer it was in his best interest. Can't do more than
>> the customer authorizes. Most customers did what was recommended but
>> some were incredibly CHEAP.
>>
>
>
>The customers are not cheap, they just bought the most car that they
>cannot afford. I've heard of repossessed luxury cars that never had an
>oil change.
>
>Then you have the dealer. Some get very high prices for routine repairs
>and maintenance and try to sell services not needed. Of course there
>are some sleazy independent shops too.
The CHEAP customers were generally those who had country-club
memberships - lawyers and Doctors and high-rollers were well
represented - but there were also a good percentage of "just average
guys" who didn't spare the cash where it "made them look good".
For some it was "i buy a new car every 2 or 3 years, and I've never
had one fail on me yet".
They didn't get much for their trade-ins - and they usually ended up
at the Toronto Auto Auction - not on our lot.
On Sat, 18 Feb 2017 12:37:25 -0500, Jack <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 2/17/2017 10:56 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 11:47:28 -0500, Jack <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/16/2017 6:19 PM, Leon wrote:
>>>> On 2/16/2017 10:17 AM, Jack wrote:
>>>>> On 2/14/2017 9:07 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I was told that the brake fluid should be replaced on shedule to keep
>>>>>> the brake lines from rotting out.
>>>>>
>>>>> First I ever heard of that.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Brake fluid absorbs moisture. When the master cylinder gets low,
>>>> because it is not topped of on regular intervals, It becomes
>>>> contaminated from the moisture in the air. If you have ever rebuilt
>>>> wheel cylinders or a disk brake caliper, always lubricated with brake
>>>> fluid, you will often find pitting on the cylinder walls. That is from
>>>> the moisture in the brake fluid.
>>>
>>> In my youth I rebuilt plenty of them. Rebuilt plenty of engines as well.
>>> Still, I never replaced brake fluid as routine maintenance ever, never
>>> had a garage or dealer advise me to have brake fluid replaced either.
>>> My GM dealer last time I was there had a 5 foot sign advising to have
>>> your cooling system flushed and new anti freeze for some ridiculous
>>> price, but not a word on replacing brake fluid.
>>>
>>> Perhaps their keeping it a secret so your brake lines will rust out and
>>> they'll sell more cars when you run into the back of another car. Just
>>> another planned obsolescence scheme?
>>
>> Or perhaps you don't listen?
>>
>Or perhaps I do!
Obviously not.
On 2/18/17 4:15 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> That is true on Bendix and Wagner brakes, as well as DElco Moraine but
> not many import brakes and a lot of later model Chrysler brakes that
> use a "ratchet" instead of a theaded adjuster and star wheel.
>
> see:
> http://www.autozone.com/repairguides/Breeze-Cirrus-Sebring-Convertible-and-Sedan-Stratus-Sedan-1999-2005/Rear-Drum-Brakes/Brake-Shoes/_/P-0996b43f802d6ca5
> for one example (Chrysler)
>
> Also, vehicles that have a star wheel adjuster up by the cyl instead
> of down at the bottom also adjust by emergency brake application - not
> backing up. Homda is an example. These are "fixed anchor" or "dual
> servo" brakes.
> Toyota works this way too. I was looking for a good picture and found
> this one - for a Tundra - showing very clearly it is the hand
> brake/parking brake that adjusts the rear drum brakes..
>
> http://www.4x4wire.com/toyota/maintenance/rearbrakes/image30.jpg
>
>
> and this one shows the old Dodge K car and Omni style.
>
> http://www.ifitjams.com/parking.htm
>
Good to know, thanks!
-BR
On 2/18/2017 10:47 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Feb 2017 12:37:25 -0500, Jack <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 2/17/2017 10:56 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 11:47:28 -0500, Jack <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/16/2017 6:19 PM, Leon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/16/2017 10:17 AM, Jack wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/14/2017 9:07 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I was told that the brake fluid should be replaced on shedule to keep
>>>>>>> the brake lines from rotting out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> First I ever heard of that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Brake fluid absorbs moisture. When the master cylinder gets low,
>>>>> because it is not topped of on regular intervals, It becomes
>>>>> contaminated from the moisture in the air. If you have ever rebuilt
>>>>> wheel cylinders or a disk brake caliper, always lubricated with brake
>>>>> fluid, you will often find pitting on the cylinder walls. That is from
>>>>> the moisture in the brake fluid.
>>>>
>>>> In my youth I rebuilt plenty of them. Rebuilt plenty of engines as well.
>>>> Still, I never replaced brake fluid as routine maintenance ever, never
>>>> had a garage or dealer advise me to have brake fluid replaced either.
>>>> My GM dealer last time I was there had a 5 foot sign advising to have
>>>> your cooling system flushed and new anti freeze for some ridiculous
>>>> price, but not a word on replacing brake fluid.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps their keeping it a secret so your brake lines will rust out and
>>>> they'll sell more cars when you run into the back of another car. Just
>>>> another planned obsolescence scheme?
>>>
>>> Or perhaps you don't listen?
>>>
>> Or perhaps I do!
>
> Obviously not.
>
Obviously I do.
--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com
On 2/19/2017 5:10 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Feb 2017 11:01:22 -0500, Jack <[email protected]> wrote:
>> My wife bought a '79 Honda Accord. It was car of the year. Nice car but
>> a total rust bucket. EVERYTHING rusted out. Hood, fenders, gas tank,
>> Strut suspension. I thought my '55 Ford Crown Vic was a rust bucket,
>> not even close. Honda fixed most of it under warranty, had to lose
>> money on that one. How does a hood rust? So much for Car of the year crap.
> Was there a 1979 car you could buy that WASN'T a total rust bucket??
> 1855 to 1961 - or even 1969, and 1978 to 1986 just about EVERYTHING
> was a rust bucket.
I bought a 1978 GMC Van, and it didn't rust out after about 15 years. I
had it Z-barted immediately after purchase though.
> In 1982 you could sit on your front porch and listen to your new
> Torino rust on the driveway.
Before my wife bought the Accord, she bought a Maveric. I reckon around
1973-4. You absolutely could sit on the porch and listen to it rust away.
> They say "they don't make 'em like they used to" - and I say "THANK
> GOD!!!!"
Yes, particularly true of cars from the 50's. Bodies were bad, but
motors were pure junk. Well, not sure it was just the motors, motor oil
was junk as well. Tune up every 6 months or year, points, plugs,
condensor, plug wires (never brake fluid though:-)) Complete engine
rebuild after 30 -40,000 miles or so, if anything was left of the car.
My 2001 GMC PU has never been tuned up, runs and starts like it was
brand new. I now wish I would have had the thing Z barted. Outside of
truck looks new, underneath, rust city. Never saw a bumper rust like
this. My SIL stepped on the rear bumper one day (150lbs soaking wet)
and it bent in half. Looked new but underneath it was rust city.
GMC recalled the tailgate straps cause they could rust. No problem with
the bumper, designed to step on to get in the bed, breaking in half. He
could have easily been injured. If it had been me, I would have been
hurt.
--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com
On 2/15/2017 5:59 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> The CHEAP customers were generally those who had country-club
> memberships - lawyers and Doctors and high-rollers were well
> represented - but there were also a good percentage of "just average
> guys" who didn't spare the cash where it "made them look good".
> For some it was "i buy a new car every 2 or 3 years, and I've never
> had one fail on me yet".
> They didn't get much for their trade-ins - and they usually ended up
> at the Toronto Auto Auction - not on our lot.
>
That is a good bargaining point. When I bought my last car, the fourth
from the dealer, I had a good price but did not like the trade in money.
The salesman said "that is what we'll get at auction" I reminded him
my last trades were sold on their lot and this one would be too. He
upped the trade and we had a deal. Sometimes you do get a return on
maintenance costs.
On 2/12/2017 1:27 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>> >GM recalled my truck for the tailgate straps that could (but didn't)
>> >rust. No problem with ABS brake failure, or brake lines rusting out,
>> >but sure wouldn't want tailgate to drop 6 inches. How is it I have
>> >stainless steel exhaust but break lines on every GM product I've owned
>> >have rusted out?
> Contrary to popular belief, stainless steel
> corrodes under the right circumstances. If you
> want it to last you have to keep it pretty
> clean.
Not true with my exhaust system. The stainless steel exhaust has never
once been cleaned and it is now 16+ years old, and in the rust belt.
Surely GM could have used the same stuff in the brake lines, which is
magnitudes more important than the exhaust system as far as safety goes.
> Also look into recall 05V379000.
Thanks for that, I never received that recall notice, but did get the
notice on the tailgate straps. I looked it up and the recall is for
them to clean the sensors. That works temporarily until they get dirty
again. They also are to check the wheel speed sensor, which apparently
doesn't work on my truck, allowing the screwed up ABS system to fire off
at high speeds? Not sure why it wouldn't go off at high speeds if you
are sliding, but who knows?
Personally, after several heart stopping misfires on dry pavement, I
don't want ABS period if there is ever a chance they will fire off at
the wrong time. I think I'll just leave the fuse out rather than risk my
life with a defective system.
They sued VW billions for cheating on MPG crap, I think braking systems
are WAY more important and GM should be sued out of business for the
crappy ABS stuff and for sure the rusting brake line crap.
--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com
On Sun, 19 Feb 2017 10:29:31 -0500, Jack <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 2/18/2017 9:28 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Sat, 18 Feb 2017 13:09:41 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>
>>> I highly suspect that people dying in auto injuries is less of a result
>>> of complete brake failure.
>>>
>> correct. Mechanical failure is cited in only 10-15% of all automotive
>> accidents (and that includes things like brake or turn signal lamps
>> not working) with tire and wheel problems being the majority and total
>> brake loss WAY down the list.
>>
>> In the list of causes of fatal auto colisions, mechanical failure
>> doesn't even make the top 25.
>
>If only 1% die from brake failure, that would be 3-400 a year. If
>"they" completely banned the use of ALL saws, I think the lives saved
>would be about ZERO.
>
>Proving someone died because their ABS system failed would be next to
>impossible, at least in my truck it was intermittent. Rusted lines
>would be easier to prove, but looking at a mangled wreck, one might
>expect a brake line to be ripped apart. Also, when I was a kid, and
>worked in a collision shop, never once do I remember anyone trying to
>determine if a mechanical failure caused the wreck. This may have
>changed, but I doubt it.
>
>A friend of my wife ran though the side of a building and she said her
>gas pedal stuck. Could easily have been brake failure IMO. I believe
>it was a Lexus and people were suing them for stuck gas pedals.
and 90%+ of those "stuck gas pedals" were stuck to the floor by a
panicked driver's right foot.
There are virtually NO incidents of a "stuck accellerator pedal"
causing an accident without previous signs of trouble like high idle
speeds or sticky-notchy accelerator action. They NEVER failed
catastrophically with no warning. Whether the driver heeded the
warning or not is another question. The failure mode was a gradual
deterioration causing slow return to idle and/or stiffer throttle
actuation before failure.
Many reports said something like "I had both feet on the brake and it
STILL would not stop" Brake Idle Algorytm solved that issue by
forcing the throttle to idle imediately if the brake pedal was
depressed, but made it impossible to drive the vehicle agressively by
locking the rear wheels with the foot brake while powering through the
"slipperystuff" forcing the vehicle into oversteer. by hanging the
rear end out.
Whacking the brake pedal in the "marbles" was an effective way of
getting the rear to hang out on the R12 rallye car - and simpler than
pulling the hand brake.
On Sat, 18 Feb 2017 08:26:17 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 2/17/2017 7:48 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>> I had to look up "Fluid Film", which appears to
>>> be a water repellant waxy lubricant. The clips
>>> are a typical environment for crevice corrosion
>>> and something like Fluid Film would potentially
>>> be a good countermeasure.
>> Not just potentially - has been for decades.
>> It is a lanolin based thixotropic lubricant.
>> Being thixotropic it stays in place, but works itself into any spot
>> where there is movement between parts. It contains NO SOLVENTS so it
>> never really dries. It has been used in industry for many years and
>> has been the "go to" spray lubricant for fussy mechanics for close to
>> 20 years. It has replaced spray lubriplate in all the high end shops
>> around here - and on the Canadian East Coast it is used quite
>> extensively as and underbody anti-rust treatment on vehicles. It is
>> replacing RustChek on a lot of farms for preventing rust on stored
>> equipment (like plow moldbords etc)
>>
> Seems it would be good to use on the inner workings of a table saw.
>Thoughts on that?
Works good. It catches some sawdust when exposed though.
On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 16:34:32 -0500, Bill <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> I hear ford is bringing the ranger back, may have to look into it.
>
>You motivated me to read about the "2019 Ranger" at Car and Driver.
>What I found most interesting was the comments people posted. I found
>it insightful to read about what people are looking for versus what is
>available.
It's going to be interesting to see how popular the new Ranger really
is. FWIG, the Ranger was discontinued because they were almost as
expensive to make as the F150 and they couldn't get anywhere near the
price so the margins weren't there. I don't see that as changing.
BTW, I had an '01 Ranger and replaced it with a '13 F150. I probably
would have replaced it with a Ranger but I really like the F150. The
back seats are actually usable (both extended cabs). ;-)
On 2/19/2017 3:19 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Feb 2017 10:29:31 -0500, Jack <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 2/18/2017 9:28 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Sat, 18 Feb 2017 13:09:41 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>
>>>> I highly suspect that people dying in auto injuries is less of a result
>>>> of complete brake failure.
>>>>
>>> correct. Mechanical failure is cited in only 10-15% of all automotive
>>> accidents (and that includes things like brake or turn signal lamps
>>> not working) with tire and wheel problems being the majority and total
>>> brake loss WAY down the list.
>>>
>>> In the list of causes of fatal auto colisions, mechanical failure
>>> doesn't even make the top 25.
>>
>> If only 1% die from brake failure, that would be 3-400 a year. If
>> "they" completely banned the use of ALL saws, I think the lives saved
>> would be about ZERO.
>>
>> Proving someone died because their ABS system failed would be next to
>> impossible, at least in my truck it was intermittent. Rusted lines
>> would be easier to prove, but looking at a mangled wreck, one might
>> expect a brake line to be ripped apart. Also, when I was a kid, and
>> worked in a collision shop, never once do I remember anyone trying to
>> determine if a mechanical failure caused the wreck. This may have
>> changed, but I doubt it.
>>
>> A friend of my wife ran though the side of a building and she said her
>> gas pedal stuck. Could easily have been brake failure IMO. I believe
>> it was a Lexus and people were suing them for stuck gas pedals.
> and 90%+ of those "stuck gas pedals" were stuck to the floor by a
> panicked driver's right foot.
> There are virtually NO incidents of a "stuck accellerator pedal"
> causing an accident without previous signs of trouble like high idle
> speeds or sticky-notchy accelerator action. They NEVER failed
> catastrophically with no warning. Whether the driver heeded the
> warning or not is another question. The failure mode was a gradual
> deterioration causing slow return to idle and/or stiffer throttle
> actuation before failure.
>
> Many reports said something like "I had both feet on the brake and it
> STILL would not stop" Brake Idle Algorytm solved that issue by
> forcing the throttle to idle imediately if the brake pedal was
> depressed, but made it impossible to drive the vehicle agressively by
> locking the rear wheels with the foot brake while powering through the
> "slipperystuff" forcing the vehicle into oversteer. by hanging the
> rear end out.
>
> Whacking the brake pedal in the "marbles" was an effective way of
> getting the rear to hang out on the R12 rallye car - and simpler than
> pulling the hand brake.
>
It is still a mystery to me why they did not simply shift into neutral
or turn the ignition off.
On 2/19/2017 4:33 PM, Leon wrote:
>>
>> Many reports said something like "I had both feet on the brake and it
>> STILL would not stop" Brake Idle Algorytm solved that issue by
>> forcing the throttle to idle imediately if the brake pedal was
>> depressed, but made it impossible to drive the vehicle agressively by
>> locking the rear wheels with the foot brake while powering through the
>> "slipperystuff" forcing the vehicle into oversteer. by hanging the
>> rear end out.
>>
>> Whacking the brake pedal in the "marbles" was an effective way of
>> getting the rear to hang out on the R12 rallye car - and simpler than
>> pulling the hand brake.
>>
>
> It is still a mystery to me why they did not simply shift into neutral
> or turn the ignition off.
Lack of common sense, lack of training, panic. It is a strange feeling
to push down and have to brakes though.
On 2/20/2017 9:41 AM, Jack wrote:
> On 2/19/2017 4:53 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> On 2/19/2017 4:33 PM, Leon wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> Many reports said something like "I had both feet on the brake and it
>>>> STILL would not stop" Brake Idle Algorytm solved that issue by
>>>> forcing the throttle to idle imediately if the brake pedal was
>>>> depressed, but made it impossible to drive the vehicle agressively by
>>>> locking the rear wheels with the foot brake while powering through the
>>>> "slipperystuff" forcing the vehicle into oversteer. by hanging the
>>>> rear end out.
>
>>> It is still a mystery to me why they did not simply shift into neutral
>>> or turn the ignition off.
>>
>> Lack of common sense, lack of training, panic. It is a strange feeling
>> to push down and have to brakes though.
>
> Have you ever had to slam on your breaks to avoid hitting something? Car
> in front of you slams on breaks to miss dog/deer/kid you hit your brakes
> and nothing much happens, or the gas pedal is stuck. Zero chance to
> shift into neutral, or open your hood, pull the ABS fuse and hit brakes
> again.
Sure, but many of the cases were long distance, not emergency stops. A
couple of them even had time to make a phone call or to call 911. In
those cases, plenty of time to react.
>
> In the case of my wife's girlfriend, she was pulling into a parking
> space in front of a business, according to her, the gas pedal stuck and
> she careened though the wall of the store. Her Lexus was totaled, but
> the business suffered astronomical damages. I was skeptical of the
> stuck gas pedal as the Lexus issue was pretty much debunked at the time.
>
Most people don't pull into a paring spot with the gas pedal to the
floor either. Brakes can easily overcome modest engine power.
On 2/18/2017 4:41 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Feb 2017 08:26:17 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2/17/2017 7:48 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>> I had to look up "Fluid Film", which appears to
>>>> be a water repellant waxy lubricant. The clips
>>>> are a typical environment for crevice corrosion
>>>> and something like Fluid Film would potentially
>>>> be a good countermeasure.
>>> Not just potentially - has been for decades.
>>> It is a lanolin based thixotropic lubricant.
>>> Being thixotropic it stays in place, but works itself into any spot
>>> where there is movement between parts. It contains NO SOLVENTS so it
>>> never really dries. It has been used in industry for many years and
>>> has been the "go to" spray lubricant for fussy mechanics for close to
>>> 20 years. It has replaced spray lubriplate in all the high end shops
>>> around here - and on the Canadian East Coast it is used quite
>>> extensively as and underbody anti-rust treatment on vehicles. It is
>>> replacing RustChek on a lot of farms for preventing rust on stored
>>> equipment (like plow moldbords etc)
>>>
>> Seems it would be good to use on the inner workings of a table saw.
>> Thoughts on that?
> Works good. It catches some sawdust when exposed though.
>
Too late! LOL
I bought a can at Lowe's and sprayed it on the gears, lift/tilt screws,
and the large steel guide dowels. No more groaning when I crank the
adjustment wheel quickly.
I tried dry lube on all of that but it did not seem to last very long.
From the factory it had grease but that caught dust all so no big deal.
Kind'a stinks though. ;~)
On 2/20/2017 9:30 AM, Jack wrote:
>
> If you ever were barreling down the road at 50MPH in the summer on dry
> pavement, touch your brakes to slow down and the ABS goes of, giving you
> 50% braking power as you approach a line of stopped cars in front of
> you, you will very quickly be standing on your brake pedal. Taught me
> that my brake pedal would not break, or bend under immense force brought
> on by a rapidly building panic that I was not going to stop in time.
> Force vs a computer, computer wins. Fortunately I was not in a hurry
> that day, and knew there was traffic at that spot every day, and had
> allowed plenty of room to slowly come to a stop. Stopped about a foot
> behind the car in front, with both feet on the pedal. Very scary.
>
What set the ABS off? Are you saying it was not needed and cut braking
power to 50% ?
On 2/19/2017 4:19 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Feb 2017 10:29:31 -0500, Jack <[email protected]> wrote:
>> A friend of my wife ran though the side of a building and she said her
>> gas pedal stuck. Could easily have been brake failure IMO. I believe
>> it was a Lexus and people were suing them for stuck gas pedals.
> and 90%+ of those "stuck gas pedals" were stuck to the floor by a
> panicked driver's right foot.
> There are virtually NO incidents of a "stuck accellerator pedal"
> causing an accident without previous signs of trouble like high idle
> speeds or sticky-notchy accelerator action.
Yeah, I was skeptical myself.
> Many reports said something like "I had both feet on the brake and it
> STILL would not stop"
If you ever were barreling down the road at 50MPH in the summer on dry
pavement, touch your brakes to slow down and the ABS goes of, giving you
50% braking power as you approach a line of stopped cars in front of
you, you will very quickly be standing on your brake pedal. Taught me
that my brake pedal would not break, or bend under immense force brought
on by a rapidly building panic that I was not going to stop in time.
Force vs a computer, computer wins. Fortunately I was not in a hurry
that day, and knew there was traffic at that spot every day, and had
allowed plenty of room to slowly come to a stop. Stopped about a foot
behind the car in front, with both feet on the pedal. Very scary.
--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com
On 2/19/2017 4:53 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 2/19/2017 4:33 PM, Leon wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Many reports said something like "I had both feet on the brake and it
>>> STILL would not stop" Brake Idle Algorytm solved that issue by
>>> forcing the throttle to idle imediately if the brake pedal was
>>> depressed, but made it impossible to drive the vehicle agressively by
>>> locking the rear wheels with the foot brake while powering through the
>>> "slipperystuff" forcing the vehicle into oversteer. by hanging the
>>> rear end out.
>> It is still a mystery to me why they did not simply shift into neutral
>> or turn the ignition off.
>
> Lack of common sense, lack of training, panic. It is a strange feeling
> to push down and have to brakes though.
Have you ever had to slam on your breaks to avoid hitting something?
Car in front of you slams on breaks to miss dog/deer/kid you hit your
brakes and nothing much happens, or the gas pedal is stuck. Zero chance
to shift into neutral, or open your hood, pull the ABS fuse and hit
brakes again.
In the case of my wife's girlfriend, she was pulling into a parking
space in front of a business, according to her, the gas pedal stuck and
she careened though the wall of the store. Her Lexus was totaled, but
the business suffered astronomical damages. I was skeptical of the
stuck gas pedal as the Lexus issue was pretty much debunked at the time.
--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com
On 2/20/2017 9:47 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 2/20/2017 9:30 AM, Jack wrote:
>
>>
>> If you ever were barreling down the road at 50MPH in the summer on dry
>> pavement, touch your brakes to slow down and the ABS goes of, giving you
>> 50% braking power as you approach a line of stopped cars in front of
>> you, you will very quickly be standing on your brake pedal. Taught me
>> that my brake pedal would not break, or bend under immense force brought
>> on by a rapidly building panic that I was not going to stop in time.
>> Force vs a computer, computer wins. Fortunately I was not in a hurry
>> that day, and knew there was traffic at that spot every day, and had
>> allowed plenty of room to slowly come to a stop. Stopped about a foot
>> behind the car in front, with both feet on the pedal. Very scary.
>>
>
> What set the ABS off? Are you saying it was not needed and cut braking
> power to 50% ?
Exactly. Well, I don't know what makes them go off when they're not
supposed to, and you're not sliding, some sort of problem with the
sensors I reckon. You can hear the squeak when they go off on my truck,
but what is more noticeable is your stopping distance is about doubled.
In an emergency stop, you are toast.
If I ran into the back you, and killed myself, no one could ask me what
happened. If I killed you, I could say it was my ABS systems fault, and
if they checked them, they would probably be working again, as the
problem is not constant, but intermittent. GM lawyers would be saying
everyone blames the brakes, but it never is...
--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com
On 2/20/2017 1:50 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 10:07:21 -0500, Jack <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I bought a 1978 GMC Van, and it didn't rust out after about 15 years. I
>> had it Z-barted immediately after purchase though.
>
> Might have been your salvation, but SOME of the Ziebart treatments
> just guaranteed the vehicle WOULD rust - by blocking drainage holes,
> and flaking loose after any damage, trapping moisture and salt between
> the ziebart film and the metal. Has a LOT of "Ziebart Initiated Rust
> Perforation " up here in those years.
I had a bunch of people tell me that, and is the exact reason I didn't
get my GMC pick up Z-Barted. Biggest mistake I ever made. My brother
has a '95 Ford PU he had Z-barted and it looks brand new. One quarter
panel rusts every other year, and the Z-bart guy fixes it free.
What really pisses me off is I really, really like my off road, 4 wheel
drive, extended cab with towing package GMC truck. It's drive train is
perfect, never had and engine or transmission problem. I put almost no
miles on it now that I'm old, and would love to keep it the rest of my
days. Not sure it will not turn into a pile of rust first. I can't
justify buying another since I don't drive it much anymore, and won't
likely be around anyway. The same truck today is around 50g's I think.
Hard to decide, although I would likely will go with a good American
truck, a Toyota...
--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com
On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 10:07:21 -0500, Jack <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 2/19/2017 5:10 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 Feb 2017 11:01:22 -0500, Jack <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> My wife bought a '79 Honda Accord. It was car of the year. Nice car but
>>> a total rust bucket. EVERYTHING rusted out. Hood, fenders, gas tank,
>>> Strut suspension. I thought my '55 Ford Crown Vic was a rust bucket,
>>> not even close. Honda fixed most of it under warranty, had to lose
>>> money on that one. How does a hood rust? So much for Car of the year crap.
>
>> Was there a 1979 car you could buy that WASN'T a total rust bucket??
>> 1855 to 1961 - or even 1969, and 1978 to 1986 just about EVERYTHING
>> was a rust bucket.
>
>I bought a 1978 GMC Van, and it didn't rust out after about 15 years. I
>had it Z-barted immediately after purchase though.
Might have been your salvation, but SOME of the Ziebart treatments
just guaranteed the vehicle WOULD rust - by blocking drainage holes,
and flaking loose after any damage, trapping moisture and salt between
the ziebart film and the metal. Has a LOT of "Ziebart Initiated Rust
Perforation " up here in those years.
>
>> In 1982 you could sit on your front porch and listen to your new
>> Torino rust on the driveway.
>
>Before my wife bought the Accord, she bought a Maveric. I reckon around
>1973-4. You absolutely could sit on the porch and listen to it rust away.
>
>> They say "they don't make 'em like they used to" - and I say "THANK
>> GOD!!!!"
>
>Yes, particularly true of cars from the 50's. Bodies were bad, but
>motors were pure junk. Well, not sure it was just the motors, motor oil
>was junk as well. Tune up every 6 months or year, points, plugs,
>condensor, plug wires (never brake fluid though:-)) Complete engine
>rebuild after 30 -40,000 miles or so, if anything was left of the car.
>
>My 2001 GMC PU has never been tuned up, runs and starts like it was
>brand new. I now wish I would have had the thing Z barted. Outside of
>truck looks new, underneath, rust city. Never saw a bumper rust like
>this. My SIL stepped on the rear bumper one day (150lbs soaking wet)
>and it bent in half. Looked new but underneath it was rust city.
>
>GMC recalled the tailgate straps cause they could rust. No problem with
>the bumper, designed to step on to get in the bed, breaking in half. He
>could have easily been injured. If it had been me, I would have been
>hurt.
On 2/13/2017 11:14 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>> Not true with my exhaust system. The stainless steel exhaust has never
>> once been cleaned and it is now 16+ years old, and in the rust belt.
>> Surely GM could have used the same stuff in the brake lines, which is
>> magnitudes more important than the exhaust system as far as safety goes.
>
> So you never go through a car wash?
Never, at least not with this truck.
> And what pressure does your exhaust have to
> withstand? What pressure do your brake lines
> have to withstand?
The break lines have no problem withstanding pressure, until they RUST!
There is no excuse not to use break lines that don't rust. Exhaust
system were/are notorious rusters when made of steel. They rust from
the inside because of all the crap, including water expelled from the
engine, and laying in the pipes. Break lines don't have to battle all
that crap and could easily be made not to rust for the life of the car.
Between the brake lines rusting and the ABS braking system failing
repeatedly, GM should have been sued out of business. BTW, it only cost
$700 to have all the brake lines replaced on that truck, and that was a
few years ago, and at a garage, not a dealer. Would have been more at
the dealer.
My daughter and son both had Chevy Cavaliers in college and brake lines
rusted out on both cars. I've been driving for 56 years and never
replaced brake lines until this GM truck and the two Cavaliers my kids
had. That's 3 for 3... good job there GM. Our screwed up government
fines VW a $billion or more for fudging MPG on a few cars, but could
care less that the brakes on GM products SUCK big time.
My brother has a '95 Ford truck and brake lines are fine. GM is a no
sale for me and my family. My wife has a VS Passat, my daughter a Ford
and Son a VW Jetta I think it is. If I ever buy another truck, it will
be a Ford, or a Toyota, leaning towards the Toyota although the aluminum
Ford sounds rust free, something I would like a lot.
--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com
On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 09:30:48 -0500, Jack <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 2/19/2017 4:19 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 Feb 2017 10:29:31 -0500, Jack <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> A friend of my wife ran though the side of a building and she said her
>>> gas pedal stuck. Could easily have been brake failure IMO. I believe
>>> it was a Lexus and people were suing them for stuck gas pedals.
>
>> and 90%+ of those "stuck gas pedals" were stuck to the floor by a
>> panicked driver's right foot.
>
>> There are virtually NO incidents of a "stuck accellerator pedal"
>> causing an accident without previous signs of trouble like high idle
>> speeds or sticky-notchy accelerator action.
>
>Yeah, I was skeptical myself.
>
>
>> Many reports said something like "I had both feet on the brake and it
>> STILL would not stop"
>
>If you ever were barreling down the road at 50MPH in the summer on dry
>pavement, touch your brakes to slow down and the ABS goes of, giving you
>50% braking power as you approach a line of stopped cars in front of
>you, you will very quickly be standing on your brake pedal. Taught me
>that my brake pedal would not break, or bend under immense force brought
>on by a rapidly building panic that I was not going to stop in time.
>Force vs a computer, computer wins. Fortunately I was not in a hurry
>that day, and knew there was traffic at that spot every day, and had
>allowed plenty of room to slowly come to a stop. Stopped about a foot
>behind the car in front, with both feet on the pedal. Very scary.
Gotta think like a pilot. Always keep a "safe landing spot" in sight
at all times. I was told by several cops to choose a guard rail over
the back of the vehicle ahead every time if you "know" you won't get
stopped in time. No chance of a careless driving charge sticking if
you can "proove" you recognized the danger, made a concious decision
on avoiding the colission, and acted on it. You may have made a faulty
decision - but making the decision and acting on it does NOT
constitute careless driving..
Also, releasing and re-applying the brake has about a 50% chance of
re-establishing braking power in the case of intermittently
misbehaving ABS . If you are aware that the ABS is flakey and you
continue to drive the vehicle, you better be allowing a lot of extra
stopping space AT ALL TIMES. Also be ready to use the emergency brake
if required. It will only give you rear brakes - but they will not be
released by the computer. Just don't lock them and slide the rear end
around causing you to loose ALL control of the vehicle. Don't want to
be charged with driving an unsafe vehicle
I have been known to use reverse to stop a vehicle with
malfunctioning brakes too. Hand brake to lock the rear brake, into
reverse and hit the gas. The rire rotating backwards had more effect
slowing the vehicle than just sliding locked!! (rear wheel drive) and
more effect "biting down" through packed snow than wheels rolling on
the snow due to ABS shutting off all 4 brakes. Using reverse cost me a
diff on the 69 dart when one wheel caught dry pavement while moving in
the opposite direction. Took the spider gear out and stopped the car
DEAD - right there. - but I didn't hit anything..
On Sun, 19 Feb 2017 08:58:25 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>The daughter of a co-worker recently drove her boyfriend's pick-up into a
>utility pole - by choice.
>
>She was driving downhill towards a red light at a very busy intersection.
>She applied the brake and the pedal went right to the floor. Being a fairly
>young driver (18) and in her first real emergency situation, her first thought
>wasn't to try the emergency brake, it was to *not* go through the red light.
>
>She chose the pole instead, which did a real good job of stopping the truck.
>Poor kid. She had to quit high school sports because of multiple concussions
>and then suffered a serious one during the accident.
Total instant brake failure is more likely to be a bad master cyl
than a blown line - unless the brakes are also WAY out of adjustment
(to the point the pedal was "seriously" low) previous to the failure.
If the rear drum brakes are "loose as a goose" and a front line goes
south, there is not enough displacement in the master cyl to
effectively apply the rear brakes on the first pump. (and then the
rear brakes on an unloaded Pickup truck going downhill are not going
to be anything close to effective in stopping the vehicle anyway)
The properly functionig rear brakes on my 21 year old Ranger are
still original, and about half lining left when I checked them last
fall - at 350,000km while the front pads are set#3 (and now running on
oversized 11 inch rotors) - so you know the rears are not doing a heck
of a lot of work - and mine has several hundred pounds of cap and
bed-liner)
On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 09:42:07 -0500, Jack <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 2/19/2017 11:58 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
>> On Sunday, February 19, 2017 at 10:29:39 AM UTC-5, Jack wrote:
>
>>> Proving someone died because their ABS system failed would be next to
>>> impossible, at least in my truck it was intermittent. Rusted lines
>>> would be easier to prove, but looking at a mangled wreck, one might
>>> expect a brake line to be ripped apart. Also, when I was a kid, and
>>> worked in a collision shop, never once do I remember anyone trying to
>>> determine if a mechanical failure caused the wreck. This may have
>>> changed, but I doubt it.
>>
>> One could assume that with the advancement of accident reconstruction
>> capabilities it might not be that hard to determine if a rusted brake
>> line was the cause.
>
>Yes, if anyone wants to undertake the task. Intermittent failure like
>my GMC Truck ABS system would be impossible to figure out I'd think,
>probably why the recall was to "clean the sensors" which works for a
>brief time. Not even sure it works at all as they went off randomly,
>not constantly.
>
My ranger had the same "intermittent" false trigger - totally
unpredictable other than more likely to act up when cool and damp.
I cleaned all the grease off the reluctor wheel on the LF wheel hub
(part of the brake rotor on the Ranger) and the problem went away.
That was something around 3 years ago,
>> Visual inspection of the brake lines, even if mangled, could show a
>> difference between "collision mangled" in some sections and "blown out rust
>> spots" in others. Lack of skid marks, brake fluid upstream from the
>> accident site, the vehicle's black box, etc. could all help in making the
>> determination.
>
>I reckon if the FAA can determine the cause of planes falling out of the
>sky, someone given enough time and resources could figure out the cause
>of a car falling into a tree. My time spent in a collision shop (many,
>many years ago) saw zero efforts made to figure out why someone got dead
>in a wreck. Our shop had it in with the local police and all wrecks
>were towed by us to our shop unless the owner insisted on someone else.
> Dead ones never did... most people never did.
>
>> Any of the teams from the various CSI's would have it figured out in the
>> first 10 minutes. ;-)
>
>For sure:-)
>
>> The daughter of a co-worker recently drove her boyfriend's pick-up into a
>> utility pole - by choice.
>>
>> She was driving downhill towards a red light at a very busy intersection.
>> She applied the brake and the pedal went right to the floor. Being a fairly
>> young driver (18) and in her first real emergency situation, her first thought
>> wasn't to try the emergency brake, it was to *not* go through the red light.
>>
>> She chose the pole instead, which did a real good job of stopping the truck.
>> Poor kid. She had to quit high school sports because of multiple concussions
>> and then suffered a serious one during the accident.
>
>She's a real hero. Going through the red light could risk multiple
>lives, she is one brave girl, good for her. I hope she was driving a
>GMC vehicle and the brake lines rusted out, and she sues them for
>millions, and they get fined more than VW did for fudging on MPG.
>
>If it was a GM product, and it was rusted brake lines or ABS failure,
>tell her I'd be happy to testify on the 100% brake failure on my last 3
>GM purchases since 2001, as well as GM's failure to address or fix the
>problems.
Like I have stated, and given examples before, it is NOT just a GM
problem. GM buys it's lines from the same companies Ford and Chrysler
do. Likely Honda and Toyota and hyundai and all the other companies
that assemble vehicles in North America - whether that be Canada,
Mexico, or the USA.
ABS problems are a different story ---
On 2/20/2017 12:38 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 09:30:48 -0500, Jack <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 2/19/2017 4:19 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Sun, 19 Feb 2017 10:29:31 -0500, Jack <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>> A friend of my wife ran though the side of a building and she said her
>>>> gas pedal stuck. Could easily have been brake failure IMO. I believe
>>>> it was a Lexus and people were suing them for stuck gas pedals.
>>
>>> and 90%+ of those "stuck gas pedals" were stuck to the floor by a
>>> panicked driver's right foot.
>>
>>> There are virtually NO incidents of a "stuck accellerator pedal"
>>> causing an accident without previous signs of trouble like high idle
>>> speeds or sticky-notchy accelerator action.
>>
>> Yeah, I was skeptical myself.
>>
>>
>>> Many reports said something like "I had both feet on the brake and it
>>> STILL would not stop"
>>
>> If you ever were barreling down the road at 50MPH in the summer on dry
>> pavement, touch your brakes to slow down and the ABS goes of, giving you
>> 50% braking power as you approach a line of stopped cars in front of
>> you, you will very quickly be standing on your brake pedal. Taught me
>> that my brake pedal would not break, or bend under immense force brought
>> on by a rapidly building panic that I was not going to stop in time.
>> Force vs a computer, computer wins. Fortunately I was not in a hurry
>> that day, and knew there was traffic at that spot every day, and had
>> allowed plenty of room to slowly come to a stop. Stopped about a foot
>> behind the car in front, with both feet on the pedal. Very scary.
> Gotta think like a pilot. Always keep a "safe landing spot" in sight
> at all times. I was told by several cops to choose a guard rail over
> the back of the vehicle ahead every time if you "know" you won't get
> stopped in time. No chance of a careless driving charge sticking if
> you can "proove" you recognized the danger, made a concious decision
> on avoiding the colission, and acted on it. You may have made a faulty
> decision - but making the decision and acting on it does NOT
> constitute careless driving..
In my case the PO would say, you were driving too fast to begin with. ;~(
BUT it certainly would lessen the chance of being sued and or injuring
some one else.
On 2/20/2017 1:38 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> Also, releasing and re-applying the brake has about a 50% chance of
> re-establishing braking power in the case of intermittently
> misbehaving ABS .
That didn't work any of the times I had the problem.
If you are aware that the ABS is flakey and you
> continue to drive the vehicle, you better be allowing a lot of extra
> stopping space AT ALL TIMES.
Amen to that, but if it happens to you at higher speeds on dry pavement,
you will know your life is in danger and take appropriate actions. My
advice is to stop the car, pull the ABS fuse so they are completely
disabled. You can have them fixed if you want, like I did 4 times, but
the best thing I did was pull the fuse, and completely eliminate the
problem.
Now all you need worry about is the brake lines rusting out, which you
pretty much know they will sooner or later because they are made of
cheap ass steel, so might be a good idea to replace them before that
happens... Only costs around $700-1000 on my truck, far less than the
price of a Saw Stop for the remote possibly you'll save a finger.
--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com
On 2/20/2017 1:45 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 09:42:07 -0500, Jack <[email protected]> wrote:
>> If it was a GM product, and it was rusted brake lines or ABS failure,
>> tell her I'd be happy to testify on the 100% brake failure on my last 3
>> GM purchases since 2001, as well as GM's failure to address or fix the
>> problems.
> Like I have stated, and given examples before, it is NOT just a GM
> problem. GM buys it's lines from the same companies Ford and Chrysler
> do. Likely Honda and Toyota and hyundai and all the other companies
> that assemble vehicles in North America - whether that be Canada,
> Mexico, or the USA.
Well whomever is making those crap lines should be sued into oblivion.
My experience with rusted lines is only with GM products made since
2001. I'm the type that keeps my cars until they fall apart and are
pretty much worthless. Never had a problem with brake lines until the
2001 GMC and a 2002 and a 2003 Chevy Cavalier. We had other GM products
before 2001 that didn't have a problem with brake lines rusting out. No
one in my family owns a GM product now, and never will.
I might note that the outside of their cars no longer seem to easily
rust out, and the exhaust system is stainless. I guess that stuff is a
moving billboard of a rust bucket product.
So now, the bumpers rust from the inside out, brake lines rust and so
on. Smooth move on their part. My bumper had a light touch of a rust
spot on it, which I had planned to easily rub off with some polish...
Nope, about all that was left of the bumper was a ultra thin layer of
chrome, which looked pretty good to a pedestrian walking by.
> ABS problems are a different story ---
Yes, I suspect that the ABS problem is mostly fixed. I am a bit shell
shocked by it though, and don't think they should be on any car, and the
safety crap is just that, crap. I have no problems or fear with the
fuse pulled on my truck. Stops just like I expect at all times, other
than when the brake lines rust apart. I should be good until 2022 if
history repeats.
--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com
On Sat, 18 Feb 2017 16:57:21 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 2/18/2017 4:41 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Sat, 18 Feb 2017 08:26:17 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/17/2017 7:48 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I had to look up "Fluid Film", which appears to
>>>>> be a water repellant waxy lubricant. The clips
>>>>> are a typical environment for crevice corrosion
>>>>> and something like Fluid Film would potentially
>>>>> be a good countermeasure.
>>>> Not just potentially - has been for decades.
>>>> It is a lanolin based thixotropic lubricant.
>>>> Being thixotropic it stays in place, but works itself into any spot
>>>> where there is movement between parts. It contains NO SOLVENTS so it
>>>> never really dries. It has been used in industry for many years and
>>>> has been the "go to" spray lubricant for fussy mechanics for close to
>>>> 20 years. It has replaced spray lubriplate in all the high end shops
>>>> around here - and on the Canadian East Coast it is used quite
>>>> extensively as and underbody anti-rust treatment on vehicles. It is
>>>> replacing RustChek on a lot of farms for preventing rust on stored
>>>> equipment (like plow moldbords etc)
>>>>
>>> Seems it would be good to use on the inner workings of a table saw.
>>> Thoughts on that?
>> Works good. It catches some sawdust when exposed though.
>>
>
>
>Too late! LOL
>I bought a can at Lowe's and sprayed it on the gears, lift/tilt screws,
>and the large steel guide dowels. No more groaning when I crank the
>adjustment wheel quickly.
>I tried dry lube on all of that but it did not seem to last very long.
> From the factory it had grease but that caught dust all so no big deal.
>
>Kind'a stinks though. ;~)
Not as bad as some other stuff out there. And what do expect, with
the main ingredient coming from a sheep???
On 2/14/2017 8:12 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>>
>> On 2/13/2017 11:14 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>> [email protected] says...
>>
>>>> Not true with my exhaust system. The stainless steel exhaust has never
>>>> once been cleaned and it is now 16+ years old, and in the rust belt.
>>>> Surely GM could have used the same stuff in the brake lines, which is
>>>> magnitudes more important than the exhaust system as far as safety goes.
>>>
>>> So you never go through a car wash?
>>
>> Never, at least not with this truck.
>>
>>> And what pressure does your exhaust have to
>>> withstand? What pressure do your brake lines
>>> have to withstand?
>>
>> The break lines have no problem withstanding pressure, until they RUST!
>
> <sigh>
>
> Never occurs to you that the stresses something
> needs to withstand affect the choice of alloy to
> be used, does it?
Of course, which is exactly why brake lines should be made from
stainless steel and not from crap that starts to rust 3 minutes after
installation.
> As for the rest, why did you buy a GM product to
> begin with?
At the time I didn't know I would be risking my life on substandard GM
breaking systems.
--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com
On 2/16/2017 7:04 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>>
>> On 2/14/2017 8:12 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>> [email protected] says...
>>>>
>>>> On 2/13/2017 11:14 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>>>> [email protected] says...
>>>>
>>>>>> Not true with my exhaust system. The stainless steel exhaust has never
>>>>>> once been cleaned and it is now 16+ years old, and in the rust belt.
>>>>>> Surely GM could have used the same stuff in the brake lines, which is
>>>>>> magnitudes more important than the exhaust system as far as safety goes.
>>>>>
>>>>> So you never go through a car wash?
>>>>
>>>> Never, at least not with this truck.
>>>>
>>>>> And what pressure does your exhaust have to
>>>>> withstand? What pressure do your brake lines
>>>>> have to withstand?
>>>>
>>>> The break lines have no problem withstanding pressure, until they RUST!
>>>
>>> <sigh>
>>>
>>> Never occurs to you that the stresses something
>>> needs to withstand affect the choice of alloy to
>>> be used, does it?
>>
>> Of course, which is exactly why brake lines should be made from
>> stainless steel and not from crap that starts to rust 3 minutes after
>> installation.
>
> Which specific alloy of stainless steel should
> be used and why that alloy and not some other
> alloy?
One that makes them not rust out. Your local stainless steel
manufacture will gladly help them out. I could tell them but no reason
on earth they can't find out from a better source.
> Engineering is always a compromise.
Perhaps a few $Billion in fines would help them compromise on the side
of a safe braking system, rather than $billions for fudging on MPG...
(Posted at end of NUMEROUS lines of extraneous text to conform to
ignorance level of previous poster[s])
--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com
On 2/16/2017 10:15 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <Rtmdnb7i4qyh3DvFnZ2dnUU7-
> [email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>>
>> On 2/16/2017 11:04 AM, Jack wrote:
>>> On 2/14/2017 8:12 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>>> [email protected] says...
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2/13/2017 11:14 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>>>>> [email protected] says...
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not true with my exhaust system. The stainless steel exhaust has
>>>>>>> never
>>>>>>> once been cleaned and it is now 16+ years old, and in the rust belt.
>>>>>>> Surely GM could have used the same stuff in the brake lines, which is
>>>>>>> magnitudes more important than the exhaust system as far as safety
>>>>>>> goes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So you never go through a car wash?
>>>>>
>>>>> Never, at least not with this truck.
>>>>>
>>>>>> And what pressure does your exhaust have to
>>>>>> withstand? What pressure do your brake lines
>>>>>> have to withstand?
>>>>>
>>>>> The break lines have no problem withstanding pressure, until they RUST!
>>>>
>>>> <sigh>
>>>>
>>>> Never occurs to you that the stresses something
>>>> needs to withstand affect the choice of alloy to
>>>> be used, does it?
>>>
>>> Of course, which is exactly why brake lines should be made from
>>> stainless steel and not from crap that starts to rust 3 minutes after
>>> installation.
>>>
>>>> As for the rest, why did you buy a GM product to
>>>> begin with?
>>>
>>> At the time I didn't know I would be risking my life on substandard GM
>>> breaking systems.
>>>
>>
>> Chrysler does the same, steel, my BIL was driving his PU truck and went
>> to hit the brakes.... NOTHING.. the lines blew from rust.
>>
>> Not sure how the Japanese cars treat their brake components.
>
> If there were NO brakes then the system had been
> neglected for a long time. Any car or light
> truck sold in the US after 1976 is required to
> have a split braking system that continues to
> work with reduced capability with a brake line
> completely missing.
The first time my lines failed my SIL borrowed my truck to pick up a
load of granite block. He and my daughter backed out of the driveway,
and the pedal went down almost to the floor. He drove 40 miles 20 with
a heavy load and luckily got back, telling me my brakes sucked. I
checked and immediately knew half the brakes were gone, and it was
rusted brake lines.
$700 later all was well, I thought. Turns out the jerks at the garage
missed two lines and 3 months later, one of those burst. Luckily, I was
driving at night on a secluded road rather than in traffic. Breaking
distance with half a system works, but really poorly. I had forgot
something and hit my brakes to turn in a road to turn around, and
sailed right past it when the brakes semi failed. Had I been in traffic
things could have been bad...
> After a while you can pump it dry but you have to pretty much be an
> idiot to not notice that there's a brake problem before that happens.
I pretty much told my SIL the same thing.
Anyway, How can you pump it dry? The dual systems are isolated and to
pump them both dry you'd need a leak in both systems. While that could
happen, it would be highly unusual.
--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com
On 2/17/2017 1:11 PM, Leon wrote:
> On 2/17/2017 10:57 AM, Jack wrote:
>>> Engineering is always a compromise.
>>
>> Perhaps a few $Billion in fines would help them compromise on the side
>> of a safe braking system, rather than $billions for fudging on MPG...
>
> Don't take this like I am ganging up on you. ;~)
>
> A billion dollar fine for an auto manufacturer for a brake problem that
> I was never aware of when I was in that business, service manager of an
> Oldsmobile dealer. And this may actually be more common in recent years
> but up until 1995 not really a thing except in isolated cases.
Did they even have anti-lock brakes when you were in the business. My
2001 GMC truck was the first vehicle I owned with ABS brakes, and they
were a clear safety hazard as they failed routinely. Brake lines
rusting out is also somewhat new I believe. Never had any rust out
until the 3 GM vehicles I owned since 2001. So that is 100% brake line
failure for GM vehicles. The fact you are/were unaware of the problem
means little to me. The fact I became aware from first hand experience,
and both garages I go to were also aware of it. I suspect the ABS
problem has been fixed, not so sure about the brake lines, but I quit
buying GM products, so won't ever have additional 1st hand experience
with them. Also, someone sent me the GM recall on the ABS, and the fix
was to clean the sensors. THAT didn't work, but shows there certainly
was a problem, besides just my truck.
> How about a billion dollar fine against all TS manufacturers that did
> not care about our safety enough to build a safer saw when they had the
> opportunity. I will give you the possibility that it may have been
> expensive. But giving you that, the brand that out sells all others in
> the USA pretty much is the most expensive saw in it's class.
How many died from stubbing their toe, or whacking off a finger on a TS?
Many thousands die in auto accidents, and many more are seriously
injured, far worse than 99.999% of table saw accidents. Defective brake
system would seem to be something that deserves more attention than
fudging on a MPG test. (I mention stubbing toe on TS because I read here
that if an idiot walks into his saw an breaks a toe, it would go down as
a TS accident...)
> Has anyone heard of someone that has been injured on a non SawStop TS?
> Yeah....;~)
> Has any one heard of some one that has been injured on a SawStop. Not
> so far, by me.
Well, I've never been injured by a table saw in almost 60 years of
usage, with no safety devices, and I know only one person that has ever
been cut, and it was not serious, and he was not very handy. Wait, I
also know a mechanic that got cut on a saw, also not very seriously, but
he was handy, but also drunk...
Are you saying Braking systems on cars are less important than fudging
on mpg stats, or having a gadget on a table saw to protect everyone from
themselves?
--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com
On 2/18/17 12:09 PM, Leon wrote:
> On 2/18/2017 11:31 AM, Jack wrote:
>> On 2/17/2017 1:11 PM, Leon wrote:
>>> On 2/17/2017 10:57 AM, Jack wrote:
>>
>>>>> Engineering is always a compromise.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps a few $Billion in fines would help them compromise on the side
>>>> of a safe braking system, rather than $billions for fudging on MPG...
>>>
>>> Don't take this like I am ganging up on you. ;~)
>>>
>>> A billion dollar fine for an auto manufacturer for a brake problem that
>>> I was never aware of when I was in that business, service manager of an
>>> Oldsmobile dealer. And this may actually be more common in recent years
>>> but up until 1995 not really a thing except in isolated cases.
>>
>> Did they even have anti-lock brakes when you were in the business. My
>> 2001 GMC truck was the first vehicle I owned with ABS brakes, and they
>> were a clear safety hazard as they failed routinely.
>
> I do not think so, when I worked for the dealership, cehicles having
> anti lock brakes. But my 97 Chevy Silverado did and they worked as
> advertised on numerous occasions. But that is not to say that there was
> no possibility of a problem. Had this been an inherent problem or
> happening often there certainly would have been a campaign/recall.
>
>
>>
I have a 98 Dodge Ram (oxymoron, I know 8^), ABS equipped (rear axle
only). Since a pickup can have a widely varying load on the rear tires,
the ABS helped may rear brakes actually do some work. The truck has
been reliable with the notable exception of the rear axle speed sensor
failing. I would have never known except for the ABS dash light. It sure
puckered my wallet when I saw it, knowing how much ABS repairs can cost,
but a few bucks for a new sensor (screws into the top of the
differential housing) and the peasants rejoiced.
I am a former gear head, rebuilt everything, and loved doing it, but
since getting old and despising crawling under things now, I only change
my own oil. Everything else gets put on hold until summer time.
-BR
On 2/12/2017 12:27 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, jbstein2
> @comcast.net says...
>>
>> On 2/11/2017 8:48 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 12:22:43 -0500, "J. Clarke"
>>
>>>>> Just google "abs problems".
>>>>> I've had sensors fail. I've had reluctor wheels split and spin, split
>>>>> and jam, and split and fall off. I've had them rust, and I've had them
>>>>> fill with crud between the teeth - all rendering them inneffective.
>>>>> I've had wires break and connections corrode.. I've had to replace
>>>>> very expensive wheel bearing assemblies because the sensor built into
>>>>> them failed.
>>>>
>>>> What do you _do_ to the poor things? The only
>>>> ABS maintenance my Jeep has needed in 20 years
>>>> was having one cable replaced after it got
>>>> snagged on something or other and got physically
>>>> ripped off.
>>>
>>> I FIX the damned things.
>>
>> GM was never able to (permanently) fix the ABS on my 2001 GMC truck.
>> After numerous repairs and almost killing me several times on dry
>> pavement, I gave up and pulled the ABS fuse to prevent them going off
>> under normal breaking conditions.
>>
>> All you need is to have the ABS go off on a dry day on concrete at 50
>> mph when attempting to make a routine stop behind a line of traffic.
>> This was apparently common with GM as two inspection garages told me it
>> was common and most just pull the fuse and disable the ABS. That
>> "fixed" it, so next, the brake lines rusted out.
>>
>> When your braking ability suddenly is reduced to 50% for no apparent
>> reason other than the ABS deciding to activate for no reason, you learn
>> quickly just how much force your brake peddle can handle w/o
>> breaking/bending. Trust me, it is a lot.
>>
>> GM recalled my truck for the tailgate straps that could (but didn't)
>> rust. No problem with ABS brake failure, or brake lines rusting out,
>> but sure wouldn't want tailgate to drop 6 inches. How is it I have
>> stainless steel exhaust but break lines on every GM product I've owned
>> have rusted out?
>
> Contrary to popular belief, stainless steel
> corrodes under the right circumstances. If you
> want it to last you have to keep it pretty
> clean.
>
> Also look into recall 05V379000.
>
>
>
>
You are not being specific with the SS you mentioned but it will indeed
rust if a magnet will stick to it.
On 2/17/2017 10:57 AM, Jack wrote:
Snip
>>
>> Which specific alloy of stainless steel should
>> be used and why that alloy and not some other
>> alloy?
>
> One that makes them not rust out. Your local stainless steel
> manufacture will gladly help them out. I could tell them but no reason
> on earth they can't find out from a better source.
>
>> Engineering is always a compromise.
>
> Perhaps a few $Billion in fines would help them compromise on the side
> of a safe braking system, rather than $billions for fudging on MPG...
Don't take this like I am ganging up on you. ;~)
A billion dollar fine for an auto manufacturer for a brake problem that
I was never aware of when I was in that business, service manager of an
Oldsmobile dealer. And this may actually be more common in recent years
but up until 1995 not really a thing except in isolated cases.
How about a billion dollar fine against all TS manufacturers that did
not care about our safety enough to build a safer saw when they had the
opportunity. I will give you the possibility that it may have been
expensive. But giving you that, the brand that out sells all others in
the USA pretty much is the most expensive saw in it's class.
Has anyone heard of someone that has been injured on a non SawStop TS?
Yeah....;~)
Has any one heard of some one that has been injured on a SawStop. Not
so far, by me.
On 2/13/2017 11:14 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>
> So you never go through a car wash?
>
> And what pressure does your exhaust have to
> withstand? What pressure do your brake lines
> have to withstand?
>
>
> It doesn't matter what the brake lines are made
> of, a 16 year old vehicle should have them
> inspected and replaced as necessary.
>
> You're expecting magic materials to take the
> place of proper maintenance.
>
I'd agree if the lines lasted that long. In 55 years of driving, I
never replaced corroded brake lines until rather recently. I drove
plenty of 10 to 15 year old crap cars but two newer cars (2001 and 2010)
needed brake lines after six years.
That said, the 2001 Buick was falling apart in six years and I ended up
giving it away. Last GM car for me.
On 2/18/2017 11:31 AM, Jack wrote:
> On 2/17/2017 1:11 PM, Leon wrote:
>> On 2/17/2017 10:57 AM, Jack wrote:
>
>>>> Engineering is always a compromise.
>>>
>>> Perhaps a few $Billion in fines would help them compromise on the side
>>> of a safe braking system, rather than $billions for fudging on MPG...
>>
>> Don't take this like I am ganging up on you. ;~)
>>
>> A billion dollar fine for an auto manufacturer for a brake problem that
>> I was never aware of when I was in that business, service manager of an
>> Oldsmobile dealer. And this may actually be more common in recent years
>> but up until 1995 not really a thing except in isolated cases.
>
> Did they even have anti-lock brakes when you were in the business. My
> 2001 GMC truck was the first vehicle I owned with ABS brakes, and they
> were a clear safety hazard as they failed routinely.
I do not think so, when I worked for the dealership, cehicles having
anti lock brakes. But my 97 Chevy Silverado did and they worked as
advertised on numerous occasions. But that is not to say that there was
no possibility of a problem. Had this been an inherent problem or
happening often there certainly would have been a campaign/recall.
>
>> How about a billion dollar fine against all TS manufacturers that did
>> not care about our safety enough to build a safer saw when they had the
>> opportunity. I will give you the possibility that it may have been
>> expensive. But giving you that, the brand that out sells all others in
>> the USA pretty much is the most expensive saw in it's class.
>
> How many died from stubbing their toe, or whacking off a finger on a TS?
> Many thousands die in auto accidents, and many more are seriously
> injured, far worse than 99.999% of table saw accidents.
I highly suspect that people dying in auto injuries is less of a result
of complete brake failure.
On 2/11/2017 12:57 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 9:55:24 PM UTC-6, [email protected]
> wrote:
>>
>> Driving has long been considered a privelege, not a right. Your
>> comparison doesn't hold water.
>>
>
> Do you consider using a table saw a right? I'd classify it as a
> privilege too. There is some document written hundreds of years ago
> talking about the pursuit of happiness. Maybe table saws fall under
> that saying. Using table saws is a privilege. The government can
> mandate insurance and/or safety devices.
I see it as a right. There are no laws governing how I use it, no
requirements or registration to buy one. I can use it for personal
pleasure or as a tool to earn a living. Show me the government mandates.
On 2/9/2017 1:06 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 08:14:40 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>
>>
>
> Hear you go Leon, and anyone else interested:
>
>
>
>>> Ryobi in Jan 2002 balked at a 3% royalty at the wholesale level
>>> with no upfront fees. I'd call that a pretty fair deal.
>>> That would have given them all the engineering and the right to use it
>>> - on ANY saw they produced
>>>
>>
>> Yeah, I would pay 3% in a heart beat. Do you have a link to that
>> specific information?
>>
>> I always thought that the offer was probably fair in so much that they
>> or another company almost went forward. I really think that they
>> decided to not be the only ones and that this would all blow over and
>> not happen.
>>
>>
> From FairWarning.org:
>
> Negotiations were held with several companies. Talks with Ryobi
> advanced farthest, then collapsed under mysterious circumstances.
>
> A leading manufacturer and supplier to Home Depot, Ryobi is based in
> Anderson, S.C., and is a subsidiary of Techtronics, Inc. of Hong Kong.
>
> In January, 2002, Ryobi sent SawStop a signed licensing agreement. It
> called for Ryobi to investigate SawStops feasibility, and to
> incorporate it in Ryobi saws within 18 months if it proved feasible.
> SawStop would get a royalty equal to 3 percent of the wholesale cost
> of each saw, with the fee rising as high as 8 percent should the
> technology be widely adopted.
>
> Gass said a small typo led him to return the contract to Ryobis
> general counsel, who Gass said told him he would immediately fix the
> mistake and mail the contract back. Days turned into weeks, then
> months. Gass said he got repeated assurances that Ryobi wanted to
> proceed, but the contract never came back.
>
> Years later, in the trial of a lawsuit against Ryobi, a company lawyer
> explained it this way: Ryobi decided that it did not want to go
> forward with this project, he said. Ryobi was going through a
> corporate acquisition, the SawStop deal took a back seat, and
> eventually Ryobi lost interest.
>
> Robert Bugos, the former general counsel Gass said had strung him
> along, put it another way in a deposition. There was negotiation back
> and forth, Bugos said. Our position was always that SawStop was
> asking too much.
>
>
> From WikiPedia, very similar:
>
> In January 2002, SawStop appeared to come close to a licensing
> agreement with Ryobi, who agreed to terms that involved no up-front
> fee and a 3% royalty based on the wholesale price of all saws sold
> with SawStop's technology; the royalty would grow to 8% if most of the
> industry also licensed the technology.[1] According to Gass, when a
> typographical error in the contract had not been resolved after six
> months of effort by Gass to get Ryobi to sign the proposed deal, Gass
> gave up on the effort in mid-2002.[1] Some subsequent licensing
> negotiations were deadlocked when the manufacturers insisted that Gass
> should "indemnify them against any lawsuit if SawStop malfunctioned",
> something Gass wouldn't agree to since he would not be manufacturing
> the saws."[1]
>
> The failure to license it to Ryobi or another manufacturer prompted
> SawStop to start its own company; over two years later, the company's
> first saw was produced by a Taiwanese manufacturing plant in November
> 2004; by 2005 SawStop had grown to "eight people out of a two-story
> barn Gass built himself."[1]
>
>
> From "Fine Woodworking" Nov 29, 2011:
>
> In October, Gass demonstrated a SawStop prototype for Ryobi
> representatives in Anderson, S.C. He also gave Ryobi a prototype to
> test. Gass wasnt interested in selling the technology to just one
> company. Instead, he was looking for a larger sales opportunity and to
> change the industry for the better, he said. We did not want to see
> it on just one brand of saws, he said, and so we were unwilling to
> give an exclusive license to any one company. It was our feeling that
> this technology, like air bags or something like that, should be on
> every saw.
>
> In 2001, Gass sent the CPSC a prototype of the SawStop. After testing
> it, the CPSC awarded SawStop the Chairmans Commendation for product
> safety.
>
> While negotiations with Ryobi went on, Gass said he pitched his
> product to other tablesaw manufacturers. To entice as many as he
> could, he asked for what he considered a low 3% royalty at first, to
> help offset the additional costs of incorporating the technology. That
> royalty would increase if more tablesaw makers adopted SawStop (when
> market share reached 25% the royalty would go to 5%; 75% share would
> increase the royalty to 8%).
>
> To avoid litigation, manufacturers believed they would have to equip
> every saw in their lines with the new technology, a process that would
> require redesigning the saws and retooling the factories where theyre
> made. And yet Gasss invention hadnt yet been proven to work in the
> real world. It was a tough decision.
>
> In 2002, SawStop and Ryobi came close to a licensing agreement.
> However, the deal was never closed, and people involved in the
> negotiations differ as to why. According to witnesses who testified in
> a recent legal case (Osorio vs. One World Technologies, Inc.), Ryobi
> chose to work with other members of the PTI on a joint venture to
> design a flesh-sensing alternative to SawStop, as well as a better
> guard system. David Peot, former director of advanced technology for
> Ryobi, testified that such cooperation among PTI members was
> unprecedented. The people who belong to the Power Tool Institute are
> very fierce competitors. Never in my 30, 35 years of working with
> [them] had I ever been exposed to something where they said lets get
> together and develop something.
>
> After the Ryobi deal fell through and with no responses from other
> tablesaw makers, Gass and his partners decided to develop their own
> brand. While they were working with designers on a saw, Gass and his
> partners petitioned the CPSC in 2003 to do something about the large
> number of tablesaw accidents that were occurring yearly. They told the
> CPSC that current table saws pose an unacceptable risk of severe
> injury because they are inherently dangerous and lack an adequate
> safety system to protect users from accidental contact with the
> blade. They asked the CPSC to require performance standards for a
> system to reduce or prevent injuries from contact with the blade of a
> table saw. In essence they were asking for a mandatory ruling that
> would require all tablesaws to have some sort of flesh-sensing
> technology and blade-stopping device.
>
> In 2004, SawStop rolled out its first model, a cabinet saw. Then, in
> the spring of 2005, an accident on a Lexington, Mass., job site
> cracked open the floodgates on the tablesaw safety debate and its
> legal fallout.
>
Thank you!
On 2/9/2017 9:52 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <JeGdnfjPOcDF5AHFnZ2dnUU7-
> [email protected]>, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
> says...
>>
>> On 2/8/2017 10:05 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Wed, 8 Feb 2017 21:58:22 -0500, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/8/2017 8:37 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
>>>>> On 2/8/17 1:37 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/8/2017 1:07 PM, woodchucker wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The man offered all the companies the licensing rights. none took
>>>>>>> him up on it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't begrudge him. You do.. that's your problem.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe. I have no idea of the terms he wanted. Over the years so
>>>>>> patents were offered free of royalty because they had the potential
>>>>>> to save lives. Being a generous sort of guy, I once offered a meal
>>>>>> to a starving homeless person for only $30.
>>>>>> http://jalopnik.com/volvo-gave-away-their-most-important-invention-to-save-1069825878
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> It's your choice, it's their choice, it's anyone's choice to do so.
>>>>> Anything other than that-- having the choice to do so-- is communism,
>>>>> plain and simple.
>>>>>
>>>>> If someone offers their patented technology for free for the "better
>>>>> good," good for them they are to be commended for their generosity.
>>>>>
>>>>> If someone else decides to make a profit off of their hard work and
>>>>> intellectual property, then good for them, they deserve it.
>>>>>
>>>>> If someone else judges that person for making money off their hard work
>>>>> and invention instead of giving it away, the fu@& you for judging them
>>>>> and wanting them to give their hard earned property away for free. If
>>>>> you choose to give something away which you rightly earned, then good
>>>>> for you. If you sanctimoniously judge someone for keeping the money
>>>>> they earn, then you are the problem, not them.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Like I said, MAYBE. We don't know the terms. Sure, he invested in the
>>>> technology and should have some return. It may have been $2 a unit, it
>>>> may have been $800 a unit. In life we are faced with a myriad of
>>>> circumstances and we have a choice as what to do. Our choice can make
>>>> us a hero or a schmuck. I don't know where he falls.
>>> Ryobi in Jan 2002 balked at a 3% royalty at the wholesale level
>>> with no upfront fees. I'd call that a pretty fair deal.
>>> That would have given them all the engineering and the right to use it
>>> - on ANY saw they produced
>>>
>>
>> Yeah, I would pay 3% in a heart beat. Do you have a link to that
>> specific information?
>>
>> I always thought that the offer was probably fair in so much that they
>> or another company almost went forward. I really think that they
>> decided to not be the only ones and that this would all blow over and
>> not happen.
>
> 3 percent growing to 8 percent if the rest of
> the industry goes along. Most businesses shoot
> for 20 percent profit so an 8 percent royalty is
> HUGE.
>
>
Bla bla bla, you are just making things up now. You have no facts.
On 2/9/2017 9:45 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <I6WdnS3nNaZo6gHFnZ2dnUU7-
> [email protected]>, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
> says...
>>
>> On 2/8/2017 8:35 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> In article <bf2808e1-6340-44e8-800e-f0585fa92f44
>>> @googlegroups.com>, [email protected] says...
>>>>
>>>> On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 2:37:36 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>>> On 2/8/2017 1:07 PM, woodchucker wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The man offered all the companies the licensing rights. none took him up
>>>>>> on it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't begrudge him. You do.. that's your problem.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe. I have no idea of the terms he wanted. Over the years so
>>>>> patents were offered free of royalty because they had the potential to
>>>>> save lives. Being a generous sort of guy, I once offered a meal to a
>>>>> starving homeless person for only $30.
>>>>> http://jalopnik.com/volvo-gave-away-their-most-important-invention-to-save-1069825878
>>>>
>>>> That gesture was over half a century ago. I'm curious as to whether Volvo would be so
>>>> quick to give away their City Safety technology today.
>>>>
>>>> I have no idea how it compares with other auto-braking technologies out there, but that's
>>>> not the point. In an apples-to-apples modern day comparison, do you know if Volvo is giving
>>>> away what they call their "in-house developed unique technology for avoiding low-speed
>>>> collisions"? I don't think they are, so why not use that as a comparable to the Saw-Stop
>>>> situation instead of a 50+ year old gesture?
>>>
>>> When you say "Volvo" you mean "Zhejiang Geely
>>> Holding Group". Volvo ceased to exist as an
>>> indpendent company in 1999.
>>>
>>
>>
>> And what does that have to do with anything.
>
> Since you were discussing the likely behavior of
> a nonexistent company it has quite a lot to do
> woth anything.
>
Are you saying that SawStop does not exist? I made no comments about
Volvo. Try to keep up, Life might be easier for you.
On 2/9/2017 2:35 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> The issue is not Gass making money. The issue is Gass' rent-seeking.
>
> Not sure what "rent-seeking" means.
>
noun
1.
the fact or practice of manipulating public policy or economic
conditions as a strategy for increasing profits.
"cronyism and rent-seeking have become an integral part of the way our
biggest companies do business"
adjective
1.
engaging in or involving the manipulation of public policy or economic
conditions as a strategy for increasing profits.
"rent-seeking lobbyists"
In article <hoau9clk2urjpaten1c84d0lpc1aajne3g@
4ax.com>, [email protected] says...
>
> On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 06:29:19 -0500, "J. Clarke"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >Yes, child, I know that antiskid existed before
> >Daimler-Benz patented their electronic control
> >system. I have sitting in the driveway right
> >now a 1976 Lincoln with antiskid. However it
> >did not become widely available or popular and
> >there is a reason for that. Antiskid systems
> >using hydaulic logic are not reliable without
> >expert maintenance--they were OK for aircraft,
> >and for Rollers, and for novelty items like the
> >Jensen. But put them on a Volkswagen maintained
> >by your garden variety Hippy and they will
> >fairly quickly die the death.
> >
> >What made them practical was the development of
> >a reliable and effective electronic control
> >system.
> >
> Which even today is beyond the average garden variety hippy. (and not
> terribly reliable either)
The difference is that the hydraulic system has
to be maintained--you have to do stuff to it
regularly or it stops working--the electronic
system in general just works without being
messed with.
> Just google "abs problems".
> I've had sensors fail. I've had reluctor wheels split and spin, split
> and jam, and split and fall off. I've had them rust, and I've had them
> fill with crud between the teeth - all rendering them inneffective.
> I've had wires break and connections corrode.. I've had to replace
> very expensive wheel bearing assemblies because the sensor built into
> them failed.
What do you _do_ to the poor things? The only
ABS maintenance my Jeep has needed in 20 years
was having one cable replaced after it got
snagged on something or other and got physically
ripped off.
> I've had the actuators fail in Myriad different modes, including a
> piston unwinding right off the actuator screw, activators seizing, and
> pump motors (in the activator) burning out. Activator failures are
> very hard to diagnose - in many of the cases no warning lights came on
> - the ABS just stopped working -often along with one half of the
> braking system. On the one with the spun off system I could even bleed
> the brakes, but could never get any pressure - to the point a leaky
> line didn't even show up untill the activator was replaced..
> I've had them so sensitive that replacing a damaged tire with a new
> one after about 10,000km threw the system into a fit, and in much of
> our winter driving conditions it is virtually impossible to stop with
> quite a few vehicles with ABS (particularly with OEM wide tires
> installed - (even all season or snow tires). All ABS does in those
> situations is make sure you hit what you hit square on.
>
> Benz basically put their patent "into the public domain" because they
> knew there were so many ways to re-engineer the system to get around
> their patent that they would spend millions ineffectively trying to
> defend the patent - due in part to the prior state of the science
> which rendered the patent almost undefendable. It had all been done,
> in one way or another, by someone else before them.
> Their releasing the patent just made it a lot simpler for everyone
> else yto move ahead without worrying about patent infringement suites
> like the old Selden Patent fiasco.
Uh, huh, right. So there was not one iotia of
altruism involved, in your opinion.
On 2/15/2017 2:49 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> I am a certified auto mechanic (now retired from the trade) and we
> DID all the maintenance called out for in the book if we could
> convince the customer it was in his best interest. Can't do more than
> the customer authorizes. Most customers did what was recommended but
> some were incredibly CHEAP.
>
The customers are not cheap, they just bought the most car that they
cannot afford. I've heard of repossessed luxury cars that never had an
oil change.
Then you have the dealer. Some get very high prices for routine repairs
and maintenance and try to sell services not needed. Of course there
are some sleazy independent shops too.
On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 05:50:09 -0500, "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <0pd7ac9s88fnd0tnepj4ml6ke6thlogdao@
>4ax.com>, [email protected] says...
>>
>> On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 20:12:38 -0500, "J. Clarke"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <[email protected]>,
>> >[email protected] says...
>> >>
>> >> On 2/13/2017 11:14 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>> >> > In article <[email protected]>,
>> >> > [email protected] says...
>> >>
>> >> >> Not true with my exhaust system. The stainless steel exhaust has never
>> >> >> once been cleaned and it is now 16+ years old, and in the rust belt.
>> >> >> Surely GM could have used the same stuff in the brake lines, which is
>> >> >> magnitudes more important than the exhaust system as far as safety goes.
>> >> >
>> >> > So you never go through a car wash?
>> >>
>> >> Never, at least not with this truck.
>> >>
>> >> > And what pressure does your exhaust have to
>> >> > withstand? What pressure do your brake lines
>> >> > have to withstand?
>> >>
>> >> The break lines have no problem withstanding pressure, until they RUST!
>> >
>> ><sigh>
>> >
>> >Never occurs to you that the stresses something
>> >needs to withstand affect the choice of alloy to
>> >be used, does it?
>> >
>> >As for the rest, why did you buy a GM product to
>> >begin with?
>> The only reason I ever bought a GM product was price - and it sure
>> didn't translate to low COST.
>
>You were an automotive service manager and you
>didn't know better?
Hey, I had this great deal offered to me (after I had left the
dealership) and I figured "what could it hurt" (other than my pride
and my wallet)? Last GM I had owned was a Chevy -'28 AB National, the
one before that a 35 Master, unless you count the '72 Vauxhaul.(which
was actually a pretty darn good car). Figured I'd give another GM a
try - '95 Pontiac TranSport.
BIG mistake.
On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 at 2:43:55 PM UTC-5, [email protected] wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 05:41:45 -0500, "J. Clarke"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >In article <jkd7ac5ofpak6pfr3a3km07p019nfaqir5@
> >4ax.com>, [email protected] says...
> >>
> >> On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 20:10:38 -0500, "J. Clarke"
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <XnsA71C551315151dougmilmaccom@
> >> >213.239.209.88>,
> >> >[email protected] says...
> >> >>
> >> >> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
> >> >> news:[email protected]:
> >> >>
> >> >> > It doesn't matter what the brake lines are made
> >> >> > of, a 16 year old vehicle should have them
> >> >> > inspected and replaced as necessary.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > You're expecting magic materials to take the
> >> >> > place of proper maintenance.
> >> >>
> >> >> Nonsense. Metal brake lines are not a "maintenance" item, even on a 16-yo vehicle.
> >> >
> >> >They are or should be an inspection item.
> >> >
> >> >> In more than forty years of doing the vast majority of my own maintenance and repair, I've
> >> >> had to replace a corroded brake line exactly once: last March, on the Dodge truck which
> >> >> my wife and I bought new shortly after we got married -- in 1985.
> >> >
> >> >That you did your own maintenance and repair
> >> >does not mean that you did it right. Did you
> >> >perform every maintenance item that the service
> >> >manual specified?
> >> I can tell you from years as a mechanic, including dealer service
> >> manager - and the ONLY "maintenance item" to do with brake lines is
> >> changing fluid on a regular basis (every 2 to 5 years, depending) and
> >> inspecting the rubber hoses for cracks or bulges.
> >
> >According to the owner's manual for my car, "at
> >every oil change", "Inspect brake pads, shoes,
> >rotors, drums, brake linings, hoses, and parking
> >brake". Of course it's to your advantage to not
> >check the pads because if they wear out and
> >mangle the rotors then you get to sell the
> >customer rotors in addition to pads. Prince of
> >a guy you are.
> Notice that the steal brake LINES are not mentioned? Brake LININGS
> are friction material. and HOSES are just the flexible rubber bits.
> The hard lines are not mentioned.
My state's Safety Inspection requirements includes this:
"All brake lines and hoses - check for leaks, cracks, chafing, restrictions,
and improper support"
Of course, it also includes this:
"Brake equalization - test vehicle for a straight stop without significant wheel pull."
I don't recall any vehicle I've ever had inspected being driven as part of the
inspection process.
On the other hand, I always have my vehicles inspected by one of my 2 trusted
indys who know that if the vehicle was pulling, I would have told them about it
long before it became a safety Inspection issue.
On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 08:20:23 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
wrote:
SNIPPED
>>>
>>>The catalytic converters, are not different from the ones use to make
>>>sulphuric acid, so we eliminate CO, and make acid that eats metal.
>> No.
>>Since sulphur has been removed from motor fuel there is no sulphuric
>>or sulphurous acid produced by current catalytic converter equipped
>>vehicles, and even standard steel exhausts now outlast the best
>>systems of 25 years ago - while stainless steel systems should be
>>virtually life-time systems. (My GM TranSport had well over half a
>>million KM on the factory system, and it would have likely gone
>>another 500,000km if the vehicle could have kept up to it.
>>My current 21 year old Ford Ranger is at 350,000km and the exhaust is
>>like new, hear in the central Ontario salt-bowl.
>
>I have seen no requirement that sulphur be removed from gasoline in
>the US, what requirements are up north in Canada I can not speak to.
>But unless you remove all the sulphur you still will get sulphuric
>acid.
Well, I guess you haven't looked, have you?
https://www.ec.gc.ca/lcpe-cepa/eng/regulations/DetailReg.cfm?intReg=223
The Regulations Amending the Sulphur in Gasoline Regulations (the SiGR
Amendments) introduce lower limits on the sulphur content of gasoline,
from an average of 30 mg/kg to 10 mg/kg, in alignment with the United
States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) Tier 3 fuel
standards.
For an American source -
https://www.epa.gov/gasoline-standards/gasoline-sulfur
Sulfur is a natural component in crude oil that is present in gasoline
and diesel unless removed. Sulfur in gasoline impairs the
effectiveness of emission control systems and contributes to air
pollution. Reducing the sulfur content in gasoline enables advanced
emission controls and reduces air pollution.
The Tier 2 Gasoline Sulfur program, finalized in 2000, reduced the
sulfur content of gasoline by up to 90 percent, enabling the use of
new emission control technologies in cars and trucks that reduce
harmful air pollution. The Tier 2 program marked the first time EPA
treated vehicles and fuels as a system. The program grew out of a
Clean Air Act requirement that EPA consider the need, feasibility, and
cost-effectiveness of stronger tailpipe emission standards beginning
in 2004. Requirements for use of low-sulfur gasoline enabled use of
advanced emission control systems in cars, pickups, SUVs, and vans
beginning in model year 2004. Vehicles meeting Tier 2 emission
standards are 77 to 95 percent cleaner than earlier models.
Either check your facts or don't bother posting as if you "know"
anything.
On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 19:04:10 -0500, "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] says...
>>
>> On 2/14/2017 8:12 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>> > In article <[email protected]>,
>> > [email protected] says...
>> >>
>> >> On 2/13/2017 11:14 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>> >>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> >>> [email protected] says...
>> >>
>> >>>> Not true with my exhaust system. The stainless steel exhaust has never
>> >>>> once been cleaned and it is now 16+ years old, and in the rust belt.
>> >>>> Surely GM could have used the same stuff in the brake lines, which is
>> >>>> magnitudes more important than the exhaust system as far as safety goes.
>> >>>
>> >>> So you never go through a car wash?
>> >>
>> >> Never, at least not with this truck.
>> >>
>> >>> And what pressure does your exhaust have to
>> >>> withstand? What pressure do your brake lines
>> >>> have to withstand?
>> >>
>> >> The break lines have no problem withstanding pressure, until they RUST!
>> >
>> > <sigh>
>> >
>> > Never occurs to you that the stresses something
>> > needs to withstand affect the choice of alloy to
>> > be used, does it?
>>
>> Of course, which is exactly why brake lines should be made from
>> stainless steel and not from crap that starts to rust 3 minutes after
>> installation.
>
>Which specific alloy of stainless steel should
>be used and why that alloy and not some other
>alloy?
>
>Engineering is always a compromise.
And a major factor in engineering is economics, always a compromise.
On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 16:04:21 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 2/14/2017 3:59 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 11:38:35 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 17:13:59 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/13/2017 10:14 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>>>> [email protected] says...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/12/2017 1:27 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>>>>> GM recalled my truck for the tailgate straps that could (but didn't)
>>>>>>>>> rust. No problem with ABS brake failure, or brake lines rusting out,
>>>>>>>>> but sure wouldn't want tailgate to drop 6 inches. How is it I have
>>>>>>>>> stainless steel exhaust but break lines on every GM product I've owned
>>>>>>>>> have rusted out?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Contrary to popular belief, stainless steel
>>>>>>> corrodes under the right circumstances. If you
>>>>>>> want it to last you have to keep it pretty
>>>>>>> clean.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not true with my exhaust system. The stainless steel exhaust has never
>>>>>> once been cleaned and it is now 16+ years old, and in the rust belt.
>>>>>> Surely GM could have used the same stuff in the brake lines, which is
>>>>>> magnitudes more important than the exhaust system as far as safety goes.
>>>>>
>>>>> So you never go through a car wash?
>>>>
>>>> In the south a good many car washes do not hit the bottom of the
>>>> vehicle, only the wheels/wheel wells and the body.
>>>>
>>>> But the old exhaust systems rusted from within. Lot's of nasty crap
>>>> coming from inside the exhaust including condensation that mixes to form
>>>> some concoction. Remember the sulfur smell that was very common with GM
>>>> vehicles equipped with catalytic converters in the 70's? These systems
>>>> rusted out quickly and then the stainless steel exhaust systems began
>>>> showing up and the problem has virtually gone away down here.
>>>> The old steel exhaust systems looked fine on the outside but with just a
>>>> little pressure with a pair of channel locks and you could easily crush
>>>> and put a hole in the pipe.
>>>
>>> The catalytic converters, are not different from the ones use to make
>>> sulphuric acid, so we eliminate CO, and make acid that eats metal.
>> No.
>> Since sulphur has been removed from motor fuel there is no sulphuric
>> or sulphurous acid produced by current catalytic converter equipped
>> vehicles, and even standard steel exhausts now outlast the best
>> systems of 25 years ago -
>
>The catalytic converters in question were from the mid 70's, not current
>ones. And it was soon after that the exhaust systems were maid from
>stainless steel.
>
>
I'm aware of that.
I just said the guy who claimed the catalytic converters on cars,
and I quote: "make sulphuric acid, so we eliminate CO, and make acid
that eats metal." was wrong - and I explained why. I've worked on and
with emission controlled vehicles for quite some time - MOSTLY back in
the "mid seventies".
Actually, the biggest factor in extended exhaust life - as well as
engine life - in the last 100 years is the removal of tetraethyl lead
from motor fuels, just as the adittion of it to fuel was the single
greatest factor allowing the increase in performance previous to it's
removal.
Electronic engine controls made it possible to get the performance
without the lead.
Phosphorous was required to "purge" the lead and produced a lot of
corrosion causing waste products. - along with the sulphur.
>
On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 05:41:45 -0500, "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <jkd7ac5ofpak6pfr3a3km07p019nfaqir5@
>4ax.com>, [email protected] says...
>>
>> On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 20:10:38 -0500, "J. Clarke"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <XnsA71C551315151dougmilmaccom@
>> >213.239.209.88>,
>> >[email protected] says...
>> >>
>> >> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> >> news:[email protected]:
>> >>
>> >> > It doesn't matter what the brake lines are made
>> >> > of, a 16 year old vehicle should have them
>> >> > inspected and replaced as necessary.
>> >> >
>> >> > You're expecting magic materials to take the
>> >> > place of proper maintenance.
>> >>
>> >> Nonsense. Metal brake lines are not a "maintenance" item, even on a 16-yo vehicle.
>> >
>> >They are or should be an inspection item.
>> >
>> >> In more than forty years of doing the vast majority of my own maintenance and repair, I've
>> >> had to replace a corroded brake line exactly once: last March, on the Dodge truck which
>> >> my wife and I bought new shortly after we got married -- in 1985.
>> >
>> >That you did your own maintenance and repair
>> >does not mean that you did it right. Did you
>> >perform every maintenance item that the service
>> >manual specified?
>> I can tell you from years as a mechanic, including dealer service
>> manager - and the ONLY "maintenance item" to do with brake lines is
>> changing fluid on a regular basis (every 2 to 5 years, depending) and
>> inspecting the rubber hoses for cracks or bulges.
>
>According to the owner's manual for my car, "at
>every oil change", "Inspect brake pads, shoes,
>rotors, drums, brake linings, hoses, and parking
>brake". Of course it's to your advantage to not
>check the pads because if they wear out and
>mangle the rotors then you get to sell the
>customer rotors in addition to pads. Prince of
>a guy you are.
Notice that the steal brake LINES are not mentioned? Brake LININGS
are friction material. and HOSES are just the flexible rubber bits.
The hard lines are not mentioned.
On 2/17/2017 10:56 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 11:47:28 -0500, Jack <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 2/16/2017 6:19 PM, Leon wrote:
>>> On 2/16/2017 10:17 AM, Jack wrote:
>>>> On 2/14/2017 9:07 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I was told that the brake fluid should be replaced on shedule to keep
>>>>> the brake lines from rotting out.
>>>>
>>>> First I ever heard of that.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Brake fluid absorbs moisture. When the master cylinder gets low,
>>> because it is not topped of on regular intervals, It becomes
>>> contaminated from the moisture in the air. If you have ever rebuilt
>>> wheel cylinders or a disk brake caliper, always lubricated with brake
>>> fluid, you will often find pitting on the cylinder walls. That is from
>>> the moisture in the brake fluid.
>>
>> In my youth I rebuilt plenty of them. Rebuilt plenty of engines as well.
>> Still, I never replaced brake fluid as routine maintenance ever, never
>> had a garage or dealer advise me to have brake fluid replaced either.
>> My GM dealer last time I was there had a 5 foot sign advising to have
>> your cooling system flushed and new anti freeze for some ridiculous
>> price, but not a word on replacing brake fluid.
>>
>> Perhaps their keeping it a secret so your brake lines will rust out and
>> they'll sell more cars when you run into the back of another car. Just
>> another planned obsolescence scheme?
>
> Or perhaps you don't listen?
>
Or perhaps I do!
--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com
On 2/18/17 7:15 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>
> One exception was early VW Rabbits where the brake lines ran inside
> the car, under the "horsehair" noise cushion - which got soaked when
> the cowl leaked up around the windshield. The fuse panels corroded
> out, the brake lines rotted out, and so did the floor.
> Really a LOUSY design.
>
This brings back memories!
A buddy back in college had a Floridian Rabbit, '75 I think. Total rust
bucket. As the car coughed and sputtered, dropping chunks of rust onto
the road, my buddies and I riding along would nod at each other and say
"farfegnugen, cool!"
-BR
On 2/19/2017 9:37 AM, Brewster wrote:
> On 2/18/17 7:15 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>
>> One exception was early VW Rabbits where the brake lines ran inside
>> the car, under the "horsehair" noise cushion - which got soaked when
>> the cowl leaked up around the windshield. The fuse panels corroded
>> out, the brake lines rotted out, and so did the floor.
>> Really a LOUSY design.
>>
>
> This brings back memories!
>
> A buddy back in college had a Floridian Rabbit, '75 I think. Total rust
> bucket. As the car coughed and sputtered, dropping chunks of rust onto
> the road, my buddies and I riding along would nod at each other and say
> "farfegnugen, cool!"
My wife bought a '79 Honda Accord. It was car of the year. Nice car but
a total rust bucket. EVERYTHING rusted out. Hood, fenders, gas tank,
Strut suspension. I thought my '55 Ford Crown Vic was a rust bucket,
not even close. Honda fixed most of it under warranty, had to lose
money on that one. How does a hood rust? So much for Car of the year crap.
--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com
On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 11:47:28 -0500, Jack <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 2/16/2017 6:19 PM, Leon wrote:
>> On 2/16/2017 10:17 AM, Jack wrote:
>>> On 2/14/2017 9:07 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>> I was told that the brake fluid should be replaced on shedule to keep
>>>> the brake lines from rotting out.
>>>
>>> First I ever heard of that.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Brake fluid absorbs moisture. When the master cylinder gets low,
>> because it is not topped of on regular intervals, It becomes
>> contaminated from the moisture in the air. If you have ever rebuilt
>> wheel cylinders or a disk brake caliper, always lubricated with brake
>> fluid, you will often find pitting on the cylinder walls. That is from
>> the moisture in the brake fluid.
>
>In my youth I rebuilt plenty of them. Rebuilt plenty of engines as well.
>Still, I never replaced brake fluid as routine maintenance ever, never
>had a garage or dealer advise me to have brake fluid replaced either.
>My GM dealer last time I was there had a 5 foot sign advising to have
>your cooling system flushed and new anti freeze for some ridiculous
>price, but not a word on replacing brake fluid.
>
>Perhaps their keeping it a secret so your brake lines will rust out and
>they'll sell more cars when you run into the back of another car. Just
>another planned obsolescence scheme?
Or perhaps you don't listen?
On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 05:56:27 -0500, "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <jkd7ac5ofpak6pfr3a3km07p019nfaqir5@
>4ax.com>, [email protected] says...
>>
>> On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 20:10:38 -0500, "J. Clarke"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <XnsA71C551315151dougmilmaccom@
>> >213.239.209.88>,
>> >[email protected] says...
>> >>
>> >> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> >> news:[email protected]:
>> >>
>> >> > It doesn't matter what the brake lines are made
>> >> > of, a 16 year old vehicle should have them
>> >> > inspected and replaced as necessary.
>> >> >
>> >> > You're expecting magic materials to take the
>> >> > place of proper maintenance.
>> >>
>> >> Nonsense. Metal brake lines are not a "maintenance" item, even on a 16-yo vehicle.
>> >
>> >They are or should be an inspection item.
>> >
>> >> In more than forty years of doing the vast majority of my own maintenance and repair, I've
>> >> had to replace a corroded brake line exactly once: last March, on the Dodge truck which
>> >> my wife and I bought new shortly after we got married -- in 1985.
>> >
>> >That you did your own maintenance and repair
>> >does not mean that you did it right. Did you
>> >perform every maintenance item that the service
>> >manual specified?
>> I can tell you from years as a mechanic, including dealer service
>> manager - and the ONLY "maintenance item" to do with brake lines is
>> changing fluid on a regular basis (every 2 to 5 years, depending) and
>> inspecting the rubber hoses for cracks or bulges.
>
>That's not what my owners' manual says. However
>I have never seen a dealer service department
>actually DO all the maintenance items that are
>called out in the book.
>
>By the way, are you a certified mechanic, or
>just a pointy-haired boss?
I am a certifiead auto mechanic (now retired from the trade) and we
DID all the maintenance called out for in the book if we could
convince the customer it was in his best interest. Can't do more than
the customer authorizes. Most customers did what was recommended but
some were incredibly CHEAP.
On Sat, 18 Feb 2017 13:11:04 -0500, Jack <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 2/16/2017 1:57 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 11:17:16 -0500, Jack <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/14/2017 9:07 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>> I was told that the brake fluid should be replaced on shedule to keep
>>>> the brake lines from rotting out.
>>>
>>> First I ever heard of that.
>> Brake fluid is hygroscopic - it attracts moisture -and the moisture
>> can cause corrosion inside the lines and cyls. The water tends to end
>> up in the low spots. On newer vehicles where the master reservoirs are
>> sealed much better thasn in the past (with rubber bellows etc) it is a
>> LITTLE less critical (3 years rather than 2 often recommended). The
>> new synthetic brake fluids stand up a wee bit better too.
>>
>It appears to me, from looking at rusted brake lines that they are not
>rusting from the inside out, but from the outside in.
You are correct. Most of the reust is from outside in - and most where
the like is either running through a chassis memner, running through a
clip, or is an area where mud and salt and other crap gets trapped -
holding moisture to the line.
One exception was early VW Rabbits where the brake lines ran inside
the car, under the "horsehair" noise cushion - which got soaked when
the cowl leaked up around the windshield. The fuse panels corroded
out, the brake lines rotted out, and so did the floor.
Really a LOUSY design.
> This would make
>sense as even if Brake fluid is hygroscopic, air would be needed to get
>them to rust. Shouldn't be too much air in brake lines. Also, someone
>told me they painted their brake lines with Z-bart stuff, and never had
>one rust out since doing that...
>
I even know guys who just took a tube of synthetic grease and smeared
it over all the vulnerable parts. Not rocket science to prevent the
failure - yet the manufacturers have not gotten it figured out yet.
>My guess is Stainless lines would not rust. Not sure how much pressure
>is in a brake line, but shouldn't be all that much. Looking around
>seems about a max of 2000psi, not much and easily accommodated with even
>thin wall stainless tubing.
On 2/12/2017 2:13 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 10:45:25 -0800 (PST), "[email protected]"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 10:54:04 AM UTC-6, Leon wrote:
>>>
>>> I mentioned the recyclable trash bags that the City of Houlston requires
>>> for yard waste. they are patented and required by the city if you are
>>> going to throw away yard waste.
>>>
>>> While not a vehicle component it is an example of a product that has to
>>> be used with the city's approval code, if you are going to throw yard
>>> refuse away.
>>
>> I guess the refuse bags sort of, kind of meet what I was asking. Although I doubt plastic bags are patented. They are specifically marked for Houston use. But anyone could make a similar bag out of petroleum and put the same markings on the bag and sell it for refuse use in Houston. And I suspect other landfills in your area or another county will accept yard waste without the specific Houston bag. I'm guessing the bags are required only if you want the city of Houston to pick up the waste from your curb. You are buying their service and are required to use their procedures. When I buy my cable TV I have to use their receiver box. With waste pickup its built into the water bill you get each month so not really a choice. In my city for picking up Christmas trees on the curb you have to buy a special ribbon and tie it onto the tree for the city workers to pick up the tree. Can't remember how we do yard waste. Might be the same as Houston.
> The bags are not made of petro-plastic. They are (at least the ones
> we use here for composible refuse - food waste etc) made of corn or
> soy and are fully biodegradable. And they ARE patented (AT least the
> plastic they are made of is) and the few companies authorized to make
> them DO have an "enforced monopoly"
> For yard waste we have to use multi-layer paper bags which are widely
> available from many suppliers and retailers.
>
And doesn't seem only natural to use paper bags... follow the money to
see why patented city approved bags are the only ones you can use....
On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 06:29:19 -0500, "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Yes, child, I know that antiskid existed before
>Daimler-Benz patented their electronic control
>system. I have sitting in the driveway right
>now a 1976 Lincoln with antiskid. However it
>did not become widely available or popular and
>there is a reason for that. Antiskid systems
>using hydaulic logic are not reliable without
>expert maintenance--they were OK for aircraft,
>and for Rollers, and for novelty items like the
>Jensen. But put them on a Volkswagen maintained
>by your garden variety Hippy and they will
>fairly quickly die the death.
>
>What made them practical was the development of
>a reliable and effective electronic control
>system.
>
Which even today is beyond the average garden variety hippy. (and not
terribly reliable either) Just google "abs problems".
I've had sensors fail. I've had reluctor wheels split and spin, split
and jam, and split and fall off. I've had them rust, and I've had them
fill with crud between the teeth - all rendering them inneffective.
I've had wires break and connections corrode.. I've had to replace
very expensive wheel bearing assemblies because the sensor built into
them failed.
I've had the actuators fail in Myriad different modes, including a
piston unwinding right off the actuator screw, activators seizing, and
pump motors (in the activator) burning out. Activator failures are
very hard to diagnose - in many of the cases no warning lights came on
- the ABS just stopped working -often along with one half of the
braking system. On the one with the spun off system I could even bleed
the brakes, but could never get any pressure - to the point a leaky
line didn't even show up untill the activator was replaced..
I've had them so sensitive that replacing a damaged tire with a new
one after about 10,000km threw the system into a fit, and in much of
our winter driving conditions it is virtually impossible to stop with
quite a few vehicles with ABS (particularly with OEM wide tires
installed - (even all season or snow tires). All ABS does in those
situations is make sure you hit what you hit square on.
Benz basically put their patent "into the public domain" because they
knew there were so many ways to re-engineer the system to get around
their patent that they would spend millions ineffectively trying to
defend the patent - due in part to the prior state of the science
which rendered the patent almost undefendable. It had all been done,
in one way or another, by someone else before them.
Their releasing the patent just made it a lot simpler for everyone
else yto move ahead without worrying about patent infringement suites
like the old Selden Patent fiasco.
On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 19:18:00 -0500, woodchucker <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On 2/16/2017 11:04 AM, Jack wrote:
>> On 2/14/2017 8:12 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>> [email protected] says...
>>>>
>>>> On 2/13/2017 11:14 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>>>> [email protected] says...
>>>>
>>>>>> Not true with my exhaust system. The stainless steel exhaust has
>>>>>> never
>>>>>> once been cleaned and it is now 16+ years old, and in the rust belt.
>>>>>> Surely GM could have used the same stuff in the brake lines, which is
>>>>>> magnitudes more important than the exhaust system as far as safety
>>>>>> goes.
>>>>>
>>>>> So you never go through a car wash?
>>>>
>>>> Never, at least not with this truck.
>>>>
>>>>> And what pressure does your exhaust have to
>>>>> withstand? What pressure do your brake lines
>>>>> have to withstand?
>>>>
>>>> The break lines have no problem withstanding pressure, until they RUST!
>>>
>>> <sigh>
>>>
>>> Never occurs to you that the stresses something
>>> needs to withstand affect the choice of alloy to
>>> be used, does it?
>>
>> Of course, which is exactly why brake lines should be made from
>> stainless steel and not from crap that starts to rust 3 minutes after
>> installation.
>>
>>> As for the rest, why did you buy a GM product to
>>> begin with?
>>
>> At the time I didn't know I would be risking my life on substandard GM
>> breaking systems.
>>
>
>Chrysler does the same, steel, my BIL was driving his PU truck and went
>to hit the brakes.... NOTHING.. the lines blew from rust.
>
>Not sure how the Japanese cars treat their brake components.
They fail too. The lines look perfect, but where they pass through
the clips that hold them to the chassis they rust through. A squirt of
"fluid film" at each clip twice a year will make them last forever.
Fuel lines too
On 2/15/2017 9:20 AM, Markem wrote:
>
> I have seen no requirement that sulphur be removed from gasoline in
> the US, what requirements are up north in Canada I can not speak to.
> But unless you remove all the sulphur you still will get sulphuric
> acid.
>
https://www.epa.gov/gasoline-standards/gasoline-sulfur
Like the Tier 2 program, the Tier 3 program considers the vehicle and
its fuel as an integrated system to reduce the impacts of motor vehicles
on air quality and public health. The program sets new vehicle emissions
standards and lowers the sulfur content of gasoline to a maximum of
10ppm beginning in 2017. The vehicle standards will reduce both tailpipe
and evaporative emissions from passenger cars, light-duty trucks,
medium-duty passenger vehicles, and some heavy-duty vehicles. The
gasoline sulfur standard will enable more stringent vehicle emissions
standards and will make emissions control systems more effective. It
will also reduce the emissions of the existing fleet of vehicles.
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> On 2/16/2017 10:39 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> > On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 19:18:00 -0500, woodchucker <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 2/16/2017 11:04 AM, Jack wrote:
> >>> On 2/14/2017 8:12 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> >>>> In article <[email protected]>,
> >>>> [email protected] says...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 2/13/2017 11:14 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> >>>>>> In article <[email protected]>,
> >>>>>> [email protected] says...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> Not true with my exhaust system. The stainless steel exhaust has
> >>>>>>> never
> >>>>>>> once been cleaned and it is now 16+ years old, and in the rust belt.
> >>>>>>> Surely GM could have used the same stuff in the brake lines, which is
> >>>>>>> magnitudes more important than the exhaust system as far as safety
> >>>>>>> goes.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> So you never go through a car wash?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Never, at least not with this truck.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> And what pressure does your exhaust have to
> >>>>>> withstand? What pressure do your brake lines
> >>>>>> have to withstand?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The break lines have no problem withstanding pressure, until they RUST!
> >>>>
> >>>> <sigh>
> >>>>
> >>>> Never occurs to you that the stresses something
> >>>> needs to withstand affect the choice of alloy to
> >>>> be used, does it?
> >>>
> >>> Of course, which is exactly why brake lines should be made from
> >>> stainless steel and not from crap that starts to rust 3 minutes after
> >>> installation.
> >>>
> >>>> As for the rest, why did you buy a GM product to
> >>>> begin with?
> >>>
> >>> At the time I didn't know I would be risking my life on substandard GM
> >>> breaking systems.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Chrysler does the same, steel, my BIL was driving his PU truck and went
> >> to hit the brakes.... NOTHING.. the lines blew from rust.
> >>
> >> Not sure how the Japanese cars treat their brake components.
> > They fail too. The lines look perfect, but where they pass through
> > the clips that hold them to the chassis they rust through. A squirt of
> > "fluid film" at each clip twice a year will make them last forever.
> > Fuel lines too
> >
> Thy must not be made of stainless, as we now know how that rusts.
I had to look up "Fluid Film", which appears to
be a water repellant waxy lubricant. The clips
are a typical environment for crevice corrosion
and something like Fluid Film would potentially
be a good countermeasure.
On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 11:17:16 -0500, Jack <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 2/14/2017 9:07 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>
>> I was told that the brake fluid should be replaced on shedule to keep
>> the brake lines from rotting out.
>
>First I ever heard of that.
Brake fluid is hygroscopic - it attracts moisture -and the moisture
can cause corrosion inside the lines and cyls. The water tends to end
up in the low spots. On newer vehicles where the master reservoirs are
sealed much better thasn in the past (with rubber bellows etc) it is a
LITTLE less critical (3 years rather than 2 often recommended). The
new synthetic brake fluids stand up a wee bit better too.
On Tue, 21 Feb 2017 23:11:34 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>On Tue, 21 Feb 2017 16:57:01 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 21 Feb 2017 13:42:45 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 21 Feb 2017 11:31:23 -0500, Jack <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 2/20/2017 1:50 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 10:07:21 -0500, Jack <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> I bought a 1978 GMC Van, and it didn't rust out after about 15 years. I
>>>>>> had it Z-barted immediately after purchase though.
>>>>>
>>>>> Might have been your salvation, but SOME of the Ziebart treatments
>>>>> just guaranteed the vehicle WOULD rust - by blocking drainage holes,
>>>>> and flaking loose after any damage, trapping moisture and salt between
>>>>> the ziebart film and the metal. Has a LOT of "Ziebart Initiated Rust
>>>>> Perforation " up here in those years.
>>>>
>>>>I had a bunch of people tell me that, and is the exact reason I didn't
>>>>get my GMC pick up Z-Barted. Biggest mistake I ever made. My brother
>>>>has a '95 Ford PU he had Z-barted and it looks brand new. One quarter
>>>>panel rusts every other year, and the Z-bart guy fixes it free.
>>>
>>>Z-Bart of the '90s was much different than the Z-Bart of the '70s. It
>>>shouldn't be necessary for most vehicles (galvanized panels) but it
>>>wouldn't surprise me if GM cut corners.
>>>>
>>>>What really pisses me off is I really, really like my off road, 4 wheel
>>>>drive, extended cab with towing package GMC truck. It's drive train is
>>>>perfect, never had and engine or transmission problem. I put almost no
>>>>miles on it now that I'm old, and would love to keep it the rest of my
>>>>days. Not sure it will not turn into a pile of rust first. I can't
>>>>justify buying another since I don't drive it much anymore, and won't
>>>>likely be around anyway. The same truck today is around 50g's I think.
>>>>Hard to decide, although I would likely will go with a good American
>>>>truck, a Toyota...
>>>
>>>I went with an F150 because it was at least $15K less than the
>>>competition and just a good, if not better. I don't live in rust
>>>country anymore so that wasn't an issue.
>> And a Ram would have been about the same amount less than the F.
>
>I call bullshit on that one. I haven't seen a new truck with a price
>tag of $10K for a *long* time. I wouldn't buy a Chrysler product if
>there were no other choice.
Your choice.
Based on the lowest cost full-sized 1/2 ton truck offering in Canadian
prices in 2016 they rank like this:
Dodge Ram $19995, F150 $19,999, Toyota Tundra 26750, GM $27207, and
Nissan Titan $33898.
Dolled up, Titan $39898, Ram $42595, GM $43875, Tundra $53780, and
F150, WAY up there at $68195.
That's all 2wd gasoline engine.
So not quite as much of a jump at base price, but on a medium priced
version the Ford and GM get a LOT closer together, A mid range Ram is
$31k-ish, GM is 35K-ish and Ford is $45k-ish.
I've had Dodge, GM and Ford - The only one I wouldn't buy is the GM.
On 2017-02-16, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
> AIUI, brake fluid is hygroscopic.
Depends on the type
DOT5 brake fluid is hydrophobic:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brake_fluid#Boiling_point
nb
On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 16:59:42 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 11:38:35 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 17:13:59 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On 2/13/2017 10:14 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>>> [email protected] says...
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2/12/2017 1:27 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>>>> GM recalled my truck for the tailgate straps that could (but didn't)
>>>>>>>> rust. No problem with ABS brake failure, or brake lines rusting out,
>>>>>>>> but sure wouldn't want tailgate to drop 6 inches. How is it I have
>>>>>>>> stainless steel exhaust but break lines on every GM product I've owned
>>>>>>>> have rusted out?
>>>>>
>>>>>> Contrary to popular belief, stainless steel
>>>>>> corrodes under the right circumstances. If you
>>>>>> want it to last you have to keep it pretty
>>>>>> clean.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not true with my exhaust system. The stainless steel exhaust has never
>>>>> once been cleaned and it is now 16+ years old, and in the rust belt.
>>>>> Surely GM could have used the same stuff in the brake lines, which is
>>>>> magnitudes more important than the exhaust system as far as safety goes.
>>>>
>>>> So you never go through a car wash?
>>>
>>>In the south a good many car washes do not hit the bottom of the
>>>vehicle, only the wheels/wheel wells and the body.
>>>
>>>But the old exhaust systems rusted from within. Lot's of nasty crap
>>>coming from inside the exhaust including condensation that mixes to form
>>>some concoction. Remember the sulfur smell that was very common with GM
>>>vehicles equipped with catalytic converters in the 70's? These systems
>>>rusted out quickly and then the stainless steel exhaust systems began
>>>showing up and the problem has virtually gone away down here.
>>>The old steel exhaust systems looked fine on the outside but with just a
>>>little pressure with a pair of channel locks and you could easily crush
>>>and put a hole in the pipe.
>>
>>The catalytic converters, are not different from the ones use to make
>>sulphuric acid, so we eliminate CO, and make acid that eats metal.
> No.
>Since sulphur has been removed from motor fuel there is no sulphuric
>or sulphurous acid produced by current catalytic converter equipped
>vehicles, and even standard steel exhausts now outlast the best
>systems of 25 years ago - while stainless steel systems should be
>virtually life-time systems. (My GM TranSport had well over half a
>million KM on the factory system, and it would have likely gone
>another 500,000km if the vehicle could have kept up to it.
>My current 21 year old Ford Ranger is at 350,000km and the exhaust is
>like new, hear in the central Ontario salt-bowl.
I have seen no requirement that sulphur be removed from gasoline in
the US, what requirements are up north in Canada I can not speak to.
But unless you remove all the sulphur you still will get sulphuric
acid.
On 2/17/2017 6:26 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>> Not sure how the Japanese cars treat their brake components.
>>> They fail too. The lines look perfect, but where they pass through
>>> the clips that hold them to the chassis they rust through. A squirt of
>>> "fluid film" at each clip twice a year will make them last forever.
>>> Fuel lines too
>>>
>> Thy must not be made of stainless, as we now know how that rusts.
>
> I had to look up "Fluid Film", which appears to
> be a water repellant waxy lubricant. The clips
> are a typical environment for crevice corrosion
> and something like Fluid Film would potentially
> be a good countermeasure.
>
The solution is simple rally. You just have to use a non-corrosive
material. I had my brake lines gold plated. So far, no corrosion.
Looks good when the car is up on a lift too!
On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 16:59:42 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 11:38:35 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 17:13:59 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On 2/13/2017 10:14 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>>> [email protected] says...
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2/12/2017 1:27 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>>>> GM recalled my truck for the tailgate straps that could (but didn't)
>>>>>>>> rust. No problem with ABS brake failure, or brake lines rusting out,
>>>>>>>> but sure wouldn't want tailgate to drop 6 inches. How is it I have
>>>>>>>> stainless steel exhaust but break lines on every GM product I've owned
>>>>>>>> have rusted out?
>>>>>
>>>>>> Contrary to popular belief, stainless steel
>>>>>> corrodes under the right circumstances. If you
>>>>>> want it to last you have to keep it pretty
>>>>>> clean.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not true with my exhaust system. The stainless steel exhaust has never
>>>>> once been cleaned and it is now 16+ years old, and in the rust belt.
>>>>> Surely GM could have used the same stuff in the brake lines, which is
>>>>> magnitudes more important than the exhaust system as far as safety goes.
>>>>
>>>> So you never go through a car wash?
>>>
>>>In the south a good many car washes do not hit the bottom of the
>>>vehicle, only the wheels/wheel wells and the body.
>>>
>>>But the old exhaust systems rusted from within. Lot's of nasty crap
>>>coming from inside the exhaust including condensation that mixes to form
>>>some concoction. Remember the sulfur smell that was very common with GM
>>>vehicles equipped with catalytic converters in the 70's? These systems
>>>rusted out quickly and then the stainless steel exhaust systems began
>>>showing up and the problem has virtually gone away down here.
>>>The old steel exhaust systems looked fine on the outside but with just a
>>>little pressure with a pair of channel locks and you could easily crush
>>>and put a hole in the pipe.
>>
>>The catalytic converters, are not different from the ones use to make
>>sulphuric acid, so we eliminate CO, and make acid that eats metal.
> No.
>Since sulphur has been removed from motor fuel there is no sulphuric
>or sulphurous acid produced by current catalytic converter equipped
>vehicles, and even standard steel exhausts now outlast the best
>systems of 25 years ago - while stainless steel systems should be
>virtually life-time systems. (My GM TranSport had well over half a
>million KM on the factory system, and it would have likely gone
>another 500,000km if the vehicle could have kept up to it.
>My current 21 year old Ford Ranger is at 350,000km and the exhaust is
>like new, hear in the central Ontario salt-bowl.
My Ranger's frame only made it through ten Vermont salt seasons and
three in the South (with just at half that distance driven). The
exhaust was still orignal but the brake lines went the year before the
frame.
On 2/15/2017 12:18 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 2/15/2017 9:20 AM, Markem wrote:
>
>>
>> I have seen no requirement that sulphur be removed from gasoline in
>> the US, what requirements are up north in Canada I can not speak to.
>> But unless you remove all the sulphur you still will get sulphuric
>> acid.
>>
>
> https://www.epa.gov/gasoline-standards/gasoline-sulfur
>
> Like the Tier 2 program, the Tier 3 program considers the vehicle and
> its fuel as an integrated system to reduce the impacts of motor vehicles
> on air quality and public health. The program sets new vehicle emissions
> standards and lowers the sulfur content of gasoline to a maximum of
> 10ppm beginning in 2017. The vehicle standards will reduce both tailpipe
> and evaporative emissions from passenger cars, light-duty trucks,
> medium-duty passenger vehicles, and some heavy-duty vehicles. The
> gasoline sulfur standard will enable more stringent vehicle emissions
> standards and will make emissions control systems more effective. It
> will also reduce the emissions of the existing fleet of vehicles.
Yet, they don't give a damn if your brake lines rot out, or ABS fires
off randomly, reducing braking distance in half... Cool beans....
--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com
Jack wrote:
>
> Yet, they don't give a damn if your brake lines rot out, or ABS fires
> off randomly, reducing braking distance in half... Cool beans....
>
It was my summation that they realize that it is not in their best
interest to build cars that "last forever". This situation seemed to
improve when some of the Asian competition started making them look bad.
On 2/16/2017 4:58 PM, Bill wrote:
> Jack wrote:
>>
>> Yet, they don't give a damn if your brake lines rot out, or ABS fires
>> off randomly, reducing braking distance in half... Cool beans....
>>
>
> It was my summation that they realize that it is not in their best
> interest to build cars that "last forever". This situation seemed to
> improve when some of the Asian competition started making them look bad.
Killing off their customers would not seem a good way to prevent cars
from lasting forever. Bumpers, rocker panels, quarter panels tailgate
cables etc. rusting out would seem a better way to go than brake
failure, at least to me...
I'm certainly not too worried about VW fudging a bit on the MPG, yet
they get fined a $Billion or so for that.
I think GM should be fined a few Billion for the faulty brake system on
their cars, and VW should just get mentioned on page 20 of the
Washington Post.
--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com
On 2/16/2017 10:39 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 19:18:00 -0500, woodchucker <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2/16/2017 11:04 AM, Jack wrote:
>>> On 2/14/2017 8:12 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>>> [email protected] says...
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2/13/2017 11:14 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>>>>> [email protected] says...
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not true with my exhaust system. The stainless steel exhaust has
>>>>>>> never
>>>>>>> once been cleaned and it is now 16+ years old, and in the rust belt.
>>>>>>> Surely GM could have used the same stuff in the brake lines, which is
>>>>>>> magnitudes more important than the exhaust system as far as safety
>>>>>>> goes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So you never go through a car wash?
>>>>>
>>>>> Never, at least not with this truck.
>>>>>
>>>>>> And what pressure does your exhaust have to
>>>>>> withstand? What pressure do your brake lines
>>>>>> have to withstand?
>>>>>
>>>>> The break lines have no problem withstanding pressure, until they RUST!
>>>>
>>>> <sigh>
>>>>
>>>> Never occurs to you that the stresses something
>>>> needs to withstand affect the choice of alloy to
>>>> be used, does it?
>>>
>>> Of course, which is exactly why brake lines should be made from
>>> stainless steel and not from crap that starts to rust 3 minutes after
>>> installation.
>>>
>>>> As for the rest, why did you buy a GM product to
>>>> begin with?
>>>
>>> At the time I didn't know I would be risking my life on substandard GM
>>> breaking systems.
>>>
>>
>> Chrysler does the same, steel, my BIL was driving his PU truck and went
>> to hit the brakes.... NOTHING.. the lines blew from rust.
>>
>> Not sure how the Japanese cars treat their brake components.
> They fail too. The lines look perfect, but where they pass through
> the clips that hold them to the chassis they rust through. A squirt of
> "fluid film" at each clip twice a year will make them last forever.
> Fuel lines too
>
Thy must not be made of stainless, as we now know how that rusts.
--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com
On 2/16/2017 1:57 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 11:17:16 -0500, Jack <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 2/14/2017 9:07 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>> I was told that the brake fluid should be replaced on shedule to keep
>>> the brake lines from rotting out.
>>
>> First I ever heard of that.
> Brake fluid is hygroscopic - it attracts moisture -and the moisture
> can cause corrosion inside the lines and cyls. The water tends to end
> up in the low spots. On newer vehicles where the master reservoirs are
> sealed much better thasn in the past (with rubber bellows etc) it is a
> LITTLE less critical (3 years rather than 2 often recommended). The
> new synthetic brake fluids stand up a wee bit better too.
>
It appears to me, from looking at rusted brake lines that they are not
rusting from the inside out, but from the outside in. This would make
sense as even if Brake fluid is hygroscopic, air would be needed to get
them to rust. Shouldn't be too much air in brake lines. Also, someone
told me they painted their brake lines with Z-bart stuff, and never had
one rust out since doing that...
My guess is Stainless lines would not rust. Not sure how much pressure
is in a brake line, but shouldn't be all that much. Looking around
seems about a max of 2000psi, not much and easily accommodated with even
thin wall stainless tubing.
--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com
> On 2/16/2017 1:57 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 11:17:16 -0500, Jack <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/14/2017 9:07 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>> I was told that the brake fluid should be replaced on shedule to keep
>>>> the brake lines from rotting out.
>>>
>>> First I ever heard of that.
>> Brake fluid is hygroscopic - it attracts moisture -and the moisture
>> can cause corrosion inside the lines and cyls. The water tends to end
>> up in the low spots. On newer vehicles where the master reservoirs are
>> sealed much better thasn in the past (with rubber bellows etc) it is a
>> LITTLE less critical (3 years rather than 2 often recommended). The
>> new synthetic brake fluids stand up a wee bit better too.
>>
>
This was a few years ago, but I remember the old standby DOT 3 fluid
(maybe DOT 4?) was considered permanent and was not prone to being
hydroscopic. The newer fluids, synthetic (DOT 5 ?) was very prone to
absorbing moisture and had to be changed regularly. Given the much
higher cost and no real advantage for non-performance driving. the idea
of "upgrading" soon left my thoughts.
I had a number of vehicles from the 60's and 70's, all with non
stainless lines. Never any problems (though these were all southwest
vehicles).
-BR
On 2/19/2017 9:31 AM, Brewster wrote:
> This was a few years ago, but I remember the old standby DOT 3 fluid
> (maybe DOT 4?) was considered permanent and was not prone to being
> hydroscopic. The newer fluids, synthetic (DOT 5 ?) was very prone to
> absorbing moisture and had to be changed regularly. Given the much
> higher cost and no real advantage for non-performance driving. the idea
> of "upgrading" soon left my thoughts.
> I had a number of vehicles from the 60's and 70's, all with non
> stainless lines. Never any problems (though these were all southwest
> vehicles).
Same here, except my vehicles were in the rust belt, and started in the
50's rather than the 60's. Actually my first car was a '49 Dodge Truck.
Everything in Cars from the '50s rusted except the frame and break lines.
Even if newer fluid is more hygroscopic, I still think the rust is
coming from the outside, not the inside of the lines.
IF the newer fluid was causing brake line failure, you might think Big
Brother would be all over it, like they got over freon in air
conditioners, or VW for fudging the MPG stats.
--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com
On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 11:17:16 -0500, Jack <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 2/14/2017 9:07 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>
>> I was told that the brake fluid should be replaced on shedule to keep
>> the brake lines from rotting out.
>
>First I ever heard of that.
AIUI, brake fluid is hygroscopic.
On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 13:48:02 -0500, Bill <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> On 2/11/2017 12:57 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 9:55:24 PM UTC-6, [email protected]
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Driving has long been considered a privelege, not a right. Your
>>>> comparison doesn't hold water.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Do you consider using a table saw a right? I'd classify it as a
>>> privilege too. There is some document written hundreds of years ago
>>> talking about the pursuit of happiness. Maybe table saws fall under
>>> that saying. Using table saws is a privilege. The government can
>>> mandate insurance and/or safety devices.
>>
>> I see it as a right.
>
>Your insurance company could say they wouldn't accept liability
>associated with it.
Of course they can. They can refuse to insure my life, too. What
exactly is you point?
>
>
>> There are no laws governing how I use it, no requirements or
>> registration to buy one. I can use it for personal pleasure or as a
>> tool to earn a living. Show me the government mandates.
On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 10:45:25 -0800 (PST), "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 10:54:04 AM UTC-6, Leon wrote:
>>
>> I mentioned the recyclable trash bags that the City of Houlston requires
>> for yard waste. they are patented and required by the city if you are
>> going to throw away yard waste.
>>
>> While not a vehicle component it is an example of a product that has to
>> be used with the city's approval code, if you are going to throw yard
>> refuse away.
>
>I guess the refuse bags sort of, kind of meet what I was asking. Although I doubt plastic bags are patented. They are specifically marked for Houston use. But anyone could make a similar bag out of petroleum and put the same markings on the bag and sell it for refuse use in Houston. And I suspect other landfills in your area or another county will accept yard waste without the specific Houston bag. I'm guessing the bags are required only if you want the city of Houston to pick up the waste from your curb. You are buying their service and are required to use their procedures. When I buy my cable TV I have to use their receiver box. With waste pickup its built into the water bill you get each month so not really a choice. In my city for picking up Christmas trees on the curb you have to buy a special ribbon and tie it onto the tree for the city workers to pick up the tree. Can't remember how we do yard waste. Might be the same as Houston.
The bags are not made of petro-plastic. They are (at least the ones
we use here for composible refuse - food waste etc) made of corn or
soy and are fully biodegradable. And they ARE patented (AT least the
plastic they are made of is) and the few companies authorized to make
them DO have an "enforced monopoly"
For yard waste we have to use multi-layer paper bags which are widely
available from many suppliers and retailers.
On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 10:45:25 -0800 (PST), "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 10:54:04 AM UTC-6, Leon wrote:
>>
>> I mentioned the recyclable trash bags that the City of Houlston requires
>> for yard waste. they are patented and required by the city if you are
>> going to throw away yard waste.
>>
>> While not a vehicle component it is an example of a product that has to
>> be used with the city's approval code, if you are going to throw yard
>> refuse away.
>
>I guess the refuse bags sort of, kind of meet what I was asking. Although I doubt plastic bags are patented. They are specifically marked for Houston use. But anyone could make a similar bag out of petroleum and put the same markings on the bag and sell it for refuse use in Houston. And I suspect other landfills in your area or another county will accept yard waste without the specific Houston bag. I'm guessing the bags are required only if you want the city of Houston to pick up the waste from your curb. You are buying their service and are required to use their procedures. When I buy my cable TV I have to use their receiver box. With waste pickup its built into the water bill you get each month so not really a choice. In my city for picking up Christmas trees on the curb you have to buy a special ribbon and tie it onto the tree for the city workers to pick up the tree. Can't remember how we do yard waste. Might be the same as Houston.
Why would you believe that plastic bags couldn't be patented. I can
easily imagine that a patent would be granted on some greenie
bio-degradable, not-from-oil, bag or the process from which it's made.
On 2/9/2017 5:19 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 5:38:20 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote:
>> In article <abcadb55-9a41-4a69-bb74-f991ea42fa73
>> @googlegroups.com>, [email protected] says...
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 9:35:05 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>> In article <bf2808e1-6340-44e8-800e-f0585fa92f44
>>>> @googlegroups.com>, [email protected] says...
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 2:37:36 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/8/2017 1:07 PM, woodchucker wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The man offered all the companies the licensing rights. none took him up
>>>>>>> on it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't begrudge him. You do.. that's your problem.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe. I have no idea of the terms he wanted. Over the years so
>>>>>> patents were offered free of royalty because they had the potential to
>>>>>> save lives. Being a generous sort of guy, I once offered a meal to a
>>>>>> starving homeless person for only $30.
>>>>>> http://jalopnik.com/volvo-gave-away-their-most-important-invention-to-save-1069825878
>>>>>
>>>>> That gesture was over half a century ago. I'm curious as to whether Volvo would be so
>>>>> quick to give away their City Safety technology today.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have no idea how it compares with other auto-braking technologies out there, but that's
>>>>> not the point. In an apples-to-apples modern day comparison, do you know if Volvo is giving
>>>>> away what they call their "in-house developed unique technology for avoiding low-speed
>>>>> collisions"? I don't think they are, so why not use that as a comparable to the Saw-Stop
>>>>> situation instead of a 50+ year old gesture?
>>>>
>>>> When you say "Volvo" you mean "Zhejiang Geely
>>>> Holding Group". Volvo ceased to exist as an
>>>> indpendent company in 1999.
>>>
>>> How is it that you know what *I* meant? Are you a mind reader?
>>>
>>> In any case...
>>>
>>> From: http://www.volvocars.com/intl/about/our-company/heritage/innovations
>>>
>>> Copyright © 2017 Volvo Car Corporation (or its affiliates or licensors).
>>>
>>> 2008 ? City Safety
>>>
>>> "Here are some amazing statistics ? 75% of all reported collisions take
>>> place at speeds of up to 30km/h and in 50% of rear-enders, the driver
>>> behind hasn?t braked at all. We saw an opportunity to make a great
>>> difference ? our City Safety system uses laser detection to work out
>>> whether a collision with the car in front is likely, and if the driver
>>> doesn?t brake, the car will do it. And the system works up to 50km/h."
>>>
>>> Hint: I don't really care who the parent company of Volvo Cars is. When I
>>> said Volvo, I meant Volvo.
>>>
>>> http://www.volvocars.com/intl/about/our-company/investor-relations/financial-results
>>
>> Believe that the Chinese ownership makes no
>> difference in decisionmaking if you want to.
>> You probably think that Ford didn't exert any
>> control either.
>
> Your problem is that you don't get the point of my post.
>
> Moving on.
>
It appears to escape him...
On 2/8/2017 2:49 PM, woodchucker wrote:
>>
>> Maybe. I have no idea of the terms he wanted. Over the years so
>> patents were offered free of royalty because they had the potential to
>> save lives. Being a generous sort of guy, I once offered a meal to a
>> starving homeless person for only $30.
>> http://jalopnik.com/volvo-gave-away-their-most-important-invention-to-save-1069825878
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> That's a great story.
>
> Today you have lane departure, auto braking, all are covering with
> patents and you pay for it in the car purchase.
>
> So things have changed quite a bit.
>
> I would have given the homeless guy a free meal, I would not have
> charged him the $30 ;-)
>
My lawyer said I'm entitled to a profit.
On 2/7/2017 5:28 PM, Leon wrote:
> http://www.toolsofthetrade.net/power-tools/benchtop-tools/the-fate-of-reaxx_o?utm_source=newsletter&utm_content=Article&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=TOTT_020717%20(1)&he=bec4d8d422980f163c46356739c05c6eecb92632
>
Steve Gass continues to make friends. I wonder if someone losing a
finger will sue Gass for not allowing Bosch to sell here.
On 2/12/2017 6:52 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 13:10:50 -0600, Leon wrote:
>
>> But Larry, the same could be said about, why is my finish doing such and
>> such. What brand such and such do you use? Most any question or topic
>> you see here has surly been covered a dozen times. If topics were not
>> repeated there would be no conversation.
>
> Agreed. There'll always be a need to re-answer old questions as new
> people show up. But few topics inspire passionate responses by the
> hundreds every time :-).
>
Thanks for keeping us in line Larry. ;~)
On 2/10/2017 8:31 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 3:49:15 PM UTC-6, Ed Pawlowski
> wrote:
>>
>> OTOH, Obama care requires us to buy insurance or pay a fine. If
>> that can get by Congress a shop safety device is not much
>> different.
>
> And all of the states require you to have a state issued driver's
> license to operate a vehicle on the roads. And other licenses to
> operate a truck. There is about a 100% chance everyone will use
> health care. So having insurance to cover the costs makes sense.
> States require liability insurance to drive a car. States require
> you to buy insurance!!! No one doubts the ability of government to
> pass laws governing the safety aspects of products. The legal
> question is whether the law can require a patented device be
> mandated.
>
> Can anyone give an example of a law that required using a patented,
> licensed device? Seatbelts, airbags, ABS were all long past their
> patents when they were required by law to be included on cars.
>
Yes. For those that buy into global warming being a trend that will not
change over a period. and we need to recycle to sove our lives from co2
and zombies....
There is the patented yard waste recycle bags. Only the ones that
Houston has their seal of approval can be used. Those are also the
worst quality and the most expensive recyclable yard refuse bags money
can buy. One of past mayors implemented this law just around the time
he left office.
On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 6:50:15 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 2/7/2017 5:28 PM, Leon wrote:
> > http://www.toolsofthetrade.net/power-tools/benchtop-tools/the-fate-of-reaxx_o?utm_source=newsletter&utm_content=Article&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=TOTT_020717%20(1)&he=bec4d8d422980f163c46356739c05c6eecb92632
> >
>
> Steve Gass continues to make friends. I wonder if someone losing a
> finger will sue Gass for not allowing Bosch to sell here.
Is there a shortage of Saw Stop saws here? Is the price of Saw Stop so
prohibitive here that anyone who would have bought a Reaxx for the
safety feature can't/won't buy a Saw Stop?
IOW, I don't see how anyone could sue the company that offers a comparable
product to the banned one. If someone wants the technology, and a Saw Stop
is available at roughly the same price, why would Gass be liable if someone
chooses not to buy his product? How did Gass cause that finger to be lost?
On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 9:35:05 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <bf2808e1-6340-44e8-800e-f0585fa92f44
> @googlegroups.com>, [email protected] says...
> >=20
> > On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 2:37:36 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> > > On 2/8/2017 1:07 PM, woodchucker wrote:
> > >=20
> > > > The man offered all the companies the licensing rights. none took h=
im up
> > > > on it.
> > > >
> > > > I don't begrudge him. You do.. that's your problem.
> > >=20
> > >=20
> > > Maybe. I have no idea of the terms he wanted. Over the years so=20
> > > patents were offered free of royalty because they had the potential t=
o=20
> > > save lives. Being a generous sort of guy, I once offered a meal to a=
=20
> > > starving homeless person for only $30.
> > > http://jalopnik.com/volvo-gave-away-their-most-important-invention-to=
-save-1069825878
> >=20
> > That gesture was over half a century ago. I'm curious as to whether Vol=
vo would be so=20
> > quick to give away their City Safety technology today.=20
> >=20
> > I have no idea how it compares with other auto-braking technologies out=
there, but that's=20
> > not the point. In an apples-to-apples modern day comparison, do you kno=
w if Volvo is giving
> > away what they call their "in-house developed unique technology for avo=
iding low-speed
> > collisions"? I don't think they are, so why not use that as a comparabl=
e to the Saw-Stop=20
> > situation instead of a 50+ year old gesture?
>=20
> When you say "Volvo" you mean "Zhejiang Geely=20
> Holding Group". Volvo ceased to exist as an=20
> indpendent company in 1999.
How is it that you know what *I* meant? Are you a mind reader?
In any case...
From: http://www.volvocars.com/intl/about/our-company/heritage/innovations
Copyright =C2=A9 2017 Volvo Car Corporation (or its affiliates or licensors=
).
2008 =E2=80=93 City Safety
"Here are some amazing statistics =E2=80=93 75% of all reported collisions =
take=20
place at speeds of up to 30km/h and in 50% of rear-enders, the driver=20
behind hasn=E2=80=99t braked at all. We saw an opportunity to make a great=
=20
difference =E2=80=93 our City Safety system uses laser detection to work ou=
t=20
whether a collision with the car in front is likely, and if the driver=20
doesn=E2=80=99t brake, the car will do it. And the system works up to 50km/=
h."
Hint: I don't really care who the parent company of Volvo Cars is. When I
said Volvo, I meant Volvo.
http://www.volvocars.com/intl/about/our-company/investor-relations/financia=
l-results
On 2/7/2017 9:00 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 6:50:15 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> On 2/7/2017 5:28 PM, Leon wrote:
>>> http://www.toolsofthetrade.net/power-tools/benchtop-tools/the-fate-of-reaxx_o?utm_source=newsletter&utm_content=Article&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=TOTT_020717%20(1)&he=bec4d8d422980f163c46356739c05c6eecb92632
>>>
>>
>> Steve Gass continues to make friends. I wonder if someone losing a
>> finger will sue Gass for not allowing Bosch to sell here.
>
> Is there a shortage of Saw Stop saws here? Is the price of Saw Stop so
> prohibitive here that anyone who would have bought a Reaxx for the
> safety feature can't/won't buy a Saw Stop?
>
> IOW, I don't see how anyone could sue the company that offers a comparable
> product to the banned one. If someone wants the technology, and a Saw Stop
> is available at roughly the same price, why would Gass be liable if someone
> chooses not to buy his product? How did Gass cause that finger to be lost?
>
Bosch is a smaller saw easily taken to the jobsite. Not so much for
SawStop.
SawStop is a good product. Gass in more interested in making money than
saving fingers or he would be selling his technology at reasonable
prices so the world would be a safer place.
On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 2:37:36 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 2/8/2017 1:07 PM, woodchucker wrote:
>
> > The man offered all the companies the licensing rights. none took him up
> > on it.
> >
> > I don't begrudge him. You do.. that's your problem.
>
>
> Maybe. I have no idea of the terms he wanted. Over the years so
> patents were offered free of royalty because they had the potential to
> save lives. Being a generous sort of guy, I once offered a meal to a
> starving homeless person for only $30.
> http://jalopnik.com/volvo-gave-away-their-most-important-invention-to-save-1069825878
That gesture was over half a century ago. I'm curious as to whether Volvo would be so
quick to give away their City Safety technology today.
I have no idea how it compares with other auto-braking technologies out there, but that's
not the point. In an apples-to-apples modern day comparison, do you know if Volvo is giving
away what they call their "in-house developed unique technology for avoiding low-speed
collisions"? I don't think they are, so why not use that as a comparable to the Saw-Stop
situation instead of a 50+ year old gesture?
On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 5:30:42 PM UTC-5, Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Feb 2017 14:46:23 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
> > here is a SawStop table saw made?
> > SawStop is a US-owned company, and each table saw is engineered at our
> > headquarters just south of Portland, Oregon. Every table saw is built in
> > Taiwan to an unmatched set of tolerances.
>
> IIRC, we checked the table flatness and found it was worse than both
> General and Powermatic - so much for "unmatched tolerances".
"Unmatched" doesn't have to mean tight, precise, etc. The statement could mean
that the tolerances are so bad that no decent saw matches them. ;-)
>
> Caveat - that was a very small sample and several years ago. It may have
> been a fluke or things may have changed in the intervening years.
>
Well, there's your problem. A fluke is not going to be as flat as a table saw. That big knob
in the middle, the holes for the leads, the screen, etc. My Fluke 75 is pretty bumpy.
My opinion. Ha Ha. I want the SawStop or Bosch technology on every saw ev=
er made and ever will be made. I want saws to not cut people. I want safe=
ty. Hopefully the patents expire sometime soon and every saw maker in the =
world will be able to make saws with this safety device on it. And hopeful=
ly they can make it cheaper, easier for the replacement cartridges. Not th=
at anyone should ever need a replacement cartridge if they follow safe smar=
t cutting methods. I want a SawStop or Bosch safety saw. But I want a rea=
l European sliding saw more because I think its safer and far more function=
al than the old outdated American style saw. So I will have to wait awhile=
longer until a European company puts the SawStop technology onto their sli=
ding table saw. Until then I will have to work with my older Delta Contrac=
tor saw and use safe handling methods to cut wood. Thinking is important w=
hen using a saw.
I personally know lawyers and a judge. They are all very fine people. So =
being a lawyer does not automatically make someone evil. Businesses are no=
t good or evil either. Whether the inventor of the technology tried to mak=
e a huge amount of money is not important either. I try to make money ever=
y day too.
On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 9:55:24 PM UTC-6, [email protected] wrote:
>=20
> Driving has long been considered a privelege, not a right. Your
> comparison doesn't hold water.
>=20
Do you consider using a table saw a right? I'd classify it as a privilege =
too. There is some document written hundreds of years ago talking about th=
e pursuit of happiness. Maybe table saws fall under that saying. Using ta=
ble saws is a privilege. The government can mandate insurance and/or safet=
y devices.
> >Can anyone give an example of a law that required using a patented, lice=
nsed device?
This question still stands. Does anyone have an example of a government ma=
ndated device that was still under license and restricted? ABS, airbags, s=
eatbelts were all public property free to everyone when they were mandated.
On Wed, 8 Feb 2017 16:49:17 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>On 2/8/2017 1:46 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> On 2/8/2017 1:21 PM, woodchucker wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't see how the President would side with Bosch, as it's a German
>>> company over SawStop an American company.
>>>
>>
>> Yeah, just add the 20% import tariff
>> Where is a SawStop table saw made?
>> SawStop is a US-owned company, and each table saw is engineered at our
>> headquarters just south of Portland, Oregon. Every table saw is built in
>> Taiwan to an unmatched set of tolerances.
>
>
>I suspect that 20% more for a SawStop will not deter sales.
After the +100%, no, 20% more wouldn't (had a chance to) change my
mind.
On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 18:31:59 -0800 (PST), "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 3:49:15 PM UTC-6, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>
>> OTOH, Obama care requires us to buy insurance or pay a fine. If that
>> can get by Congress a shop safety device is not much different.
>
>And all of the states require you to have a state issued driver's license to operate a vehicle on the roads. And other licenses to operate a truck. There is about a 100% chance everyone will use health care. So having insurance to cover the costs makes sense. States require liability insurance to drive a car. States require you to buy insurance!!! No one doubts the ability of government to pass laws governing the safety aspects of products. The legal question is whether the law can require a patented device be mandated.
Driving has long been considered a privelege, not a right. Your
comparison doesn't hold water.
>Can anyone give an example of a law that required using a patented, licensed device? Seatbelts, airbags, ABS were all long past their patents when they were required by law to be included on cars.
On Wed, 8 Feb 2017 10:59:13 -0500, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 2/7/2017 11:35 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
>
>>> Bosch is a smaller saw easily taken to the jobsite. Not so much for
>>> SawStop.
>>
>> Really?
>>
>> https://www.protoolreviews.com/tools/power/corded/saws/bosch-reaxx-1041a-vs-sawstop-jss-mca/14982/
>>
>
>I was unaware of that model.
>
>
>>>
>>> SawStop is a good product. Gass in more interested in making money than
>>> saving fingers or he would be selling his technology at reasonable
>>> prices so the world would be a safer place.
>>
>> True, but not relevant (as a lawyer would say) to this particular
>> lawsuit discussion.
>>
>Relevance and 12 jurors are different things. If a big company is a bad
>guy, relevance, truth, and fact mean little.
It *always* means the lawyers are going to get rich. It then comes
down to who has the bigger pocket (don't forget, lawyers are paid for
out of *profit*).
On 2/11/2017 11:57 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 9:55:24 PM UTC-6, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> Driving has long been considered a privelege, not a right. Your
>> comparison doesn't hold water.
>>
>
> Do you consider using a table saw a right? I'd classify it as a privilege too. There is some document written hundreds of years ago talking about the pursuit of happiness. Maybe table saws fall under that saying. Using table saws is a privilege. The government can mandate insurance and/or safety devices.
>
>
>
>
>>> Can anyone give an example of a law that required using a patented, licensed device?
>
> This question still stands. Does anyone have an example of a government mandated device that was still under license and restricted? ABS, airbags, seatbelts were all public property free to everyone when they were mandated.
>
I mentioned the recyclable trash bags that the City of Houlston requires
for yard waste. they are patented and required by the city if you are
going to throw away yard waste.
While not a vehicle component it is an example of a product that has to
be used with the city's approval code, if you are going to throw yard
refuse away.
On 2/8/2017 8:37 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
> On 2/8/17 1:37 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> On 2/8/2017 1:07 PM, woodchucker wrote:
>>
>>> The man offered all the companies the licensing rights. none took
>>> him up on it.
>>>
>>> I don't begrudge him. You do.. that's your problem.
>>
>>
>> Maybe. I have no idea of the terms he wanted. Over the years so
>> patents were offered free of royalty because they had the potential
>> to save lives. Being a generous sort of guy, I once offered a meal
>> to a starving homeless person for only $30.
>> http://jalopnik.com/volvo-gave-away-their-most-important-invention-to-save-1069825878
>>
>>
>>
> It's your choice, it's their choice, it's anyone's choice to do so.
> Anything other than that-- having the choice to do so-- is communism,
> plain and simple.
>
> If someone offers their patented technology for free for the "better
> good," good for them they are to be commended for their generosity.
>
> If someone else decides to make a profit off of their hard work and
> intellectual property, then good for them, they deserve it.
>
> If someone else judges that person for making money off their hard work
> and invention instead of giving it away, the fu@& you for judging them
> and wanting them to give their hard earned property away for free. If
> you choose to give something away which you rightly earned, then good
> for you. If you sanctimoniously judge someone for keeping the money
> they earn, then you are the problem, not them.
>
>
Like I said, MAYBE. We don't know the terms. Sure, he invested in the
technology and should have some return. It may have been $2 a unit, it
may have been $800 a unit. In life we are faced with a myriad of
circumstances and we have a choice as what to do. Our choice can make
us a hero or a schmuck. I don't know where he falls.
On 2/9/2017 10:19 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> writes:
>> In article <JeGdnfvPOcBH5AHFnZ2dnUU7-Q-
>> [email protected]>, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
>> says...
>>>
>>> On 2/8/2017 8:44 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>> In article <DcGdnb13FefpPQbFnZ2dnUU7-
>>>> [email protected]>, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
>>>> says...
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2/8/2017 1:46 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/8/2017 1:21 PM, woodchucker wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't see how the President would side with Bosch, as it's a German
>>>>>>> company over SawStop an American company.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah, just add the 20% import tariff
>>>>>> Where is a SawStop table saw made?
>>>>>> SawStop is a US-owned company, and each table saw is engineered at our
>>>>>> headquarters just south of Portland, Oregon. Every table saw is built in
>>>>>> Taiwan to an unmatched set of tolerances.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I suspect that 20% more for a SawStop will not deter sales.
>>>>
>>>> But will it be 20 percent? The 20 percent is
>>>> for _Mexico_. It might be more for China.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I have no idea, I though you had all the answers.
>>
>> Geezus, Leon, can't you even come up with a
>> decent FLAME?
>
> Could it be possible that someone other than Leon usurped
> his newsgroup identity? The posts weren't typical of his
> normal style.
>
> In any case, one need not respond.
>
No, I confess, I am responding to this, as childish as it is. Some
don't understand any other way. I apologize.
On 2/9/2017 9:47 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <JeGdnfvPOcBH5AHFnZ2dnUU7-Q-
> [email protected]>, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
> says...
>>
>> On 2/8/2017 8:44 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> In article <DcGdnb13FefpPQbFnZ2dnUU7-
>>> [email protected]>, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
>>> says...
>>>>
>>>> On 2/8/2017 1:46 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>>> On 2/8/2017 1:21 PM, woodchucker wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't see how the President would side with Bosch, as it's a German
>>>>>> company over SawStop an American company.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, just add the 20% import tariff
>>>>> Where is a SawStop table saw made?
>>>>> SawStop is a US-owned company, and each table saw is engineered at our
>>>>> headquarters just south of Portland, Oregon. Every table saw is built in
>>>>> Taiwan to an unmatched set of tolerances.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I suspect that 20% more for a SawStop will not deter sales.
>>>
>>> But will it be 20 percent? The 20 percent is
>>> for _Mexico_. It might be more for China.
>>>
>>
>> I have no idea, I though you had all the answers.
>
> Geezus, Leon, can't you even come up with a
> decent FLAME?
>
Oh, are in a one person pissing contest?
On 2/9/2017 1:13 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 09:08:31 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>
>> On 2/8/2017 10:05 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Wed, 8 Feb 2017 21:58:22 -0500, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/8/2017 8:37 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
>>>>> On 2/8/17 1:37 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/8/2017 1:07 PM, woodchucker wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The man offered all the companies the licensing rights. none took
>>>>>>> him up on it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't begrudge him. You do.. that's your problem.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe. I have no idea of the terms he wanted. Over the years so
>>>>>> patents were offered free of royalty because they had the potential
>>>>>> to save lives. Being a generous sort of guy, I once offered a meal
>>>>>> to a starving homeless person for only $30.
>>>>>> http://jalopnik.com/volvo-gave-away-their-most-important-invention-to-save-1069825878
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> It's your choice, it's their choice, it's anyone's choice to do so.
>>>>> Anything other than that-- having the choice to do so-- is communism,
>>>>> plain and simple.
>>>>>
>>>>> If someone offers their patented technology for free for the "better
>>>>> good," good for them they are to be commended for their generosity.
>>>>>
>>>>> If someone else decides to make a profit off of their hard work and
>>>>> intellectual property, then good for them, they deserve it.
>>>>>
>>>>> If someone else judges that person for making money off their hard work
>>>>> and invention instead of giving it away, the fu@& you for judging them
>>>>> and wanting them to give their hard earned property away for free. If
>>>>> you choose to give something away which you rightly earned, then good
>>>>> for you. If you sanctimoniously judge someone for keeping the money
>>>>> they earn, then you are the problem, not them.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Like I said, MAYBE. We don't know the terms. Sure, he invested in the
>>>> technology and should have some return. It may have been $2 a unit, it
>>>> may have been $800 a unit. In life we are faced with a myriad of
>>>> circumstances and we have a choice as what to do. Our choice can make
>>>> us a hero or a schmuck. I don't know where he falls.
>>> Ryobi in Jan 2002 balked at a 3% royalty at the wholesale level
>>> with no upfront fees. I'd call that a pretty fair deal.
>>> That would have given them all the engineering and the right to use it
>>> - on ANY saw they produced
>>>
>>
>> And thinking about that a bit more, If there is indeed documentation
>> that Ryobi was on board and balked at 3% I can see how the attorneys
>> would have used that information against them when they lost that big
>> suit over they flooring guy that cut his finger off.
>>
>> Ryobi was probably projected as the company that did not want to spend a
>> few dollars for the safety of their customers.
>>
>> And yes a few dollars, 3% of cost to be able to add a very nice selling
>> feature with no R&D for that feature is cheap.
>>
>>
>>
> Cheap??? At 3%, Glass was GIVING the technology away, figuring to make
> a bit of money on the volume. The only reason it didn't fly was
> because he was a lawyer, and he stressed the liability and litigation
> issues over the intrensic safety of the device.
> When companies like Ryobi were scared they would have to use the
> technology on EVERY saw they built, I suspect their lawyers and
> accountants decided it was safer NOT to have the technology in their
> "bag of tricks"
> The American litigatious legal situation and corporate greed (on the
> part of Ryobi, not SawStop) killed the deal, in my opinion.
>
I totally agree with your thoughts.
On 2/9/2017 9:54 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 2/8/2017 11:05 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Like I said, MAYBE. We don't know the terms. Sure, he invested in the
>>> technology and should have some return. It may have been $2 a unit, it
>>> may have been $800 a unit. In life we are faced with a myriad of
>>> circumstances and we have a choice as what to do. Our choice can make
>>> us a hero or a schmuck. I don't know where he falls.
>> Ryobi in Jan 2002 balked at a 3% royalty at the wholesale level
>> with no upfront fees. I'd call that a pretty fair deal.
>> That would have given them all the engineering and the right to use it
>> - on ANY saw they produced
>>
>
> 3% at the wholesale level translates to 6% at the retail level. This is
> added to a saw that now costs more to manufacture with the new
> technology. It may be enough to take it out of the intended market for
> Ryobi tools. I don't know. GM offers Chevy and Cadillac for a reason. .
If the cost to manufacture the saw costs $100 + 3%, $103.
Lets say retail is 4 times manufacture cost, 4 x $103. $400 + 3% $412
It is all relative, a 3% cost increase to buy to sell at retail
translates to a 3% retail increase.
On 2/9/2017 9:44 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <384812291.508340867.772248.lcb11211-
> [email protected]>, lcb11211
> @swbell.net says...
>>
>> J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> In article <uImdnUr596UJ2AbFnZ2dnUU7-
>>> [email protected]>, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
>>> says...
>>>>
>>>> On 2/8/2017 9:59 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>>> On 2/7/2017 11:35 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bosch is a smaller saw easily taken to the jobsite. Not so much for
>>>>>>> SawStop.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Really?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.protoolreviews.com/tools/power/corded/saws/bosch-reaxx-1041a-vs-sawstop-jss-mca/14982/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I was unaware of that model.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> SawStop is a good product. Gass in more interested in making money than
>>>>>>> saving fingers or he would be selling his technology at reasonable
>>>>>>> prices so the world would be a safer place.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> True, but not relevant (as a lawyer would say) to this particular
>>>>>> lawsuit discussion.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Relevance and 12 jurors are different things. If a big company is a bad
>>>>> guy, relevance, truth, and fact mean little.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Absolutely true but with the fact that SawStop is so successful, it is
>>>> obvious that the vast majority will see SS as the good guy. There are
>>>> only a handful of people with issues that don't seem to be able to let
>>>> things go. Those type jurors would most likely be eliminated during
>>>> jury selection.
>>>
>>> Any jurors familiar with Sawstop or having any
>>> opinion concerning it would likely be eliminated
>>> during jury selection. That doesn't mean that
>>> the ones who have been selected cannot be
>>> convinced that Gass is a flaming asshole who
>>> deserves to rot in Hell.
>>>
>>
>> Have you thought about getting therapy?
>
> Have you thought of having your cranio-rectal
> inversion corrected?
>
I will take that as a no. You might look into that.
On 2/8/2017 1:21 PM, woodchucker wrote:
>>
>>
>
> I don't see how the President would side with Bosch, as it's a German
> company over SawStop an American company.
>
Yeah, just add the 20% import tariff
Where is a SawStop table saw made?
SawStop is a US-owned company, and each table saw is engineered at our
headquarters just south of Portland, Oregon. Every table saw is built in
Taiwan to an unmatched set of tolerances.
On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 08:18:00 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>On 2/8/2017 8:26 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 Feb 2017 12:21:27 -0800 (PST), "[email protected]"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> My opinion. Ha Ha. I want the SawStop or Bosch technology on every saw ever made and ever will be made. I want saws to not cut people. I want safety. Hopefully the patents expire sometime soon and every saw maker in the world will be able to make saws with this safety device on it. And hopefully they can make it cheaper, easier for the replacement cartridges. Not that anyone should ever need a replacement cartridge if they follow safe smart cutting methods. I want a SawStop or Bosch safety saw. But I want a real European sliding saw more because I think its safer and far more functional than the old outdated American style saw. So I will have to wait awhile longer until a European company puts the SawStop technology onto their sliding table saw. Until then I will have to work with my older Delta Contractor saw and use safe handling methods to cut wood. Thinking is important when using a saw.
>>
>> The important patents expire in a couple of years, IIRC.
>>
>>> I personally know lawyers and a judge. They are all very fine people. So being a lawyer does not automatically make someone evil. Businesses are not good or evil either. Whether the inventor of the technology tried to make a huge amount of money is not important either. I try to make money every day too.
>>
>> The issue is not Gass making money. The issue is Gass' rent-seeking.
>>
>
>You don't like people that rent things to other people?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking
On 2/7/2017 11:35 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
>> Bosch is a smaller saw easily taken to the jobsite. Not so much for
>> SawStop.
>
> Really?
>
> https://www.protoolreviews.com/tools/power/corded/saws/bosch-reaxx-1041a-vs-sawstop-jss-mca/14982/
>
I was unaware of that model.
>>
>> SawStop is a good product. Gass in more interested in making money than
>> saving fingers or he would be selling his technology at reasonable
>> prices so the world would be a safer place.
>
> True, but not relevant (as a lawyer would say) to this particular
> lawsuit discussion.
>
Relevance and 12 jurors are different things. If a big company is a bad
guy, relevance, truth, and fact mean little.
On Wed, 8 Feb 2017 16:47:07 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>On 2/8/2017 12:04 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Tue, 7 Feb 2017 22:39:35 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/7/2017 8:00 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 6:50:15 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>>> On 2/7/2017 5:28 PM, Leon wrote:
>>>>>> http://www.toolsofthetrade.net/power-tools/benchtop-tools/the-fate-of-reaxx_o?utm_source=newsletter&utm_content=Article&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=TOTT_020717%20(1)&he=bec4d8d422980f163c46356739c05c6eecb92632
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Steve Gass continues to make friends. I wonder if someone losing a
>>>>> finger will sue Gass for not allowing Bosch to sell here.
>>>>
>>>> Is there a shortage of Saw Stop saws here? Is the price of Saw Stop so
>>>> prohibitive here that anyone who would have bought a Reaxx for the
>>>> safety feature can't/won't buy a Saw Stop?
>>>>
>>>> IOW, I don't see how anyone could sue the company that offers a comparable
>>>> product to the banned one. If someone wants the technology, and a Saw Stop
>>>> is available at roughly the same price, why would Gass be liable if someone
>>>> chooses not to buy his product? How did Gass cause that finger to be lost?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Its just the absurdity if holding a grudge for a person that long.
>>
>> Grudge? What's a gruge got to do with it? Once a scum-sucking
>> lawyer, always a scum-sucking lawer. There is no statute of
>> limitations on staying clear of bottom-feeding rent-seeking scum.
>>
>
>Do you have pictures of Gass sucking scum or is that just something you
>made up. Ther is an old saying, It takes one to call one.
Yes, in fact we all did. He *is* a lawyer, after all.
On 2/8/2017 2:37 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 2/8/2017 1:07 PM, woodchucker wrote:
>
>> The man offered all the companies the licensing rights. none took him up
>> on it.
>>
>> I don't begrudge him. You do.. that's your problem.
>
>
> Maybe. I have no idea of the terms he wanted. Over the years so
> patents were offered free of royalty because they had the potential to
> save lives. Being a generous sort of guy, I once offered a meal to a
> starving homeless person for only $30.
> http://jalopnik.com/volvo-gave-away-their-most-important-invention-to-save-1069825878
>
>
>
>
That's a great story.
Today you have lane departure, auto braking, all are covering with
patents and you pay for it in the car purchase.
So things have changed quite a bit.
I would have given the homeless guy a free meal, I would not have
charged him the $30 ;-)
--
Jeff
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 11:35:42 -0800 (PST), "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 8:26:24 PM UTC-6, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 Feb 2017 12:21:27 -0800 (PST), "[email protected]"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >My opinion. Ha Ha. I want the SawStop or Bosch technology on every saw ever made and ever will be made. I want saws to not cut people. I want safety. Hopefully the patents expire sometime soon and every saw maker in the world will be able to make saws with this safety device on it. And hopefully they can make it cheaper, easier for the replacement cartridges. Not that anyone should ever need a replacement cartridge if they follow safe smart cutting methods. I want a SawStop or Bosch safety saw. But I want a real European sliding saw more because I think its safer and far more functional than the old outdated American style saw. So I will have to wait awhile longer until a European company puts the SawStop technology onto their sliding table saw. Until then I will have to work with my older Delta Contractor saw and use safe handling methods to cut wood. Thinking is important when using a saw.
>>
>> The important patents expire in a couple of years, IIRC.
>
>
>That is good. Hopefully all saws will have this safety device. I want safe saws. Safe European sliding saws. Not USA style cabinet saws.
That would be good but I'm not likely to replace mine and I doubt many
here will. SawStop is available now and I'd expect everyone who was
going to switch, already has.
>>
>> >I personally know lawyers and a judge. They are all very fine people. So being a lawyer does not automatically make someone evil. Businesses are not good or evil either. Whether the inventor of the technology tried to make a huge amount of money is not important either. I try to make money every day too.
>>
>> The issue is not Gass making money. The issue is Gass' rent-seeking.
>
>Not sure what "rent-seeking" means.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking
On 2/7/2017 8:39 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 2/7/2017 9:00 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
>> On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 6:50:15 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>> On 2/7/2017 5:28 PM, Leon wrote:
>>>> http://www.toolsofthetrade.net/power-tools/benchtop-tools/the-fate-of-reaxx_o?utm_source=newsletter&utm_content=Article&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=TOTT_020717%20(1)&he=bec4d8d422980f163c46356739c05c6eecb92632
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Steve Gass continues to make friends. I wonder if someone losing a
>>> finger will sue Gass for not allowing Bosch to sell here.
>>
>> Is there a shortage of Saw Stop saws here? Is the price of Saw Stop so
>> prohibitive here that anyone who would have bought a Reaxx for the
>> safety feature can't/won't buy a Saw Stop?
>>
>> IOW, I don't see how anyone could sue the company that offers a
>> comparable
>> product to the banned one. If someone wants the technology, and a Saw
>> Stop
>> is available at roughly the same price, why would Gass be liable if
>> someone
>> chooses not to buy his product? How did Gass cause that finger to be
>> lost?
>>
>
> Bosch is a smaller saw easily taken to the jobsite. Not so much for
> SawStop.
Actually SawStop has a contractors job site saw and it is less expensive
than the Bosch.
https://www.amazon.com/SawStop-JSS-MCA-Jobsite-Mobile-Cart/dp/B00SAHUO38/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1486528856&sr=8-3&keywords=sawstop
https://www.amazon.com/Bosch-GTS1041A-09-Flesh-Detecting-Jobsite-Gravity-Rise/dp/B013UBT4ES/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1486528879&sr=8-1&keywords=bosch+reaxx
>
> SawStop is a good product. Gass in more interested in making money than
> saving fingers or he would be selling his technology at reasonable
> prices so the world would be a safer place.
Who is more interested in making money in the above example? ;~)
On 2/7/2017 8:00 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 6:50:15 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> On 2/7/2017 5:28 PM, Leon wrote:
>>> http://www.toolsofthetrade.net/power-tools/benchtop-tools/the-fate-of-reaxx_o?utm_source=newsletter&utm_content=Article&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=TOTT_020717%20(1)&he=bec4d8d422980f163c46356739c05c6eecb92632
>>>
>>
>> Steve Gass continues to make friends. I wonder if someone losing a
>> finger will sue Gass for not allowing Bosch to sell here.
>
> Is there a shortage of Saw Stop saws here? Is the price of Saw Stop so
> prohibitive here that anyone who would have bought a Reaxx for the
> safety feature can't/won't buy a Saw Stop?
>
> IOW, I don't see how anyone could sue the company that offers a comparable
> product to the banned one. If someone wants the technology, and a Saw Stop
> is available at roughly the same price, why would Gass be liable if someone
> chooses not to buy his product? How did Gass cause that finger to be lost?
>
Its just the absurdity if holding a grudge for a person that long.
On 2/7/2017 9:49 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>>
>> On 2/7/2017 9:00 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 6:50:15 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>> On 2/7/2017 5:28 PM, Leon wrote:
>>>>> http://www.toolsofthetrade.net/power-tools/benchtop-tools/the-fate-of-reaxx_o?utm_source=newsletter&utm_content=Article&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=TOTT_020717%20(1)&he=bec4d8d422980f163c46356739c05c6eecb92632
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Steve Gass continues to make friends. I wonder if someone losing a
>>>> finger will sue Gass for not allowing Bosch to sell here.
>>>
>>> Is there a shortage of Saw Stop saws here? Is the price of Saw Stop so
>>> prohibitive here that anyone who would have bought a Reaxx for the
>>> safety feature can't/won't buy a Saw Stop?
>>>
>>> IOW, I don't see how anyone could sue the company that offers a comparable
>>> product to the banned one. If someone wants the technology, and a Saw Stop
>>> is available at roughly the same price, why would Gass be liable if someone
>>> chooses not to buy his product? How did Gass cause that finger to be lost?
>>>
>>
>> Bosch is a smaller saw easily taken to the jobsite. Not so much for
>> SawStop.
>>
>> SawStop is a good product. Gass in more interested in making money than
>> saving fingers or he would be selling his technology at reasonable
>> prices so the world would be a safer place.
>
> And he would have happily greeted Bosch's
> alternative design instead of going after them
> with lawyers.
>
> But he's a scum sucking bottom
> ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^^H^Hlawyer
> himself.
>
ooohhhh you are sooo emotional LOL ROTHL
On Tue, 7 Feb 2017 22:39:35 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>On 2/7/2017 8:00 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
>> On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 6:50:15 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>> On 2/7/2017 5:28 PM, Leon wrote:
>>>> http://www.toolsofthetrade.net/power-tools/benchtop-tools/the-fate-of-reaxx_o?utm_source=newsletter&utm_content=Article&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=TOTT_020717%20(1)&he=bec4d8d422980f163c46356739c05c6eecb92632
>>>>
>>>
>>> Steve Gass continues to make friends. I wonder if someone losing a
>>> finger will sue Gass for not allowing Bosch to sell here.
>>
>> Is there a shortage of Saw Stop saws here? Is the price of Saw Stop so
>> prohibitive here that anyone who would have bought a Reaxx for the
>> safety feature can't/won't buy a Saw Stop?
>>
>> IOW, I don't see how anyone could sue the company that offers a comparable
>> product to the banned one. If someone wants the technology, and a Saw Stop
>> is available at roughly the same price, why would Gass be liable if someone
>> chooses not to buy his product? How did Gass cause that finger to be lost?
>>
>
>
>Its just the absurdity if holding a grudge for a person that long.
Grudge? What's a gruge got to do with it? Once a scum-sucking
lawyer, always a scum-sucking lawer. There is no statute of
limitations on staying clear of bottom-feeding rent-seeking scum.
On 2017-02-08 1:21 PM, woodchucker wrote:
> On 2/7/2017 8:50 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
>> On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 5:28:42 PM UTC-5, Leon wrote:
>>> http://www.toolsofthetrade.net/power-tools/benchtop-tools/the-fate-of-reaxx_o
>>>
>>
>> Wait a minute...there is hope.
>>
>> The article states this:
>>
>> "The decision of the ITC will now move to the United States Trade
>> Representative
>> (USTR), as delegated by the President, who must approve or disapprove
>> the ITCâs
>> final decision in sixty (60) days. The USTR rarely goes against the
>> ITC, having
>> disapproved of the ITCâs determination once in nearly 30 years."
>>
>> If the past few weeks are any indication, it may not be "business as
>> usual"
>> (minor pun intended) in Washington. Recent events seem to indicate
>> that we
>> can no longer let history be our guide.
>>
>>
>>
>
> I don't see how the President would side with Bosch, as it's a German
> company over SawStop an American company.
>
Build a wall around Germany, oh wait, that was done.
--
Froz....
On Wed, 08 Feb 2017 14:46:23 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> here is a SawStop table saw made?
> SawStop is a US-owned company, and each table saw is engineered at our
> headquarters just south of Portland, Oregon. Every table saw is built in
> Taiwan to an unmatched set of tolerances.
IIRC, we checked the table flatness and found it was worse than both
General and Powermatic - so much for "unmatched tolerances".
Caveat - that was a very small sample and several years ago. It may have
been a fluke or things may have changed in the intervening years.
--
What if a much of a which of a wind gives the truth to summer's lie?
On 2/8/17 1:37 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 2/8/2017 1:07 PM, woodchucker wrote:
>
>> The man offered all the companies the licensing rights. none took
>> him up on it.
>>
>> I don't begrudge him. You do.. that's your problem.
>
>
> Maybe. I have no idea of the terms he wanted. Over the years so
> patents were offered free of royalty because they had the potential
> to save lives. Being a generous sort of guy, I once offered a meal
> to a starving homeless person for only $30.
> http://jalopnik.com/volvo-gave-away-their-most-important-invention-to-save-1069825878
>
>
It's your choice, it's their choice, it's anyone's choice to do so.
Anything other than that-- having the choice to do so-- is communism,
plain and simple.
If someone offers their patented technology for free for the "better
good," good for them they are to be commended for their generosity.
If someone else decides to make a profit off of their hard work and
intellectual property, then good for they, they deserve it.
If someone else judges that person for making money off their hard work
and invention instead of giving it away, the fu@& you for judging them
and wanting them to give their hard earned property away for free. If
you choose to give something away which you rightly earned, then good
for you. If you sanctimoniously judge someone for keeping the money
they earn, then you are the problem, not them.
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <JeGdnfvPOcBH5AHFnZ2dnUU7-Q-
> [email protected]>, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
> says...
>> On 2/8/2017 8:44 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> In article <DcGdnb13FefpPQbFnZ2dnUU7-
>>> [email protected]>, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
>>> says...
>>>> On 2/8/2017 1:46 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>>> On 2/8/2017 1:21 PM, woodchucker wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't see how the President would side with Bosch, as it's a German
>>>>>> company over SawStop an American company.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, just add the 20% import tariff
>>>>> Where is a SawStop table saw made?
>>>>> SawStop is a US-owned company, and each table saw is engineered at our
>>>>> headquarters just south of Portland, Oregon. Every table saw is built in
>>>>> Taiwan to an unmatched set of tolerances.
>>>>
>>>> I suspect that 20% more for a SawStop will not deter sales.
>>> But will it be 20 percent? The 20 percent is
>>> for _Mexico_. It might be more for China.
>>>
>> I have no idea, I though you had all the answers.
> Geezus, Leon, can't you even come up with a
> decent FLAME?
Go over to the moulding thread where we are concerned, instead, with
using (stealing?) a coach-makers radial filister! ; )
On Thu, 09 Feb 2017 13:41:18 -0600, Leon wrote:
> n 2/9/2017 10:19 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> writes:
>>> In article <JeGdnfvPOcBH5AHFnZ2dnUU7-Q- [email protected]>,
>>> lcb11211@swbelldotnet says...
>>>>
>>>> On 2/8/2017 8:44 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>> In article <DcGdnb13FefpPQbFnZ2dnUU7- [email protected]>,
>>>>> lcb11211@swbelldotnet says...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/8/2017 1:46 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/8/2017 1:21 PM, woodchucker wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
C'mon people. Every time anyone even mentions Sawstop someone resurrects
the brouhaha we've had several times now. Whatever your opinion, you're
not changing others. Can't we just let it go? Get back to woodworking?
Even a political thread would be more interesting :-).
--
What if a much of a which of a wind gives the truth to summer's lie?
Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 2/11/2017 12:57 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 9:55:24 PM UTC-6, [email protected]
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Driving has long been considered a privelege, not a right. Your
>>> comparison doesn't hold water.
>>>
>>
>> Do you consider using a table saw a right? I'd classify it as a
>> privilege too. There is some document written hundreds of years ago
>> talking about the pursuit of happiness. Maybe table saws fall under
>> that saying. Using table saws is a privilege. The government can
>> mandate insurance and/or safety devices.
>
> I see it as a right.
Your insurance company could say they wouldn't accept liability
associated with it.
> There are no laws governing how I use it, no requirements or
> registration to buy one. I can use it for personal pleasure or as a
> tool to earn a living. Show me the government mandates.
Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 2/11/2017 1:48 PM, Bill wrote:
>> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>> On 2/11/2017 12:57 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>> On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 9:55:24 PM UTC-6, [email protected]
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Driving has long been considered a privelege, not a right. Your
>>>>> comparison doesn't hold water.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Do you consider using a table saw a right? I'd classify it as a
>>>> privilege too. There is some document written hundreds of years ago
>>>> talking about the pursuit of happiness. Maybe table saws fall under
>>>> that saying. Using table saws is a privilege. The government can
>>>> mandate insurance and/or safety devices.
>>>
>>> I see it as a right.
>>
>> Your insurance company could say they wouldn't accept liability
>> associated with it
>
>
> So? They haven't. I do know our carrier for Workmen's Comp is asking
> customers to buy a SawStop or equal but have not stopped insuring.
> That is anecdotal as we don't have saws at work.
>
> Still a right
Some say smoking is a "right". But if they charge $10 a pack, hasn't the
right been taken away from you?
Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 2/11/2017 2:47 PM, Bill wrote:
>> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>> On 2/11/2017 1:48 PM, Bill wrote:
>>>> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>>> On 2/11/2017 12:57 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>> On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 9:55:24 PM UTC-6, [email protected]
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Driving has long been considered a privelege, not a right. Your
>>>>>>> comparison doesn't hold water.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you consider using a table saw a right? I'd classify it as a
>>>>>> privilege too. There is some document written hundreds of years ago
>>>>>> talking about the pursuit of happiness. Maybe table saws fall under
>>>>>> that saying. Using table saws is a privilege. The government can
>>>>>> mandate insurance and/or safety devices.
>>>>>
>>>>> I see it as a right.
>>>>
>>>> Your insurance company could say they wouldn't accept liability
>>>> associated with it
>>>
>>>
>>> So? They haven't. I do know our carrier for Workmen's Comp is asking
>>> customers to buy a SawStop or equal but have not stopped insuring.
>>> That is anecdotal as we don't have saws at work.
>>>
>>> Still a right
>>
>> Some say smoking is a "right". But if they charge $10 a pack, hasn't the
>> right been taken away from you?
>
> No, just made more expensive. I gave it up 40+ years ago. You can
> grow your own tobacco if you want.
If you don't agree that some would use taxation to take away you rights,
you may just not have seen high enough rates yet... Charge a "birth
tax" and see if you can't affect population growth.
On 2/9/2017 8:11 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
> C'mon people. Every time anyone even mentions Sawstop someone resurrects
> the brouhaha we've had several times now. Whatever your opinion, you're
> not changing others. Can't we just let it go? Get back to woodworking?
> Even a political thread would be more interesting :-).
Why is it when a lot of people engage in a topic they find interesting,
someone attempts to impose their personal disinterest on the rest of the
group. Why can't you just skip the topics you are not interested in,
that's what most people would do?
You are free to open or participate in anything you are interested in,
although some would like you to do an intensive Google search to make
sure any issues have not already been covered somewhere on the net
before mentioning them here.
--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com
On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 12:43:20 -0500, Jack wrote:
>> C'mon people. Every time anyone even mentions Sawstop someone
>> resurrects the brouhaha we've had several times now. Whatever your
>> opinion, you're not changing others. Can't we just let it go? Get
>> back to woodworking? Even a political thread would be more interesting
>> :-).
>
> Why is it when a lot of people engage in a topic they find interesting,
> someone attempts to impose their personal disinterest on the rest of the
> group. Why can't you just skip the topics you are not interested in,
> that's what most people would do?
I found the topic quite interesting the first time it generated a massive
response. Even the second time gave me a few more snippets of info. But
now it just elicits an "Oh no, not again" response.
In other words, it's not that the topic isn't of interest, it's that its
been beaten to death already. Now if you're a newbie, I forgive you.
You haven't seen all the previous incarnations. But what I see is mostly
the same posters with the same opinions they've had since the beginning.
I wonder if some of them have any time left to do woodworking?
--
What if a much of a which of a wind gives the truth to summer's lie?
On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 13:10:50 -0600, Leon wrote:
> But Larry, the same could be said about, why is my finish doing such and
> such. What brand such and such do you use? Most any question or topic
> you see here has surly been covered a dozen times. If topics were not
> repeated there would be no conversation.
Agreed. There'll always be a need to re-answer old questions as new
people show up. But few topics inspire passionate responses by the
hundreds every time :-).
--
What if a much of a which of a wind gives the truth to summer's lie?
On 2/12/2017 1:55 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 12:43:20 -0500, Jack wrote:
>
>>> C'mon people. Every time anyone even mentions Sawstop someone
>>> resurrects the brouhaha we've had several times now. Whatever your
>>> opinion, you're not changing others. Can't we just let it go? Get
>>> back to woodworking? Even a political thread would be more interesting
>>> :-).
>>
>> Why is it when a lot of people engage in a topic they find interesting,
>> someone attempts to impose their personal disinterest on the rest of the
>> group. Why can't you just skip the topics you are not interested in,
>> that's what most people would do?
>
> I found the topic quite interesting the first time it generated a massive
> response. Even the second time gave me a few more snippets of info. But
> now it just elicits an "Oh no, not again" response.
That's fine, you don't like it, skip it.
> In other words, it's not that the topic isn't of interest, it's that its
> been beaten to death already. Now if you're a newbie, I forgive you.
Should everyone but newbies ask forgiveness for participating in topics
Larry is no longer interested in?
> You haven't seen all the previous incarnations. But what I see is mostly
> the same posters with the same opinions they've had since the beginning.
If you were forced to read every message posted, I could see you trying
to get everyone to kowtow to your views, but of course you are free to
read what you want. If a topic is popular, naturally it will garner
plenty of response. If it's not popular, it will die a natural death,
with no need for Larry's help.
In the old (very, very old days, before the internet) People like you
would bitch because it wasted bandwidth. It was a lie then, because it
wasn't really about the bandwidth, it was a control freak issue, just as
it is today.
> I wonder if some of them have any time left to do woodworking?
Yeah, right. You're worried that people participating in a topic you
find not interesting is keeping them from woodworking. That's a new
twist on the bandwidth crap. Just skip what you don't like and stop
trying to control everything.
--
Jack
If we are here to help others, then what exactly are the others here for?
http://jbstein.com
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 11:19:22 -0500, Jack wrote:
> If a topic is popular, naturally it will garner
> plenty of response.
Agreed. But on the Sawstop topic it's mostly the same 5-10 posters
who've been obsessing on the issue since the beginning. According to
Google, there have been 164 posts by only 17 authors. 'Nuff said?
> It was a lie then, because it
> wasn't really about the bandwidth, it was a control freak issue, just as
> it is today.
My wife and friends got a good laugh out of that one! If there are any
control freaks here, it's the ones who decry or defend the ethics of the
Sawstop founder.
But you've convinced me that I'm pissing into the wind. So I'll stop.
--
What if a much of a which of a wind gives the truth to summer's lie?
On 2/13/2017 1:30 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 11:19:22 -0500, Jack wrote:
>
>> If a topic is popular, naturally it will garner
>> plenty of response.
>
> Agreed. But on the Sawstop topic it's mostly the same 5-10 posters
> who've been obsessing on the issue since the beginning. According to
> Google, there have been 164 posts by only 17 authors. 'Nuff said?
I think you'll find it common for less than 17 people participating in
any given thread. I might add most of the threads seem to be started by
the Comet, who those 17 people seem to hate because he doesn't punctuate
to their liking...
>> It was a lie then, because it
>> wasn't really about the bandwidth, it was a control freak issue, just as
>> it is today.
>
> My wife and friends got a good laugh out of that one! If there are any
> control freaks here, it's the ones who decry or defend the ethics of the
> Sawstop founder.
Don't see how that's a control issue, but OK.
> But you've convinced me that I'm pissing into the wind. So I'll stop.
Well, the topic has evolved away from sawstop and into other topics. I
too was not very interested in the sawstop issue for the same reason you
pointed out, but found some vague interest in it's off topic evolution.
Off topic evolution is another control freak issue some try to control,
but can't. Myself, if I'm interested enough, I might participate.
Otherwise I don't. Simple.
--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com
Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> writes:
>On 2/12/2017 12:45 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 10:54:04 AM UTC-6, Leon wrote:
>>>
>>> I mentioned the recyclable trash bags that the City of Houlston
>>> requires for yard waste. they are patented and required by the
>>> city if you are going to throw away yard waste.
>>>
>>> While not a vehicle component it is an example of a product that
>>> has to be used with the city's approval code, if you are going to
>>> throw yard refuse away.
>>
>> I guess the refuse bags sort of, kind of meet what I was asking.
>> Although I doubt plastic bags are patented. They are specifically
>> marked for Houston use. But anyone could make a similar bag out of
>> petroleum and put the same markings on the bag and sell it for refuse
>> use in Houston.
>
>Well a reasonable person would assume that.
Actually, I disagree. It's quite clear that a bag designed
for yard-waste would need to be made from a substance that
will quickly break down into environmentally benign
byproducts. That precludes petroleum-based bags.
> IIRC the bags had a patent
>pending number, had a seal, Approved by the city of Houston.
Yard waste, right? They compost it, so the bags must also
be compostable.
> There
>were/are several other heavier/thicker mil recycleable refuse bags
>available and much less expensive. But if you used those bags a warning
>label was attached and the bag was not picked up.
Of course, since they'd contaminate the compost.
>The really unfortunate thing about the city of Housotn bags was that
>they were so thin that the humidity/condensation would cause them to
>begin melting from sitting out for just one one night and totally forget
>it it rained.
The bags are designed to be biodegradable.
On Wed, 8 Feb 2017 12:21:27 -0800 (PST), "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>My opinion. Ha Ha. I want the SawStop or Bosch technology on every saw ever made and ever will be made. I want saws to not cut people. I want safety. Hopefully the patents expire sometime soon and every saw maker in the world will be able to make saws with this safety device on it. And hopefully they can make it cheaper, easier for the replacement cartridges. Not that anyone should ever need a replacement cartridge if they follow safe smart cutting methods. I want a SawStop or Bosch safety saw. But I want a real European sliding saw more because I think its safer and far more functional than the old outdated American style saw. So I will have to wait awhile longer until a European company puts the SawStop technology onto their sliding table saw. Until then I will have to work with my older Delta Contractor saw and use safe handling methods to cut wood. Thinking is important when using a saw.
The important patents expire in a couple of years, IIRC.
>I personally know lawyers and a judge. They are all very fine people. So being a lawyer does not automatically make someone evil. Businesses are not good or evil either. Whether the inventor of the technology tried to make a huge amount of money is not important either. I try to make money every day too.
The issue is not Gass making money. The issue is Gass' rent-seeking.
On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 09:57:24 -0800 (PST), "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 9:55:24 PM UTC-6, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> Driving has long been considered a privelege, not a right. Your
>> comparison doesn't hold water.
>>
>
>Do you consider using a table saw a right?
Certainly.
> I'd classify it as a privilege too. There is some document written hundreds of years ago talking about the pursuit of happiness. Maybe table saws fall under that saying. Using table saws is a privilege. The government can mandate insurance and/or safety devices.
Maybe you have a table saw license?
>
>
>
>> >Can anyone give an example of a law that required using a patented, licensed device?
>
>This question still stands. Does anyone have an example of a government mandated device that was still under license and restricted? ABS, airbags, seatbelts were all public property free to everyone when they were mandated.
In article <j21t9c9akr3mm17d41af768fdearp96og1@
4ax.com>, [email protected] says...
>
> On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 20:48:01 -0500, "J. Clarke"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >In article <3nas9chblki4a89kreqtr795ls9s480169@
> >4ax.com>, [email protected] says...
> >>
> >> On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 11:38:36 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On 2/10/2017 8:44 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> >> >> In article <P5KdnQygW5wVXwDFnZ2dnUU7-
> >> >> [email protected]>, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
> >> >> says...
> >> >>>
> >> >>> On 2/10/2017 4:52 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> >> >>>> On 2/9/2017 10:05 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> >> >>>>> On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 2:50:59 PM UTC-6, Ed Pawlowski
> >> >>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>> On 2/9/2017 2:35 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> The issue is not Gass making money. The issue is Gass'
> >> >>>>>>>> rent-seeking.
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> Not sure what "rent-seeking" means.
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> noun 1. the fact or practice of manipulating public policy or
> >> >>>>>> economic conditions as a strategy for increasing profits. "cronyism
> >> >>>>>> and rent-seeking have become an integral part of the way our
> >> >>>>>> biggest companies do business" adjective
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> I can understand the manipulating public policy. Public policy
> >> >>>>> meaning government rules and regulations and laws. Lobbyists do
> >> >>>>> this. Not sure what economic conditions anyone can manipulate.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Gass wanted Congress to pass a law that every tablesaw should have a
> >> >>>> safety device (his). Certainly would have helped his economic condition.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Absolutely and an absolute dream come true for every entrepreneur or
> >> >>> business owner, CEO ect.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> What businesses fit this mold? Who has lobbied the government to have
> >> >>> an on going advantage?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Insurance companies.
> >> >>> All Energy providing companies.
> >> >>> TV entertainment providers.
> >> >>> Communication providers.
> >> >>> The automobile industry.
> >> >>> The building industry.
> >> >>> The food industry.
> >> >>> The medical industry...
> >> >>> The entertainment industry
> >> >>> The recycling industry.
> >> >>
> >> >> So which of these have succesfully lobbied for
> >> >> "If you purchase something of this kind it
> >> >> _must_ have this expensive feature"?
> >> >
> >> >Think about it.
> >> >
> >> >Can you own and drive an automobile with out having liability insurance?
> >> > That is state law in Texas. The insurance industry was instrumental
> >> >in getting that law.
> >> >
> >> >TV entertainment providers. Cable has long had government in their
> >> >pockets to protect their interests and prevent competition. In Texas, I
> >> >suspect else where, if you subscribe to cable TV you only have one
> >> >choice. No other cable providers can compete.
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> If you want a model, it wouldn't be any of
> >> >> those, it would be the airbag industry.
> >> >
> >> >The air bag industry as we all commonly know it is the automotive
> >> >industry. Now back up cameras have or will shortly become mandatory on
> >> >new vehicles.
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> As well as stability control, lane guideance, TPMS systems, and
> >> (already) ABS.
> >
> >I don't know about the others, but ABS is an
> >example of a company that could have profited
> >instead trying to save lives. Mercedes-Benz
> >held the critical patents for ABS as we know it,
> >and chose to license them free of charge to any
> >other auto maker who wanted to implement the
> >technology.
> >
> >
> Maxeret installed ABS on 1966 JensenFF. In 1958 the Royal Enfield
> Super Meteor had alnti-lock brakes,
> I believe the early silver Shadow Rolls (and some Bentleys had a type
> of antilock brake where brake boost was generated by a pump driven by
> the driveshaft. The faster it went, the more braking pressure was
> available, and at low speeds the boost was reduced. NOt 100% sure, but
> from stories I heard. At any rate, they would out-brake a Ferrari or
> Porche and stop dead straight, hands off, without flatspotting tires.
> The story I was told was 3 rich white South Africans were sittinf in a
> diner along the Garden Route back in the late sixties or early
> seventies and they got talking about their cars The one guy was
> bragging about his Fararri 365 GT and how fast it was and how it
> handled. The other guy was singing the praises of his Porsche 911T
> while the third guy just sat their listening and nodding his head.
> They asked him "so what do YOU drive - and he said "a Roller" and they
> all laughed.. He said it's not as quick as your sports cars, and it's
> heavier, but you REALLY need to go for a ride to appreciate it. They
> went out, he fired it up and took it down a nice long straight section
> of highway up to 115mph, then said :hang on". He took his hands off
> the wheel and stood on the brakes. When it came to a stop he started
> counting, 1, 2, 3, 4, and at five a cloud of blue tire smoke passed
> them. IMPRESSIVE.
Yes, child, I know that antiskid existed before
Daimler-Benz patented their electronic control
system. I have sitting in the driveway right
now a 1976 Lincoln with antiskid. However it
did not become widely available or popular and
there is a reason for that. Antiskid systems
using hydaulic logic are not reliable without
expert maintenance--they were OK for aircraft,
and for Rollers, and for novelty items like the
Jensen. But put them on a Volkswagen maintained
by your garden variety Hippy and they will
fairly quickly die the death.
What made them practical was the development of
a reliable and effective electronic control
system.
On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 20:12:38 -0500, "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] says...
>>
>> On 2/13/2017 11:14 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>> > In article <[email protected]>,
>> > [email protected] says...
>>
>> >> Not true with my exhaust system. The stainless steel exhaust has never
>> >> once been cleaned and it is now 16+ years old, and in the rust belt.
>> >> Surely GM could have used the same stuff in the brake lines, which is
>> >> magnitudes more important than the exhaust system as far as safety goes.
>> >
>> > So you never go through a car wash?
>>
>> Never, at least not with this truck.
>>
>> > And what pressure does your exhaust have to
>> > withstand? What pressure do your brake lines
>> > have to withstand?
>>
>> The break lines have no problem withstanding pressure, until they RUST!
>
><sigh>
>
>Never occurs to you that the stresses something
>needs to withstand affect the choice of alloy to
>be used, does it?
>
>As for the rest, why did you buy a GM product to
>begin with?
The only reason I ever bought a GM product was price - and it sure
didn't translate to low COST.
Bill <[email protected]> writes:
>Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> Bill <[email protected]> writes:
>>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>> The only reason I ever bought a GM product was price - and it sure
>>>>> didn't translate to low COST.
>>>> You were an automotive service manager and you
>>>> didn't know better?
>>>
>>> Okay, now you got my interest with this thread. I've been a Buick owner
>>> for many years (because I like the headroom and the quiet ride). Am I
>>> overpaying? What models should I be looking at instead--something from
>>> Toyota? By the way, I go to the Buick dealership as infrequently as
>>> possible because I know I can get a better deal elsewhere. Other
>>> dealerships different?
>> I sure like my Infiniti M37. 330hp is pretty sweet :-)
>
>190 hp has served me well enough... : )
>
>> I've had
>> Nissan cars since 1983 (810 Datsun Maxima, I30 and M37) all of which have
>> held up very well with zero problems.
>>
>> I really loved my 2000 base-model Ford Ranger; I gave it to my
>> nephew last year and got a Chevy Colorado, which I
>> don't love much at all - the programmers at Chevy are
>> incompetent.
>
>Wow, that's interesting. I saw the Colorado caught my eye, appearing on
>a "good value" list.
>I hate to ask you to think about it, but, for the sake of all who are
>interested, what bugs you about it?
>
Oh, it's all little things. From the comfort standpoint, the
Colorado is a step up from the base-model Ranger that I had. I
was looking for a domestic manual transmission and the Colorado
was the -only- option at the time (although Chevy didn't offer
a regular cab, mine was as base-model is it was possible to get).
On the down side, the gearing ratios aren't designed for people who
use engine braking (second is too close to first and too far from
third - which is probably for those who like to start out in second).
The radio display/backup camera screen is too small. There is
a very annoying two-second delay between turning the volume knob
and detecting a change in the sound level. The daylight sensor that
switches the screen brightness is horrible - passing through the shadow
of an overpass will dim the screen to unreadability. The entertainment
system infrequently resets for no apparent reason. The UI is poor.
I had a regular cab on the Ranger, but the colorado has an extended cab
and the back end sits much higher than the front, which makes rear
visibility poor (when compared with the excellent visibility in the
ranger).
There were two recalls in the first eight months I had it (shifter
lever and hood latch). I'm not particularly happy with the dealership
either, they had to keep my truck for 24-hours to change the oil and
do the recalls (and they didn't do the hood-latch one because they
didn't have the part in stock). On the otherhand, they'll do two
oil changes for free during the first two years.
Just can't compare with my memories of the 1963 Impala with the 350
four-barrel.
I hear ford is bringing the ranger back, may have to look into it.
On 2/14/2017 3:59 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 11:38:35 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 17:13:59 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/13/2017 10:14 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>>> [email protected] says...
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2/12/2017 1:27 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>>>> GM recalled my truck for the tailgate straps that could (but didn't)
>>>>>>>> rust. No problem with ABS brake failure, or brake lines rusting out,
>>>>>>>> but sure wouldn't want tailgate to drop 6 inches. How is it I have
>>>>>>>> stainless steel exhaust but break lines on every GM product I've owned
>>>>>>>> have rusted out?
>>>>>
>>>>>> Contrary to popular belief, stainless steel
>>>>>> corrodes under the right circumstances. If you
>>>>>> want it to last you have to keep it pretty
>>>>>> clean.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not true with my exhaust system. The stainless steel exhaust has never
>>>>> once been cleaned and it is now 16+ years old, and in the rust belt.
>>>>> Surely GM could have used the same stuff in the brake lines, which is
>>>>> magnitudes more important than the exhaust system as far as safety goes.
>>>>
>>>> So you never go through a car wash?
>>>
>>> In the south a good many car washes do not hit the bottom of the
>>> vehicle, only the wheels/wheel wells and the body.
>>>
>>> But the old exhaust systems rusted from within. Lot's of nasty crap
>>> coming from inside the exhaust including condensation that mixes to form
>>> some concoction. Remember the sulfur smell that was very common with GM
>>> vehicles equipped with catalytic converters in the 70's? These systems
>>> rusted out quickly and then the stainless steel exhaust systems began
>>> showing up and the problem has virtually gone away down here.
>>> The old steel exhaust systems looked fine on the outside but with just a
>>> little pressure with a pair of channel locks and you could easily crush
>>> and put a hole in the pipe.
>>
>> The catalytic converters, are not different from the ones use to make
>> sulphuric acid, so we eliminate CO, and make acid that eats metal.
> No.
> Since sulphur has been removed from motor fuel there is no sulphuric
> or sulphurous acid produced by current catalytic converter equipped
> vehicles, and even standard steel exhausts now outlast the best
> systems of 25 years ago -
The catalytic converters in question were from the mid 70's, not current
ones. And it was soon after that the exhaust systems were maid from
stainless steel.
In article <jkd7ac5ofpak6pfr3a3km07p019nfaqir5@
4ax.com>, [email protected] says...
>
> On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 20:10:38 -0500, "J. Clarke"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >In article <XnsA71C551315151dougmilmaccom@
> >213.239.209.88>,
> >[email protected] says...
> >>
> >> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
> >> news:[email protected]:
> >>
> >> > It doesn't matter what the brake lines are made
> >> > of, a 16 year old vehicle should have them
> >> > inspected and replaced as necessary.
> >> >
> >> > You're expecting magic materials to take the
> >> > place of proper maintenance.
> >>
> >> Nonsense. Metal brake lines are not a "maintenance" item, even on a 16-yo vehicle.
> >
> >They are or should be an inspection item.
> >
> >> In more than forty years of doing the vast majority of my own maintenance and repair, I've
> >> had to replace a corroded brake line exactly once: last March, on the Dodge truck which
> >> my wife and I bought new shortly after we got married -- in 1985.
> >
> >That you did your own maintenance and repair
> >does not mean that you did it right. Did you
> >perform every maintenance item that the service
> >manual specified?
> I can tell you from years as a mechanic, including dealer service
> manager - and the ONLY "maintenance item" to do with brake lines is
> changing fluid on a regular basis (every 2 to 5 years, depending) and
> inspecting the rubber hoses for cracks or bulges.
According to the owner's manual for my car, "at
every oil change", "Inspect brake pads, shoes,
rotors, drums, brake linings, hoses, and parking
brake". Of course it's to your advantage to not
check the pads because if they wear out and
mangle the rotors then you get to sell the
customer rotors in addition to pads. Prince of
a guy you are.
In article <jkd7ac5ofpak6pfr3a3km07p019nfaqir5@
4ax.com>, [email protected] says...
>
> On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 20:10:38 -0500, "J. Clarke"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >In article <XnsA71C551315151dougmilmaccom@
> >213.239.209.88>,
> >[email protected] says...
> >>
> >> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
> >> news:[email protected]:
> >>
> >> > It doesn't matter what the brake lines are made
> >> > of, a 16 year old vehicle should have them
> >> > inspected and replaced as necessary.
> >> >
> >> > You're expecting magic materials to take the
> >> > place of proper maintenance.
> >>
> >> Nonsense. Metal brake lines are not a "maintenance" item, even on a 16-yo vehicle.
> >
> >They are or should be an inspection item.
> >
> >> In more than forty years of doing the vast majority of my own maintenance and repair, I've
> >> had to replace a corroded brake line exactly once: last March, on the Dodge truck which
> >> my wife and I bought new shortly after we got married -- in 1985.
> >
> >That you did your own maintenance and repair
> >does not mean that you did it right. Did you
> >perform every maintenance item that the service
> >manual specified?
> I can tell you from years as a mechanic, including dealer service
> manager - and the ONLY "maintenance item" to do with brake lines is
> changing fluid on a regular basis (every 2 to 5 years, depending) and
> inspecting the rubber hoses for cracks or bulges.
That's not what the Ford owner's manual says,
but then I've never known a dealer service
department to actually perform the maintenance
that the book says to perform. I remember a
Jeep dealer giving me an argument when I asked
him to check the brakes. Maybe that was you,
did you ever work for Bolles Motors in
Ellington?
And are you a certified mechanic or just the
kind of "manager" who thinks that the manager
doesn't have to understand what his subordinates
do?
In article <0pd7ac9s88fnd0tnepj4ml6ke6thlogdao@
4ax.com>, [email protected] says...
>
> On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 20:12:38 -0500, "J. Clarke"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>,
> >[email protected] says...
> >>
> >> On 2/13/2017 11:14 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> >> > In article <[email protected]>,
> >> > [email protected] says...
> >>
> >> >> Not true with my exhaust system. The stainless steel exhaust has never
> >> >> once been cleaned and it is now 16+ years old, and in the rust belt.
> >> >> Surely GM could have used the same stuff in the brake lines, which is
> >> >> magnitudes more important than the exhaust system as far as safety goes.
> >> >
> >> > So you never go through a car wash?
> >>
> >> Never, at least not with this truck.
> >>
> >> > And what pressure does your exhaust have to
> >> > withstand? What pressure do your brake lines
> >> > have to withstand?
> >>
> >> The break lines have no problem withstanding pressure, until they RUST!
> >
> ><sigh>
> >
> >Never occurs to you that the stresses something
> >needs to withstand affect the choice of alloy to
> >be used, does it?
> >
> >As for the rest, why did you buy a GM product to
> >begin with?
> The only reason I ever bought a GM product was price - and it sure
> didn't translate to low COST.
You were an automotive service manager and you
didn't know better?
In article <jkd7ac5ofpak6pfr3a3km07p019nfaqir5@
4ax.com>, [email protected] says...
>
> On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 20:10:38 -0500, "J. Clarke"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >In article <XnsA71C551315151dougmilmaccom@
> >213.239.209.88>,
> >[email protected] says...
> >>
> >> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
> >> news:[email protected]:
> >>
> >> > It doesn't matter what the brake lines are made
> >> > of, a 16 year old vehicle should have them
> >> > inspected and replaced as necessary.
> >> >
> >> > You're expecting magic materials to take the
> >> > place of proper maintenance.
> >>
> >> Nonsense. Metal brake lines are not a "maintenance" item, even on a 16-yo vehicle.
> >
> >They are or should be an inspection item.
> >
> >> In more than forty years of doing the vast majority of my own maintenance and repair, I've
> >> had to replace a corroded brake line exactly once: last March, on the Dodge truck which
> >> my wife and I bought new shortly after we got married -- in 1985.
> >
> >That you did your own maintenance and repair
> >does not mean that you did it right. Did you
> >perform every maintenance item that the service
> >manual specified?
> I can tell you from years as a mechanic, including dealer service
> manager - and the ONLY "maintenance item" to do with brake lines is
> changing fluid on a regular basis (every 2 to 5 years, depending) and
> inspecting the rubber hoses for cracks or bulges.
That's not what my owners' manual says. However
I have never seen a dealer service department
actually DO all the maintenance items that are
called out in the book.
By the way, are you a certified mechanic, or
just a pointy-haired boss?
In article <MPG.330dfddc4a9f96c998aa11
@news.eternal-september.org>, j.clarke.873638
@gmail.com says...
>
> In article <jkd7ac5ofpak6pfr3a3km07p019nfaqir5@
> 4ax.com>, [email protected] says...
> >
> > On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 20:10:38 -0500, "J. Clarke"
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >In article <XnsA71C551315151dougmilmaccom@
> > >213.239.209.88>,
> > >[email protected] says...
> > >>
> > >> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
> > >> news:[email protected]:
> > >>
> > >> > It doesn't matter what the brake lines are made
> > >> > of, a 16 year old vehicle should have them
> > >> > inspected and replaced as necessary.
> > >> >
> > >> > You're expecting magic materials to take the
> > >> > place of proper maintenance.
> > >>
> > >> Nonsense. Metal brake lines are not a "maintenance" item, even on a 16-yo vehicle.
> > >
> > >They are or should be an inspection item.
> > >
> > >> In more than forty years of doing the vast majority of my own maintenance and repair, I've
> > >> had to replace a corroded brake line exactly once: last March, on the Dodge truck which
> > >> my wife and I bought new shortly after we got married -- in 1985.
> > >
> > >That you did your own maintenance and repair
> > >does not mean that you did it right. Did you
> > >perform every maintenance item that the service
> > >manual specified?
> > I can tell you from years as a mechanic, including dealer service
> > manager - and the ONLY "maintenance item" to do with brake lines is
> > changing fluid on a regular basis (every 2 to 5 years, depending) and
> > inspecting the rubber hoses for cracks or bulges.
>
> That's not what my owners' manual says. However
> I have never seen a dealer service department
> actually DO all the maintenance items that are
> called out in the book.
>
> By the way, are you a certified mechanic, or
> just a pointy-haired boss?
Sorry about the triple-post--my newsreader kept
crashing and I thought it wasn't sending.
Markem <[email protected]> writes:
>On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 11:13:44 -0500, Jack <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On 2/14/2017 4:54 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>> Just on small think - Brake lines only "break" when they rust Then
>>> they are still not "break lines" they are "broken brake lines"
>>> Break lines are the visible signs of breakage.
>>
>>I "think" you might be over thinking this....
>
>I think he might not be, but he might be punning?
The poster clare responded to had incorrectly used 'break'
several places in the post where the OP mean to type "brake". Clare
was playing on that original post.
On 2017-02-17, Jack <[email protected]> wrote:
> I should have said "I think you might be over thinging this" That would
> have been a better "pun"
Ever notice how the punster is the only one who thinks his pun is
actually funny? ;)
nb
On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 11:13:44 -0500, Jack <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 2/14/2017 4:54 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>
>> Just on small think - Brake lines only "break" when they rust Then
>> they are still not "break lines" they are "broken brake lines"
>> Break lines are the visible signs of breakage.
>
>I "think" you might be over thinking this....
I think he might not be, but he might be punning?
On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 20:10:38 -0500, "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <XnsA71C551315151dougmilmaccom@
>213.239.209.88>,
>[email protected] says...
>>
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>> > It doesn't matter what the brake lines are made
>> > of, a 16 year old vehicle should have them
>> > inspected and replaced as necessary.
>> >
>> > You're expecting magic materials to take the
>> > place of proper maintenance.
>>
>> Nonsense. Metal brake lines are not a "maintenance" item, even on a 16-yo vehicle.
>
>They are or should be an inspection item.
>
>> In more than forty years of doing the vast majority of my own maintenance and repair, I've
>> had to replace a corroded brake line exactly once: last March, on the Dodge truck which
>> my wife and I bought new shortly after we got married -- in 1985.
>
>That you did your own maintenance and repair
>does not mean that you did it right. Did you
>perform every maintenance item that the service
>manual specified?
I can tell you from years as a mechanic, including dealer service
manager - and the ONLY "maintenance item" to do with brake lines is
changing fluid on a regular basis (every 2 to 5 years, depending) and
inspecting the rubber hoses for cracks or bulges.
Bill <[email protected]> writes:
>J. Clarke wrote:
>>> The only reason I ever bought a GM product was price - and it sure
>>> didn't translate to low COST.
>> You were an automotive service manager and you
>> didn't know better?
>
>
>Okay, now you got my interest with this thread. I've been a Buick owner
>for many years (because I like the headroom and the quiet ride). Am I
>overpaying? What models should I be looking at instead--something from
>Toyota? By the way, I go to the Buick dealership as infrequently as
>possible because I know I can get a better deal elsewhere. Other
>dealerships different?
I sure like my Infiniti M37. 330hp is pretty sweet :-) I've had
Nissan cars since 1983 (810 Datsun Maxima, I30 and M37) all of which have
held up very well with zero problems.
I really loved my 2000 base-model Ford Ranger; I gave it to my
nephew last year and got a Chevy Colorado, which I
don't love much at all - the programmers at Chevy are
incompetent.
On 2/15/2017 4:41 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <jkd7ac5ofpak6pfr3a3km07p019nfaqir5@
> 4ax.com>, [email protected] says...
>>
>> On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 20:10:38 -0500, "J. Clarke"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <XnsA71C551315151dougmilmaccom@
>>> 213.239.209.88>,
>>> [email protected] says...
>>>>
>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>>
>>>>> It doesn't matter what the brake lines are made
>>>>> of, a 16 year old vehicle should have them
>>>>> inspected and replaced as necessary.
>>>>>
>>>>> You're expecting magic materials to take the
>>>>> place of proper maintenance.
>>>>
>>>> Nonsense. Metal brake lines are not a "maintenance" item, even on a 16-yo vehicle.
>>>
>>> They are or should be an inspection item.
>>>
>>>> In more than forty years of doing the vast majority of my own maintenance and repair, I've
>>>> had to replace a corroded brake line exactly once: last March, on the Dodge truck which
>>>> my wife and I bought new shortly after we got married -- in 1985.
>>>
>>> That you did your own maintenance and repair
>>> does not mean that you did it right. Did you
>>> perform every maintenance item that the service
>>> manual specified?
>> I can tell you from years as a mechanic, including dealer service
>> manager - and the ONLY "maintenance item" to do with brake lines is
>> changing fluid on a regular basis (every 2 to 5 years, depending) and
>> inspecting the rubber hoses for cracks or bulges.
>
> According to the owner's manual for my car, "at
> every oil change", "Inspect brake pads, shoes,
> rotors, drums, brake linings, hoses, and parking
> brake". Of course it's to your advantage to not
> check the pads because if they wear out and
> mangle the rotors then you get to sell the
> customer rotors in addition to pads. Prince of
> a guy you are.
>
If you look out your window and see your vehicle sitting in the drive
way and notice that it is dirty, did you just do maintenance. Your
owners manual probably says something about washing the vehicle to keep
it looking nice.
A visual inspection is not a maintenance procedure. It is simply
looking at it to see if there needs to be any maintenance.
J. Clarke wrote:
>> The only reason I ever bought a GM product was price - and it sure
>> didn't translate to low COST.
> You were an automotive service manager and you
> didn't know better?
Okay, now you got my interest with this thread. I've been a Buick owner
for many years (because I like the headroom and the quiet ride). Am I
overpaying? What models should I be looking at instead--something from
Toyota? By the way, I go to the Buick dealership as infrequently as
possible because I know I can get a better deal elsewhere. Other
dealerships different?
Bill
Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Bill <[email protected]> writes:
>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>>> The only reason I ever bought a GM product was price - and it sure
>>>> didn't translate to low COST.
>>> You were an automotive service manager and you
>>> didn't know better?
>>
>> Okay, now you got my interest with this thread. I've been a Buick owner
>> for many years (because I like the headroom and the quiet ride). Am I
>> overpaying? What models should I be looking at instead--something from
>> Toyota? By the way, I go to the Buick dealership as infrequently as
>> possible because I know I can get a better deal elsewhere. Other
>> dealerships different?
> I sure like my Infiniti M37. 330hp is pretty sweet :-)
190 hp has served me well enough... : )
> I've had
> Nissan cars since 1983 (810 Datsun Maxima, I30 and M37) all of which have
> held up very well with zero problems.
>
> I really loved my 2000 base-model Ford Ranger; I gave it to my
> nephew last year and got a Chevy Colorado, which I
> don't love much at all - the programmers at Chevy are
> incompetent.
Wow, that's interesting. I saw the Colorado caught my eye, appearing on
a "good value" list.
I hate to ask you to think about it, but, for the sake of all who are
interested, what bugs you about it?
Bill
Scott Lurndal wrote:
> I hear ford is bringing the ranger back, may have to look into it.
You motivated me to read about the "2019 Ranger" at Car and Driver.
What I found most interesting was the comments people posted. I found
it insightful to read about what people are looking for versus what is
available.
Cheers,
Bill
On 2/14/2017 4:59 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 11:38:35 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 17:13:59 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/13/2017 10:14 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>>> [email protected] says...
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2/12/2017 1:27 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>>>> GM recalled my truck for the tailgate straps that could (but didn't)
>>>>>>>> rust. No problem with ABS brake failure, or brake lines rusting out,
>>>>>>>> but sure wouldn't want tailgate to drop 6 inches. How is it I have
>>>>>>>> stainless steel exhaust but break lines on every GM product I've owned
>>>>>>>> have rusted out?
>>>>>
>>>>>> Contrary to popular belief, stainless steel
>>>>>> corrodes under the right circumstances. If you
>>>>>> want it to last you have to keep it pretty
>>>>>> clean.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not true with my exhaust system. The stainless steel exhaust has never
>>>>> once been cleaned and it is now 16+ years old, and in the rust belt.
>>>>> Surely GM could have used the same stuff in the brake lines, which is
>>>>> magnitudes more important than the exhaust system as far as safety goes.
>>>>
>>>> So you never go through a car wash?
>>>
>>> In the south a good many car washes do not hit the bottom of the
>>> vehicle, only the wheels/wheel wells and the body.
>>>
>>> But the old exhaust systems rusted from within. Lot's of nasty crap
>>> coming from inside the exhaust including condensation that mixes to form
>>> some concoction. Remember the sulfur smell that was very common with GM
>>> vehicles equipped with catalytic converters in the 70's? These systems
>>> rusted out quickly and then the stainless steel exhaust systems began
>>> showing up and the problem has virtually gone away down here.
>>> The old steel exhaust systems looked fine on the outside but with just a
>>> little pressure with a pair of channel locks and you could easily crush
>>> and put a hole in the pipe.
>>
>> The catalytic converters, are not different from the ones use to make
>> sulphuric acid, so we eliminate CO, and make acid that eats metal.
> No.
> Since sulphur has been removed from motor fuel there is no sulphuric
> or sulphurous acid produced by current catalytic converter equipped
> vehicles, and even standard steel exhausts now outlast the best
> systems of 25 years ago - while stainless steel systems should be
> virtually life-time systems. (My GM TranSport had well over half a
> million KM on the factory system, and it would have likely gone
> another 500,000km if the vehicle could have kept up to it.
> My current 21 year old Ford Ranger is at 350,000km and the exhaust is
> like new, hear in the central Ontario salt-bowl.
One more think, if, just because you can hear it in central Ontario
doesn't mean the same think here in the states...
--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com
On 2/16/2017 12:40 PM, Markem wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 11:13:44 -0500, Jack <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 2/14/2017 4:54 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>> Just on small think - Brake lines only "break" when they rust Then
>>> they are still not "break lines" they are "broken brake lines"
>>> Break lines are the visible signs of breakage.
>>
>> I "think" you might be over thinking this....
>
> I think he might not be, but he might be punning?
>
Yes, he was punning me for using break instead of brake, and I was
punning him back for using thinK instead of thinG. Tit for tat so to
speak...
EVERYONE types incorrect words when their brain is let loose on it's
own. ThinK instead of thinG is really common, but break instead of
brake, hall instead of hall, and maid instead of made are common
examples of brains running wild. Leon used maid instead of made in the
very next message after Clare screwed up his pun on me. No biggie, only
the really anal get their undies in a bunch, sort of the same ones that
hyperventilate over punctuation and spelling. I find it most
interesting when they misspell/misuse words in the very post they are
pointing out others errors, just as happened to Clare.
I should have said "I think you might be over thinging this" That would
have been a better "pun"
--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 16:44:57 -0800 (PST), DerbyDad03
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 5:07:28 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> On 2/13/2017 11:14 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > So you never go through a car wash?
>> >
>> > And what pressure does your exhaust have to
>> > withstand? What pressure do your brake lines
>> > have to withstand?
>> >
>>
>> >
>> > It doesn't matter what the brake lines are made
>> > of, a 16 year old vehicle should have them
>> > inspected and replaced as necessary.
>> >
>> > You're expecting magic materials to take the
>> > place of proper maintenance.
>> >
>>
>> I'd agree if the lines lasted that long. In 55 years of driving, I
>> never replaced corroded brake lines until rather recently. I drove
>> plenty of 10 to 15 year old crap cars but two newer cars (2001 and 2010)
>> needed brake lines after six years.
>>
>> That said, the 2001 Buick was falling apart in six years and I ended up
>> giving it away. Last GM car for me.
>
>2002 Mitsubishi Galant. Brake lines rusted out, strut towers rusted out, body rusted out, water was leaking in from under the globe compartment. I sold it to my mechanic for the price of
>scrap so he could teach his son how to fix cars.
>
>2 weeks later he found out that the frame was rusted out so he rewrote the lesson plan.
>He taught his son how to part out junk cars.
Mitsushitis and Mazdas still rust like it's 1984.
On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 11:38:35 -0600, Markem <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 17:13:59 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>wrote:
>
>>On 2/13/2017 10:14 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>> [email protected] says...
>>>>
>>>> On 2/12/2017 1:27 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>>> GM recalled my truck for the tailgate straps that could (but didn't)
>>>>>>> rust. No problem with ABS brake failure, or brake lines rusting out,
>>>>>>> but sure wouldn't want tailgate to drop 6 inches. How is it I have
>>>>>>> stainless steel exhaust but break lines on every GM product I've owned
>>>>>>> have rusted out?
>>>>
>>>>> Contrary to popular belief, stainless steel
>>>>> corrodes under the right circumstances. If you
>>>>> want it to last you have to keep it pretty
>>>>> clean.
>>>>
>>>> Not true with my exhaust system. The stainless steel exhaust has never
>>>> once been cleaned and it is now 16+ years old, and in the rust belt.
>>>> Surely GM could have used the same stuff in the brake lines, which is
>>>> magnitudes more important than the exhaust system as far as safety goes.
>>>
>>> So you never go through a car wash?
>>
>>In the south a good many car washes do not hit the bottom of the
>>vehicle, only the wheels/wheel wells and the body.
>>
>>But the old exhaust systems rusted from within. Lot's of nasty crap
>>coming from inside the exhaust including condensation that mixes to form
>>some concoction. Remember the sulfur smell that was very common with GM
>>vehicles equipped with catalytic converters in the 70's? These systems
>>rusted out quickly and then the stainless steel exhaust systems began
>>showing up and the problem has virtually gone away down here.
>>The old steel exhaust systems looked fine on the outside but with just a
>>little pressure with a pair of channel locks and you could easily crush
>>and put a hole in the pipe.
>
>The catalytic converters, are not different from the ones use to make
>sulphuric acid, so we eliminate CO, and make acid that eats metal.
No.
Since sulphur has been removed from motor fuel there is no sulphuric
or sulphurous acid produced by current catalytic converter equipped
vehicles, and even standard steel exhausts now outlast the best
systems of 25 years ago - while stainless steel systems should be
virtually life-time systems. (My GM TranSport had well over half a
million KM on the factory system, and it would have likely gone
another 500,000km if the vehicle could have kept up to it.
My current 21 year old Ford Ranger is at 350,000km and the exhaust is
like new, hear in the central Ontario salt-bowl.
On 2/14/2017 9:03 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> I can tell you from years as a mechanic, including dealer service
> manager - and the ONLY "maintenance item" to do with brake lines is
> changing fluid on a regular basis (every 2 to 5 years, depending) and
> inspecting the rubber hoses for cracks or bulges.
>
I have heard that some brine solutions now used for road treatment have
been problematic with rust on cars. I don't know enough about it to
draw a conclusion.
On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 20:48:01 -0500, "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <3nas9chblki4a89kreqtr795ls9s480169@
>4ax.com>, [email protected] says...
>>
>> On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 11:38:36 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On 2/10/2017 8:44 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>> >> In article <P5KdnQygW5wVXwDFnZ2dnUU7-
>> >> [email protected]>, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
>> >> says...
>> >>>
>> >>> On 2/10/2017 4:52 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> >>>> On 2/9/2017 10:05 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> >>>>> On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 2:50:59 PM UTC-6, Ed Pawlowski
>> >>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>> On 2/9/2017 2:35 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> The issue is not Gass making money. The issue is Gass'
>> >>>>>>>> rent-seeking.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Not sure what "rent-seeking" means.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> noun 1. the fact or practice of manipulating public policy or
>> >>>>>> economic conditions as a strategy for increasing profits. "cronyism
>> >>>>>> and rent-seeking have become an integral part of the way our
>> >>>>>> biggest companies do business" adjective
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> I can understand the manipulating public policy. Public policy
>> >>>>> meaning government rules and regulations and laws. Lobbyists do
>> >>>>> this. Not sure what economic conditions anyone can manipulate.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Gass wanted Congress to pass a law that every tablesaw should have a
>> >>>> safety device (his). Certainly would have helped his economic condition.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Absolutely and an absolute dream come true for every entrepreneur or
>> >>> business owner, CEO ect.
>> >>>
>> >>> What businesses fit this mold? Who has lobbied the government to have
>> >>> an on going advantage?
>> >>>
>> >>> Insurance companies.
>> >>> All Energy providing companies.
>> >>> TV entertainment providers.
>> >>> Communication providers.
>> >>> The automobile industry.
>> >>> The building industry.
>> >>> The food industry.
>> >>> The medical industry...
>> >>> The entertainment industry
>> >>> The recycling industry.
>> >>
>> >> So which of these have succesfully lobbied for
>> >> "If you purchase something of this kind it
>> >> _must_ have this expensive feature"?
>> >
>> >Think about it.
>> >
>> >Can you own and drive an automobile with out having liability insurance?
>> > That is state law in Texas. The insurance industry was instrumental
>> >in getting that law.
>> >
>> >TV entertainment providers. Cable has long had government in their
>> >pockets to protect their interests and prevent competition. In Texas, I
>> >suspect else where, if you subscribe to cable TV you only have one
>> >choice. No other cable providers can compete.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> If you want a model, it wouldn't be any of
>> >> those, it would be the airbag industry.
>> >
>> >The air bag industry as we all commonly know it is the automotive
>> >industry. Now back up cameras have or will shortly become mandatory on
>> >new vehicles.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> As well as stability control, lane guideance, TPMS systems, and
>> (already) ABS.
>
>I don't know about the others, but ABS is an
>example of a company that could have profited
>instead trying to save lives. Mercedes-Benz
>held the critical patents for ABS as we know it,
>and chose to license them free of charge to any
>other auto maker who wanted to implement the
>technology.
>
>
Maxeret installed ABS on 1966 JensenFF. In 1958 the Royal Enfield
Super Meteor had alnti-lock brakes,
I believe the early silver Shadow Rolls (and some Bentleys had a type
of antilock brake where brake boost was generated by a pump driven by
the driveshaft. The faster it went, the more braking pressure was
available, and at low speeds the boost was reduced. NOt 100% sure, but
from stories I heard. At any rate, they would out-brake a Ferrari or
Porche and stop dead straight, hands off, without flatspotting tires.
The story I was told was 3 rich white South Africans were sittinf in a
diner along the Garden Route back in the late sixties or early
seventies and they got talking about their cars The one guy was
bragging about his Fararri 365 GT and how fast it was and how it
handled. The other guy was singing the praises of his Porsche 911T
while the third guy just sat their listening and nodding his head.
They asked him "so what do YOU drive - and he said "a Roller" and they
all laughed.. He said it's not as quick as your sports cars, and it's
heavier, but you REALLY need to go for a ride to appreciate it. They
went out, he fired it up and took it down a nice long straight section
of highway up to 115mph, then said :hang on". He took his hands off
the wheel and stood on the brakes. When it came to a stop he started
counting, 1, 2, 3, 4, and at five a cloud of blue tire smoke passed
them. IMPRESSIVE.
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 17:07:28 -0500, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 2/13/2017 11:14 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>
>>
>> So you never go through a car wash?
>>
>> And what pressure does your exhaust have to
>> withstand? What pressure do your brake lines
>> have to withstand?
>>
>
>>
>> It doesn't matter what the brake lines are made
>> of, a 16 year old vehicle should have them
>> inspected and replaced as necessary.
>>
>> You're expecting magic materials to take the
>> place of proper maintenance.
>>
>
>I'd agree if the lines lasted that long. In 55 years of driving, I
>never replaced corroded brake lines until rather recently. I drove
>plenty of 10 to 15 year old crap cars but two newer cars (2001 and 2010)
>needed brake lines after six years.
>
>That said, the 2001 Buick was falling apart in six years and I ended up
>giving it away. Last GM car for me.
My 1985 LeBaron rotted the lines - but at about the same point where
the body was too weak to put it on the hoist to repair it
The 1995 TransSport also split a line. I've seen a lot of late model
cars rust the line under the clip that holds it in place. (Plastic or
metal clip doesn't seem to make a difference) m 21 year old ford
Ranger still has all original lines but it has been under-oiled since
new and all the lines are well caked with a layer of grease and dirt.
(just watch - now one will let go - serve me right for opening my big
mouth - - - )
On 2/16/2017 10:17 AM, Jack wrote:
> On 2/14/2017 9:07 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>
>> I was told that the brake fluid should be replaced on shedule to keep
>> the brake lines from rotting out.
>
> First I ever heard of that.
>
Brake fluid absorbs moisture. When the master cylinder gets low,
because it is not topped of on regular intervals, It becomes
contaminated from the moisture in the air. If you have ever rebuilt
wheel cylinders or a disk brake caliper, always lubricated with brake
fluid, you will often find pitting on the cylinder walls. That is from
the moisture in the brake fluid.
On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 13:24:49 -0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
<[email protected]> wrote:
>"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> It doesn't matter what the brake lines are made
>> of, a 16 year old vehicle should have them
>> inspected and replaced as necessary.
>>
>> You're expecting magic materials to take the
>> place of proper maintenance.
>
>Nonsense. Metal brake lines are not a "maintenance" item, even on a 16-yo vehicle.
I was told that the brake fluid should be replaced on shedule to keep
the brake lines from rotting out.
>In more than forty years of doing the vast majority of my own maintenance and repair, I've
>had to replace a corroded brake line exactly once: last March, on the Dodge truck which
>my wife and I bought new shortly after we got married -- in 1985.
On Tue, 21 Feb 2017 13:42:45 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>On Tue, 21 Feb 2017 11:31:23 -0500, Jack <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On 2/20/2017 1:50 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 10:07:21 -0500, Jack <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>> I bought a 1978 GMC Van, and it didn't rust out after about 15 years. I
>>>> had it Z-barted immediately after purchase though.
>>>
>>> Might have been your salvation, but SOME of the Ziebart treatments
>>> just guaranteed the vehicle WOULD rust - by blocking drainage holes,
>>> and flaking loose after any damage, trapping moisture and salt between
>>> the ziebart film and the metal. Has a LOT of "Ziebart Initiated Rust
>>> Perforation " up here in those years.
>>
>>I had a bunch of people tell me that, and is the exact reason I didn't
>>get my GMC pick up Z-Barted. Biggest mistake I ever made. My brother
>>has a '95 Ford PU he had Z-barted and it looks brand new. One quarter
>>panel rusts every other year, and the Z-bart guy fixes it free.
>
>Z-Bart of the '90s was much different than the Z-Bart of the '70s. It
>shouldn't be necessary for most vehicles (galvanized panels) but it
>wouldn't surprise me if GM cut corners.
>>
>>What really pisses me off is I really, really like my off road, 4 wheel
>>drive, extended cab with towing package GMC truck. It's drive train is
>>perfect, never had and engine or transmission problem. I put almost no
>>miles on it now that I'm old, and would love to keep it the rest of my
>>days. Not sure it will not turn into a pile of rust first. I can't
>>justify buying another since I don't drive it much anymore, and won't
>>likely be around anyway. The same truck today is around 50g's I think.
>>Hard to decide, although I would likely will go with a good American
>>truck, a Toyota...
>
>I went with an F150 because it was at least $15K less than the
>competition and just a good, if not better. I don't live in rust
>country anymore so that wasn't an issue.
And a Ram would have been about the same amount less than the F.
On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 10:55:40 -0500, Jack <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 2/13/2017 11:14 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> [email protected] says...
>
>>> Not true with my exhaust system. The stainless steel exhaust has never
>>> once been cleaned and it is now 16+ years old, and in the rust belt.
>>> Surely GM could have used the same stuff in the brake lines, which is
>>> magnitudes more important than the exhaust system as far as safety goes.
>>
>> So you never go through a car wash?
>
>Never, at least not with this truck.
>
>> And what pressure does your exhaust have to
>> withstand? What pressure do your brake lines
>> have to withstand?
>
>The break lines have no problem withstanding pressure, until they RUST!
>There is no excuse not to use break lines that don't rust. Exhaust
>system were/are notorious rusters when made of steel. They rust from
>the inside because of all the crap, including water expelled from the
>engine, and laying in the pipes. Break lines don't have to battle all
>that crap and could easily be made not to rust for the life of the car.
>
>Between the brake lines rusting and the ABS braking system failing
>repeatedly, GM should have been sued out of business. BTW, it only cost
>$700 to have all the brake lines replaced on that truck, and that was a
>few years ago, and at a garage, not a dealer. Would have been more at
>the dealer.
>
>My daughter and son both had Chevy Cavaliers in college and brake lines
>rusted out on both cars. I've been driving for 56 years and never
>replaced brake lines until this GM truck and the two Cavaliers my kids
>had. That's 3 for 3... good job there GM. Our screwed up government
>fines VW a $billion or more for fudging MPG on a few cars, but could
>care less that the brakes on GM products SUCK big time.
>
>My brother has a '95 Ford truck and brake lines are fine. GM is a no
>sale for me and my family. My wife has a VS Passat, my daughter a Ford
>and Son a VW Jetta I think it is. If I ever buy another truck, it will
>be a Ford, or a Toyota, leaning towards the Toyota although the aluminum
>Ford sounds rust free, something I would like a lot.
Just on small think - Brake lines only "break" when they rust Then
they are still not "break lines" they are "broken brake lines"
Break lines are the visible signs of breakage.
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 17:13:59 -0600, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 2/13/2017 10:14 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> [email protected] says...
>>>
>>> On 2/12/2017 1:27 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>> GM recalled my truck for the tailgate straps that could (but didn't)
>>>>>> rust. No problem with ABS brake failure, or brake lines rusting out,
>>>>>> but sure wouldn't want tailgate to drop 6 inches. How is it I have
>>>>>> stainless steel exhaust but break lines on every GM product I've owned
>>>>>> have rusted out?
>>>
>>>> Contrary to popular belief, stainless steel
>>>> corrodes under the right circumstances. If you
>>>> want it to last you have to keep it pretty
>>>> clean.
>>>
>>> Not true with my exhaust system. The stainless steel exhaust has never
>>> once been cleaned and it is now 16+ years old, and in the rust belt.
>>> Surely GM could have used the same stuff in the brake lines, which is
>>> magnitudes more important than the exhaust system as far as safety goes.
>>
>> So you never go through a car wash?
>
>In the south a good many car washes do not hit the bottom of the
>vehicle, only the wheels/wheel wells and the body.
>
>But the old exhaust systems rusted from within. Lot's of nasty crap
>coming from inside the exhaust including condensation that mixes to form
>some concoction. Remember the sulfur smell that was very common with GM
>vehicles equipped with catalytic converters in the 70's? These systems
>rusted out quickly and then the stainless steel exhaust systems began
>showing up and the problem has virtually gone away down here.
>The old steel exhaust systems looked fine on the outside but with just a
>little pressure with a pair of channel locks and you could easily crush
>and put a hole in the pipe.
The catalytic converters, are not different from the ones use to make
sulphuric acid, so we eliminate CO, and make acid that eats metal.
On 2/14/2017 4:54 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> Just on small think - Brake lines only "break" when they rust Then
> they are still not "break lines" they are "broken brake lines"
> Break lines are the visible signs of breakage.
I "think" you might be over thinking this....
--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com
On 2/14/2017 9:07 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> I was told that the brake fluid should be replaced on shedule to keep
> the brake lines from rotting out.
First I ever heard of that.
--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com
On Tue, 21 Feb 2017 16:57:01 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>On Tue, 21 Feb 2017 13:42:45 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 21 Feb 2017 11:31:23 -0500, Jack <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>On 2/20/2017 1:50 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 10:07:21 -0500, Jack <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I bought a 1978 GMC Van, and it didn't rust out after about 15 years. I
>>>>> had it Z-barted immediately after purchase though.
>>>>
>>>> Might have been your salvation, but SOME of the Ziebart treatments
>>>> just guaranteed the vehicle WOULD rust - by blocking drainage holes,
>>>> and flaking loose after any damage, trapping moisture and salt between
>>>> the ziebart film and the metal. Has a LOT of "Ziebart Initiated Rust
>>>> Perforation " up here in those years.
>>>
>>>I had a bunch of people tell me that, and is the exact reason I didn't
>>>get my GMC pick up Z-Barted. Biggest mistake I ever made. My brother
>>>has a '95 Ford PU he had Z-barted and it looks brand new. One quarter
>>>panel rusts every other year, and the Z-bart guy fixes it free.
>>
>>Z-Bart of the '90s was much different than the Z-Bart of the '70s. It
>>shouldn't be necessary for most vehicles (galvanized panels) but it
>>wouldn't surprise me if GM cut corners.
>>>
>>>What really pisses me off is I really, really like my off road, 4 wheel
>>>drive, extended cab with towing package GMC truck. It's drive train is
>>>perfect, never had and engine or transmission problem. I put almost no
>>>miles on it now that I'm old, and would love to keep it the rest of my
>>>days. Not sure it will not turn into a pile of rust first. I can't
>>>justify buying another since I don't drive it much anymore, and won't
>>>likely be around anyway. The same truck today is around 50g's I think.
>>>Hard to decide, although I would likely will go with a good American
>>>truck, a Toyota...
>>
>>I went with an F150 because it was at least $15K less than the
>>competition and just a good, if not better. I don't live in rust
>>country anymore so that wasn't an issue.
> And a Ram would have been about the same amount less than the F.
I call bullshit on that one. I haven't seen a new truck with a price
tag of $10K for a *long* time. I wouldn't buy a Chrysler product if
there were no other choice.
On 2/16/2017 6:19 PM, Leon wrote:
> On 2/16/2017 10:17 AM, Jack wrote:
>> On 2/14/2017 9:07 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>> I was told that the brake fluid should be replaced on shedule to keep
>>> the brake lines from rotting out.
>>
>> First I ever heard of that.
>>
>
>
> Brake fluid absorbs moisture. When the master cylinder gets low,
> because it is not topped of on regular intervals, It becomes
> contaminated from the moisture in the air. If you have ever rebuilt
> wheel cylinders or a disk brake caliper, always lubricated with brake
> fluid, you will often find pitting on the cylinder walls. That is from
> the moisture in the brake fluid.
In my youth I rebuilt plenty of them. Rebuilt plenty of engines as well.
Still, I never replaced brake fluid as routine maintenance ever, never
had a garage or dealer advise me to have brake fluid replaced either.
My GM dealer last time I was there had a 5 foot sign advising to have
your cooling system flushed and new anti freeze for some ridiculous
price, but not a word on replacing brake fluid.
Perhaps their keeping it a secret so your brake lines will rust out and
they'll sell more cars when you run into the back of another car. Just
another planned obsolescence scheme?
--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com
On 2/12/2017 12:45 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 10:54:04 AM UTC-6, Leon wrote:
>>
>> I mentioned the recyclable trash bags that the City of Houlston
>> requires for yard waste. they are patented and required by the
>> city if you are going to throw away yard waste.
>>
>> While not a vehicle component it is an example of a product that
>> has to be used with the city's approval code, if you are going to
>> throw yard refuse away.
>
> I guess the refuse bags sort of, kind of meet what I was asking.
> Although I doubt plastic bags are patented. They are specifically
> marked for Houston use. But anyone could make a similar bag out of
> petroleum and put the same markings on the bag and sell it for refuse
> use in Houston.
Well a reasonable person would assume that. IIRC the bags had a patent
pending number, had a seal, Approved by the city of Houston. There
were/are several other heavier/thicker mil recycleable refuse bags
available and much less expensive. But if you used those bags a warning
label was attached and the bag was not picked up.
The really unfortunate thing about the city of Housotn bags was that
they were so thin that the humidity/condensation would cause them to
begin melting from sitting out for just one one night and totally forget
it it rained. And of course those that failed because of the moisture
were left for the home owner to clean up.
And I suspect other landfills in your area or
> another county will accept yard waste without the specific Houston
> bag.
Absolutely, I live out side of the Houston city limits NOW and simply
dump the grass in a 45 gas 4 mil contractors bag and put it in with the
regular trash container.
I'm guessing the bags are required only if you want the city of
> Houston to pick up the waste from your curb. You are buying their
> service and are required to use their procedures.
The city does not care which bag you use for normal trash, they want
yard waste to be handled separately for recycling purposes. If you live
in the city limits you have no separate bill for trash pick up.
And no really had a problem with that except for the more expensive,
smaller, and thinner bags you had to use.
When I buy my
> cable TV I have to use their receiver box.
And I can understand that, but you have a "reasonable" choice to use
cable or another service. No other trash pick up service is offered and
you get no credit for taking trash to the dump yourself.
With waste pickup its
> built into the water bill you get each month so not really a choice.
Exactly
> In my city for picking up Christmas trees on the curb you have to buy
> a special ribbon and tie it onto the tree for the city workers to
> pick up the tree.
And I would have no problem with that as it is only once a year and the
ribbon does not fail more than 50% of the time.
The yard waste bags, specific to Houston, was something that happen just
before the mayor left office and his fingers along with a cloud of
suspicion were associated.
There was no reason in the world that better bags could not be used.
To give a fair comparison, you mentioned cable. The cable company makes
you use their box, the only one they offer you is the lowest quality and
at a premium price. Your neighbor across the street gets the better
quality box at a reduced price.
On 2/7/2017 9:05 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <a426cc09-91ce-4c80-8853-e44571ca2ad9
> @googlegroups.com>, [email protected] says...
>>
>> On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 6:50:15 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>> On 2/7/2017 5:28 PM, Leon wrote:
>>>> http://www.toolsofthetrade.net/power-tools/benchtop-tools/the-fate-of-reaxx_o?utm_source=newsletter&utm_content=Article&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=TOTT_020717%20(1)&he=bec4d8d422980f163c46356739c05c6eecb92632
>>>>
>>>
>>> Steve Gass continues to make friends. I wonder if someone losing a
>>> finger will sue Gass for not allowing Bosch to sell here.
>>
>> Is there a shortage of Saw Stop saws here? Is the price of Saw Stop so
>> prohibitive here that anyone who would have bought a Reaxx for the
>> safety feature can't/won't buy a Saw Stop?
>>
>> IOW, I don't see how anyone could sue the company that offers a comparable
>> product to the banned one. If someone wants the technology, and a Saw Stop
>> is available at roughly the same price, why would Gass be liable if someone
>> chooses not to buy his product? How did Gass cause that finger to be lost?
>
> You can sue anybody for anything. Doesn't mean
> you'll win.
>
> We just want something horrible to happen to
> Gass.
>
Speak for yourself.
The man offered all the companies the licensing rights. none took him up
on it.
I don't begrudge him. You do.. that's your problem.
His patent covers the method of detection too, which REAXX used.
same as a gfci... I guess Gass was smart enough to cover that.
--
Jeff
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
On 2/7/2017 9:39 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 2/7/2017 9:00 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
>> On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 6:50:15 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>> On 2/7/2017 5:28 PM, Leon wrote:
>>>> http://www.toolsofthetrade.net/power-tools/benchtop-tools/the-fate-of-reaxx_o?utm_source=newsletter&utm_content=Article&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=TOTT_020717%20(1)&he=bec4d8d422980f163c46356739c05c6eecb92632
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Steve Gass continues to make friends. I wonder if someone losing a
>>> finger will sue Gass for not allowing Bosch to sell here.
>>
>> Is there a shortage of Saw Stop saws here? Is the price of Saw Stop so
>> prohibitive here that anyone who would have bought a Reaxx for the
>> safety feature can't/won't buy a Saw Stop?
>>
>> IOW, I don't see how anyone could sue the company that offers a
>> comparable
>> product to the banned one. If someone wants the technology, and a Saw
>> Stop
>> is available at roughly the same price, why would Gass be liable if
>> someone
>> chooses not to buy his product? How did Gass cause that finger to be
>> lost?
>>
>
> Bosch is a smaller saw easily taken to the jobsite. Not so much for
> SawStop.
>
Wrong , sawstop makes a jobsite saw.
> SawStop is a good product. Gass in more interested in making money than
> saving fingers or he would be selling his technology at reasonable
> prices so the world would be a safer place.
So you don't like the capitalistic system? He offered the license.. no
one took it. He patented it like normal inventors do, now you don't like
that.
GET REAL
--
Jeff
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
On 2/8/2017 3:11 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
>> http://jalopnik.com/volvo-gave-away-their-most-important-invention-to-save-1069825878
>
> That gesture was over half a century ago. I'm curious as to whether Volvo would be so
> quick to give away their City Safety technology today.
>
> I have no idea how it compares with other auto-braking technologies out there, but that's
> not the point. In an apples-to-apples modern day comparison, do you know if Volvo is giving
> away what they call their "in-house developed unique technology for avoiding low-speed
> collisions"? I don't think they are, so why not use that as a comparable to the Saw-Stop
> situation instead of a 50+ year old gesture?
>
There are newer cases but I chose not to take the time to look them up.
Elon Musk is giving away some technology to helf electric vehicles
expand in the marketplaceIt was an example. Anyone wanting more should
find there own.
On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 09:44:24 -0500, "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <P5KdnQygW5wVXwDFnZ2dnUU7-
>[email protected]>, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
>says...
>>
>> On 2/10/2017 4:52 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> > On 2/9/2017 10:05 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> >> On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 2:50:59 PM UTC-6, Ed Pawlowski
>> >> wrote:
>> >>> On 2/9/2017 2:35 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>> The issue is not Gass making money. The issue is Gass'
>> >>>>> rent-seeking.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Not sure what "rent-seeking" means.
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> noun 1. the fact or practice of manipulating public policy or
>> >>> economic conditions as a strategy for increasing profits. "cronyism
>> >>> and rent-seeking have become an integral part of the way our
>> >>> biggest companies do business" adjective
>> >
>> >>
>> >> I can understand the manipulating public policy. Public policy
>> >> meaning government rules and regulations and laws. Lobbyists do
>> >> this. Not sure what economic conditions anyone can manipulate.
>> >
>> > Gass wanted Congress to pass a law that every tablesaw should have a
>> > safety device (his). Certainly would have helped his economic condition.
>>
>>
>> Absolutely and an absolute dream come true for every entrepreneur or
>> business owner, CEO ect.
>>
>> What businesses fit this mold? Who has lobbied the government to have
>> an on going advantage?
>>
>> Insurance companies.
>> All Energy providing companies.
>> TV entertainment providers.
>> Communication providers.
>> The automobile industry.
>> The building industry.
>> The food industry.
>> The medical industry...
>> The entertainment industry
>> The recycling industry.
>
>So which of these have succesfully lobbied for
>"If you purchase something of this kind it
>_must_ have this expensive feature"?
"that only I have a government-enforced monopoly on making."
>
>If you want a model, it wouldn't be any of
>those, it would be the airbag industry.
Nope. No government enforced monopoly there.
>
>> Mr. Gass is no different except he is the
>> little guy that has come up
>> with a great product and is successful.
>
>And he would have been more successful if he had
>just made his product and sold it without all
>the legal shenanigans before he started making
>it. Personally I will never, ever buy a Sawstop
>product not because of any concerns about the
>Sawstop but because I refuse to put a penny in
>that asshole's pocket. I'm sure there are
>others who feel the same.
On Wed, 8 Feb 2017 21:58:22 -0500, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 2/8/2017 8:37 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
>> On 2/8/17 1:37 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>> On 2/8/2017 1:07 PM, woodchucker wrote:
>>>
>>>> The man offered all the companies the licensing rights. none took
>>>> him up on it.
>>>>
>>>> I don't begrudge him. You do.. that's your problem.
>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe. I have no idea of the terms he wanted. Over the years so
>>> patents were offered free of royalty because they had the potential
>>> to save lives. Being a generous sort of guy, I once offered a meal
>>> to a starving homeless person for only $30.
>>> http://jalopnik.com/volvo-gave-away-their-most-important-invention-to-save-1069825878
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> It's your choice, it's their choice, it's anyone's choice to do so.
>> Anything other than that-- having the choice to do so-- is communism,
>> plain and simple.
>>
>> If someone offers their patented technology for free for the "better
>> good," good for them they are to be commended for their generosity.
>>
>> If someone else decides to make a profit off of their hard work and
>> intellectual property, then good for them, they deserve it.
>>
>> If someone else judges that person for making money off their hard work
>> and invention instead of giving it away, the fu@& you for judging them
>> and wanting them to give their hard earned property away for free. If
>> you choose to give something away which you rightly earned, then good
>> for you. If you sanctimoniously judge someone for keeping the money
>> they earn, then you are the problem, not them.
>>
>>
>
>Like I said, MAYBE. We don't know the terms. Sure, he invested in the
>technology and should have some return. It may have been $2 a unit, it
>may have been $800 a unit. In life we are faced with a myriad of
>circumstances and we have a choice as what to do. Our choice can make
>us a hero or a schmuck. I don't know where he falls.
Ryobi in Jan 2002 balked at a 3% royalty at the wholesale level
with no upfront fees. I'd call that a pretty fair deal.
That would have given them all the engineering and the right to use it
- on ANY saw they produced
On 2/12/2017 12:55 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 12:43:20 -0500, Jack wrote:
>
>>> C'mon people. Every time anyone even mentions Sawstop someone
>>> resurrects the brouhaha we've had several times now. Whatever your
>>> opinion, you're not changing others. Can't we just let it go? Get
>>> back to woodworking? Even a political thread would be more interesting
>>> :-).
>>
>> Why is it when a lot of people engage in a topic they find interesting,
>> someone attempts to impose their personal disinterest on the rest of the
>> group. Why can't you just skip the topics you are not interested in,
>> that's what most people would do?
>
> I found the topic quite interesting the first time it generated a massive
> response. Even the second time gave me a few more snippets of info. But
> now it just elicits an "Oh no, not again" response.
>
> In other words, it's not that the topic isn't of interest, it's that its
> been beaten to death already. Now if you're a newbie, I forgive you.
> You haven't seen all the previous incarnations. But what I see is mostly
> the same posters with the same opinions they've had since the beginning.
But Larry, the same could be said about, why is my finish doing such and
such. What brand such and such do you use? Most any question or topic
you see here has surly been covered a dozen times. If topics were not
repeated there would be no conversation.
>
> I wonder if some of them have any time left to do woodworking?
>
Well, I tend to defend the SawStop regardless of how it got there and I
might be considered a newby, I have only been posting here for 18 years.
And I seem to be one of the very few that actually post pictures of my
projects on a regular basis. So you know that I am building. It just
might be the ones that are not building that do not have enough actual
experience to have a valid/relevant opinion.
Not jumping you!, I'm just saying in general. ;~)
On 2/10/2017 3:32 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 4:52:54 AM UTC-6, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>
>> Gass wanted Congress to pass a law that every tablesaw should have a
>> safety device (his). Certainly would have helped his economic condition.
>
> I am not sure that can be done. Legal issues. Government laws can require safety devices. Airbags and seatbelts in cars being an example. But I doubt the law can require a specific patented device be installed. With airbags and seatbelts, the patents had long expired and the devices were actually in use and production before the law took effect requiring them to be installed in all cars.
>
The end result is it never happened. If a law was passed at the time,
his device was the only one available. Would have been a nice windfall.
Along the way he pissed off a lot of people.
OTOH, Obama care requires us to buy insurance or pay a fine. If that
can get by Congress a shop safety device is not much different.
On Wed, 8 Feb 2017 15:44:14 -0500, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 2/8/2017 3:22 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
>
>>>> True, but not relevant (as a lawyer would say) to this particular
>>>> lawsuit discussion.
>>>>
>>> Relevance and 12 jurors are different things. If a big company is a bad
>>> guy, relevance, truth, and fact mean little.
>>
>> OK, so tell me on what grounds a person could expect to win a suit against
>> Gass if they cut off a finger on non-Saw Stop saw? Would it go something
>> like this:
>>
>> "Your honor, my client could have bought a SawStop and avoided this terrible
>> accident, but he thinks Gass is an A-Hole and didn't want to give him any money.
>>
>> Surely you can see how that is the fault of Gass and that he should be held responsible
>> for my client's injuries. "
>>
>
>Cases have been won exactly that way. You just need the right jury.
I think that one would be thrown out at the first utterance of such
silliness, likely awarding Gass all costs. Jurries don't always get a
say.
On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 18:31:59 -0800 (PST), "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 3:49:15 PM UTC-6, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>
>> OTOH, Obama care requires us to buy insurance or pay a fine. If that
>> can get by Congress a shop safety device is not much different.
>
>And all of the states require you to have a state issued driver's license to operate a vehicle on the roads. And other licenses to operate a truck. There is about a 100% chance everyone will use health care. So having insurance to cover the costs makes sense. States require liability insurance to drive a car. States require you to buy insurance!!! No one doubts the ability of government to pass laws governing the safety aspects of products. The legal question is whether the law can require a patented device be mandated.
>
>Can anyone give an example of a law that required using a patented, licensed device? Seatbelts, airbags, ABS were all long past their patents when they were required by law to be included on cars.
But what about when the idea was first floated??? It takes a LONG
time to get safety devices mandated in the USA.
On 2/8/2017 9:59 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 2/7/2017 11:35 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
>
>>> Bosch is a smaller saw easily taken to the jobsite. Not so much for
>>> SawStop.
>>
>> Really?
>>
>> https://www.protoolreviews.com/tools/power/corded/saws/bosch-reaxx-1041a-vs-sawstop-jss-mca/14982/
>>
>>
>
> I was unaware of that model.
>
>
>>>
>>> SawStop is a good product. Gass in more interested in making money than
>>> saving fingers or he would be selling his technology at reasonable
>>> prices so the world would be a safer place.
>>
>> True, but not relevant (as a lawyer would say) to this particular
>> lawsuit discussion.
>>
> Relevance and 12 jurors are different things. If a big company is a bad
> guy, relevance, truth, and fact mean little.
>
Absolutely true but with the fact that SawStop is so successful, it is
obvious that the vast majority will see SS as the good guy. There are
only a handful of people with issues that don't seem to be able to let
things go. Those type jurors would most likely be eliminated during
jury selection.
On 2/9/2017 1:35 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 8:26:24 PM UTC-6, [email protected]
> wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 Feb 2017 12:21:27 -0800 (PST),
>> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> My opinion. Ha Ha. I want the SawStop or Bosch technology on
>>> every saw ever made and ever will be made. I want saws to not
>>> cut people. I want safety. Hopefully the patents expire
>>> sometime soon and every saw maker in the world will be able to
>>> make saws with this safety device on it. And hopefully they can
>>> make it cheaper, easier for the replacement cartridges. Not that
>>> anyone should ever need a replacement cartridge if they follow
>>> safe smart cutting methods. I want a SawStop or Bosch safety
>>> saw. But I want a real European sliding saw more because I think
>>> its safer and far more functional than the old outdated American
>>> style saw. So I will have to wait awhile longer until a European
>>> company puts the SawStop technology onto their sliding table saw.
>>> Until then I will have to work with my older Delta Contractor saw
>>> and use safe handling methods to cut wood. Thinking is important
>>> when using a saw.
>>
>> The important patents expire in a couple of years, IIRC.
>
>
> That is good. Hopefully all saws will have this safety device. I
> want safe saws. Safe European sliding saws. Not USA style cabinet
> saws.
That might be hard to say, if Euro saws will have the device in the
future. Is SS's patent protection extend to Europe, or just European
saws that are sold here? I think that Bosch can manufacture the Reaxx
but not import to the US. If this is the case European saw may have the
legal right to have this technology on their own now, but may choose to
not do so.
FWIW I was strongly considering the purchase of a Laguna TSS with
scoring and the SS when shopping for a safer saw than my Jet cabinet saw.
Ultimately I felt the large foot print with out feed tables and
extensions of the Laguna was too much and I opted for the SS ICS.
And ultimately the SS does offer an extra layer of protection that most
all other saws do at this time. That was what I was after.
>
>
>>
>>> I personally know lawyers and a judge. They are all very fine
>>> people. So being a lawyer does not automatically make someone
>>> evil. Businesses are not good or evil either. Whether the
>>> inventor of the technology tried to make a huge amount of money
>>> is not important either. I try to make money every day too.
>>
>> The issue is not Gass making money. The issue is Gass'
>> rent-seeking.
>
> Not sure what "rent-seeking" means.
I think he was referring to on going license agreements.
Like most franchises have.
On 2/8/2017 3:22 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
>>> True, but not relevant (as a lawyer would say) to this particular
>>> lawsuit discussion.
>>>
>> Relevance and 12 jurors are different things. If a big company is a bad
>> guy, relevance, truth, and fact mean little.
>
> OK, so tell me on what grounds a person could expect to win a suit against
> Gass if they cut off a finger on non-Saw Stop saw? Would it go something
> like this:
>
> "Your honor, my client could have bought a SawStop and avoided this terrible
> accident, but he thinks Gass is an A-Hole and didn't want to give him any money.
>
> Surely you can see how that is the fault of Gass and that he should be held responsible
> for my client's injuries. "
>
Cases have been won exactly that way. You just need the right jury.
On 2/8/2017 5:22 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 4:40:20 PM UTC-6, Leon wrote:
>>
>>> The man offered all the companies the licensing rights. none took
>>> him up
>>
>> The other companies were betting against this getting off the
>> ground and lost, lost really big. One was about to pull the
>> trigger to get the license and got cold feet. I would imagine that
>> the cost was not too much for them but probably pulled out when
>> every one else looked the other way. I bet they are kicking
>> themselves in the butt now.
>>
>> Either way the patents will run out sooner than later.
>>
>
> Not sure they are kicking themselves or not. Any competent company
> looked at the cost for the license, cost for the extra
> material/technology to build the saw, and did some kind of estimate
> for potential sales and/or gains from having the SawStop on their
> saws. They decided it did not make economic sense to buy the SawStop
> license because the return/profit would not be enough.
Well you are close to correct. Any competent company would look into
all of this prior to starting the process. They would not have been
close to committing had the figures not already been considered.
>
> SawStop is a going concern now. But no one knows how much money the
> company is making.
Actually most manufactures and retail sales stores know exactly how many
are being sold. That is where I got my information.
> Total number of SawStops sold and total of all table saws sold. New
> and used.
Only New are being compared. No manufacturer sells used equipment that