Sawstop--the wrong marketing approach?

In article <[email protected]>, tzipple <[email protected]> wrote:
>I asked a question. I did not assign any point of view. And it is not a
>"cheap tactic." It is a fair question to pose to those who argue that an
>unfettered free market is a good thing. Let's see if he responds... as
>you did not.

Indeed it is... but I did not argue that an unfettered free market is a good
thing. That's *your* strawman. I said no such thing.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

Would you pay $100 for everytime Sawstop fired or misfired to replace
the parts? Would you be comfortable installing safety mechanisms
yourself? Personally, I would answer No to both questions and therein
lies the dilemma for being commercially viable in the hobbyist market.
Bob

Obviously from this discussion not everyone would buy it, but I
certainly would as long as it wan't cost prohibitive. A year and a half
ago I cut the tip of a finger off on my PM66. I really wish I had been
working on a sawstop equipped saw. Sawstop isn't a hard sell to me at
all. $100/cartridge + a new blade? So what? Want to know how much
cutting my fingertip off cost? About $6000. Mosly covered by insurance,
but cost to me was still more than the $200 it would have cost to get
back on track after a sawstop trigger. In other words I would be _very_
happy to shell out $200 every time I would have cut my fingers off but
didn't because the brake triggered. Clearly the general strategy would
be to never get into a situation in which you triggered the thing at
all, but as I have learned sometimes accidents happen.

I think the reason saw manufacturers don't want to use it is probably
one of two things:

1) the manufacturers are really lazy
2) the terms being offered to them to license the technology are too
expensive

Lazy?
My theory is that the manufacurers are loathe to redesign their
products and retool their production facilities, because that is way
more trouble than just continuing to pump out what they already make.
The reason the PM 66 is called the 66 is because it hasn't been
substantially changed in design for the last 38 freaking years.
Comparing my '72 PM66 and my friend's new one, the few minor changes I
noticed were obviously to slightly cut production cost, not to improve
the design. It would be pretty straightforward to redesign the arbor
casting and cradle to accomodate at the least a riving knife. But they
haven't even bothered to do that, much less the more serious
modifications that would be required to design in sawstop.

Terms too steep?
Some saws/brands have higher margins than others, but generally I bet
the manufacturers are not making a huge profit on such a commodity
product. Adding cost to the production would mean either cutting their
margins or charging way more by the time distribution and retail
markups are included.

I think of this technology exactly like airbags in cars. It adds some
cost. Some people don't think the cost is worth it. You can certainly
buy cars without airbags. But I am willing to pay a little extra for
that additional protection. Hopefully you never even have the
opportunity to get your money's worth out of the system, but it is
there in case you need it. (I actually don't have a car though, so
we'll see in the future I guess).

The other comment I had re: the number of table saw injuries. Most
table saw injuries are related to kickback, which sawstop woudn't help
with in most cases. However, the second place injury is lacerations,
which along with kickback related incidents where the kickback drags
people's hands into the blade would be helped by sawstop.

-Holly

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 19:13:26 -0800, "ted harris"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In news:Doug Miller <[email protected]> typed:
>> It's somewhat less clear that any
>> government-mandated safety device is a better means of preserving their
>> digits
>> than simple responsible safety practices.
>
>Please understand that I am not involved at all in the political side of
>this argument. I personally could care less whether or not the government
>makes it required or not...all I know is, I will have this system on any
>machinery in my shop that it can be put on, when it becomes available.

And that says a lot about your confidence in your abilities and your
personal cost/benefit ratios - but it really means nothing to some of
us. I've been running power equipment for 30 years or so - since I was
really too young to be doing it. I have developed a great deal of
respect for the tools and make every effort to work in a way that
allows me to stay clear of the sharp parts. I will probably not
purchase a saw with this kind of device because the cost of even a
minor contact is currently high enough to put me out of the shop for
weeks or months until I could afford the new cartridge and blade. As I
have said elsewhere, I suspect that the vast majority of table saw
injuries don't involve amputation or even a trip to the emergency
room. I have witnessed two TS accidents, both direct result of
careless behavior around the saw, both were pretty good cuts, but
neither even required stitches, simply a good bandage. One friend of
mine did cut his thumb, index finger and half the next one off. That
was one of those accidents that involved running the saw when tired
and in a hurry. He probably would have appreciated SawStop at that
moment!

Point is that I will apply a lot of personal controls to reduce the
risk of a major injury rather than pay the premium on a system that
can turn a 2 cent bandage injury into a $150 repair bill on the saw.

It's a calculated risk - but it *is* a *calculated* risk.

Tim Douglass

http://www.DouglassClan.com

In article <[email protected]>, J. Clarke
<[email protected]> wrote:

> It just occurred to me that the replacement parts for the Sawstop could be a
> profit center for saw manufacturers. Especially if it falses occasionally.
> Probably be able to make as much margin on those as on a blade.
>
> Wonder if he tried to sell it that way? The razor and blades approach.
> Give away the sawstop and figure enough people are hamfingered enough to
> make up the cost in consumables?
>
> Be interesting to see some market research on that.
>
> If there are 30,000 table-saw related injuries that require a hospital visit
> every year (and presumably most of those would have triggered the sawstop
> if it was present) how many more were there that did not require a hospital
> visit but would have triggered the sawstop? There seem to be about ten
> non-amputations for every amputation, if that carries through to
> non-hospital then there would be about 300,000 Sawstop activations a year.
> So what is that in terms of percentage of the installed base of saws?

As someone mentioned it might be a hard sell for the hobbiest. But
think about the pro shop getting an insurance discount for an "Sawstop"
shop. There might be an economic incentive to migrate the tools.

Allen
Catonsville, MD

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 12:55:13 -0500, Hank Gillette <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>I may be overly suspicious, but I think the saw manufacturers don't want
>to put it on their saws because in effect they would be admitting that
>their previous saws were unsafe.

Hank -- Assuming that the technology works, then I can see the saw
companies coming to this very conclusion (with a number of twists and turns
in the analysis) as a reason to not go that way. After all, they might
have offered two lines -- one w/, one w/o. Certainly there is some
substantial market out there for this feature. (Of course, as always, there
are costing issues.) Actually, I would take a slightly different view than
yours: Not so much that adding sawstop would say that past TSs were unsafe,
but that a significant market would still want the less expensive saws w/o
this dealie and that selling w/ and w/o versions would look bad -- that is
what the companies may have concluded.

While car companies have offered air bags as optional equipment on some
cars, maybe from a jury perspective a "safe" saw and an "unsafe" saw could
not be justified. People think they understand cars; even some of us who
use TSs are still working out all the dynamics.

Think about how various safety features of today's cars came to market,
from collapsing steering columns, padded dashboards, and crumple zones, to
airbags. Generally, there was industry opposition and eventually courts,
Congress, or stockholders required them. At least until maybe 10-15 years
ago, safety was not embraced; it was eventually accepted, IMO. Think about
roll cages in minivans. They make huge sense in light of the fact that
minivans are sold to families, yet Detroit did not rush to design them into
minivans. IIRC, the feds eventually set a deadline. Sure, there have been
some companies to jump on a new safety opportunity -- the Germans and the
Japanese often are in this group. But base on looking at what US-based
companies bring to market, the _general_ view is that "safety" only sells
to a marginal group.

There can be an irony in the law about such things. If the sawstop
technology does work and it catches on, then if a company that does not
sell sawstop is sued for its "plain" TS, the plaintiff can say, "They could
have added this new technology but they refused." OTOH, if the same
company had licensed sawstop and then was sued, the fact that it had added
a sawstop line would not be admissible in court. YMMV, depending on your
state, but that irony exists in many states. FWIW. -- Igor

"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, "ted harris"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> >In news:Doug Miller <[email protected]> typed:
> >> In article <[email protected]>, "ted harris"
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>Sounds great to me...can't wait to order mine!
> >>
> >> You can *order* one any time you like, no waiting.
> >>
> >> It's actually *getting* one that you have to wait for.
> >
> >No, they are being delivered as we speak!!
>
> Are they really? Or is that more of their hype?
>

C'mon Doug - didn't Steve Gass say he has two of them in the field... even
as we speak?
--

-Mike-
[email protected]

"J" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Sawstop, airbags... sawstop... airbags.... hmmm....
> Am I the first to suggest that tablesaws be fitted with airbags which go
off
> whenever a body part touches the blade?
> Boom! Your insert sprouts a big puffy bag and pushes your hand out of
harms
> way in milliseconds.
> Don't forget to wear your face shield!
>
> -j
>

Well... if you're wearing your full face helmet, your leather apron and your
hearing protection, you don't need a face shield.
--

-Mike-
[email protected]

> I keep reading that from people, but how many times have you heard anyone
> say that they drive more recklessly because they have an airbag in their
> car? Or even really had reason to believe they do? It isn't human nature
> to behave that way. Whenever I heard that argument the first thought that
> comes to my mind is that it's a hollow argument from someone who simply does
> not like an idea, but has not real argument against it.

Well, I don't think it's a conscious thing, no one would say "Wow, I
drive worse with an airbag." But it's a well-documented effect that
safety in one place can squeeze out into previously unexpected dangers.

The canonical example is with "child-proof" caps on aspirin. Prior to
"child-proof" caps, parents were always very careful to keep aspirin
where kids couldn't reach them it at all. In 1970 they made "child
proof" caps mandatory, and it basically had no effect on aspirin
poisinings in kids. The explanation I like best for this is that
parents depend on the caps and don't keep the drugs out of reach - but
the caps fail (or are used improperly), so some number of kids get
poisened anually, anyway. An article about this effect is here:

http://www.libertyhaven.com/politicsandcurrentevents/constitutionscourtsandlaw/marketprotect.shtml

It's a pretty common effect that when a new safety measure is
introduced, the law of unintended consequences results in something
undesirable happening. Maybe it's a wash (as with aspirin safety caps),
maybe it's more desireable than what was happening but less stellar than
hoped for. For example, airbags have certainly saved some lives, but
they've inflicted injuries and in some small number of cases caused
deaths that would've been otherwise avoided. On balance, I suspect
we're better with them than without (although I personally wish they
were smaller and designed for people who will use them with seatbelts,
which are much more effective at preventing injuries in crashes). But
it's naive to think that they are an unclouded good.

Just to be clear - I'm actually not arguing against Saw Stop (although I
think their current regulatory attempts are misguided, at best). If it
had been available as an option when I bought my saw, I'd've definitely
gotten one - I'm real big on safety devices. I'd strive to treat my
tablesaw with just as much respect as I do now, although it's impossible
to say what level of pure terror has anything to do with my current
level of safety consciousness ;).

Based on past experience with other safety mandates, though, if it were
a required item, I'd be very surprised if we didn't have some sort of
other "squeeze out" in injuries - perhaps not nearly as bad as
amputations - as a result of unintended consequences from Saw Stops.
This is not necessarily an argument against the Saw Stop, it's just a
reminder that there are no silver bullets.

-BAT

here's another question about sawstop's machines.

does the extra mechanism for dropping the blade introduce another
source of slop in the trunnion? I can't see how it wouldn't,
especially over time.

On 20 Dec 2004 19:00:40 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 18:40:06 GMT, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 20 Dec 2004 16:25:54 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Yes, dozens of people a year vs. thousands saved.

I'm sorry, but you simply don't know what you're talking about.
Between their introduction in the 1980s and 1997, the NHTSB reported
about 2600 lives saved by air bags. Almost all of those people were
otherwise unsecured, which means almost all of them would have also
been saved by seat belts.

This is a far cry from your 'thousands' saved every year. Meanwhile,
87 people were killed by air bags in that same period. Studies clearly
show that air bags increase the possibility and severity of injury
see:
http://www.hcra.harvard.edu/pdf/airbags.pdf

Note that below 52 Km/H a woman is more likely to be injured than
protected by an air bag.

And more children have been killed by air bags than saved by them:
http://www.musc.edu/catalyst/archive/1997/co11-7passenger.htm

(See also the NHTSA report referenced below)


>> Remember, if you use your seat belt (which I do) an air bag has very
>> little positive effect on your safety.
>
>Remember, just because you keep repeating a falsehood, that doesn't make
>it true.

Just because you have a preconception doesn't make it true. Seat belts
reduce fatalities among drivers and front-seat passengers by about 45
percent. Air bags add, at most about an additional 9 percent
protection. In my book that's 'very little' additional protection. As
far as injury reduction is concerned, air bags added 7 percent
protection to seat belts, an amount the NHTSA declared not
statistically significant.
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/site/nhtsa/template.MAXIMIZE/menuitem.dcee64704e76eeabbf30811060008a0c/?javax.portlet.tpst=3c0dd0fb9371f21ab25f5ed01891ef9a_ws_MX&javax.portlet.prp_3c0dd0fb9371f21ab25f5ed01891ef9a_viewID=detail_view&javax.portlet.begCacheTok=token&javax.portlet.endCacheTok=token&itemID=c25200d2a0cbff00VgnVCM1000002c567798RCRD&viewType=standard

> The engineers of European cars had airbags in place _long_ before
>the US required them, and they certainly didn't do it for cost reduction
>reasons.

And your source for this statement? I can't find any. The earliest
mention I can find for air bags in Europe is in 1992, years after the
airbags first appeared on American cars.

As to why the Europeans did it -- Most of them did it because they
wanted to be able to sell their cars in the United States, at least
orignally.

> Apparently those who work with automotive safety systems as part
>of their job know more about it than, say, you.

Of myself, I know very little. But unlike, say, you. I'm willing to go
out and to the research to discover if what I do know is accurate.

The people who know automotive safety systems are unanamious that seat
belts work better than air bags. You'll notice none of them recommend
using air bags alone and all the literature refers to air bags as
'supplemental devices'.

>>>Or are you one of these people who base your opinions on the exception rather than the rule?
>>
>> I'm one of those people who prefer to have the choice.
>
>OK, so you'd rather go face-first into a dashboard than an airbag? You
>prefer hitting a steering wheel with your chest, rather than an air-filled
>pillow?

That only happens if you're not wearing a properly adjusted seatbelt.
Or did you miss that part of my comment?

I don't know if you're deliberately attempting to set up a straw man
here or if you just don't read very carefully.

>You can still get _serious_ chest trauma wearing a seatbelt,
>by hitting the steering wheel. Been there, done that, read the bruise
>on the guy's chest that had "droF" pressed into it.

And air bags increase the risk of injury to drivers and occupants in
most categories on the injury scale. See above.

Besides, if your seat belt is properly adjusted you won't hit the
steering wheel.

>
>> These other
>> folks who are supposedly so interested in my well-being are admantly
>> opposed to my having any choice at all. Which is what I find so
>> interesting.
>
>Some choices are poor ones.
In this case the choice is not at all poor. Why should I trade a
significant risk of medium-level injury for a relatively small degree
of protection in the event of a major crash? Especially when I know
that if I am a member of certain classes the risk of injury is much
higher than for most people?

This is, at worst, not a clear cut decision and I should be able to
make it on my own. However the 'consumer advocates' among us were
nearly hysterical to prevent me from making a choice.

This is the part I find so interesting, not the relatively mundane
statistical details. It is interesting for the light it throws on
these people and their thinking. As a philosophical matter it says
some pretty ugly things about the way these people think and perhaps
what their real motives are. As a practical matter it gives us
guidance on how much credence to place on their continuing campaigns
for laws to make us 'safer.'

(This is reinforced, btw, by their track record with their arguments
and data in this case. For example their wild overestimate of how many
lives air bags would save. Their careful blurring of air bags as
supplements rather than replacements for seat belts, and so on.
However those are matters for another tirade.)


> A basic understanding of the statistics involved would show that to any rational person.

Sorry, you're wrong. The statistics don't support your claims.

>
>> This is especially significant since the risk of injury from airbags
>> goes way up for certain classes of drivers.
>
>Yes, up to something like 1:1000 per life saved, instead of 1:5000.
>Still safer with than without.

You have not the least little idea what the facts are, do you? And
apparently you can't even be bothered to find out. So you support your
preconceptions with made-up numbers.

>> I'm sure my
>> five-foot-nothing mother-in-law woud love to be able to switch off the
>> airbags in her car. The last time she was in an accident the air bag
>> skinned her face.
>
>Waaah. A bit of bag rash on the face.

That 'bag rash' damn near required skin grafts over most of her face.
It has caused corneal tears (severe eye damage) in others.

>Beats eating the dashboard.

Since she was wearing a seat belt that wouldn't have happened. Reading
comprehension again.

>> She spent several days in the hospital solely
>> because of the airbags and the same thing -- or worse -- is probably
>> going to happen to her if she's in another accident where the airbags
>> deploy.
>
>Right, because obviously the airbag is going to hit her harder than she'll
>hit the harder parts of the car...sheesh.

Straw man/reading comprehension again. If you're wearing a seat belt
and it is properly adjusted you don't hit the harder parts of the car.

--RC


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

"ted harris" <[email protected]> wrote:

> In news:Doug Miller <[email protected]> typed:
>> Well, clearly some three kilopeople annually are in fact not
>> responsible enough not to work dangerously. It's somewhat less clear
>> that any government-mandated safety device is a better means of
>> preserving their digits
>> than simple responsible safety practices.
>
> Are you implying that none of the 3000 + people that have amputations
> are not professional woodworkers?
> I know several carpenters and professional woodworkers that have had
> fingers disappear,

Beamed up? Abducted? Ransom demands? Argentinian death squads?

> or get serious enough cuts that require them not to
> work. Don't you?

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 23:50:27 -0500, GregP <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 22:47:19 GMT, "Vic Baron" <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>I'm 67 years
>>old and have been making noise and sawdust for over 40 years - still have
>>all ten complete digits.
>
>
> If I get to 67 - and I'm not that far away - I will see even less
> clearly than I do now, my reactions will be even slower,
> my strength will have diminshed even further, my thought
> processes will be slower, and my sense of balance will
> be even worse. So I will assume that the chance that I
> will have a digit-subtracting accident will be considerably
> higher than when I was 35.

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

Older age groups famously have fewer accidents than younger ones.

--RC

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

In news:Bob <[email protected]> typed:
> Would you pay $100 for everytime Sawstop fired or misfired to replace
> the parts? Would you be comfortable installing safety mechanisms
> yourself? Personally, I would answer No to both questions and therein
> lies the dilemma for being commercially viable in the hobbyist market.
> Bob

In my case it would be $70- for the cartridge, and $110- for the blade...and
I would like to state emphatically "yes" that I would gladly pay that many
times to keep my fingers and limbs intact. Is there really any other way to
look at it? Maybe for someone that was so cheap that they can justify not
spending the money to keep their digits and limbs there is a different
answer...but I don't think so!
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

In news:J <[email protected]> typed:
<snip nonsense>
>Would you be willing to
> wait for either the saw to be shipped to an authorized service center,
> fixed and returned (and you still have to buy a new blade) or wait for
> someone to come out and fix it (and you still have to buy a new blade)?.

Replacing the cartridge is as easy as changing the blade. I don't know
where you get that it has to be shipped here and there and everywhere...

> Or would you rather wrap your knuckle in a starbucks napkin and run a few
> layers of masking tape over it and get on with your work?

Average reaction time when feeding your hand into a saw blade is 2.5
fingers. At that point you might as well throw them into the garbage.

> Sure it is an interesting idea, but it doesn't have practicallity on it's
> side. Saw manufacturers want to sell saws. They do not want to have to
> deal with servicing saws. Saw buyers want to use saws. They do not want
> to wait for service which they can not perform themselves.
>
> -j
Again, where do you get this idea from? Have you been to their website and
read it thoroughly?
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

In news:J <[email protected]> typed:
> OK, so if it is self service, customers don't want to have to have a
> replacement module and extra saw blade if they don't need to. I'm not
> saying sawstop is a bad thing. I'm just trying to give some reasons why
> manufacturers might not want to include it.
>
> -j

Do you just like to hear yourself talk? Why don't you do some research
before you perpetuate this crap? It is people like you that hold up the
evolutionary process.
Maybe manufacturers don't want to include it because they don't give a crap
about whether or not you keep your limbs...ever think of that?
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

In news:Makinwoodchips <[email protected]> typed:
> Have you taken a look at their website? http://www.sawstop.com/
>
> They're pushing their own line of contractor saws and cabinet saws now and
> tehy've got sawstop for bandsaws. What's next? A sawstop for my tv
> remote, to keep me from injuring my finger while channel surfing , maybe?

Here is text taken directly from their FAQ page;
http://www.sawstop.com/faq.htm#1

Can the SawStop system be used with other types of woodworking equipment?

The SawStop system can be used with practically any type of woodworking
equipment, such as miter saws, chop saws, radial arm saws, circular saws,
sliding table saws, jointers, band saws, shapers and the like. The
electronics, detection and firing systems are the same, with the brake
mechanism tending to vary between different types of woodworking equipment.

CSounds great to me...can't wait to order mine!
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

In news:J. Clarke <[email protected]> typed:
> But who said that the cartridge has to be universal? Could be like
> batteries for cordless tools. And there's a much better case for it being
> that way than there is with cordless tools.
>
>> Frank

More unresearched supposition...
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

In news:Scott Lurndal <[email protected]> typed:
> Do you just like to hear yourself talk? It's the bottom line that
> drives the feature set of any product, including a tablesaw (and the
> bottom line is a calculation consisting of "what a customer will pay
> for a given set of features" minus "what it costs to produce
> a given set of features").
>
> If Saw-stop can't create a market for their product, then it should
> be appropriately relegated to a niche - and if they can't survive
> in that niche, c'est la vie. They certainly should _not_ rely on
> OSHA or any federal or state regulation to create their market for them.
>
> scott

They are not relying on OSHA! No one is regualting anything to create their
market. They are financing it themselves.
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

In news:Doug Miller <[email protected]> typed:
> In article <[email protected]>, "ted harris"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>Sounds great to me...can't wait to order mine!
>
> You can *order* one any time you like, no waiting.
>
> It's actually *getting* one that you have to wait for.

No, they are being delivered as we speak!!
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

In news:Doug Miller <[email protected]> typed:
> SawStop has petitioned the Consumer Product Safety Commission to make
> their
> proprietary technology *mandatory*. How they finance it is irrelevant. The
> problem many of us have with their behavior is that having first failed
> in the
> marketplace, they are now attempting to use the government to force the
> adoption of a product that the free market decided it didn't want.

Right, and the petition was rejected. Now they are manufacturing their own
line of tooling with sawstop. Besides, the free market never decided they
did not want it, it was once again the manufacturers lack of concern for the
safety of the consumer that decided they did not want it. How is that a
failure?
We' shall see if the free market wants it or not.
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

In news:J <[email protected]> typed:
> "ted harris" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> In news:J <[email protected]> typed:
>> <snip nonsense>
>> >Would you be willing to
>> > wait for either the saw to be shipped to an authorized service center,
>> > fixed and returned (and you still have to buy a new blade) or wait for
>> > someone to come out and fix it (and you still have to buy a new
>> > blade)?.
>>
>> Replacing the cartridge is as easy as changing the blade. I don't know
>> where you get that it has to be shipped here and there and everywhere...
>
> If you are here, and the replacement cartridge is there, then how does the
> replacement cartridge get to you? Can it walk? Do they have an alternate
> method which doesn't involve shipping? It is basic engineering that the
> more complex the system, the more opportunities there are for failure.
> I'm not making that up.

Don't try and backpedal to try and make us believe that you did not say that
the saw had to be shipped here or there...? I mean, if you know that there
is a possiblity that the sawstop device is going to be activated and you
don't stock an extra cartridge and blade? Well then, maybe you shouldn't be
allowed to operate ANY power tool?
>
>> Average reaction time when feeding your hand into a saw blade is 2.5
>> fingers. At that point you might as well throw them into the garbage.
>
> Is it really? Can you show me where you got this data from, or are you
> just making things up?

Actually, Steve Gass of sawstop stated in a post on Sawmill Creek that
"People regularly push three fingers right through the blade before they can
flinch. Human reaction time is about 25-50 times slower than SawStop, so
even if you are going fast, the accident will likely be far less significant
with SawStop than without it."
I am quite sure that if you email him, he will be glad to support any
statement he has made with research, links, proof, etc.
>
>> Again, where do you get this idea from? Have you been to their website
>> and read it thoroughly?
>
> Yes. Perhaps you can show me where it says that the device is
> user-serviceable. Just because it is in a cartridge does not mean that it
> is user-serviceable. Their site has a fair amount of speculation to it.
> It has been that way for a long time. This makes me think that they are
> not progressing well. Since you are so familiar with it, please point out
> the part where it says they are user serviceable.
>u
> -j

You could email them at mailto:[email protected], instead of speculating here
on the internet, and perpetuating yet another "urban legend" and find out,
but I suspect that you have no interest in the truth anyway. Steve Gass has
stated that it only takes a "few seconds" to change the cartridge when
switching between a regular blade and a dado blade." I don't see why it
would take much longer to change the cartridge when it misfires.
My suspicion is that you don't have the balls to man up and do some research
like Steve Gass has, so just keep putting YOUR spin on this issue, instead
of getting the facts.
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

In news:J <[email protected]> typed:
> You are so passionate and your argument is so well reasoned that I'm going
> to give it a second look. Do they have one for hammers?
>
> -j

As opposed to your argument that is based on supposition and falsehoods?
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

In news:J. Clarke <[email protected]> typed:
> ted harris wrote:
> Geez, where have _you_ been for the past several years? The attempts of
> the patentholder to persuade the government to require the use of this
> device are well documented and have been discussed here many times.

Wasn't that over "the last several years" as you yourself stated?
Once again, the skeptics are referring to the past...not the present!
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

In news:J <[email protected]> typed:
>
> I don't think that safety devices do this, but "performance accessories"
> like a new set of big fat tires or a huge wing on the back DO encourage
> reckless driving. As long as tablesaws don't have spoilers or big fart
> pipes on the back I think we are all responsible enough not to work
> dangerously.
>
> -j

So that explains the 3,000 amputations every year caused by contact with the
rotating cutter, huh?
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 02:52:13 GMT, Mike Marlow <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I keep reading that from people, but how many times have you heard anyone
> say that they drive more recklessly because they have an airbag in their
> car? Or even really had reason to believe they do? It isn't human nature
> to behave that way.

Right. The stupid people who aren't wearing seatbelts now "because I has
airbags, yuh see", are the same stupid people who weren't wearing seatbelts
before airbags came along.

Technology doesn't make stupid people more, or less, stupid. It just
changes what they're going to be stupid about.

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 22:05:49 -0800, J <[email protected]> wrote:

> I don't think that safety devices do this, but "performance accessories"
> like a new set of big fat tires or a huge wing on the back DO encourage
> reckless driving. As long as tablesaws don't have spoilers or big fart pipes
> on the back I think we are all responsible enough not to work dangerously.

You are confusing correlation with causation. The wings don't make the
drivers idiots, but the idiot drivers are more likely to buy wings.

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 10:26:05 -0800, J <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> You are confusing correlation with causation. The wings don't make the
>> drivers idiots, but the idiot drivers are more likely to buy wings.
>
> Can someone here help me spell facetious?

I thought you might have been, but it's _so_ hard to tell on Usenet.
There are people who apparently think that way, and eventually they
always find out about "tha intarweb thing".

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 19:44:34 -0600, tzipple <[email protected]> wrote:

(when you top-post like this, I can't respond to your message with
Doug's as context.)

> Doug, do you propose that we eliminate all building codes and let the
> "free market" dictate what we build? Eliminate required safety equipment
> on autos, airplanes, etc. and simply leave it at "buyer beware? Drop
> requirements for standards of care in hospitals and simply let the free
> market decide what quality of surgery you get?.... and many other examples?

You are putting up a straw-man argument, assigning to your opponent a
point of view he has not stated so you can drag it back down.

> I suspect that many "free market" folks would be at the head of the line
> screaming for government help in your world.

I suspect that he will also recognize and reject your use of a cheap
rhetorical tactic.

Dave Hinz

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 04:03:18 GMT, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 15 Dec 2004 15:56:00 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Right. The stupid people who aren't wearing seatbelts now "because I has
>>airbags, yuh see", are the same stupid people who weren't wearing seatbelts
>>before airbags came along.
>
> Unfortunately the publicity campaign for air bags has given some
> people the idea that air bags are a substitute for seat belts. This is
> massively untrue, but a lot of people believe it.

Can you point me to a single example of this?

>>Technology doesn't make stupid people more, or less, stupid. It just
>>changes what they're going to be stupid about.
>
> True, but PR campaigns that misinform can make even fairly bright
> people act in truly stupid ways.

Not hardly. If they make a stupid decision, it's them doing it. Them
misunderstanding "Airbags, as a supplimental restraint system, will make you
safer" doesn't mean they've been misled, it means they don't comprehend
well.

Dave Hinz

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 23:17:40 -0500, GregP <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 01:20:49 GMT, igor <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>...... But base on looking at what US-based
>>companies bring to market, the _general_ view is that "safety" only sells
>>to a marginal group.

> Sure: just look at the reaction in this ng.

How so? I drive Saab cars in part because they're so safe. I take
safety precautions, often with extra expense, with many aspects of my
life. But, my adverse reaction to SawStop is that (a) it doesn't
exist as a product I can buy, and (b) they want to force me to buy
an unworkable solution. Maybe in another 5 years they'll get their shit
together and actually be able to sell 'em, and I'll think about buying
one, but don't force me to buy something that doesn't work.

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 17:07:28 GMT, Doug Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>I suspect that he will also recognize and reject your use of a cheap
>>rhetorical tactic.
>
> I'm just ignoring him, Dave. <g>

That's certainly the easiest way to recognize and reject it, then...

In news:Bruce Barnett <[email protected]> typed:
> Can't we just say "I'm not personally convinced it's a good idea. I
> will wait until I see the numbers before deciding one way of the
> other."
>
> Seems like this would eliminate a lot of the flames.

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

In news:Doug Miller <[email protected]> typed:
> Well, clearly some three kilopeople annually are in fact not responsible
> enough not to work dangerously. It's somewhat less clear that any
> government-mandated safety device is a better means of preserving their
> digits
> than simple responsible safety practices.

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

In news:Doug Miller <[email protected]> typed:
> It's somewhat less clear that any
> government-mandated safety device is a better means of preserving their
> digits
> than simple responsible safety practices.

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

In news:[email protected] <[email protected]> typed:
> ok, ted, your fingers are worth more than a couple hundred bucks.
> granted.
>
> what isn't known is the rate of false positives. that information
> *cannot* be known until the machine has been in use in actual workshop
> use for some time.
>
> how many times would you pay $180 for a cartridge and blade before you
> started thinking about either replacing the saw or just disabling the
> thing. a cabinet saw costs about $2000. that's about 11 false
> positives. if it does it once a month it's costing you something like
> 4 new saws a year.

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

Never, but I have touched an alternating tip blade while it was running and
not even received a scratch from it.
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

In news:J. Clarke <[email protected]> typed:
> tzipple wrote:
>
>> A silly question. That is why we elect a government and enact laws. They
>> are an effort to both define and protect the common good. A perfect
>> system? Of course not, and we sometimes err in defining it (or we would
>> not be in Iraq). But in fact we do define the common good in thousands
>> of ways daily from stop signs to antitrust regulation and from school
>> crossings to money policy from the Fed.
>>
>> You may disagree about a particular issue like SawStop and whether
>> requiring it protects the common good, but it is disingenuous to pretend
>> that we do not have a need to enact laws and regulation to define and
>> protect the common good.
>
> The fact that we have many laws does not mean that we _need_ many laws.
> That sound you hear is the Founders turning in their graves.


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

In news:Doug Miller <[email protected]> typed:
> So now you claim to be privy to the manufacturers' decision-making
> processes,
> and in your omniscience you can state with certainty that their rejection
> of
> SS was based entirely on lack of concern for safety. Economic reasons had
> nothing at all to do with it.

You are finally starting to get it! For the manufacturers who all look at
dollars and cents above all else, they simply put safety and the costs of
rigging to accomodate sawstop on the scale, and lo and behold guess which
one they chose. Let me give you a hint, it ain't safety. Corporate America
chose the dollar over consumer safety yet again. Go figure!
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

In news:J. Clarke <[email protected]> typed:
> J wrote:
>
>>> Don't try and backpedal to try and make us believe that you did not say
>>> that the saw had to be shipped here or there...? I mean, if you know
>>> that there is a possiblity that the sawstop device is going to be
>>> activated and you don't stock an extra cartridge and blade? Well then,
>>> maybe you shouldn't be allowed to operate ANY power tool?
>>
>> So really the cost of this device is twice what it appears?
>> Regulation about who can use tools based on how well supplied with spares
>> they are...
>
> No, based on the fact that they are so stupid that they would go into an
> isolated location without an adequate supply of consumable items.
>
>> What a concept. This will reduce the number of contractors in
>> business by an order of magnitude. On the positive side, no excuse to
>> head off to the store and then out for a cup of coffee.
>>
>>> >
>>> >> Average reaction time when feeding your hand into a saw blade is 2.5
>>> >> fingers. At that point you might as well throw them into the
>>> >> garbage.
>>> >
>>> > Is it really? Can you show me where you got this data from, or are you
>>> > just making things up?
>>>
>>> Actually, Steve Gass of sawstop stated in a post on Sawmill Creek that
>>> "People regularly push three fingers right through the blade before
>>> they can flinch. Human reaction time is about 25-50 times slower than
>>> SawStop, so even if you are going fast, the accident will likely be far
>>> less significant with SawStop than without it."
>>> I am quite sure that if you email him, he will be glad to support any
>>> statement he has made with research, links, proof, etc.
>>
>> So you base your statement on hearsay from someone who has a substantial
>> vested interest in the topic? I'm still trying to figure out how the math
>> works out from what he said to "2.5 fingers". Word problems... what can
>> you do!
>
> I suspect that one could run a statistical analysis on the Consumer
> Product Safety Commission database, however I do not know if he has done
> that.
>
>>> >> Again, where do you get this idea from? Have you been to their
>>> >> website and read it thoroughly?
>>> >
>>> > Yes. Perhaps you can show me where it says that the device is
>>> > user-serviceable. Just because it is in a cartridge does not mean
>>> > that it is user-serviceable. Their site has a fair amount of
>>> > speculation to it. It has been that way for a long time. This makes
>>> > me think that they are not progressing well. Since you are so
>>> > familiar with it, please point out the part where it says they are
>>> > user serviceable.
>>> >u
>>> > -j
>>>
>>> You could email them at mailto:[email protected], instead of speculating
>>> here on the internet, and perpetuating yet another "urban legend" and
>>> find out,
>>
>> No, you claimed it is user serviceable. Perhaps you can stop speculating
>> and find out.
>
> The general belief seems to be that it is user serviceable. If you do not
> buy the conventional wisdom then it's up to you to disprove it.
>
>>> My suspicion is that you don't have the balls to man up and do some
>>> research like Steve Gass has, so just keep putting YOUR spin on this
>>> issue, instead of getting the facts.
>>
>> I'm not interested in the facts.
>
> In that case, <plonk>

ROTFLMAO!
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

In news:J <[email protected]> typed:
>> >> >> Average reaction time when feeding your hand into a saw blade is
>> >> >> 2.5 fingers. At that point you might as well throw them into the
>> >> >> garbage.
>> >> >
>> >> > Is it really? Can you show me where you got this data from, or are
>> >> > you just making things up?
>> >>
>> >> Actually, Steve Gass of sawstop stated in a post on Sawmill Creek that
>> >> "People regularly push three fingers right through the blade before
>> >> they can flinch. Human reaction time is about 25-50 times slower than
>> >> SawStop, so even if you are going fast, the accident will likely be
>> >> far less significant with SawStop than without it."
>> >> I am quite sure that if you email him, he will be glad to support any
>> >> statement he has made with research, links, proof, etc.
>> >
>> > So you base your statement on hearsay from someone who has a
>> > substantial vested interest in the topic? I'm still trying to figure
>> > out how the math works out from what he said to "2.5 fingers". Word
>> > problems... what can you do!
>>
>> I suspect that one could run a statistical analysis on the Consumer
>> Product Safety Commission database, however I do not know if he has done
>> that.
>
> I am starting to think I'm being trolled. You are the one who stated that
> the average reaction time is 2.5 fingers. Now you are saying that no one
> really knows. Come on. Stop playing around.
>
>> >> >> Again, where do you get this idea from? Have you been to their
>> >> >> website and read it thoroughly?
>> >> >
>> >> > Yes. Perhaps you can show me where it says that the device is
>> >> > user-serviceable. Just because it is in a cartridge does not mean
>> >> > that it is user-serviceable. Their site has a fair amount of
>> >> > speculation to it. It has been that way for a long time. This makes
>> >> > me think that they are not progressing well. Since you are so
>> >> > familiar with it, please point out the part where it says they are
>> >> > user serviceable.
>> >> >u
>> >> > -j
>> >>
>> >> You could email them at mailto:[email protected], instead of
>> >> speculating here on the internet, and perpetuating yet another "urban
>> >> legend" and find out,
>> >
>> > No, you claimed it is user serviceable. Perhaps you can stop
>> > speculating and find out.
>>
>> The general belief seems to be that it is user serviceable. If you do
>> not buy the conventional wisdom then it's up to you to disprove it.
>
> No, it is not. Really, this is where I think you are trolling. You imply
> it is on their website, so I go there and check it out. It says nothing
> of the sort. Then you say write Sawstop and find out.
> You are the one speculating that it possesses an attribute which is not
> documented anywhere.
>
> I'm tired of being trolled. Show me the facts that back up your argument.
>
> -j

Getting as little rattled are we? Rattled enough to not even know who you
are responding to, huh?
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

In news:Tim Douglass <[email protected]> typed:
> On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 21:30:13 -0800, "ted harris"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Actually, Steve Gass of sawstop stated in a post on Sawmill Creek that
>>"People regularly push three fingers right through the blade before they
>>can flinch. Human reaction time is about 25-50 times slower than SawStop,
>>so even if you are going fast, the accident will likely be far less
>>significant with SawStop than without it."
>>I am quite sure that if you email him, he will be glad to support any
>>statement he has made with research, links, proof, etc.
>
> It's a bit misleading, in that he totally ignores all the injuries
> that don't involve pushing fingers through the blade. By far the
> majority of table saw accidents involving contact with the spinning
> blade (the only ones that matter for SS) do *not* involve amputation.
> My guess (based on experience of people I know) is that the majority
> don't even make it to the doctor or e-room.

Plenty of the other injuries you refer to as the ones that don't matter
would be far less serious as demonstrated in the videos on the sawstop
website.

> I think that there is some sort of fundamental design issue with SS.
> It relies on stopping the blade by interacting with the blade and
> drops the blade below the table as a backup. I suspect it would be
> quite easy to make a device that uses a similar detection methodology
> that employs spring loaded trunnions that will snap the entire
> trunnion assembly down into the saw at a touch. If properly designed
> it should be easy to make it resettable and the design would then tend
> to "fail safe", that is, if the system won't work the blade can't be
> locked into the "up" position.
>
> SawStop may be a good product, but I think there are a lot of other
> ways to try to solve the problem.

Well then, where is your invention and patent? ..or are you just offering
lip service here...

> Because SS holds the patent on using
> induction (?) or whatever to detect contact with the blade they have
> the industry in a stranglehold. A year or so ago it seems that one of
> the saw manufacturers said they were interested in the detection
> technology, but wanted to develop their own blade stopping system. SS,
> at that time, would only license the right to install SS, not to
> develop a different system based on part of the SS patent.

Another perfect example of why the manufacturers greed rules how evolution
of innovation goes. Poor poor manufacturer got beat to the punch. Guess
they were just too busy stufing their pockets with money to worry about
whether or Harry homeowner keeps his fingers or not...what a joke!

> Personally, I do not think that SS is likely the best way to solve
> this problem, but I'm afraid that they have sewed things up in such a
> way that they are probably going to be the only game in town. If SS
> becomes mandatory (especially the way their SPSC petition was written)
> it could well be illegal to try to do something else, effectively
> stifling innovation. Look at the emissions controls on today's cars
> for examples of how legislation can destroy innovation and lock us
> into second-best solutions.
> Tim Douglass

I don't think it's sawstop that is stifling innovation. In fact, it's the
manufacturers that are stifling it, by not even offering up the idea of
stopping the blade prior to sawstops invention. Oh, how I weep for the
billion dollar machinery industry! LOLOLOL...
The idea of legislating manufacturers into advancement is not such a bad
concept, especially considering that most all of the choices they make are
about appearing to be concerned about safety, while not accomodating an
operable safety system because they did not come up with it first. Maybe
someone else is goign to make a score this time. I personally hope the
little guy wins this one.
Ever since the industrial revolution began, the manufacturers have exploited
the common man. Now the common man has smartened up a bit, andis using the
laws to get better protection. I see nothing wrong with that at all...
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

In news:Mike Marlow <[email protected]> typed:
> Ahem... psssssttt... that was (not-so)cleverly disguised sarcasm. You're
> expressing my point. Those two - or what ever number (small) though they
> may be, are the ones that have been there since the beginning. It's very
> suspicious when you hear claims that make it sound like production is up,
> things are shipping, stuff in the field and then the only information you
> can find points to the same two or three that have been there for a couple
> of years. That's getting some mileage out of those units. Credibility
> suffers.

Maybe to someone who has absolutely no vision?
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

In news:Doug Miller <[email protected]> typed:
> In article <[email protected]>, "Mike
> Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>C'mon Doug - didn't Steve Gass say he has two of them in the field... even
>>as we speak?
>
> I'm really not interested in what Steve Gass claims, as he's hardly an
> unbiased source. I'd put much more stock in a statement by someone not
> affiliated with SawStop, who says that he actually has one in his shop.

So you would give more stock to a billion dollar industry that is against
implementing the use of a system that clearly provides the operator with
added safety, than you would to some poor schmuck that invented something
better in his garage? Are we supposed to believe that the manufacturers
have your best interest at heart more than your neighbor. You don't have
much faith in your fellow woodworkers then, huh?
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

In news:Scott Lurndal <[email protected]> typed:
> You mean like your supposition about the reasons that manufacturers
> don't put SS on their saws?
>
> Are you really a SS employee? You're certainly pushing them pretty hard
> here on the group (and you seem to be the only one, too).
>
> scott

Here it comes...
Yeah I work for sawstop...LOLOLOL! My website, shop, and the fact that I
have been in business for years is all just a setup so that I can come here
to this newsgroup and debate with 10 guys in the month of December in the
year 2004. Hahahahahaha!

What I am pushing here is really not about sawstop. It's about all the
skeptics and naysayers that come out of the woodwork (pardon the pun) when
something better comes along, all the while being unwitting pawns of the
manufacturers. Wake up man!

P.S. This debate reminds me of the tobacco manufacturers/smokers
debacle...I mean, we are all addicts too, right!
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

In news:J <[email protected]> typed:

> Do you think it was six years before they shipped anything? Hardly.
>
> -j

Okay, but Grizzly did not spen several years developing anything either, nor
did they spend several years to market their product to manufacturers. And
I believe that Grizzly had its finances in order. And Grizzly was not going
against the "powers that be!" And, by the way the website looks to me,
sawstops original intent was not to make machiery, only the sawstop. It
also looks like the only way that the inventor could bring this to market
was enter into the machinery design and distribution business. Not really
an easy task for a guy that already has acareer and has a family, huh?
Sounds to me like sawstop worked their ass off to get to this point. I find
it to be an inspiring chase for the American Dream.
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

In news:Tim Douglass <[email protected]> typed:
> On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 19:13:26 -0800, "ted harris"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> all I know is, I will have this system on any
>>machinery in my shop that it can be put on, when it becomes available.
>
> And that says a lot about your confidence in your abilities and your
> personal cost/benefit ratios - but it really means nothing to some of
> us. I've been running power equipment for 30 years or so - since I was
> really too young to be doing it. I have developed a great deal of
> respect for the tools and make every effort to work in a way that
> allows me to stay clear of the sharp parts.

Everyone else in this conversation has chosen not to make this a personal
issue about each others woodworking skills, except you...
My confidence level is just fine, thank you. Woodworking is what I do for a
living. To my knowledge, there is no one else here that does what I do.
There are less than 200 people in the world that chose my profession. I
have never cut myself on a saw, or any machine while utilizing a rotational
cutting blade...I have been doing it for 13 years as a living...and I mean
full time...prolly average 60 or more hours a week...but that does not mean
that accidents can't happen. We are, only human after all.

> Point is that I will apply a lot of personal controls to reduce the
> risk of a major injury rather than pay the premium on a system that
> can turn a 2 cent bandage injury into a $150 repair bill on the saw.
>
> It's a calculated risk - but it *is* a *calculated* risk.
>
> Tim Douglass


A two cent bandage injury is what you get when you have sawstop.

P.S. Just my two cents...
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

In news:J. Clarke <[email protected]> typed:
>> Yeah, but now there are 6 billion people on this rock, and half of them
>> have an IQ of 100 or less...
>
> I once met a fellow who had two Nobel Prizes in Physics. One time some
> psychology department or other decided to evaluate his IQ. According to
> him it was 96.

Yasser Arafat had a Nobel Prize as well...
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

In news:[email protected] <[email protected]> typed:
> On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 19:06:59 -0800, "ted harris"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>In news:Bruce Barnett <[email protected]> typed:
>>> Can't we just say "I'm not personally convinced it's a good idea. I
>>> will wait until I see the numbers before deciding one way of the
>>> other."
>>>
>>> Seems like this would eliminate a lot of the flames.
>>
>>First off, anyone that thinks that having a saw that will reduce an
>>accident on a saw from one that requires anything from stiches, on up to
>>amputations to a cut that is 1/32 in depth at a cost of no more than the
>>cost of a new cartridge and a saw blade is a bad idea, is an absolute
>>moron not capable of operating any power tool, IMHO. So no, I don't
>>think the flames will stop.
>
>
> ted harris, I think you are a moron. and a sheep. and a shill. maybe
> even a sock puppet.
>
> so there. nyaah nyaah.

So it's okay for the naysayers to debate the issue, but someone that
disagrees whith what YOU believe is a moron, a shill, and maybe even a sock
puppet. Can you say "hypocrite?" Good luck to you sir!
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

In news:Lobby Dosser <[email protected]> typed:
> "ted harris" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> In news:Doug Miller <[email protected]> typed:
>>> Well, clearly some three kilopeople annually are in fact not
>>> responsible enough not to work dangerously. It's somewhat less clear
>>> that any government-mandated safety device is a better means of
>>> preserving their digits
>>> than simple responsible safety practices.
>>
>> Are you implying that none of the 3000 + people that have amputations
>> are not professional woodworkers?
>> I know several carpenters and professional woodworkers that have had
>> fingers disappear,
>
> Beamed up? Abducted? Ransom demands? Argentinian death squads?

LOLOLOL...thanks for bringing a little humor into this debate.
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

In news:J. Clarke <[email protected]> typed:
>> Never, but I have touched an alternating tip blade while it was running
>> and not even received a scratch from it.
>
> You would have paid the price of a cartridge for that if it had a Sawstop.

That's okay with me, because if I had touched it an inch closer, well you
know the rest of the story...
You buy insurance don' you? Isn't insurance speculation as well?
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

In news:[email protected] <[email protected]> typed:
> On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 19:35:37 -0800, "ted harris"
> 7) According to the power tool manufacturers, saw makers who tested
> SawStop reported an unacceptably large number of false responses --
> both false positives (tripping unnecessarily) and false negatives (not
> tripping when it should. They also found a lot of other design issues
> and pointed out the SawStop would have particular problems with
> direct-drive or geared saws.

Duh! Is there any other possibility?

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

LOLOLOL...a grizzly 1023Z with a Ridge Carbide TS 2000...
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

In news:Lobby Dosser <[email protected]> typed:
> "ted harris" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> In news:J. Clarke <[email protected]> typed:
>>>> Yeah, but now there are 6 billion people on this rock, and half of them
>>>> have an IQ of 100 or less...
>>>
>>> I once met a fellow who had two Nobel Prizes in Physics. One time some
>>> psychology department or other decided to evaluate his IQ. According to
>>> him it was 96.
>>
>> Yasser Arafat had a Nobel Prize as well...
>
> And all his fingers.

...peeing my pants!
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

In news:J. Clarke <[email protected]> typed:
> ted harris wrote:
>
>> In news:J. Clarke <[email protected]> typed:
>>>> Yeah, but now there are 6 billion people on this rock, and half of them
>>>> have an IQ of 100 or less...
>>>
>>> I once met a fellow who had two Nobel Prizes in Physics. One time some
>>> psychology department or other decided to evaluate his IQ. According to
>>> him it was 96.
>>
>> Yasser Arafat had a Nobel Prize as well...
>
> Not in physics he didn't. And not two of them.

Are you kidding me...?
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

In news:Lobby Dosser <[email protected]> typed:
> It's a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy!!!

That's the most well thought out and best executed post you've made so
far...signs of intelligence!
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

In news:J. Clarke <[email protected]> typed:
>> P.S. This debate reminds me of the tobacco manufacturers/smokers
>> debacle...I mean, we are all addicts too, right!
>
> Huh? <snip same old argument>

That about sums it for you...
.--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

In news:Lobby Dosser <[email protected]> typed:
> "ted harris" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> In news:Lobby Dosser <[email protected]> typed:
>>> It's a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy!!!
>>
>> That's the most well thought out and best executed post you've made so
>> far...signs of intelligence!
>
> Glad to see you have a sense of humor. I was beginning to wonder.

This is a very serious subject...

> On a more serious note:
>
> I consider the chainsaw far more dangerous than the tablesaw, but don't
> use it as frequently. Wonder if the SawStop sensor mechanism would work
> on a chainsaw? All they'd have to do is shut down the motor.

I think it wilol work on anything that has a rotational blade. If it works
on a bandsaw, it should work on a chainsaw too.
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

In news:Scott Lurndal <[email protected]> typed:
> "ted harris" <[email protected]> writes:
>>In news:Lobby Dosser <[email protected]> typed:
>
>>> On a more serious note:
>>>
>>> I consider the chainsaw far more dangerous than the tablesaw, but don't
>>> use it as frequently. Wonder if the SawStop sensor mechanism would work
>>> on a chainsaw? All they'd have to do is shut down the motor.
>>
>>I think it wilol work on anything that has a rotational blade. If it
>>works on a bandsaw, it should work on a chainsaw too.
>
> So every time you hit a nail you need a new chainsaw blade? And since
> the sawstop needs to be disabled when cutting metallic substances, what
> happens when you hit a nail in a piece of barnwood? New blade and unit
> required?
>
> scott

I really don't know a thing about chainsaws, so I can't comment.
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 22:52:10 -0600, tzipple <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Again, so what if they use government to impose the adoption of someting
> that the free market did not want... if the imposition is a good thing.
> Your suggestions seemed to be that such an approach was categorically
> wrong. Am I misunderstanding?

Yes, _and_ you're still top-posting.

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 13:03:42 -0500, GregP <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 16 Dec 2004 16:39:02 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>How so? I drive Saab cars in part because they're so safe. ....
>
> That makes sense. But a fair number of the objections
> here boiled down to I've never been hurt and I never
> will get hurt; only careless people have accidents;
> and exaggerating the negatives, such as you have to
> ship your saw back if the safety device "fires."

Maybe I missed those responses. The ones I've been reading seem to
center around "Don't force us to use someting you can't make work".

On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 04:20:12 GMT, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 20 Dec 2004 03:21:54 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Maybe I missed those responses. The ones I've been reading seem to
>>center around "Don't force us to use someting you can't make work".
>
> One of the most telling things to come out of the recent (post-1997)
> debate on air bags was the safety mavens unflinching opposition to
> installing an 'off' switch so people could turn them off if they
> desired.

One of the biggest forces fighting that is the automakers...something
about liability, lawyers, all that...

> They much preferred trying to work around the fact that air bags can
> kill or injure you to allowing you the choice of not using them.

Yes, dozens of people a year vs. thousands saved. Or are you one of these
people who base your opinions on the exception rather than the rule?

On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 18:40:06 GMT, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 20 Dec 2004 16:25:54 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Yes, dozens of people a year vs. thousands saved.

> Remember, if you use your seat belt (which I do) an air bag has very
> little positive effect on your safety.

Remember, just because you keep repeating a falsehood, that doesn't make
it true. The engineers of European cars had airbags in place _long_ before
the US required them, and they certainly didn't do it for cost reduction
reasons. Apparently those who work with automotive safety systems as part
of their job know more about it than, say, you.

>>Or are you one of these people who base your opinions on the exception rather than the rule?
>
> I'm one of those people who prefer to have the choice.

OK, so you'd rather go face-first into a dashboard than an airbag? You
prefer hitting a steering wheel with your chest, rather than an air-filled
pillow? You can still get _serious_ chest trauma wearing a seatbelt,
by hitting the steering wheel. Been there, done that, read the bruise
on the guy's chest that had "droF" pressed into it.

> These other
> folks who are supposedly so interested in my well-being are admantly
> opposed to my having any choice at all. Which is what I find so
> interesting.

Some choices are poor ones. A basic understanding of the statistics
involved would show that to any rational person.

> This is especially significant since the risk of injury from airbags
> goes way up for certain classes of drivers.

Yes, up to something like 1:1000 per life saved, instead of 1:5000.
Still safer with than without.

> I'm sure my
> five-foot-nothing mother-in-law woud love to be able to switch off the
> airbags in her car. The last time she was in an accident the air bag
> skinned her face.

Waaah. A bit of bag rash on the face. Beats eating the dashboard.

> She spent several days in the hospital solely
> because of the airbags and the same thing -- or worse -- is probably
> going to happen to her if she's in another accident where the airbags
> deploy.

Right, because obviously the airbag is going to hit her harder than she'll
hit the harder parts of the car...sheesh.

On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 14:56:19 -0600, Duane Bozarth <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave Hinz wrote:
>>
> ...
>> > Remember, if you use your seat belt (which I do) an air bag has very
>> > little positive effect on your safety.
>
> This assertion is refuted by data...

And I also did not write it. Please take care with attribution lines,
because you're making it look like something I disagree with strongly.

On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 20:57:07 -0600, tzipple <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave Hinz wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 22:52:10 -0600, tzipple <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Again, so what if they use government to impose the adoption of someting
>>>that the free market did not want... if the imposition is a good thing.
>>>Your suggestions seemed to be that such an approach was categorically
>>>wrong. Am I misunderstanding?

>> Yes, _and_ you're still top-posting.

> And you are still evading anything that looks like an actual response
> to my post. No surprise that you clip my post as well as a part of the
> dodge. Sneaky!

That's called "trimming unneeded context". As you have yet to say anything
of actual content, your null-statements can safely be expunged.
On to what you may be asking...you wrongly assume my objection to making
Sawstop mandatory is because it's something "that the free market did not
want". You are wrong. My objection to them trying to force it on us is
that it _doesn't fucking work_. If it worked, they'd be shipping product.
They are not shipping product, so either they have a bad design, or
bad makers of their product. At some point, maybe they'll work all that
out and show that it's manufacturable in quantity. _THEN_ they can
start making noises about forcing everyone to use it, if it shows a
real benefit.

An equivalent in the air-bags world would have been for Joe Smith to
patent airbags. Great, got a patent. Even a couple demo units.
Got some problems, though, the sensors are tricky, there are build
quality issues, and they might go off when you don't want 'em to. Ah
well, good enough, I got my patent, let's put 'em on all the cars.

Would you accept a piece of safety equipment that hasn't been proven,
being forced on you? I do not. Maybe Sawstop can be made to work.
Maybe it's a wonderful thing and I'll buy one. But right now, I can't
buy one if I wanted to, and trying to mandate something that isn't
available is blisteringly obviously stupid.

Dave Hinz

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 06:02:15 GMT, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I'm sorry, but you simply don't know what you're talking about.

Based on...what, exactly?

> Between their introduction in the 1980s and 1997, the NHTSB reported
> about 2600 lives saved by air bags. Almost all of those people were
> otherwise unsecured, which means almost all of them would have also
> been saved by seat belts.
>
> This is a far cry from your 'thousands' saved every year. Meanwhile,
> 87 people were killed by air bags in that same period. Studies clearly
> show that air bags increase the possibility and severity of injury
> see:
> http://www.hcra.harvard.edu/pdf/airbags.pdf

Any particular part of that report, or would you like me to read the
whole 4-point type article to guess what you mean?

> Note that below 52 Km/H a woman is more likely to be injured than
> protected by an air bag.

>>Remember, just because you keep repeating a falsehood, that doesn't make
>>it true.
>
> Just because you have a preconception doesn't make it true. Seat belts
> reduce fatalities among drivers and front-seat passengers by about 45
> percent. Air bags add, at most about an additional 9 percent
> protection.

Well then.

> In my book that's 'very little' additional protection.

You're saying that because only 9% additional _deaths_ were prevented,
that that's only "very little" additional protection? Not everyone
injured in a crash is killed, I probably go to 50 injury accidents for
each fatality I go to. But, by your logic, those injuries don't count
because a death didn't happen? My argument would be that not only
are those 9% of people not dead, but _more_ additional protection
was provided to people who were injured less severely _and_ didn't die.

> As
> far as injury reduction is concerned, air bags added 7 percent
> protection to seat belts, an amount the NHTSA declared not
> statistically significant.

Right, 7% (on top of 9% reduction in fatalities) matters to hardly
anyone. Except, I suppose, for people in those 7 and 9 percent.

>> The engineers of European cars had airbags in place _long_ before
>>the US required them, and they certainly didn't do it for cost reduction
>>reasons.
>
> And your source for this statement? I can't find any. The earliest
> mention I can find for air bags in Europe is in 1992, years after the
> airbags first appeared on American cars.

Engineers _OF_ European cars. Didn't say those cars were _in_ europe,
but that they are _from_ europe.

> As to why the Europeans did it -- Most of them did it because they
> wanted to be able to sell their cars in the United States, at least
> orignally.

Maybe safety was their motivation. Things other than greed do get
factored into designs sometimes, y'know.

> Of myself, I know very little. But unlike, say, you. I'm willing to go
> out and to the research to discover if what I do know is accurate.

Yeah, according to you, 9% + 7% is "very little improvement".

> The people who know automotive safety systems are unanamious that seat
> belts work better than air bags. You'll notice none of them recommend
> using air bags alone and all the literature refers to air bags as
> 'supplemental devices'.

I've made that point. In this thread.

>>> I'm one of those people who prefer to have the choice.
>>
>>OK, so you'd rather go face-first into a dashboard than an airbag? You
>>prefer hitting a steering wheel with your chest, rather than an air-filled
>>pillow?
>
> That only happens if you're not wearing a properly adjusted seatbelt.
> Or did you miss that part of my comment?

My personal experience as an EMT/Firefighter for a dozen years is at odds
with that statement. Mister "ford-shaped bruise" was most decidedly
wearing his seat belt in that frontal crash. Sometimes the wheel
comes _to you_, y'see, so all the restraint in the world isn't gonna
stop it from coming up to meet you when the dash rolls in on you.

Have you ever _been to_ a severe car crash?

> I don't know if you're deliberately attempting to set up a straw man
> here or if you just don't read very carefully.

I see blatantly wrong statements like your "only happens if" above, and
point out the obvious problems. There are quite likely more subtle
problems with your point of view that I am missing, but they are
masked by things like "7+9=insignificant", y'see.

>>You can still get _serious_ chest trauma wearing a seatbelt,
>>by hitting the steering wheel. Been there, done that, read the bruise
>>on the guy's chest that had "droF" pressed into it.
>
> And air bags increase the risk of injury to drivers and occupants in
> most categories on the injury scale. See above.

Did you get your 7% better, and 9% better, backwards then?

> Besides, if your seat belt is properly adjusted you won't hit the
> steering wheel.

Wrong. Absolutely and unquestionably wrong.

>>Some choices are poor ones.

> In this case the choice is not at all poor. Why should I trade a
> significant risk of medium-level injury for a relatively small degree
> of protection in the event of a major crash? Especially when I know
> that if I am a member of certain classes the risk of injury is much
> higher than for most people?

Because you're making your decision on a flawed assumption.

>> A basic understanding of the statistics involved would show that to any rational person.
>
> Sorry, you're wrong. The statistics don't support your claims.

Those 9% and 7% of people alive and/or less badly injured would
probably disagree with your statement.

>>> I'm sure my
>>> five-foot-nothing mother-in-law woud love to be able to switch off the
>>> airbags in her car. The last time she was in an accident the air bag
>>> skinned her face.
>>
>>Waaah. A bit of bag rash on the face.
>
> That 'bag rash' damn near required skin grafts over most of her face.
> It has caused corneal tears (severe eye damage) in others.

Just think of how bad it would have been without the pillow of air
and fabric, had she hit the wheel.

>>Beats eating the dashboard.
>
> Since she was wearing a seat belt that wouldn't have happened. Reading
> comprehension again.

And again, you haven't been to many crashes, have you. Google for
extrication photos and get back to me on what doesn't move to where.

>>Right, because obviously the airbag is going to hit her harder than she'll
>>hit the harder parts of the car...sheesh.
>
> Straw man/reading comprehension again. If you're wearing a seat belt
> and it is properly adjusted you don't hit the harder parts of the car.

Keep on repeating it, maybe someone will believe you. Why don't you go
off to a firefighting group and tell 'em that you'll never get hit
by the wheel or dash if you're wearing a seatbelt, and tell us how that
goes for you.

In article <[email protected]>, "ted harris" <[email protected]> wrote:

>What I am pushing here is really not about sawstop. It's about all the
>skeptics and naysayers that come out of the woodwork (pardon the pun) when
>something better comes along, all the while being unwitting pawns of the
>manufacturers. Wake up man!

Whether SawStop is, in fact, "something better" still remains to be seen.
Time will tell. *IF* the company ever starts shipping product, that is.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

The most insightful posting in the thread! Thanks Holly.

[email protected] wrote:

> Obviously from this discussion not everyone would buy it, but I
> certainly would as long as it wan't cost prohibitive. A year and a half
> ago I cut the tip of a finger off on my PM66. I really wish I had been
> working on a sawstop equipped saw. Sawstop isn't a hard sell to me at
> all. $100/cartridge + a new blade? So what? Want to know how much
> cutting my fingertip off cost? About $6000. Mosly covered by insurance,
> but cost to me was still more than the $200 it would have cost to get
> back on track after a sawstop trigger. In other words I would be _very_
> happy to shell out $200 every time I would have cut my fingers off but
> didn't because the brake triggered. Clearly the general strategy would
> be to never get into a situation in which you triggered the thing at
> all, but as I have learned sometimes accidents happen.
>
> I think the reason saw manufacturers don't want to use it is probably
> one of two things:
>
> 1) the manufacturers are really lazy
> 2) the terms being offered to them to license the technology are too
> expensive
>
> Lazy?
> My theory is that the manufacurers are loathe to redesign their
> products and retool their production facilities, because that is way
> more trouble than just continuing to pump out what they already make.
> The reason the PM 66 is called the 66 is because it hasn't been
> substantially changed in design for the last 38 freaking years.
> Comparing my '72 PM66 and my friend's new one, the few minor changes I
> noticed were obviously to slightly cut production cost, not to improve
> the design. It would be pretty straightforward to redesign the arbor
> casting and cradle to accomodate at the least a riving knife. But they
> haven't even bothered to do that, much less the more serious
> modifications that would be required to design in sawstop.
>
> Terms too steep?
> Some saws/brands have higher margins than others, but generally I bet
> the manufacturers are not making a huge profit on such a commodity
> product. Adding cost to the production would mean either cutting their
> margins or charging way more by the time distribution and retail
> markups are included.
>
> I think of this technology exactly like airbags in cars. It adds some
> cost. Some people don't think the cost is worth it. You can certainly
> buy cars without airbags. But I am willing to pay a little extra for
> that additional protection. Hopefully you never even have the
> opportunity to get your money's worth out of the system, but it is
> there in case you need it. (I actually don't have a car though, so
> we'll see in the future I guess).
>
> The other comment I had re: the number of table saw injuries. Most
> table saw injuries are related to kickback, which sawstop woudn't help
> with in most cases. However, the second place injury is lacerations,
> which along with kickback related incidents where the kickback drags
> people's hands into the blade would be helped by sawstop.
>
> -Holly
>

Also, the government mandates a technology, and leaves the companies out to dry
when the technology is rushed into use by law. Airbag suits were not thrown out
when someone was hurt or killed by an airbag that performed exactly in the
mandated manner.

Grant



[email protected] wrote:

>
> ><snip>
>
> There's another problem here. Technology which is rushed into wide use
> by government mandate may not be completely understood and hence not
> fully developed. This happened with air bags and produced a lot of
> injuries.
>
> See:
> http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/90/10/1575
>
> --RC
>
> Projects expand to fill the clamps available -- plus 20 percent

Right on the money!

"J. Clarke" wrote:

> It's seldom "the common man" who "is using the laws to get better
> protection". It is usually the squeaky wheel getting the grease. I don't
> want a car with airbags, but the choice is that or an antique. I don't
> want the 5 mph bumpers that cost $2000 to fix if they get hit at 5.5 mph or
> at any other angle but square on and that add weight for precious little
> benefit. But I don't have a choice there either. I always wear a helmet
> when riding a motorcycle--I have no problem with the government setting
> safety standards for motorcycle helmets except that the Snell standards,
> which were around for years before the government got into the act and
> which any knowledgeable rider recognized are better researched and more
> stringent and at times have been in conflict with the government
> standards--but I don't like being told that I'm going to get a ticket if I
> decide one day not to for some reason (like for example last night some
> bastard stole it and I'm on the way to the store to get a new one). I
> always wear seat belts, but I resent the laws that say that if one day, on
> just one trip, I forget to buckle up, I can get stopped and searched and
> otherwise harassed by the police. If you ask "the common man" he'll
> generally tell you the same thing. But we _don't_ get asked, and when we
> vote out the bastards who enacted these idiotic laws the new bastards don't
> deliver on their promises and repeal them, instead they just pass their own
> bunch of idiotic laws. And so we have a body of statute law that even the
> lawyers can't keep up with, but "ignorance of the law is no excuse".
>
> Go down to the library. Look at your state laws and the US Code sitting on
> the shelf. Ask yourself what's wrong with this picture.
>
> --
> --John
> Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Dave Hinz wrote:
>
...
> > Remember, if you use your seat belt (which I do) an air bag has very
> > little positive effect on your safety.

This assertion is refuted by data...

> > I'm one of those people who prefer to have the choice.
>
...

> > This is especially significant since the risk of injury from airbags
> > goes way up for certain classes of drivers.
>
> Yes, up to something like 1:1000 per life saved, instead of 1:5000.
> Still safer with than without.

I don't know the actual ratioes here (and am too lazy to look them up)
but it is recommended to not use airbag in front w/ passengers under
given weight/height.

"Vic Baron" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> An equally valid choice would be pay $100 or have a peanut butter and
> jelly
>> sandwich rammed down your throat by a purple titanium robot while you are
>> sleeping.
>
>
> That happened to you TOO??
>
>
No, I just paid the Hundred


......enjoy

"ted harris" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In news:Doug Miller <[email protected]> typed:
> > In article <[email protected]>, "ted harris"
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >>Sounds great to me...can't wait to order mine!
> >
> > You can *order* one any time you like, no waiting.
> >
> > It's actually *getting* one that you have to wait for.
>
> No, they are being delivered as we speak!!

If they are Ted, there's no such indication on the web site. Everything on
the web site is pre-order only.
--

-Mike-
[email protected]

"ted harris" <[email protected]> wrote:

> In news:Doug Miller <[email protected]> typed:
>> It's somewhat less clear that any
>> government-mandated safety device is a better means of preserving
>> their digits
>> than simple responsible safety practices.
>
> Please understand that I am not involved at all in the political side
> of this argument. I personally could care less whether or not the
> government makes it required or not...all I know is, I will have this
> system on any machinery in my shop that it can be put on, when it
> becomes available.

You might want to wait until they come out with 'Hand Stop'; stops your
hands from going near anything sharp or pointy.

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 19:06:59 -0800, "ted harris"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In news:Bruce Barnett <[email protected]> typed:
>> Can't we just say "I'm not personally convinced it's a good idea. I
>> will wait until I see the numbers before deciding one way of the
>> other."
>>
>> Seems like this would eliminate a lot of the flames.
>
>First off, anyone that thinks that having a saw that will reduce an accident
>on a saw from one that requires anything from stiches, on up to amputations
>to a cut that is 1/32 in depth at a cost of no more than the cost of a new
>cartridge and a saw blade is a bad idea, is an absolute moron not capable of
>operating any power tool, IMHO. So no, I don't think the flames will stop.


ted harris, I think you are a moron. and a sheep. and a shill. maybe
even a sock puppet.

so there. nyaah nyaah.

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 22:47:19 GMT, "Vic Baron" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>I'm 67 years
>old and have been making noise and sawdust for over 40 years - still have
>all ten complete digits.


If I get to 67 - and I'm not that far away - I will see even less
clearly than I do now, my reactions will be even slower,
my strength will have diminshed even further, my thought
processes will be slower, and my sense of balance will
be even worse. So I will assume that the chance that I
will have a digit-subtracting accident will be considerably
higher than when I was 35.

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 03:23:41 GMT, "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>, "ted harris"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>> >In news:Doug Miller <[email protected]> typed:
>> >> In article <[email protected]>, "ted harris"
>> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>Sounds great to me...can't wait to order mine!
>> >>
>> >> You can *order* one any time you like, no waiting.
>> >>
>> >> It's actually *getting* one that you have to wait for.
>> >
>> >No, they are being delivered as we speak!!
>>
>> Are they really? Or is that more of their hype?
>>
>
>C'mon Doug - didn't Steve Gass say he has two of them in the field... even
>as we speak?

Meaning what, precisely? That he has two hand-built prototypes out for
testing?

He did not say they were in production. He did not say they were
shipping. He did not say they were in inventory.

This is the kind of statement you need to be very suspicious of. It
sounds like more than it's actually saying.

--RC

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

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 22:04:41 GMT, Lobby Dosser
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"ted harris" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> In news:Lobby Dosser <[email protected]> typed:
>>> It's a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy!!!
>>
>> That's the most well thought out and best executed post you've made so
>> far...signs of intelligence!
>
>Glad to see you have a sense of humor. I was beginning to wonder.
>
>On a more serious note:
>
>I consider the chainsaw far more dangerous than the tablesaw, but don't use
>it as frequently. Wonder if the SawStop sensor mechanism would work on a
>chainsaw? All they'd have to do is shut down the motor.

One of the limits of SawStop, according to all the reports, is that it
doesn't work in very damp wood, such as you're more likely to
encounter with a chain saw.

--RC

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

On 16 Dec 2004 16:39:02 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 23:17:40 -0500, GregP <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 01:20:49 GMT, igor <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>...... But base on looking at what US-based
>>>companies bring to market, the _general_ view is that "safety" only sells
>>>to a marginal group.
>
>> Sure: just look at the reaction in this ng.
>
>How so? I drive Saab cars in part because they're so safe. ....

That makes sense. But a fair number of the objections
here boiled down to I've never been hurt and I never
will get hurt; only careless people have accidents;
and exaggerating the negatives, such as you have to
ship your saw back if the safety device "fires."

On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 04:20:12 GMT, [email protected] wrote:

>One of the most telling things to come out of the recent (post-1997)
>debate on air bags was the safety mavens unflinching opposition to
>installing an 'off' switch so people could turn them off if they
>desired.
>
>They much preferred trying to work around the fact that air bags can
>kill or injure you to allowing you the choice of not using them.

I don't like legislated seatbelt use and would prefer to
have "off" switches for air bags - kinda help Darwin along -
but the choice is *not* betw airbags causing harm vs not
using them.

"ted harris" <[email protected]> writes:
>In news:J <[email protected]> typed:
>> You are so passionate and your argument is so well reasoned that I'm going
>> to give it a second look. Do they have one for hammers?
>>
>> -j
>
>As opposed to your argument that is based on supposition and falsehoods?

You mean like your supposition about the reasons that manufacturers
don't put SS on their saws?

Are you really a SS employee? You're certainly pushing them pretty hard
here on the group (and you seem to be the only one, too).

scott

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 14:47:41 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

>On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 18:51:03 -0800, "ted harris"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>In news:Bob <[email protected]> typed:
>>> Would you pay $100 for everytime Sawstop fired or misfired to replace
>>> the parts? Would you be comfortable installing safety mechanisms
>>> yourself? Personally, I would answer No to both questions and therein
>>> lies the dilemma for being commercially viable in the hobbyist market.
>>> Bob
>>
>>In my case it would be $70- for the cartridge, and $110- for the blade...and
>>I would like to state emphatically "yes" that I would gladly pay that many
>>times to keep my fingers and limbs intact. Is there really any other way to
>>look at it? Maybe for someone that was so cheap that they can justify not
>>spending the money to keep their digits and limbs there is a different
>>answer...but I don't think so!
>
>
>ok, ted, your fingers are worth more than a couple hundred bucks.
>granted.
>
>what isn't known is the rate of false positives. that information
>*cannot* be known until the machine has been in use in actual workshop
>use for some time.

><snip>

There's another problem here. Technology which is rushed into wide use
by government mandate may not be completely understood and hence not
fully developed. This happened with air bags and produced a lot of
injuries.

See:
http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/90/10/1575

--RC


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

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 23:25:30 -0800, "ted harris"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In news:Tim Douglass <[email protected]> typed:
>> On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 21:30:13 -0800, "ted harris"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>Actually, Steve Gass of sawstop stated in a post on Sawmill Creek that
>>>"People regularly push three fingers right through the blade before they
>>>can flinch. Human reaction time is about 25-50 times slower than SawStop,
>>>so even if you are going fast, the accident will likely be far less
>>>significant with SawStop than without it."
>>>I am quite sure that if you email him, he will be glad to support any
>>>statement he has made with research, links, proof, etc.
>>
>> It's a bit misleading, in that he totally ignores all the injuries
>> that don't involve pushing fingers through the blade. By far the
>> majority of table saw accidents involving contact with the spinning
>> blade (the only ones that matter for SS) do *not* involve amputation.
>> My guess (based on experience of people I know) is that the majority
>> don't even make it to the doctor or e-room.
>
>Plenty of the other injuries you refer to as the ones that don't matter
>would be far less serious as demonstrated in the videos on the sawstop
>website.

Sure, but is it worth the cost to reduce a two stitch injury to a
band-aid one? Or a band-aid cut to a smaller band-aid? Remember that
it will cost you at least $75 - $70 for the cartridge and $5 for a HF
blade.

>> I think that there is some sort of fundamental design issue with SS.
>> It relies on stopping the blade by interacting with the blade and
>> drops the blade below the table as a backup. I suspect it would be
>> quite easy to make a device that uses a similar detection methodology
>> that employs spring loaded trunnions that will snap the entire
>> trunnion assembly down into the saw at a touch. If properly designed
>> it should be easy to make it resettable and the design would then tend
>> to "fail safe", that is, if the system won't work the blade can't be
>> locked into the "up" position.
>>
>> SawStop may be a good product, but I think there are a lot of other
>> ways to try to solve the problem.
>
>Well then, where is your invention and patent? ..or are you just offering
>lip service here...

SawStop has raised the issue. It remains for others to try to innovate
around the concept. I'm not one of those others, but there will be
different approaches tried. Unless....

>> Because SS holds the patent on using
>> induction (?) or whatever to detect contact with the blade they have
>> the industry in a stranglehold. A year or so ago it seems that one of
>> the saw manufacturers said they were interested in the detection
>> technology, but wanted to develop their own blade stopping system. SS,
>> at that time, would only license the right to install SS, not to
>> develop a different system based on part of the SS patent.
>
>Another perfect example of why the manufacturers greed rules how evolution
>of innovation goes. Poor poor manufacturer got beat to the punch. Guess
>they were just too busy stufing their pockets with money to worry about
>whether or Harry homeowner keeps his fingers or not...what a joke!

The point is that the manufacturers looked at the technology and said
"we can do better on part of this" but SS won't let them try. They
offered an all or nothing approach and ended up with the nothing. If
they had licensed the detection part you might right now be seeing
unisaws with something the equivalent of SawStop - or maybe not - but
SS pretty much guaranteed that no one else will try. This isn't about
correcting a defective tool, it is about adding entirely unproven
technology that would lock them into design changes and tie them
completely to a small, start-up company forever. *No* smart
businessman would take that deal. If SawStop really was interested in
helping woodworkers keep their fingers they would do everything they
could - including licensing parts of their technology - to see that
manufacturers added *some sort* of blade stopping device.

>> Personally, I do not think that SS is likely the best way to solve
>> this problem, but I'm afraid that they have sewed things up in such a
>> way that they are probably going to be the only game in town. If SS
>> becomes mandatory (especially the way their SPSC petition was written)
>> it could well be illegal to try to do something else, effectively
>> stifling innovation. Look at the emissions controls on today's cars
>> for examples of how legislation can destroy innovation and lock us
>> into second-best solutions.
>> Tim Douglass
>
>I don't think it's sawstop that is stifling innovation. In fact, it's the
>manufacturers that are stifling it, by not even offering up the idea of
>stopping the blade prior to sawstops invention. Oh, how I weep for the
>billion dollar machinery industry! LOLOLOL...
>The idea of legislating manufacturers into advancement is not such a bad
>concept, especially considering that most all of the choices they make are
>about appearing to be concerned about safety, while not accomodating an
>operable safety system because they did not come up with it first. Maybe
>someone else is goign to make a score this time. I personally hope the
>little guy wins this one.
>Ever since the industrial revolution began, the manufacturers have exploited
>the common man. Now the common man has smartened up a bit, andis using the
>laws to get better protection. I see nothing wrong with that at all...

Any law that specifies a particular device to solve a problem is a
poor law. Legislation should establish goals and allow the engineers,
etc. to find ways to accomplish those goals. I would accept SawStop's
proposed legislation on only one condition, that they made the design
public domain so that anyone could build it. When the government just
hands a company the keys to the safe bad things happen - see
Halliburton. From where I sit SawStop looks just as greedy and corrupt
as any of the big manufacturers - and just as uninterested in the
fingers of the woodworking crowd.

Tim Douglass

http://www.DouglassClan.com

In article <[email protected]>, "ted harris" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Sounds to me like sawstop worked their ass off to get to this point. I find
>it to be an inspiring chase for the American Dream.

Oh, bulls**t. Since when does the American Dream include petitioning the
government to make your product mandatory after it fails in the marketplace?

Sounds like the Attorney Dream to me.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

Dave Hinz wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 22:52:10 -0600, tzipple <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Again, so what if they use government to impose the adoption of someting
>>that the free market did not want... if the imposition is a good thing.
>>Your suggestions seemed to be that such an approach was categorically
>>wrong. Am I misunderstanding?
>
>
> Yes, _and_ you're still top-posting.
>

And you are still evading anything that looks like an actual response
to my post. No surprise that you clip my post as well as a part of the
dodge. Sneaky!

"ted harris" <[email protected]> writes:
>In news:[email protected] <[email protected]> typed:
>> On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 19:06:59 -0800, "ted harris"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:

>>>First off, anyone that thinks that having a saw that will reduce an
>>>accident on a saw from one that requires anything from stiches, on up to
>>>amputations to a cut that is 1/32 in depth at a cost of no more than the
>>>cost of a new cartridge and a saw blade is a bad idea, is an absolute
>>>moron not capable of operating any power tool, IMHO. So no, I don't
>>>think the flames will stop.
>>
>>
>> ted harris, I think you are a moron. and a sheep. and a shill. maybe
>> even a sock puppet.
>>
>> so there. nyaah nyaah.
>
>So it's okay for the naysayers to debate the issue, but someone that
>disagrees whith what YOU believe is a moron, a shill, and maybe even a sock
>puppet. Can you say "hypocrite?" Good luck to you sir!

Uh Ted, he was just parroting your own words back at you; I quote:

"First off, anyone ... is an absolute moron ...".


scott

In article <[email protected]>, "ted harris" <[email protected]> wrote:
>In news:Doug Miller <[email protected]> typed:
>> In article <[email protected]>, "ted harris"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>Sounds great to me...can't wait to order mine!
>>
>> You can *order* one any time you like, no waiting.
>>
>> It's actually *getting* one that you have to wait for.
>
>No, they are being delivered as we speak!!

Are they really? Or is that more of their hype?

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

People had the same worries about airbags in cars. False discharges,
failure to discharge, injuries from discharges... all happened
sometimes. But the odds were (and still are) that they save enough in
injuries to be worthwhile. The big problem for manufacturers is that you
can not retrofit these easily on existing designs. There is a big cost
to redesign to accommodate SawStop.

That being said, if the technology works and is, when in wide use, under
$150 in extra cost, it will be on the large majority of saws within 10
years. The case for reducing the risk of disfiguring, disabling,
painful, expensive injuries would be too compelling for manufacturers or
the feds to ignore.


J wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>It just occurred to me that the replacement parts for the Sawstop could be
>
> a
>
>>profit center for saw manufacturers. Especially if it falses
>
> occasionally.
>
>>Probably be able to make as much margin on those as on a blade.
>>
>>Wonder if he tried to sell it that way? The razor and blades approach.
>>Give away the sawstop and figure enough people are hamfingered enough to
>>make up the cost in consumables?
>>
>>Be interesting to see some market research on that.
>>
>>If there are 30,000 table-saw related injuries that require a hospital
>
> visit
>
>>every year (and presumably most of those would have triggered the sawstop
>>if it was present) how many more were there that did not require a
>
> hospital
>
>>visit but would have triggered the sawstop? There seem to be about ten
>>non-amputations for every amputation, if that carries through to
>>non-hospital then there would be about 300,000 Sawstop activations a year.
>>So what is that in terms of percentage of the installed base of saws?
>>
>>--
>>--John
>
>
> If there were 300,000 saws that required re-activation and new blades every
> year (and you are talking US only) at a cost of several hundred dollars
> each, you would see the price of pre-sawstop saws go through the roof.
>
> You would also likely see a class action suit from users of expensive
> sawblades for damage due to false positives. I'm not sure how users on a
> remote site would take to having their saw shut down because someone screwed
> up and used it to cut a ham sandwich. Would you be willing to wait for
> either the saw to be shipped to an authorized service center, fixed and
> returned (and you still have to buy a new blade) or wait for someone to come
> out and fix it (and you still have to buy a new blade)?. Or would you rather
> wrap your knuckle in a starbucks napkin and run a few layers of masking tape
> over it and get on with your work?
>
> Sure it is an interesting idea, but it doesn't have practicallity on it's
> side. Saw manufacturers want to sell saws. They do not want to have to deal
> with servicing saws. Saw buyers want to use saws. They do not want to wait
> for service which they can not perform themselves.
>
> -j
>
>

"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message

>
> What "false dilemma"? If one has a saw equipped with a Sawstop, then the
> choice is to replace the cartridge for 100 bucks, replace the saw for
> whatever is the price of a new saw, defeat the absent cartridge, or don't
> saw. I don't see another option.
>

That is the point he is making. You'd happily pay $100 or more if it save
your finger from being amputated. Yes, you'd be very PO'd on a false
reaction, but I'd put $1000 in the till if it saves a finger.

IMO, the idea if fantastic and I'd be willing to pay a premium to have it on
my saw. Just like airbags in a car and life vests on a boat. BUT . . . yes,
that is a BUT I want to see it as proven technology that it will save my
skin and not give false tripping.

"ted harris" <[email protected]> writes:
>In news:Doug Miller <[email protected]> typed:
>> Well, clearly some three kilopeople annually are in fact not responsible
>> enough not to work dangerously. It's somewhat less clear that any
>> government-mandated safety device is a better means of preserving their
>> digits
>> than simple responsible safety practices.
>
>Are you implying that none of the 3000 + people that have amputations are
>not professional woodworkers?
>I know several carpenters and professional woodworkers that have had fingers
>disappear, or get serious enough cuts that require them not to work. Don't

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

scott