Sawstop on slashdot

"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "BB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:JCnEg.56098$zc2.16305@trnddc06...
> >
> > Your arguments about insurance prices dropping do not stand up to
> > scrutiny -
> > when was the last time you had an insurance agent ask you if you use a
> > table
> > saw?
>
> January 2005 and he saw my damaged thumb. We alos talked about whether I
> needed extra insurance to occasionally haul manufactured goods to a
> customer. He ultimately offered me lower home owner and auto rates and
this
> year the rates have come down about 15%.
>
> Yes it would be a factor for a place like Woodcraft that has classes
> > for folks but for individuals it is not.
>
> My personal experience proves otherwise.

Actually it is based on your sample of "one" which is not statistically
valid. . .

> >
> > I agree that safety is important but you seem intent on removing any
> > responsibility from the user for their stupidity. . . A table saw can be
> > used safely but not by idiots.
>
> Absolutely true and also absolutely ture is the fact that ANYONE including
> you can have an accident on a TS.
> I am absolutely not trying ro remove user responsibility. I simply want
> insurance premiums to resude for everyone and for there to be less
injuries.

Yes I would like insurance premiums to decrease but to do that we need to
get rid of all the lawyers. Do you know how much of the price of a ladder is
due to the liability insurance the manufacturer has to pay?

> >
> > I have a 5HP Left Tilt Unisaw in my shop with a Biesmeyer splitter - it
is
> > safe to use as long as I follow the rules - if I don't then it is my
fault
> > not the governments because they do not mandate that everyone use a
> > SawStop.
>
> Blame the tool manufacturers that decided to not make their saws safer for
> the inevetable mandate.
> If you believe that using a saw safely will save your butt you are pretty
> naive.

I do know that using it safely will reduce the chance of injury but not
necessarily remove it entirely. But life is full of risks - I could slip in
the shower, get hit walking to the mailbox, get struck by lightening, shot
is a drive by shooting. . . et al. I refuse to become paranoid about
"something that MIGHT happen to me".

> >
> > I refuse to allow the government to tell me what kind of table saw I can
> > buy - there are much more dangerous things they do little about - cancer
> > caused by tobacco kills how many people a year?
>
> Did you buy your TS new? If so you bought a guard that the government
> requires it to have.

The guard was a POS and was removed. Even use of a (good) guard does not
remove all danger.

> It sounds like you simply want to go against the government, period. The
> government could simply out law tobacco and that would take care of future
> generations. But people like you would not like the government
interfeering
> with you doing harm to your self. Why not eleminate the problem to start
> with.

I feel that government is too intrusive. I am not a socialist - history
shows that it is ultimately unworkable. You seem to have a belief that
government can solve all the problems. The recent fiasco with the TSA and
operating from fear not logic is getting a bit old.

> Roughly 45,000 people die in
> > the US in traffic accidents every year (half of which involve drinking
and
> > driving). A few missing digits while not wonderful hardly rates high for
> > things that require government interference. . .
>
> What's your point?

If you cannot get it then doubt it would do much good to explain. . .

BB

"Chris Friesen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Leon wrote:
> > "DJ Delorie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >>Ah, but they can't. It's patented.
>
> > SawStop offered and I would likely think that they would still offer a
> > license to use the technology.
>
> Yes. They want 8% of the full retail cost of the saw in royalties.
>
> Chris

This is onerous since usual royalties for IP are in the .5-2% range. Also in
a manufacturing environment that translates into a 16-20% of the
manufacturers cost to build. Hardly a commercial viable proposition.

BB

Leon wrote:
> "brianlanning" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > http://slashdot.org/articles/06/08/14/1241211.shtml
> >
>
> Cool. It was only a matter of time before enough people would see the value
> in such a product. It could very well help keep everyone's insurance
> premiums in check.

The news coverage suggests that the saw industry will never use the
SawStop; the inventor/advocate is causing manufacturers tons of
heartburn. They'll come up with something of their own to satisfy
government regulations, after they lobby to water down those
regulations.

Damned shame. The guy has spent a lot of time and money trying to save
fingers.

> > But car safety is about protecting the passengers and bystanders from
> > the driver, too. The saw stop only protects the user (by "user" I
> > include assistants, who are responsible for their own actions too), so
> > the car analogy is inappropriate.
>
> Totally appropriate. I was using the air bags as only an example of a
> mandated safety devise that results in cheaper insurance premiums as would
> likely be the case with the type device that may be mandated for TS's.

So let's get down to business: Have you shelled out the bucks for
SawStop? No? Why not? You want to mandate something for everyone
else which you haven't adopted yourself?

DJ Delorie wrote:

> I'm ok with having an *option* to buy a sawstop, and the market will
> determine its price.=A0=A0I=A0am=A0NOT=A0ok=A0with=A0the=A0government=
=A0FORCING=A0me=A0to
> buy one if I buy a saw.

Amen!

--=20
It's turtles, all the way down

DJ Delorie wrote:

> A huge cost, at the moment. I could buy six table saws for the cost
> of one saw stop.

Comparing apples to apples, it would make sense to compare this saw
against the PM66, the Unisaw, or the General 650.

In that case, it's more like 1.5 saws for the cost of one SawStop.

However, even that is likely too much of a premium for most home users.

Chris

In article <[email protected]>, Leon
<[email protected]> wrote:

> As a side note, because the government no longer regulates electricity
> prices in Houston and much of Texas I now pay 50% more for electricity this
> year than I did last year.

The government not setting the price is not the same as actual
deregulation. The government regulates electricity: you can't buy it on
the free market, because the government dictates who may run wires to
your house, who can generate electricity, who can put lines on the the
poles, etc.

Government involvement causes that 50% increase, and more.

Kevin

In article <BGMEg.8179$%[email protected]>, Leon
<[email protected]> wrote:

> "Kevin Craig" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:160820061341047838%[email protected]...
> > Government involvement causes that 50% increase, and more.
> >
> > Kevin
>
> The city government did regulate the price of electricity and we could only
> buy the electricity from one place. With deregulation, we can buy from any
> where "in" Texas. Our electricity rates went up 50% with deregulation.

Ah, but you *can't* buy from anywhere in Texas.

If you wanted to buy from me, I could not plug my generator into the
grid near Texarkana, and then get paid by you.

You can only buy from certain electricity producers. And every one of
those producers is heavily regulated. The only thing that stopped, was
the city setting the price of electricity. That is *not* deregulation.

(Sorry for this off-topic aside!)

Kevin

On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 17:08:15 GMT, "Leon"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"DJ Delorie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>.
>>
>Snip
>
>>
>> But car safety is about protecting the passengers and bystanders from
>> the driver, too. The saw stop only protects the user (by "user" I
>> include assistants, who are responsible for their own actions too), so
>> the car analogy is inappropriate.
>
>Totally appropriate. I was using the air bags as only an example of a
>mandated safety devise that results in cheaper insurance premiums as would
>likely be the case with the type device that may be mandated for TS's.
SNIPPO
>
>> A huge cost, at the moment. I could buy six table saws for the cost
>> of one saw stop.
>
>And I could buy 20 TS's for the cost that you pay for those 6.
>You could buy 6 TS's for the cost of 1 Powermatic 66.
>
>It would be better to compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges.
>
>For a similar class and built TS the actual numbers may only be 50% more
>expense at worst.
>
>For a SawStop Cabinet Saw with rip fence you pay about $3100. Amazon has a
>3 hp PM66 for $3100.
>
>http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00005OQM4/103-5273668-7952643?v=glance&n=228013
>

People on this group tend to discuss the sawstop safety feature with
larger, expensive tablesaws in mind. However, if mandated, the sawstop
device would be required on all saws, from the $99 benchtop to the
$100,000 GEEWHIZBANG Commercial model. Now I don't care how many are
made, the cost of the sawstop will never get below a lowend tablesaw
cost and the structure required to simply put this type of feature on
a saw is way beyond the structure of a benchtop saw. Therefore any
such requirement simply eliminates the whole lowend market, which in
reality is probably a major part if mot the majority of the market in
terms of units sold. I dare say that if air bags and seatbelts doubled
or tripled the cost of the average car and virtually eliminated the
ability to make and sell anything smaller or less costly than higher
end 4 door sedans, there is no way they would have become required
equipment on cars, regardless of their life saving potential.

BTW I cannot concieve of any way that you could redesign my saw, a
Shopsmith, to accept such a device and Shopsmith (already a very niche
market company with financial issues) would simply go out of business.
Dayton Ohio would lose jobs.

Dave Hall

"GeeDubb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "BB" wrote
>
> > You seem to like comparing apples to oranges - for most folks saws are
an
> > OPTIONAL item - driving a car is not.
>
> driving a car is an option. I could just as easily ride my bike, walk, or
> go back to horse and buggy(well maybe not so easy on the last one). I
still
> know people that don't drive cars.

Perhaps it is an option for you and others who live close to their work or a
transit system not to drive but the majority of people need a car to go to
work. . .

BB

"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> I have to wonder what the lawyers will do with this down the road. If you
> cut a finger on a Brand X saw, will they be considered negligent because
> they did not use available technology to prevent the accident?

And, considering that the US is one of the most litigious countries in the
world, you just know there's an army of lawyers salivating to get their
hooks into the fray.

"DJ Delorie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
.
>
Snip

>
> But car safety is about protecting the passengers and bystanders from
> the driver, too. The saw stop only protects the user (by "user" I
> include assistants, who are responsible for their own actions too), so
> the car analogy is inappropriate.

Totally appropriate. I was using the air bags as only an example of a
mandated safety devise that results in cheaper insurance premiums as would
likely be the case with the type device that may be mandated for TS's.

>
>> IF the TS's are mandated to have a safety device, maybe health
>> insurance rate premiums will benefit also.
>
> More likely, insurance underwriters will adjust premiums for those who
> *choose* to have *proven* safety devices. I get a discount because my
> house has wired fire sprinklers, but they aren't mandatory. And
> insurance underwriters won't discount a safety device if it doesn't
> *actually* reduce the risk (i.e. if it tends to be disabled).

You are still not getting the point I am trying to make. Basically less
expensive claims typically mean cheaper insurance rates for every one. For
example, many complain about their insurance rates on their homes because of
the Katrina hurricane. They complain because they do not live near the
coast and had no damage claims. You do not have to have a claim or damage
for your premiums to go up. Your rates may not go as much if you do not
have a claim but claims paid by an insurance company affects all of those
that pay for insurance. My auto insurance rates went up as a result of the
flooding that occoured in Houston 5 years ago. I had no claim. Today the
rates are closer to normal. Still no claims or violations in the last 15
years. Every time there is a rise in insurance claims you and I pay the
extra premiums just like theft in a store translates to higher prices of
goods. We all pay.


> It would be interesting to find out if the saw stop *causes* more
> hospital claims, due to people becoming careless about safety and
> getting more small cuts. I also have a fee on my house insurance
> because occasionally people knock the sprinkler heads off, which
> causes damage.

Lets put those questions in to perspective. Does the safety on a gun cause
more hospital claims because people become more careless. The fact that
nothing is perfect and fool proof will keep 99.999% of the people from
ignoring the possibility of an accident happening. For that matter you can
cut your self by simply replacing a blade. I seriousely doubt that a blade
spinning at 100 mph will be any less intemidating.


I agree that more safety is better, and that lower insurance rates are
good. That
> doesn't mean I agree that forcing us to use a specific product is a
> good idea.

Unfortunately unless the governmant gets involved in many cases our safety
is of little concern by most manufacturers and especially those that turned
down SawStops proposal. Perhaps, had the manufacturers had our safety in
mind and chose to add an equally effecty device to their saws whe would not
be in the situation of being to be forced by the government to buy a saw
with this feature.

I think that in this instance this mandate woutd be good for far many people
than those that could be injured. Every one paying insurance premiums
should benefit also.

>
>> IMHO this would be one of the Good laws.
>
> Perhaps, after the market has come up with cheaper implementations and
> user choice. Or, perhaps, if the government voided the patent so that
> they weren't creating a monopoly. Or if they passed the law later
> only to get rid of the few remaining hold-outs. Compare this kind of
> law to the UK's anti-dado law. Have you shortened your arbor yet?

If everyone starts building the same type safety device prices will come
down. Air bags are now much cheaper than they were in the early 80's. When
every one offers the same features prices become more compeditive.


>> you should be very upset that you the saw you have now also has a
>> government required guard that you were forced to buy.

>
> Guards are cheap and there's lots to choose from. Different argument.

Not really. I would say that most people never use the standard guard
that comes on most saws. Regardless of price that guard becomes expensive
at that point. Regardless of price, if you do not use it, it is wasted
money and expensive. Still you have to pay for that guard.
Considering the expense of the SawStop, for the extra cost you get the Saw
Stop safety device, and a riving knife, and a heavier built saw with build
specs closer to the PM 66 in terms of trunion and arbor size.


> A huge cost, at the moment. I could buy six table saws for the cost
> of one saw stop.

And I could buy 20 TS's for the cost that you pay for those 6.
You could buy 6 TS's for the cost of 1 Powermatic 66.

It would be better to compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges.

For a similar class and built TS the actual numbers may only be 50% more
expense at worst.

For a SawStop Cabinet Saw with rip fence you pay about $3100. Amazon has a
3 hp PM66 for $3100.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00005OQM4/103-5273668-7952643?v=glance&n=228013

Leon wrote:
> "DJ Delorie" <[email protected]> wrote in message

>>Ah, but they can't. It's patented.

> SawStop offered and I would likely think that they would still offer a
> license to use the technology.

Yes. They want 8% of the full retail cost of the saw in royalties.

Chris

"BB" wrote

> You seem to like comparing apples to oranges - for most folks saws are an
> OPTIONAL item - driving a car is not.

driving a car is an option. I could just as easily ride my bike, walk, or
go back to horse and buggy(well maybe not so easy on the last one). I still
know people that don't drive cars.

Gary

"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "BB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:_oNEg.62678$hH1.37333@trnddc08...
>>
>> Only because of idiots like you that want to involve the government in
>> everything . . . gee let me guess a Democrat perchance?
>
>
> Well you started the name calling. The possibility of an intelligent
> conversation with you just came to an end.
was that because he called you and idiot or a Democrat?

Gary (humour is everywhere)

"BB" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:2H0Fg.9121$9v1.912@trnddc07...
>
> "GeeDubb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "BB" wrote
>>
>> > You seem to like comparing apples to oranges - for most folks saws are
> an
>> > OPTIONAL item - driving a car is not.
>>
>> driving a car is an option. I could just as easily ride my bike, walk,
>> or
>> go back to horse and buggy(well maybe not so easy on the last one). I
> still
>> know people that don't drive cars.
>
> Perhaps it is an option for you and others who live close to their work or
> a
> transit system not to drive but the majority of people need a car to go to
> work. . .
>
> BB
>
>

That's because they choose (option) to live far from work. It's all about
priorities. I choose to be a carpenter requiring me to own a big a&& truck
to carry all my tools. When I was an engineer I rode my bike to work though
it was only ten miles it usually only took me 15 minutes longer to ride my
bike than driving....because everybody else made the optional choice to
drive a car.

as for the saw stop, I'm not for inclusion of the device on every saw as I'm
still ticked off about safety requirements mandated on lawn mowers. The
price of the ss would drastically drop if it was so required due to the
quantity required. In about 5 more years (less time than the gov. can move
to get it included) I believe the patent will be up and you'll see
aftermarket stuff and chiwanese knockoffs of the product anyway.

Like everything I write...JMO
Gary

"Joe Bemier" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 12:42:15 -0600, Chris Friesen
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Leon wrote:
> >> "DJ Delorie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >
> >>>Ah, but they can't. It's patented.
> >
> >> SawStop offered and I would likely think that they would still offer a
> >> license to use the technology.
> >
> >Yes. They want 8% of the full retail cost of the saw in royalties.
> >
> >Chris
>
> Thanks Chris - I looked and could not find this important info.
> Thats a margin breaker...likely to be something like 30% of the cost
> breakdown.
> It would be my opinion that we should not disillusion ourselves that
> the inventor cares about saving fingers. Its all about the $$. IMO, in
> his victory he saw money not safety. Thats not to say I blame him but
> lets call a spade a spade.

Agreed

BB

"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:C7NEg.8503$%[email protected]...
>
> "BB" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:93HEg.12761$Z1.4065@trnddc03...
> >
> > Did you ever study statistics? A sample size of one is statistically not
> > valid when compared to the millions of saws out there. . .
>
> In college 33 years ago. If you think that I am the only case you are
> sadily mistaken.

You cited excactly one case - yours. . .

> > There seems to be an inabilty to link cause and effect here. . .
>
> Apparently and you still don't seem to get it.

Huh?

> >> I refuse to become paranoid about "something that MIGHT happen to me".
> >>
> >> So you own absolutely no health home or auto insurance?
> >
> > I have insurance but insurance to to protect against losses you cannot
> > afford to pay for yourself - it is not to make one "whole".
>
> Changing you mind again? Having insurance sure sounds like you are
afraid
> of what migh thappen to me.

Huh? Time for a reality check here - I never changed my mind - you seem
incapable of understanding plain English.

Insurance is for risk mitigation not elimination -

If the government mandated that all makers use Sawstops then the company
would suddenly become very rich since it holds the sole patent for such
devices. Their royalty pricing is onerous to say the least. Low end saws
would disappear and prices for all saws would rise by LARGE amounts. As a
result a few fingers might be saved. . . Well yes sign me up since I love to
pay for the stuipidity of others. . . I think not. . .

> >>
> >> Did you chang you mind? First you refuse to allow the government to
tell
> >> you what kind of saw to buy, next you let some things through as
> >> acknowledged by the fact that you bought a saw with a required guard.
> >> I agree that nothing is going to cover all instances regarding safety.
> >
> > You logic is slipping here - All new tablesaws come with guards. I
needed
> > a
> > table saw so I bought one. My decision to buy was not based on the type
of
> > guard it had on it nor the fact that the government required it have
one.
>
> Well then you should not have a problem with a better safety device if it
> becomes mandated since the guard that came on your saw was later added as
> standard like a better device may become standard.

Sorry your logic is failing again - the guard I removed on my saw probably
cost about $10-15 and did not impact the overall price very much unlike what
mandating the SS would do.

> > You fail to connect the dots here. Your idea of a nanny government is
not
> > workable. It is impossible to reduce the possibility of injury to 0%
even
> > with a Sawstop since statistics indicate that at some point in time it
> > will
> > fail to operate properly. As I stated previously intelligent proper use
of
> > a
> > TS will minimize risk to acceptable levels.
>
> You seem to know left and right pretty well do you understand in between?

Yes I do but it is obivious that you do not. . .

> > Well certainly you are not suggesting that the government get involved
> > with
> >> practicing medicine.
> >
> > Do you read English? What does practicing medicine have to do with
traffic
> > accidents and drinking and driving?
>
> Let me quote you here,
> I refuse to allow the government to tell me what kind of table saw I can
> buy - there are much more dangerous things they do little about - cancer
> caused by tobacco
>
> I read that as you think the government is not doing enough about cancer
> caused by tobacco. What more do you want them to do? Why can't I
express
> my openion about the SawStop while you tbelieve that the government should
> be doing more to cure cancer.

Sigh - you are living proof of why some people should not be allowed near
power tools. What I said was "why should the government worry about a few
missing digits when people are dying from their inaction in other areas."

You are free to express your opinion about how wonderful SawStop is - I am
not trying to stop you. I have not trashed the product. From what I have
read it seems to work but I do question their onerous royalty pricing
structure.

A government mandate to install them on all saws would not work from a
practical or economical point and your continued instance that they should
is illogical and incorrect.

BB

"BB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> You are free to buy a Sawstop if you want one - I choose not to. When you
> start telling the government to require it on all saws I will fight it
> tooth
> and nail since it is stupid.

What is stupid, the government requiring the SS or the SS device itself?

If you mean part one, I can agree,
If you mean part two, I don't agree

On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 14:02:29 GMT, "Leon"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Dave Hall" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 17:08:15 GMT, "Leon"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> People on this group tend to discuss the sawstop safety feature with
>> larger, expensive tablesaws in mind. However, if mandated, the sawstop
>> device would be required on all saws, from the $99 benchtop to the
>> $100,000 GEEWHIZBANG Commercial model. Now I don't care how many are
>> made, the cost of the sawstop will never get below a lowend tablesaw
>> cost and the structure required to simply put this type of feature on
>> a saw is way beyond the structure of a benchtop saw.
>
>1973 The 4 function electronic calculator came to market from TI. Retail
>price, $129.00
>1975 The electronic calculator with memory and square root functions could
>be bought for $14.95

I'm sorry, but WTF does this have to do with the discussion? The
calculator is an elctronic device almost in its entirety and the cost
came down because of the ability to produce semiconductor chips at
etrememly low cost per unit. If memory serves, TI didn't have a
monopoly or charge a significant royalty either. They certainly did
not attempt to have anyone in government say you were no longer
allowed to buy adding machines or comptrometers. In any case, the
sawstop device is mostly mechanical with a little electronic sensing
technology thrown in. There will certainly be some economies of scale
and from improvements in design and manufacturing, but nothing that is
even in the realm of electronics industry from the 1970s to
present.The costs of the electronics has already benefited from the
radical decline in semiconductor costs, but the springs, aluminum
blocks, and heavy steel components of the sawstop device will not
presumably see such cost reductions. Nor, I presume, will the costs of
the blades and other consumable aspects of the unit. With even a cheap
blade and assuming some fairly high unit cost reduction due to higher
production volumes on the aluminum blocks, triggering the system will
likely cost at least half as much as the saw.
>
>
>> BTW I cannot concieve of any way that you could redesign my saw, a
>> Shopsmith, to accept such a device and Shopsmith (already a very niche
>> market company with financial issues) would simply go out of business.
>> Dayton Ohio would lose jobs.
>
>If Shopsmith is already in financial trouble then the writing is on the
>wall. The threat of the SawStop technology is not at fault.
>
I think I said "financial issues" not "in financial trouble". They
have had financial issues for the last 15 to 20 years with few
profitable years in that time and they have shrunk (try to find a
Shopsmith retail store - they don't exist anymore except for the
factory store in Dayton). However, they have stayed in business and
have provided jobs in Dayton (and a few traveling sales/demonstration
people) for all of those years. I am sure that those employees will be
happy that you wrote off their livelyhood so cavalierly.

My bottom line point was that there are many considerations before
mandating costly safety requirements and you can't simply consider the
commercial or high end part of the market. Again, if automobile safety
devices such as seatbelts and airbags had eliminated large segments of
the market they would not have been required. I am not against
resonable safety requirements. I don't support eliminating guards, (or
seat belts for that matter) but it can go too far and in my opinion
mandating sawstop technology is really going too far. Safety advocates
that get silly with their rules and requirements can easily screw up
real safety programs by making safety so onerous and silly that nobody
complies and once non-complince becomes routine, even rational and
effective safety considerations get ignored.

Dave Hall

"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "BB" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:%qyEg.8990$5M.505@trnddc02...
> >
> Actually it is based on your sample of "one" which is not statistically
> > valid. . .
>
> Say what you want. It is a real statistic compared to all of your
> assumbtions.

Did you ever study statistics? A sample size of one is statistically not
valid when compared to the millions of saws out there. . .

> >
> > Yes I would like insurance premiums to decrease but to do that we need
to
> > get rid of all the lawyers. Do you know how much of the price of a
ladder
> > is
> > due to the liability insurance the manufacturer has to pay?
>
> The cost if every thing is affect by something. You either agree to pay
or
> you don't.

There seems to be an inabilty to link cause and effect here. . .


> > I do know that using it safely will reduce the chance of injury but not
> > necessarily remove it entirely. But life is full of risks - I could slip
> > in
> > the shower, get hit walking to the mailbox, get struck by lightening,
shot
> > is a drive by shooting. . . et al. I refuse to become paranoid about
> > "something that MIGHT happen to me".
>
> So you own absolutely no health home or auto insurance?

I have insurance but insurance to to protect against losses you cannot
afford to pay for yourself - it is not to make one "whole".

> >
> >> >
> >> > I refuse to allow the government to tell me what kind of table saw I
> >> > can
> >> > buy - there are much more dangerous things they do little about -
> >> > cancer
> >> > caused by tobacco kills how many people a year?
> >>
> >> Did you buy your TS new? If so you bought a guard that the government
> >> requires it to have.
> >
> > The guard was a POS and was removed. Even use of a (good) guard does not
> > remove all danger.
>
> Did you chang you mind? First you refuse to allow the government to tell
> you what kind of saw to buy, next you let some things through as
> acknowledged by the fact that you bought a saw with a required guard.
> I agree that nothing is going to cover all instances regarding safety.

You logic is slipping here - All new tablesaws come with guards. I needed a
table saw so I bought one. My decision to buy was not based on the type of
guard it had on it nor the fact that the government required it have one.

>
> >
> > I feel that government is too intrusive. I am not a socialist - history
> > shows that it is ultimately unworkable. You seem to have a belief that
> > government can solve all the problems. The recent fiasco with the TSA
and
> > operating from fear not logic is getting a bit old.
>
> I do not seem to think that government can solve all things. I simply
think
> that of all the things that the government gets involved in, this
particular
> situation is a good one.

You fail to connect the dots here. Your idea of a nanny government is not
workable. It is impossible to reduce the possibility of injury to 0% even
with a Sawstop since statistics indicate that at some point in time it will
fail to operate properly. As I stated previously intelligent proper use of a
TS will minimize risk to acceptable levels.


> >> Roughly 45,000 people die in
> >> > the US in traffic accidents every year (half of which involve
drinking
> > and
> >> > driving). A few missing digits while not wonderful hardly rates high
> >> > for
> >> > things that require government interference. . .
> >>
> >> What's your point?
> >
> > If you cannot get it then doubt it would do much good to explain. . .
>
> Well certainly you are not suggesting that the government get involved
with
> practicing medicine.

Do you read English? What does practicing medicine have to do with traffic
accidents and drinking and driving?

BB

"GeeDubb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "BB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:_oNEg.62678$hH1.37333@trnddc08...
>>>
>>> Only because of idiots like you that want to involve the government in
>>> everything . . . gee let me guess a Democrat perchance?
>>
>>
>> Well you started the name calling. The possibility of an intelligent
>> conversation with you just came to an end.

> was that because he called you and idiot or a Democrat?

Idiot, LOL I am not a Democrat or Republican. I believe both parties are
equally right and wrong. No one is right all the time. I lean right
however. I do disagree with "most" government involvement. Not every one
agrees with my opinions. All my life, not every one has agreed with my
opinion. The same holds true for every one else. At a young age I learned
to get past that, some however, have not.

"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:TcoEg.244$ha1.10@trndny03...

>
> So? That why engineers get the big bucks, to make a similar
> non-infringing version. Or you pay a royalty. Saw Stop did offer the
> technology to others but was turned down.
>

Fein could look into this. They manufacture the Multimaster. It can use a
circular blade that cuts through stationary objects but does not spin.
Because it does not spin it will not cut your finger. The blade oscillates
in a shorter distance than you skin will move. The blade simply vibrates
you skin. It would have a long way to go but it has its potential. No kick
backs.

"Kevin Craig" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:160820061341047838%[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, Leon
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> As a side note, because the government no longer regulates electricity
>> prices in Houston and much of Texas I now pay 50% more for electricity
>> this
>> year than I did last year.
>
> The government not setting the price is not the same as actual
> deregulation. The government regulates electricity: you can't buy it on
> the free market, because the government dictates who may run wires to
> your house, who can generate electricity, who can put lines on the the
> poles, etc.
>
> Government involvement causes that 50% increase, and more.
>
> Kevin

The city government did regulate the price of electricity and we could only
buy the electricity from one place. With deregulation, we can buy from any
where "in" Texas. Our electricity rates went up 50% with deregulation.

"BB" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:93HEg.12761$Z1.4065@trnddc03...
>
> Did you ever study statistics? A sample size of one is statistically not
> valid when compared to the millions of saws out there. . .

In college 33 years ago. If you think that I am the only case you are
sadily mistaken.



>
> There seems to be an inabilty to link cause and effect here. . .

Apparently and you still don't seem to get it.



>> I refuse to become paranoid about "something that MIGHT happen to me".
>>
>> So you own absolutely no health home or auto insurance?
>
> I have insurance but insurance to to protect against losses you cannot
> afford to pay for yourself - it is not to make one "whole".

Changing you mind again? Having insurance sure sounds like you are afraid
of what migh thappen to me.

>>
>> Did you chang you mind? First you refuse to allow the government to tell
>> you what kind of saw to buy, next you let some things through as
>> acknowledged by the fact that you bought a saw with a required guard.
>> I agree that nothing is going to cover all instances regarding safety.
>
> You logic is slipping here - All new tablesaws come with guards. I needed
> a
> table saw so I bought one. My decision to buy was not based on the type of
> guard it had on it nor the fact that the government required it have one.

Well then you should not have a problem with a better safety device if it
becomes mandated since the guard that came on your saw was later added as
standard like a better device may become standard.


>
> You fail to connect the dots here. Your idea of a nanny government is not
> workable. It is impossible to reduce the possibility of injury to 0% even
> with a Sawstop since statistics indicate that at some point in time it
> will
> fail to operate properly. As I stated previously intelligent proper use of
> a
> TS will minimize risk to acceptable levels.


You seem to know left and right pretty well do you understand in between?


> Well certainly you are not suggesting that the government get involved
> with
>> practicing medicine.
>
> Do you read English? What does practicing medicine have to do with traffic
> accidents and drinking and driving?

Let me quote you here,
I refuse to allow the government to tell me what kind of table saw I can
buy - there are much more dangerous things they do little about - cancer
caused by tobacco

I read that as you think the government is not doing enough about cancer
caused by tobacco. What more do you want them to do? Why can't I express
my openion about the SawStop while you tbelieve that the government should
be doing more to cure cancer.

"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:XY%[email protected]...
>
> "GeeDubb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "BB" wrote
> >
> >> You seem to like comparing apples to oranges - for most folks saws are
an
> >> OPTIONAL item - driving a car is not.
> >
> > driving a car is an option. I could just as easily ride my bike, walk,
or
> > go back to horse and buggy(well maybe not so easy on the last one). I
> > still know people that don't drive cars.
>
> Exactly, you have to open your eyes to the big picture. Be a bit more
open
> minded if you dare. Do not be held captive by refusing to see other ways
to
> accomplish something.

Hmm - the big picture - what part of the big picture are you referring to
when you single mindedly propose the government mandate SawStops? A certain
rise in the price of saws? Possible loss of jobs since fewer saws are
purchased? Even more offshore sourcing of products since the need to cut
costs means it is cheaper to make everything overseas? Increased costs to
use a saw since a single mis-fire will mean a new cartridge $$$, and a new
saw blade $$$. The list goes on. . .

BB

"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:8SIEg.3074$df.3017@trndny06...
>
> "BB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > You are free to buy a Sawstop if you want one - I choose not to. When
you
> > start telling the government to require it on all saws I will fight it
> > tooth
> > and nail since it is stupid.
>
> What is stupid, the government requiring the SS or the SS device itself?
>
> If you mean part one, I can agree,
> If you mean part two, I don't agree

The government requiring it on all saws. . . The device seems to work so I
have no problems with it just those who take the position the government
should require it on all saws. . .

BB

"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> SawStop offered and I would likely think that they would still offer a
> license to use the technology. Nothing unusual about that.

I have to wonder what the lawyers will do with this down the road. If you
cut a finger on a Brand X saw, will they be considered negligent because
they did not use available technology to prevent the accident?

"Joe Bemier" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...


> It would be my opinion that we should not disillusion ourselves that
> the inventor cares about saving fingers. Its all about the $$. IMO, in
> his victory he saw money not safety. Thats not to say I blame him but
> lets call a spade a spade.

LOL... All manufacturers are in it for the MONEY. This one just happens to
be offering additional safety that others feel is not important.

"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "DJ Delorie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> .
> >
> Snip
>
> >
> > But car safety is about protecting the passengers and bystanders from
> > the driver, too. The saw stop only protects the user (by "user" I
> > include assistants, who are responsible for their own actions too), so
> > the car analogy is inappropriate.
>
> Totally appropriate. I was using the air bags as only an example of a
> mandated safety devise that results in cheaper insurance premiums as would
> likely be the case with the type device that may be mandated for TS's.
>
> >
> >> IF the TS's are mandated to have a safety device, maybe health
> >> insurance rate premiums will benefit also.
> >
> > More likely, insurance underwriters will adjust premiums for those who
> > *choose* to have *proven* safety devices. I get a discount because my
> > house has wired fire sprinklers, but they aren't mandatory. And
> > insurance underwriters won't discount a safety device if it doesn't
> > *actually* reduce the risk (i.e. if it tends to be disabled).
>
> You are still not getting the point I am trying to make. Basically less
> expensive claims typically mean cheaper insurance rates for every one.
For
> example, many complain about their insurance rates on their homes because
of
> the Katrina hurricane. They complain because they do not live near the
> coast and had no damage claims. You do not have to have a claim or damage
> for your premiums to go up. Your rates may not go as much if you do not
> have a claim but claims paid by an insurance company affects all of those
> that pay for insurance. My auto insurance rates went up as a result of
the
> flooding that occoured in Houston 5 years ago. I had no claim. Today
the
> rates are closer to normal. Still no claims or violations in the last 15
> years. Every time there is a rise in insurance claims you and I pay the
> extra premiums just like theft in a store translates to higher prices of
> goods. We all pay.
>
>
> > It would be interesting to find out if the saw stop *causes* more
> > hospital claims, due to people becoming careless about safety and
> > getting more small cuts. I also have a fee on my house insurance
> > because occasionally people knock the sprinkler heads off, which
> > causes damage.
>
> Lets put those questions in to perspective. Does the safety on a gun
cause
> more hospital claims because people become more careless. The fact that
> nothing is perfect and fool proof will keep 99.999% of the people from
> ignoring the possibility of an accident happening. For that matter you
can
> cut your self by simply replacing a blade. I seriousely doubt that a
blade
> spinning at 100 mph will be any less intemidating.
>
>
> I agree that more safety is better, and that lower insurance rates are
> good. That
> > doesn't mean I agree that forcing us to use a specific product is a
> > good idea.
>
> Unfortunately unless the governmant gets involved in many cases our safety
> is of little concern by most manufacturers and especially those that
turned
> down SawStops proposal. Perhaps, had the manufacturers had our safety in
> mind and chose to add an equally effecty device to their saws whe would
not
> be in the situation of being to be forced by the government to buy a saw
> with this feature.
>
> I think that in this instance this mandate woutd be good for far many
people
> than those that could be injured. Every one paying insurance premiums
> should benefit also.
>
> >
> >> IMHO this would be one of the Good laws.
> >
> > Perhaps, after the market has come up with cheaper implementations and
> > user choice. Or, perhaps, if the government voided the patent so that
> > they weren't creating a monopoly. Or if they passed the law later
> > only to get rid of the few remaining hold-outs. Compare this kind of
> > law to the UK's anti-dado law. Have you shortened your arbor yet?
>
> If everyone starts building the same type safety device prices will come
> down. Air bags are now much cheaper than they were in the early 80's.
When
> every one offers the same features prices become more compeditive.
>
>
> >> you should be very upset that you the saw you have now also has a
> >> government required guard that you were forced to buy.
>
> >
> > Guards are cheap and there's lots to choose from. Different argument.
>
> Not really. I would say that most people never use the standard guard
> that comes on most saws. Regardless of price that guard becomes
expensive
> at that point. Regardless of price, if you do not use it, it is wasted
> money and expensive. Still you have to pay for that guard.
> Considering the expense of the SawStop, for the extra cost you get the Saw
> Stop safety device, and a riving knife, and a heavier built saw with
build
> specs closer to the PM 66 in terms of trunion and arbor size.
>
>
> > A huge cost, at the moment. I could buy six table saws for the cost
> > of one saw stop.
>
> And I could buy 20 TS's for the cost that you pay for those 6.
> You could buy 6 TS's for the cost of 1 Powermatic 66.
>
> It would be better to compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges.
>
> For a similar class and built TS the actual numbers may only be 50% more
> expense at worst.
>
> For a SawStop Cabinet Saw with rip fence you pay about $3100. Amazon has
a
> 3 hp PM66 for $3100.
>
>
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00005OQM4/103-5273668-7952643?v=glance&n=228013
>

Your arguments about insurance prices dropping do not stand up to scrutiny -
when was the last time you had an insurance agent ask you if you use a table
saw? Yes it would be a factor for a place like Woodcraft that has classes
for folks but for individuals it is not.

I agree that safety is important but you seem intent on removing any
responsibility from the user for their stupidity. . . A table saw can be
used safely but not by idiots.

I have a 5HP Left Tilt Unisaw in my shop with a Biesmeyer splitter - it is
safe to use as long as I follow the rules - if I don't then it is my fault
not the governments because they do not mandate that everyone use a SawStop.
. .

I refuse to allow the government to tell me what kind of table saw I can
buy - there are much more dangerous things they do little about - cancer
caused by tobacco kills how many people a year? Roughly 45,000 people die in
the US in traffic accidents every year (half of which involve drinking and
driving). A few missing digits while not wonderful hardly rates high for
things that require government interference. . .

BB

"BB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> Perhaps it is an option for you and others who live close to their work or
> a
> transit system not to drive but the majority of people need a car to go to
> work. . .
>
> BB

It is still an option. I can name many people, some in my own family, that
have never had a driving license in their lives. I can do the same if I
choose to, but jobs in my walking area don't pay what I make so I choose to
drive every day, 52 miles. There are people that still choose to live in
the city so they do not need a car.

"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:NFoEg.2064$117.1344@trndny09...
>
> "Chris Friesen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...

>
> Ouch, that sound rather pricey just for a license. That would probably
> add a minimum of 20% to the cost of a cabinet saw between the device and
> the royalty. Higher percentage on a contractor model.
>

Higher yes but I suspect that you get a much better saw in the long run.
The $600 TS with a 20% mark up is now the $720 TS with a more robust trunion
and arbor. It would have to be built better to withstand the shock of
stopping the blade.
Given that however, I think the cost may be higher depending on what grade
you buy or sell. IIRC SawStop said that it adds some where in the $250
range to the actual cost of a saw. Retrofitting if possible would be much
more expensive. A $1000 saw would go for $1350 including the 8% royalty.
A $2000 saw would be slightly better at $2430 including the 8%. That's now.
If every one added the feature I suspect that prices would settle back down
to what they are now or the equivalent considering current dollar value
after the competition becomes competitive.

If you wait 5 years the saws will likely go up 20% in price anyway without
improvements. I paid $1300 for my Jet cabinet saw 7 years ago. I bet I
would have to pay more than 25% extra today.

"BB" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:JCnEg.56098$zc2.16305@trnddc06...
>
> Your arguments about insurance prices dropping do not stand up to
> scrutiny -
> when was the last time you had an insurance agent ask you if you use a
> table
> saw?

January 2005 and he saw my damaged thumb. We alos talked about whether I
needed extra insurance to occasionally haul manufactured goods to a
customer. He ultimately offered me lower home owner and auto rates and this
year the rates have come down about 15%.

Yes it would be a factor for a place like Woodcraft that has classes
> for folks but for individuals it is not.

My personal experience proves otherwise.

>
> I agree that safety is important but you seem intent on removing any
> responsibility from the user for their stupidity. . . A table saw can be
> used safely but not by idiots.

Absolutely true and also absolutely ture is the fact that ANYONE including
you can have an accident on a TS.
I am absolutely not trying ro remove user responsibility. I simply want
insurance premiums to resude for everyone and for there to be less injuries.


>
> I have a 5HP Left Tilt Unisaw in my shop with a Biesmeyer splitter - it is
> safe to use as long as I follow the rules - if I don't then it is my fault
> not the governments because they do not mandate that everyone use a
> SawStop.

Blame the tool manufacturers that decided to not make their saws safer for
the inevetable mandate.
If you believe that using a saw safely will save your butt you are pretty
naive.


>
> I refuse to allow the government to tell me what kind of table saw I can
> buy - there are much more dangerous things they do little about - cancer
> caused by tobacco kills how many people a year?

Did you buy your TS new? If so you bought a guard that the government
requires it to have.

It sounds like you simply want to go against the government, period. The
government could simply out law tobacco and that would take care of future
generations. But people like you would not like the government interfeering
with you doing harm to your self. Why not eleminate the problem to start
with.


Roughly 45,000 people die in
> the US in traffic accidents every year (half of which involve drinking and
> driving). A few missing digits while not wonderful hardly rates high for
> things that require government interference. . .

What's your point?

"Chris Friesen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Leon wrote:
>> "DJ Delorie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>>>Ah, but they can't. It's patented.
>
>> SawStop offered and I would likely think that they would still offer a
>> license to use the technology.
>
> Yes. They want 8% of the full retail cost of the saw in royalties.

Ouch, that sound rather pricey just for a license. That would probably add
a minimum of 20% to the cost of a cabinet saw between the device and the
royalty. Higher percentage on a contractor model.

"BB" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:_vyEg.9026$5M.453@trnddc02...
>
>
> Adding the $250 required to as the feature PLUS the royalty is a deal
> buster
> since it mean they would be getting $20 per saw just from the $250 in
> additional parts cost.

Perhaps a deal breaker for you, but not of others.

Good the see that the Sawstop boys are not greedy or
> anything.

Yeah, the deal seems reasonable to me.


Plus I am willing to bet that even though you license the
> technology they assume no liability for injuries from it failing to
> operate
> properly.

It could tahe that path or maybe not.

>
> It seems quite clear that the reason the saw makers decided not to use it
> was due to that fact that it made NO SENSE financially.

And that very well may be their problem. Most every one does not like the
path that Delta is being taken down.

"DJ Delorie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Leon" <[email protected]> writes:
>> If everyone starts building the same type safety device prices will
>> come down.
>
> Ah, but they can't. It's patented.

So? That why engineers get the big bucks, to make a similar non-infringing
version. Or you pay a royalty. Saw Stop did offer the technology to others
but was turned down.

"DJ Delorie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> The problem isn't better safety devices, it's *mandatory* safety
> devices. If the sawstop becomes mandatory, you won't be able to buy a
> cheap saw any more (by cheap, I mean under $1000). It's a case of
> legislation to protect us from our own choices destroying an entire
> market segment.
>
> I'm ok with having an *option* to buy a sawstop, and the market will
> determine its price. I am NOT ok with the government FORCING me to
> buy one if I buy a saw.

I absolutely see your point but equally I disagree with the government
requiring me to buy auto insurance to protect the other guy. With
government required air bags in my wife's car and in my truck we enjoy
insurance rates that are lower than what we paid 20+ years ago. I am sure
you have noticed, health insurance has not gotten any cheaper and you might
be surprised by how many people show up in the ER from TS accidents. I was
unfortunately and made the ER trip in 1989. When the plastic surgeon asked
what happened, I told him I was cutting a board and he ended the sentence,
with a table saw. I nodded my head. He said that the ER sees TS injuries 3
to 4 times a week.
IF the TS's are mandated to have a safety device, maybe health insurance
rate premiums will benefit also.
While you may see it as having to pay more for a TS, I see it as me possibly
not having to pay higher insurance rates for myself and those that do get
injured.
I am not one that believes that I am all knowing and not one that believes
that what the government is all bad. I know that some of the laws that are
passed do indeed help and many are beneficial to a society whether every one
can understand this or not. IMHO this would be one of the Good laws. It
would protect the user of TS's and help lower the health and accident
insurance rates to the manufacturing industry which may put more money in
all of our pockets. If you are upset with being required to buy a new saw
with this safety device, you should be very upset that you the saw you have
now also has a government required guard that you were forced to buy.
Even today and in the relatively recent past you have had to pay for a
guard with most every new TS now. At least the extra cost of the SawStop
type safety device will actually do a much better job when your finger does
come in contact with the blade.

"Dave Hall" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 17:08:15 GMT, "Leon"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> People on this group tend to discuss the sawstop safety feature with
> larger, expensive tablesaws in mind. However, if mandated, the sawstop
> device would be required on all saws, from the $99 benchtop to the
> $100,000 GEEWHIZBANG Commercial model. Now I don't care how many are
> made, the cost of the sawstop will never get below a lowend tablesaw
> cost and the structure required to simply put this type of feature on
> a saw is way beyond the structure of a benchtop saw.

1973 The 4 function electronic calculator came to market from TI. Retail
price, $129.00
1975 The electronic calculator with memory and square root functions could
be bought for $14.95



> BTW I cannot concieve of any way that you could redesign my saw, a
> Shopsmith, to accept such a device and Shopsmith (already a very niche
> market company with financial issues) would simply go out of business.
> Dayton Ohio would lose jobs.

If Shopsmith is already in financial trouble then the writing is on the
wall. The threat of the SawStop technology is not at fault.

Someone somewhere wrote:
<...snipped...>
>
>Wrong again. The Sawstop is being manufactured for SawStop. If every one
>is required to use a similar safety device sales will likely not be killed.
>Did the public quit buying gasoline when it wert up 50%?
>
>
People didn't stop buying gasoline but they bought less of it. In the
case of gasoline the suppliers are selling less but making _more_ money.
In the case of saws with saw stops, the manufacturers will be selling
fewer saws and making _less_ money.

While I'm posting, I might as well add...

Air bags do save lives. However, a 6 point safety harness and a crash
helmet for each driver and passenger would cost less than equipping a
car with air bags and save even more lives. Perhaps the government
should require it.

Just think how much safer a motorcycle would be... If it had 2 more
wheels! Perhaps the government should require it.

Does anyone know if a sawstop saw can run a dado blade?

Driving at 55mph would save more lives than allowing higher speeds.
It would not be difficult with today's electronic engine controls to
govern the top speed of a car and limit it to 55. Perhaps the
government should require it.

A swimming pool that was, say, 4 feet max depth would no doubt be
safer than a pool that had a max depth of 12 feet. The 4 foot pool
would save lives. Perhaps the government should require it.




--

Larry Wasserman Baltimore, Maryland
[email protected]

The way gas prices are going, you may soon find the pay cut to be worth it.
Personally, I have a twenty minute rule. If I have to drive more than twenty
minutes to get to a place, I don't work there.

"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:KwjFg.1$6s.0@trndny08...
>
> It is still an option. I can name many people, some in my own family,
that
> have never had a driving license in their lives. I can do the same if I
> choose to, but jobs in my walking area don't pay what I make so I choose
to
> drive every day, 52 miles. There are people that still choose to live in
> the city so they do not need a car.
>
>

"GeeDubb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "BB" wrote
>
>> You seem to like comparing apples to oranges - for most folks saws are an
>> OPTIONAL item - driving a car is not.
>
> driving a car is an option. I could just as easily ride my bike, walk, or
> go back to horse and buggy(well maybe not so easy on the last one). I
> still know people that don't drive cars.

Exactly, you have to open your eyes to the big picture. Be a bit more open
minded if you dare. Do not be held captive by refusing to see other ways to
accomplish something.

"Dave Hall" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 14:02:29 GMT, "Leon"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>




>
> I'm sorry, but WTF does this have to do with the discussion? The
> calculator is an elctronic device almost in its entirety and the cost
> came down because of the ability to produce semiconductor chips at
> etrememly low cost per unit.

You said,
Now I don't care how many are
made, the cost of the sawstop will never get below a lowend tablesaw
cost and the structure required to simply put this type of feature on
a saw is way beyond the structure of a benchtop saw.


The same can happen with the SawStop device. Who would have dreamed there
would be $100 table saws these days? Comnpetition does wonders for pricing.


SNIP

>>
>>
>>> BTW I cannot concieve of any way that you could redesign my saw, a
>>> Shopsmith, to accept such a device and Shopsmith (already a very niche
>>> market company with financial issues) would simply go out of business.
>>> Dayton Ohio would lose jobs.
>>
>>If Shopsmith is already in financial trouble then the writing is on the
>>wall. The threat of the SawStop technology is not at fault.


>>
> I think I said "financial issues" not "in financial trouble". They
> have had financial issues for the last 15 to 20 years with few
> profitable years in that time and they have shrunk (try to find a
> Shopsmith retail store - they don't exist anymore except for the
> factory store in Dayton). However, they have stayed in business and
> have provided jobs in Dayton (and a few traveling sales/demonstration
> people) for all of those years. I am sure that those employees will be
> happy that you wrote off their livelyhood so cavalierly.

You say tomato I say tomatto. You do not down size because you finances are
doing well. I'd say that Shopsmith is in trouble unless they start selling
more. You have to change with the times or be left behind.


I am not against
> resonable safety requirements. I don't support eliminating guards, (or
> seat belts for that matter) but it can go too far and in my opinion
> mandating sawstop technology is really going too far.

I respect you opinion even if it differs from mine.

"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:kPMEg.8313$%[email protected]...
>
> "BB" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:w7HEg.12762$Z1.6580@trnddc03...
> >
> > You are free to buy a Sawstop if you want one - I choose not to. When
you
> > start telling the government to require it on all saws I will fight it
> > tooth
> > and nail since it is stupid.
>
> Have you been fighting this already? It appears tha the government might
> require it.

Only because of idiots like you that want to involve the government in
everything . . . gee let me guess a Democrat perchance?

> > So you either work for Sawstop or you own stock???
>
> Anouter uninformed assumption.

You have been advocating it from the get go. . . You fail to understand the
economics of how requiring it would be expense for saw owners and new buyers
(I doubt the lower insurance would even come close to covering the added
equipment cost)

> >> Plus I am willing to bet that even though you license the
> >> > technology they assume no liability for injuries from it failing to
> >> > operate
> >> > properly.
> >>
> >> It could tahe that path or maybe not.
> >
> > You seem to be a bit naive in how business works and legal contracts are
> > made. . .
>
> I do not claim to know all and cannot always accurately predict the
future.
>
>
> >
> > NO manufacturer has done a deal with them period. Why not? It is simply
> > not
> > going to do anything but kill sales to suddenly add $300-400 to the
price
> > of
> > an already expensive piece of equipment. . .
>
> Wrong again. The Sawstop is being manufactured for SawStop. If every one
> is required to use a similar safety device sales will likely not be
killed.
> Did the public quit buying gasoline when it wert up 50%?

You seem to like comparing apples to oranges - for most folks saws are an
OPTIONAL item - driving a car is not.

"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:NFoEg.2064$117.1344@trndny09...
> >
> > "Chris Friesen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
>
> >
> > Ouch, that sound rather pricey just for a license. That would probably
> > add a minimum of 20% to the cost of a cabinet saw between the device and
> > the royalty. Higher percentage on a contractor model.
> >
>
> Higher yes but I suspect that you get a much better saw in the long run.
> The $600 TS with a 20% mark up is now the $720 TS with a more robust
trunion
> and arbor. It would have to be built better to withstand the shock of
> stopping the blade.
> Given that however, I think the cost may be higher depending on what grade
> you buy or sell. IIRC SawStop said that it adds some where in the $250
> range to the actual cost of a saw. Retrofitting if possible would be much
> more expensive. A $1000 saw would go for $1350 including the 8%
royalty.
> A $2000 saw would be slightly better at $2430 including the 8%. That's
now.
> If every one added the feature I suspect that prices would settle back
down
> to what they are now or the equivalent considering current dollar value
> after the competition becomes competitive.
>
> If you wait 5 years the saws will likely go up 20% in price anyway without
> improvements. I paid $1300 for my Jet cabinet saw 7 years ago. I bet I
> would have to pay more than 25% extra today.

Adding the $250 required to as the feature PLUS the royalty is a deal buster
since it mean they would be getting $20 per saw just from the $250 in
additional parts cost. Good the see that the Sawstop boys are not greedy or
anything. Plus I am willing to bet that even though you license the
technology they assume no liability for injuries from it failing to operate
properly.

It seems quite clear that the reason the saw makers decided not to use it
was due to that fact that it made NO SENSE financially.

BB

"DJ Delorie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Leon" <[email protected]> writes:
>> If everyone starts building the same type safety device prices will
>> come down.
>
> Ah, but they can't. It's patented.

SawStop offered and I would likely think that they would still offer a
license to use the technology. Nothing unusual about that. VCR and DVD
recorder manufacturers pay for a license to manufacture a product that play
and record different formats.

On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 12:42:15 -0600, Chris Friesen
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Leon wrote:
>> "DJ Delorie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>>>Ah, but they can't. It's patented.
>
>> SawStop offered and I would likely think that they would still offer a
>> license to use the technology.
>
>Yes. They want 8% of the full retail cost of the saw in royalties.
>
>Chris

Thanks Chris - I looked and could not find this important info.
Thats a margin breaker...likely to be something like 30% of the cost
breakdown.
It would be my opinion that we should not disillusion ourselves that
the inventor cares about saving fingers. Its all about the $$. IMO, in
his victory he saw money not safety. Thats not to say I blame him but
lets call a spade a spade.

"brianlanning" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> http://slashdot.org/articles/06/08/14/1241211.shtml
>

Cool. It was only a matter of time before enough people would see the value
in such a product. It could very well help keep everyone's insurance
premiums in check.

brianlanning <[email protected]> wrote:
: http://slashdot.org/articles/06/08/14/1241211.shtml

Also http://www.designnews.com/CA6360672.html

[email protected] wrote:
> Someone somewhere wrote:
> <...snipped...>
>> Wrong again. The Sawstop is being manufactured for SawStop. If every one
>> is required to use a similar safety device sales will likely not be killed.
>> Did the public quit buying gasoline when it wert up 50%?
>>
>>
> People didn't stop buying gasoline but they bought less of it. In the
> case of gasoline the suppliers are selling less but making _more_ money.
> In the case of saws with saw stops, the manufacturers will be selling
> fewer saws and making _less_ money.
>
> While I'm posting, I might as well add...
>
> Air bags do save lives. However, a 6 point safety harness and a crash
> helmet for each driver and passenger would cost less than equipping a
> car with air bags and save even more lives. Perhaps the government
> should require it.
>
> Just think how much safer a motorcycle would be... If it had 2 more
> wheels! Perhaps the government should require it.
>
> Does anyone know if a sawstop saw can run a dado blade?
>
> Driving at 55mph would save more lives than allowing higher speeds.
> It would not be difficult with today's electronic engine controls to
> govern the top speed of a car and limit it to 55. Perhaps the
> government should require it.
>
> A swimming pool that was, say, 4 feet max depth would no doubt be
> safer than a pool that had a max depth of 12 feet. The 4 foot pool
> would save lives. Perhaps the government should require it.
>
>
>
>
The dado blade requires a separate cartridge
http://sawstop.com/products-cabinet-saw-accessories.htm

Can I get a waiver on that 55mph limit? at 57 mph I get better mileage
in my Civic hybrid.
Joe

"Larry Bud" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> So let's get down to business: Have you shelled out the bucks for
> SawStop? No? Why not? You want to mandate something for everyone
> else which you haven't adopted yourself?
>

Just as easy to ask, Have you shelled out the bucks for a SawStop? You do
not want every one to benefit from something because you have not tested it
your self?

I am entitled to my opinion as are you.

On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 23:55:45 -0500, [email protected]
() wrote:

>Someone somewhere wrote:
><...snipped...>
.snip.
</lurk>
>Driving at 55mph would save more lives than allowing higher speeds.
>It would not be difficult with today's electronic engine controls to
>govern the top speed of a car and limit it to 55. Perhaps the
>government should require it.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-346es.html

<lurk>

"BB" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:_oNEg.62678$hH1.37333@trnddc08...
>
> Only because of idiots like you that want to involve the government in
> everything . . . gee let me guess a Democrat perchance?


Well you started the name calling. The possibility of an intelligent
conversation with you just came to an end.

On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 14:09:33 GMT, "Leon"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Dhakala" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Leon wrote:
>>> "brianlanning" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>> > http://slashdot.org/articles/06/08/14/1241211.shtml
>>> >
>>>
>>> Cool. It was only a matter of time before enough people would see the
>>> value
>>> in such a product. It could very well help keep everyone's insurance
>>> premiums in check.
>>
>> The news coverage suggests that the saw industry will never use the
>> SawStop; the inventor/advocate is causing manufacturers tons of
>> heartburn. They'll come up with something of their own to satisfy
>> government regulations, after they lobby to water down those
>> regulations.
>
>Well if it makes manufacturers come out with a better safety device that
>will be good. I suspect that once the cost goes up for those manufacturers
>and costs get passed on to the consumer that a watered down version may turn
>consumers off to that brand. Right now the SawStop is in the price range
>of the better built saws. If the cost goes up for other saw manufacturers
>and requires similar pricing to the consumer so that they can comply they
>will have to start competing with SawStops quality and safety features
>rather than price alone, as it stands now. Time will tell. Regardless, as
>time passes and more people are exposed to the SawStop, the saw may become
>the new standard to compare to.
>
>
>> Damned shame. The guy has spent a lot of time and money trying to save
>> fingers.

While I appreciate his concern, I have a bit of concern myself when I
think about one of my $100 blades being welded into an aluminum block.
Granted, it's cheaper than reattaching a finger, but if it has a
misfire even once a year, the cost of that saw is way too high in the
long run. I've been doing construction for a little under a decade,
and I could count the number of guys I've met with missing fingers on
one hand- and that would still be true even if I had cut a few of
those fingers off... which I haven't. Grandpa lost a few fingers,
but that was in a press at a tire factory. My dad lost a foot, but
that was on a hay elevator on a farm. Never met a guy who lost a body
part woodworking, though there are plenty of scars around, usually
from chisels, pealed fingers (from hitting them with a waffle headed
hammer) and nails sticking out of boards. Saws of any type are more
likely to cut their own cords off than take off your fingers, if
observation is worth anything.

Given that obsevation, I still feel just fine using my tools even
without a blade stopper. I'd prefer to see good riving knives as
standard equipment on table saws, rather than the crappy lexan shields
that never want to stay aligned properly.

All that being said, I did cut one of my fingers pretty severely with
a saw once... but it was a handsaw, and I was pruning a bush. Too bad
there wasn't a saw stop that time. :)

"BB" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:w7HEg.12762$Z1.6580@trnddc03...
>
> You are free to buy a Sawstop if you want one - I choose not to. When you
> start telling the government to require it on all saws I will fight it
> tooth
> and nail since it is stupid.

Have you been fighting this already? It appears tha the government might
require it.


>
> So you either work for Sawstop or you own stock???

Anouter uninformed assumption.

>
>> Plus I am willing to bet that even though you license the
>> > technology they assume no liability for injuries from it failing to
>> > operate
>> > properly.
>>
>> It could tahe that path or maybe not.
>
> You seem to be a bit naive in how business works and legal contracts are
> made. . .

I do not claim to know all and cannot always accurately predict the future.


>
> NO manufacturer has done a deal with them period. Why not? It is simply
> not
> going to do anything but kill sales to suddenly add $300-400 to the price
> of
> an already expensive piece of equipment. . .

Wrong again. The Sawstop is being manufactured for SawStop. If every one
is required to use a similar safety device sales will likely not be killed.
Did the public quit buying gasoline when it wert up 50%?

"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:FgoEg.2672$v_1.2509@trndny01...
>
> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> SawStop offered and I would likely think that they would still offer a
>> license to use the technology. Nothing unusual about that.
>
> I have to wonder what the lawyers will do with this down the road. If you
> cut a finger on a Brand X saw, will they be considered negligent because
> they did not use available technology to prevent the accident?

I suspect that they will leave it alone. Manufacturers that do not include
riving knives probably are not being bothered.


Most employers carry workman's comp for this same reason. The workman's
comp protects a company from these claims. I doubt that they will be found
negligent unless the government eventually requires a similar safety device
be used and it is not used.

"Kevin Craig" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:170820060227063942%[email protected]...

>
> Ah, but you *can't* buy from anywhere in Texas.
>
> If you wanted to buy from me, I could not plug my generator into the
> grid near Texarkana, and then get paid by you.
>
> You can only buy from certain electricity producers. And every one of
> those producers is heavily regulated. The only thing that stopped, was
> the city setting the price of electricity. That is *not* deregulation.
>
> (Sorry for this off-topic aside!)
>
> Kevin


OK, correct I was not exactly correct in how I stated who I can buy from in
Texas. The shame of it all and certainly the reason that prices have gone
up instead of down is that Texans cannot buy electricity from any where but
Texas. Apparently Texas is unique in that it is not connected to the grid
outside of Texas.

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> People didn't stop buying gasoline but they bought less of it. In the
> case of gasoline the suppliers are selling less but making _more_ money.

Probably true. But if you lived in Houston that would be hard to prove.
LOL.. I think more people are speeding since the price of gasoline went up
and the stations certainly are still busy.

> In the case of saws with saw stops, the manufacturers will be selling
> fewer saws and making _less_ money.

Maybe, there is the possibility that pricing may deter some from buying
however there may be some that were reluctant to switch from a BS because it
safer to operate for some cutting operations than a TS. If the TS suddenly
removes a lot of risk TS sales may in fact increase. The Minimax instructor
told me that he only used the TS when the BS could not make the cut and
stated safety reasons. Not that this particular reasoning would play out
but it certainly is a posibility.


> While I'm posting, I might as well add...
>
> Air bags do save lives. However, a 6 point safety harness and a crash
> helmet for each driver and passenger would cost less than equipping a
> car with air bags and save even more lives. Perhaps the government
> should require it.

Perhaps. If you are into organized racing, it is required although not by
the government.

>
> Just think how much safer a motorcycle would be... If it had 2 more
> wheels! Perhaps the government should require it.

Aw, well then it would not technically be a motorcycle any more.
>

> Does anyone know if a sawstop saw can run a dado blade?

Yes, It can.


> Driving at 55mph would save more lives than allowing higher speeds.
> It would not be difficult with today's electronic engine controls to
> govern the top speed of a car and limit it to 55. Perhaps the
> government should require it.

Well, in a way the government has been requiring a vehivle to not go over 55
in certain areas for years, are you against driving the speed limit?

>
> A swimming pool that was, say, 4 feet max depth would no doubt be
> safer than a pool that had a max depth of 12 feet. The 4 foot pool
> would save lives. Perhaps the government should require it.

Well a person can drown in 6" of water, might as well go for that.
Additionally the government does require secure fencing around a pool in
some areas regardless of pool depth.

With anything you can take everything to an extreme.
IMHO, of all the government regulated situations, many of which I agree with
and many I do not, I think that making the SawStop technology mandatory
would not be a bad thing. Plain and simple.
You may have valid reasons for the opposite position. We disagree, on this
subject. NO big deal. Freedom of speech right? I have that right, you
have that right, although you may not like that because the government has
its nose in protecting our freedom of speech also.


On a different note, the city government in Houston has recently started
using traffic cameras to monitor and take pictures of vehicles running red
lights. It is about a 50/50 mix as to whether you are for it or whether you
are against it. Most against it are claiming, invasion of privacy, that it
is just another way of generation more revenue for the city, higher taxes to
get the system up and running, some one else may be driving my car when the
car runs a red light, and the list goes on. At first I was against it. Now
I am all for it considering that if it can help prevent 4 to 5 cars from
running the light almost every time the light changes to red in many
locations, it will probably save lives. I had to stop thinking about how it
would just affect me. While many people are clueless how many TS accidents
that there actually are, one test intersection in Houston recorded more than
600 violations the first month that the camera was in operation and those
were only the ones that the camera caught.
I suspect that it may only be capable of catching 1 at a time and may miss
the other 3 or 4 that were behind the lead car.


IMHO the cameras are good as they may very well save my life one day and
auto insurance premiums in Harris county may go down as a result of fewer
accidents caused by motorists running red lights. There is a reason that
Houston has higher auto insurance rates than most anywhere else and even if
you do not live in the area, if you use the same auto insurance company you
are indeed paying higher rates than necessary because of the amount of
accidents every day in Houston. Do you recall people complaining about
homeowners insurance rates and flood insurance rates and taxes going up to
cover damage caused by Katrina even though they live no where near the
coast and have had no claims?

"George Shouse" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 23:55:45 -0500, [email protected]
> () wrote:
>

>
> http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-346es.html


Now that is Ironical. ;~)

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Someone somewhere wrote:
> <...snipped...>
>>
>>Wrong again. The Sawstop is being manufactured for SawStop. If every one
>>is required to use a similar safety device sales will likely not be
>>killed.
>>Did the public quit buying gasoline when it wert up 50%?
>>
>>
> People didn't stop buying gasoline but they bought less of it. In the
> case of gasoline the suppliers are selling less but making _more_ money.
> In the case of saws with saw stops, the manufacturers will be selling
> fewer saws and making _less_ money.
>
> While I'm posting, I might as well add...
>
> Air bags do save lives. However, a 6 point safety harness and a crash
> helmet for each driver and passenger would cost less than equipping a
> car with air bags and save even more lives. Perhaps the government
> should require it.
>
> Just think how much safer a motorcycle would be... If it had 2 more
> wheels! Perhaps the government should require it.
>
> Does anyone know if a sawstop saw can run a dado blade?
>
> Driving at 55mph would save more lives than allowing higher speeds.
> It would not be difficult with today's electronic engine controls to
> govern the top speed of a car and limit it to 55. Perhaps the
> government should require it.
>
> A swimming pool that was, say, 4 feet max depth would no doubt be
> safer than a pool that had a max depth of 12 feet. The 4 foot pool
> would save lives. Perhaps the government should require it.
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Larry Wasserman Baltimore, Maryland
> [email protected]


You'd be surprised...

We got a down check once on a safety inspection here for not have a written
start-up procedure for a power tool..... a cordless drill.

We also didn't have a published "Hot work" (welding etc) policy... despite
not doing any hot work.

IMHO - one of the biggest safety risks is government regulations that turn
safety into a joke (which it isn't). Safety is at risk when people lose
respect for the rules, or the process. The nature of regulation (and
liability) is to cater to the lowest common denominator, and that isn't
going to change.

Cheers -

Rob

(working where a band-aid has to be "dispensed" by trained staff)

"BB" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:%qyEg.8990$5M.505@trnddc02...
>
Actually it is based on your sample of "one" which is not statistically
> valid. . .

Say what you want. It is a real statistic compared to all of your
assumbtions.



>
>
> Yes I would like insurance premiums to decrease but to do that we need to
> get rid of all the lawyers. Do you know how much of the price of a ladder
> is
> due to the liability insurance the manufacturer has to pay?

The cost if every thing is affect by something. You either agree to pay or
you don't.



>
> I do know that using it safely will reduce the chance of injury but not
> necessarily remove it entirely. But life is full of risks - I could slip
> in
> the shower, get hit walking to the mailbox, get struck by lightening, shot
> is a drive by shooting. . . et al. I refuse to become paranoid about
> "something that MIGHT happen to me".

So you own absolutely no health home or auto insurance?

>
>> >
>> > I refuse to allow the government to tell me what kind of table saw I
>> > can
>> > buy - there are much more dangerous things they do little about -
>> > cancer
>> > caused by tobacco kills how many people a year?
>>
>> Did you buy your TS new? If so you bought a guard that the government
>> requires it to have.
>
> The guard was a POS and was removed. Even use of a (good) guard does not
> remove all danger.

Did you chang you mind? First you refuse to allow the government to tell
you what kind of saw to buy, next you let some things through as
acknowledged by the fact that you bought a saw with a required guard.
I agree that nothing is going to cover all instances regarding safety.


>
> I feel that government is too intrusive. I am not a socialist - history
> shows that it is ultimately unworkable. You seem to have a belief that
> government can solve all the problems. The recent fiasco with the TSA and
> operating from fear not logic is getting a bit old.

I do not seem to think that government can solve all things. I simply think
that of all the things that the government gets involved in, this particular
situation is a good one.



>
>> Roughly 45,000 people die in
>> > the US in traffic accidents every year (half of which involve drinking
> and
>> > driving). A few missing digits while not wonderful hardly rates high
>> > for
>> > things that require government interference. . .
>>
>> What's your point?
>
> If you cannot get it then doubt it would do much good to explain. . .

Well certainly you are not suggesting that the government get involved with
practicing medicine.

"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "BB" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:_vyEg.9026$5M.453@trnddc02...
> >
> >
> > Adding the $250 required to as the feature PLUS the royalty is a deal
> > buster
> > since it mean they would be getting $20 per saw just from the $250 in
> > additional parts cost.
>
> Perhaps a deal breaker for you, but not of others.

You are free to buy a Sawstop if you want one - I choose not to. When you
start telling the government to require it on all saws I will fight it tooth
and nail since it is stupid.

> Good the see that the Sawstop boys are not greedy or
> > anything.
>
> Yeah, the deal seems reasonable to me.

So you either work for Sawstop or you own stock???

> Plus I am willing to bet that even though you license the
> > technology they assume no liability for injuries from it failing to
> > operate
> > properly.
>
> It could tahe that path or maybe not.

You seem to be a bit naive in how business works and legal contracts are
made. . .

> > It seems quite clear that the reason the saw makers decided not to use
it
> > was due to that fact that it made NO SENSE financially.
>
> And that very well may be their problem. Most every one does not like the
> path that Delta is being taken down.

NO manufacturer has done a deal with them period. Why not? It is simply not
going to do anything but kill sales to suddenly add $300-400 to the price of
an already expensive piece of equipment. . .

BB

"Dhakala" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Leon wrote:
>> "brianlanning" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > http://slashdot.org/articles/06/08/14/1241211.shtml
>> >
>>
>> Cool. It was only a matter of time before enough people would see the
>> value
>> in such a product. It could very well help keep everyone's insurance
>> premiums in check.
>
> The news coverage suggests that the saw industry will never use the
> SawStop; the inventor/advocate is causing manufacturers tons of
> heartburn. They'll come up with something of their own to satisfy
> government regulations, after they lobby to water down those
> regulations.

Well if it makes manufacturers come out with a better safety device that
will be good. I suspect that once the cost goes up for those manufacturers
and costs get passed on to the consumer that a watered down version may turn
consumers off to that brand. Right now the SawStop is in the price range
of the better built saws. If the cost goes up for other saw manufacturers
and requires similar pricing to the consumer so that they can comply they
will have to start competing with SawStops quality and safety features
rather than price alone, as it stands now. Time will tell. Regardless, as
time passes and more people are exposed to the SawStop, the saw may become
the new standard to compare to.


> Damned shame. The guy has spent a lot of time and money trying to save
> fingers.

I would not count them out. LeeValley is replacing all of the working saws
in their stores with the SawStop and I strongly suspect that most are being
sold to those with multiple workers that use a TS. If the SawStop continues
to impress and become a standard in the commercial industry it should enjoy
success.

Chris Friesen <[email protected]> writes:
> Comparing apples to apples, it would make sense to compare this saw
> against the PM66, the Unisaw, or the General 650.

If I could compare apples to apples, it would be less of an argument.
The problem is that a government mandates redefines the apple. I have
a $500 table saw. What's the equivalent if a sawstop is mandated? At
the moment, the closest equivalent is 6x the cost.

Even with your math, that puts the cost delta of a saw stop at $1000,
turning a $500 saw into a $1500 saw (3x).

But cost isn't my real issue. My issue is choice. I want one.

"Leon" <[email protected]> writes:
> With government required air bags in my wife's car and in my truck
> we enjoy insurance rates that are lower than what we paid 20+ years
> ago.

But there are alternatives to air bags (ABS, active restraints) and
the public has decided what they want. My vehicle doesn't have air
bags, it has ABS. My wife once had a car with active restraints that
almost cut her thumb off. Air bags have been known to injure smaller
passengers. Car safety went through a long process of trial and
acceptance before any mandates happened.

But car safety is about protecting the passengers and bystanders from
the driver, too. The saw stop only protects the user (by "user" I
include assistants, who are responsible for their own actions too), so
the car analogy is inappropriate.

> IF the TS's are mandated to have a safety device, maybe health
> insurance rate premiums will benefit also.

More likely, insurance underwriters will adjust premiums for those who
*choose* to have *proven* safety devices. I get a discount because my
house has wired fire sprinklers, but they aren't mandatory. And
insurance underwriters won't discount a safety device if it doesn't
*actually* reduce the risk (i.e. if it tends to be disabled).

It would be interesting to find out if the saw stop *causes* more
hospital claims, due to people becoming careless about safety and
getting more small cuts. I also have a fee on my house insurance
because occasionally people knock the sprinkler heads off, which
causes damage.

> While you may see it as having to pay more for a TS, I see it as me
> possibly not having to pay higher insurance rates for myself and
> those that do get injured.

Neither of these require a government mandate. I agree that more
safety is better, and that lower insurance rates are good. That
doesn't mean I agree that forcing us to use a specific product is a
good idea.

> IMHO this would be one of the Good laws.

Perhaps, after the market has come up with cheaper implementations and
user choice. Or, perhaps, if the government voided the patent so that
they weren't creating a monopoly. Or if they passed the law later
only to get rid of the few remaining hold-outs. Compare this kind of
law to the UK's anti-dado law. Have you shortened your arbor yet?

> you should be very upset that you the saw you have now also has a
> government required guard that you were forced to buy.

Guards are cheap and there's lots to choose from. Different argument.

> At least the extra cost of the SawStop

A huge cost, at the moment. I could buy six table saws for the cost
of one saw stop.

"Leon" <[email protected]> writes:
> Well if it makes manufacturers come out with a better safety device that
> will be good.

The problem isn't better safety devices, it's *mandatory* safety
devices. If the sawstop becomes mandatory, you won't be able to buy a
cheap saw any more (by cheap, I mean under $1000). It's a case of
legislation to protect us from our own choices destroying an entire
market segment.

I'm ok with having an *option* to buy a sawstop, and the market will
determine its price. I am NOT ok with the government FORCING me to
buy one if I buy a saw.

"Leon" <[email protected]> writes:
> If everyone starts building the same type safety device prices will
> come down.

Ah, but they can't. It's patented.

"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...


> Given that however, I think the cost may be higher depending on what grade
> you buy or sell. IIRC SawStop said that it adds some where in the $250
> range to the actual cost of a saw. Retrofitting if possible would be much
> more expensive. A $1000 saw would go for $1350 including the 8%
> royalty. A $2000 saw would be slightly better at $2430 including the 8%.

As a side note, because the government no longer regulates electricity
prices in Houston and much of Texas I now pay 50% more for electricity this
year than I did last year. I get no added benefits. At least with the
increase in price of the TS you get some added benefit. ;~)

A bit farther OT but maybe something you might want to consider since all of
us buy electricity. For years the local electric company said to raise you
thermostat in the summer and lower it in the winter to save electricity.
That certainly does make sense. Because I work out side in the garage I
would set my thermostat on 86 degrees during the day and 78 in the evening.
86 degrees feels good compared to 95 outside so I tolerated it.
Starting in April this year I started setting my thermostat on 82 during the
day and left the 78 alone for the evenings.
From mid April till now compared to the same period last summer I have used
26 less kilowatt hours electricity.
A neighbor who owns an AC business told me that the more often a compressor
cycles and shorter the cycle period of an AC compressor the more efficient
it becomes. My AC is now 11 years old and has used less electricity this
summer than it has since 2000 and my house is 4 degrees cooler during the
day. No refrigerant has been added since it was installed 11 years ago.