Here is my issue with SS. I really don't like the idea of being told that I MUST use this technology. Don't like the way its being orchestrated - don't see any reason to make it law - can see many reasons to not make it law.

I have dinged my finger on my jointer, gotten hurt with chisels, hand saws, screwdrivers, hammers, pocket knife, and even the edge of a board (really sharp edge). Had an inexpensive table saw once that as I was cutting a piece of plywood, the thing tipped over while running - that scared me. My point is - this industry, and everything else you do in life has the potential of getting you hurt. If I get hurt, odds are that it is my stupidity - if not, then different rules apply. They have taken wood and metal shops out of our schools "well, because someone could get hurt." These courses taught the kids how to be safe with dangerous equipment and how to think. They want to make it unlawful to go out there, use equipment that is sharp and actually make something. I am now seeing crap in the stores that is all cut up and ready to heat up and eat - soon it will be against the law to have a sharp kichen knife.

Get a grip, tools are sharp, there is risk, be accountable for your own actions - learn to deal or take up knitting - oh, can't do that, it has long pointy needles and you could get hurt. My head hurts.

 

I think it's a great product, and they are talking about making that tech mandatory in The States. That, I don't agree with. It's expensive, but if one can afford it, I think it's the right move.

 

I have mixed views about the SS. As others have said it is a very good idea but it is not a definitive safety feature for a saw, for example it does not prevent kick-back. If there is a miss-fire because of wet wood it is going to be expensive as it trashes both the cartridge and the blade. Also like others have said I don't care for the tactics and methods of the company founder - I do not believe that his aims are totally altruistic shall we say. For now I will stick with my Unisaw and try and make sure that the safety guard is always attached…...

For a scary video on the potential dangers of kick-back take a look at the following:
http://www.newwoodworker.com/basic/kickback2012.html

 

without weighing in on either side of this: a recent issue of Fine Woodworking (maybe January?) has a good discussion of the inventor's motives, an interesting exposition of the table saw manufacturers' reaction to his attempts to get it legislated, and some speculation about why other table saws don't have more safety features.

 

well, I was looking for a link to that article in FWW, and found this shocking report instead. A must-read for all true Americans.

http://www.finewoodworking.com/item/45040/stephen-colbert-takes-the-sizzle-out-of-sawstop

 

Said it before.
I'll say it again.

If you think Steve Gass is somehow unique in his approach, then you really haven't ever worked at an upper management level, in Corporate America.

If you don't like his tactics, I'd recommend you stop buying anything, ever, lest you be supporting very similar business practices.

And-as always-be very careful, in your woodworking, either way

 

I might be wrong here, or guilty of taking an overly simplistic view, but isn't it cynical of Steve Gass to try and push mandatory safety precautions on all table saws when the SawStop technology is protected by patent law.
Effectively, if any other saw manufacturer were to incorporate a brake triggered by flesh sensing technology, SawStop could seek an injunction citing the flesh sensing technology was copied from them and is protected by patent.
The only way another manufacturer could incorporate this technology would be to license it from SawStop.
Or, alternatively, wait another 20 or so years for the patent to expire.

 

renners: from a strictly business standpoint, Gass has a couple of avenues for marketing his products/technology:

- Try to license it to existing TS manufacturers. Allegedly, he tried, but they couldn't make a deal;

- Market the feature, and explain well the benefit, then let the market decide how successful he is, and at what price;

- Try to wrangle legislation favorable to his technology, potentially by spending LESS money, and then count the money as it rolls in.

As I've said, I'm a former corporate VP. This is how business in this country works-more than most people would ever care to know. Is Gass BREAKING any laws ? On the contrary. He's trying to INFLUENCE legislation, in a way that will be most profitable to him.

Anybody ever heard of a "lobbyist ?" Be careful about pointing fingers. Both sides do it, and they do it HUGE. Most companies and industries who pay lobbyists actually TRY to mandate THEIR product, and OUTLAW the competitors'.

It's really a matter of tactics and degree, but it sure isn't anything unusual.

If Gass doesn't succeed in convincing us (via the marketplace) that his feature is worth the money, then the competition can choose NOT to offer anything similar-either of their own design, or by potentially infringing on his patents.

Or they can move slowly, and try to find a profitable solution that won't materially adversely affect sales.

If he isn't making enough of a splash in the TS market, competitors can sit idly by, biding their time, and watching him closely.

IF, on the other hand, he succeeds with some sort of mandate … they're all going to have to scramble, and a few WILL likely infringe on his patents.

I don't like his tactics any more than most people, but … I'm well aware that they're far, far, FAR from unique, original, or isolated.

Like Nixon-as they say: he just got caught ;-)

 

Makes you wonder what he's more concerned about…

Saving fingers or making money.

Does anybody know if there's a video of SawStop in action where the hotdog is travelling at more than snail's pace into the blade, I'm curious to see what would happen to the wiener if it were to glance across the top of the blade (like you were pulling your hand back across the blade).

 

Disclaimer - I own a 3hp SawStop ICS. Best table saw I have ever used, bar none. If this bothers you, don't read on…

That being said, I am so tired of the argument that "the government should not be allowed to dictate to me what table saw I buy and with what features", etc. While I agree with this, the people spouting this argument should wake up and look around. The government is doing this very thing in so many aspects of our lives that it is hard to keep track. Before I go on, let me reiterate, I do not think that the government should mandate the use of the blade braking technology in table saws. I think it should be left up to the consumer to decide. My problem is this; people have latched on to this one example of government encroachment as if it is unusual and won't let go of it. I just read in the news today that legislation has been introduced that will require ALL vehicles to have rear facing cameras by 2014. Why is no one up in arms about this? I personally don't want a rear facing camera on my vehicle. Why should I be forced to buy one? Who is the camera manufacturer who is pushing and profiting on this one? And the list could go on and on.

The way I see it, if I want to ride a motorcycle without a helmet, then that is my prerogative. Common sense tells me that this is unsafe and I would never do this, but it should still be my choice. By the way, I do not ride motorcycles because I think they are inherently dangerous, with or without a helmet.

I find it hard to believe that people would forgo the safety of a revolutionary blade braking technology just to make a point. As valid as that point may be, this is not be the best instance of government intrusion in which "to draw a line in the sand", so to speak. While I think that the Federal Government of the United States of America has become something that it was never intended to be, and I do not have a fondness for lawyers (patent or otherwise), I still purchased my SawStop because it had the best, most advanced, most reliable (sorry terryR, but your comment was ill informed) safety features on the market. It was a no brainer for me and not the place I was willing to "draw a line in the sand" because the governemnt might some day tell me that I have to have this feature or because some greedy lawyer is after more money (imagine that, and in a capitalist society, heaven forbid). Please forgive the sarcasm in my previous statement, but like I said, I am so tiered of this issue and the way that it has been blown out of proportion, and as NBeener eluded to, beat to death.

One last thought before I dawn my flame suit; whether or not people make their point by not purchasing the SawStop and thereby not supporting this "greedy lawyer" in his evil money making endeavors, the government will legislate (or not legislate) this issue notwithstanding the efforts of the consumers who tried to vote against it with their purchasing power. Happens every day (well, maybe not every day, but it sounds more convincing that way).

Philzoel: I apologize for making my first and hopefully last rant about this issue in your thread. To answer your original question (even though it seems to have already been answered by many), yes it is worth it, yes it does work, and I don't know what the statistics are for finger losses on a table saw (but I absolutely don't want to become one). Happy hunting.

Steven

 

Steven - you make good points -BUT
If this technology and similar technology had been around for years and matured, this would be a standard. The owner of Sawstop solicited a still unproven technology to the industry and the industry didn't like his terms - because they were absurd. In an "I'll force you to do what I want" episode or tantrum, he went to the govt. and pleaded his case to make his technology the REQUIRED technology. This happened before he had a finished product and from what I hear, there have been more than a few iterations since then.

If the govt had come out and told the industry that they would like a safety device and Gazz had come up with his idea and had a decent price tag to it, things would be different. Gazz threw a temper tantrum and expects everyone to pony up - he can pound salt - and I don't care what he makes.

 

Thanks Steven. May you have the last say about this. I personally do not care about the politics. That can/will go on forever and never affect me. All I want is a good saw and everyone says SS is one. so….........

My problem now is I just bought a Jet 10" proshop about 6 mo ago. What I am now MAD about is I did not know about SawStop then and the Woodcraft guy I trusted did not tell me about it. I am a nubby woodworker and had to trust someone. In fairness to WC guy, He got me best saw for the buck. I wish I had know about this site too. You guys wood have told me RIGHT I am sure.

Will there be retro fits? Are there after market brakes out yet? Can I sell my Jet?

 

Oh by the way, even as a nubby I know stopping the blade will not stop a kickback projectile going at jet speed.

Table saws are dangerous.

 

Phil: there's really nothing else out there, at the moment, that's comparable to the "safety feature" of the SawStop.

You can-of course-sell your Jet, but you may lose half what you paid.

Also … it's a little iffy, to me, to blame the Woodcraft guy. I do my own research before making major purchases. You probably should have, too.

If you want a SawStop, you will probably take a financial hit on the Jet. Not an easy call, I'm sure.

Good luck !

 

Where can I sell my Jet? Any re-bait would help. Paid $1200 could I get $600? Makes SS cost $1900. Still a lot.

 

I'd start with your local CraigsList, and maybe the CraigsLists for the cities closest to you, since-in many cases-it's darned expensive to ship a table saw.

You'll want to start looking at those websites, and eBay, and around the Internet to see if you can get a sense of what your saw is worth. While you could end up at half what you paid, I'd certainly start by asking higher.

 

Philzoel: You are correct regarding kickback, but the SawStop does have a riving knife which takes care of that problem (at least I have never had anything kickback while using a riving knife/splitter). It shouldn't be too difficult to sell your slightly used Jet table saw, I was able to sell mine for about $100.00 less than what I paid for it when I upgraded to my SawStop. Good luck.

Steven

 

to NBeener -

renners: from a strictly business standpoint, Gass has a couple of avenues for marketing his products/technology:

- Try to license it to existing TS manufacturers. Allegedly, he tried, but they couldn't make a deal;

- Market the feature, and explain well the benefit, then let the market decide how successful he is, and at what price;

- Try to wrangle legislation favorable to his technology, potentially by spending LESS money, and then count the money as it rolls in.

As I've said, I'm a former corporate VP. This is how business in this country works-more than most people would ever care to know. Is Gass BREAKING any laws ? On the contrary. He's trying to INFLUENCE legislation, in a way that will be most profitable to him.

Anybody ever heard of a "lobbyist ?"

To that I would add…."who RESPECTS lobbyists?" While I don't disagree that what you're describing does happen, there's a difference between good business and 'win at all costs' tactics. I'm sure Gass is looking at this as his "big score". If it goes through, he likely won't need to care about what people think of him - he can go buy a secluded island somewhere & tune it out.

BUT….what if he's not successful? Look just on this board at how many people will refuse to buy a SS solely on principle? He's taking a gamble.

Last note - I'll never buy a SS, but that's just because I enjoy cutting hot dogs on my table saw…

 

I do chicken wings.
Who knows, I could use a nice cabinet saw for $200.00.

 

Just wait for the day when we have a Festool saw with Sawstop technology. This site will implode…

 

Oh, it wil be fun!

I am hoping for someone to come up with a different technology than Gazz and the industry to latch on to it and put Gazz out of business. If I had the skill set, I would invent something to compete.

 

"To that I would add…."who RESPECTS lobbyists?" While I don't disagree that what you're describing does happen, there's a difference between good business and 'win at all costs' tactics."

Who does which, and how do you know ?

I'll continue to beat THIS horse to death: I worked for years, as a VP in Corporate America (NYSE-traded companies). If you don't think this is how much, if not most, business is done-either at a business level or an industry level, then-as I always say … with respect … you probably simply don't know.

I'm basically saying what stevenmadden said: people are choosing this hill to die on, and for not much good and valid reason. Some are denying themselves an excellent saw in the process, and-again-IMHO-for not much good and valid reason.

If you don't think the products you buy have people behind them who dream of ways to mandate what they sell, and outlaw what the competitor sells … you probably just don't know what goes on in those companies.

Seriously. It's capitalism, folks. When you fight tooth and nail to support it, advocate it, de-regulate it, champion it, wave its flag, and decry any other economic system … this IS what you get-like it, hate it, or blissfully unaware of it.

As I always say … I don't care much for Gass's approach. Maybe I just know he's nothing more and nothing less than a Capitalist, by definition

 

It's highly unlikely that the CPSC will require Sawstop technology. Instead, they will require that table saws not cut fingers off if they enter the blade area. SS technology may be the only current technology that fits that description, but if anyone comes up with another way, that can be used.

CPSC tries pretty hard not to wire a regulation for a specific technology, but sometimes the need is high enough, in their judgement, that they write a regulation they know only one company can supply at the time they wrote it. The devil is in the details of the words in the regulation, and the industry will have the ability to argue the words so that they maximize the probability of having other possible solutions. The push back will be in what protection is offered from alternate wording. It will be interesting to see what the shape of the first draft rule is. What would be best is a performance rule = hands entering some zone cause only minor injury. What Gass wants is a mechanism rule (stop the blade in some number of milliseconds and make it move out of the way in some number of milliseconds). CPSC often does do mechanism rules (this kind of guard with these minimum dimensions), like a riving knife rule. The rule won't say you must use Gass's technology.

I also agree with Neil; this is the way all regulators work, and lots and lots of companies spend millions of dollars trying to get regulators to write rules that favor them. It is the American way, and changing it would affect nearly every regulator in local, state and national agencies. CPSC is no different in any material respect than the FCC, the FDA, DOT, or any other of the dozens of regulatory agencies we have in the federal government. You can argue that we don't need CPSC. You can argue that no safety rules are needed in any industry. I suspect you won't get very far with either of those arguments, but you can try. Arguing that we need the CPSC for some things, but not table saw regulations is a tough way to split the ox.

Where where you when the riving knife regulation was passed? It added cost. Cost was passed on to you. You have no choice. If you buy a new saw, it has to have a riving knife, CPSC says so. Is it that the cost was too low for you to care, or that there was no patent on riving knives? Suppose there was, and the cost was $5 more because of it? Is the absolute cost the thing? Or is it the principal? Certainly it can't be the fact that Gass had an idea and got a patent and tried to license his patent. It has to be the actions of the CPSC. Why is that different from the riving knife?

CPSC does a pretty straightforward calculation - they compare the cost to society of having a regulation to the cost of not having one. They have some very bizarre data on what a life is worth, or a finger. Deciding to regulate isn't solely driven by that calculation, but it's part of the process. The effect may be to add some costs to the user, but lower costs to the rest of us (who pay for insurance, and for uninsured people who get hurt, ...)
Its grizzly, but it makes some sense. If you could save 3 fingers a year, but the cost to add it was $20M, they probably wouldn't require it. I understand the calculation for blade stop on a table saw to be pretty darn positive, because of the relatively large number of amputations.

 

Could this be the "other" technology? Found this on Fine Woodworking, its called the Whirlwind.

http://www.finewoodworking.com/item/40477/blade-brake-inventor-aims-to-compete-with-sawstop

Here is the Youtube site:

http://www.youtube.com/user/DavidatWW

 

I think the problem is "Senses when fingers are in danger and STOPS the saw blade in 1/8 OF A SECOND!". The SS does that in a few milliseconds. What that means in practice is that the sense area of the Whirlwind would have to be much larger than the SS. It would fire much farther away from the blade than the SS would.

An interesting statistic would be what rate of speed should be assumed for hands moving (how far can you move from the point at which the sensor trips to the time the blade stops, and therefore how far away the sensor must be with that assumed speed). It can't be the average work feed rate. Has to be something faster than that, but how fast? If you moved reaaaaallly sloooowlllly, then 1/8 second would work. If you moved real fast, you could cut your hand off.

It also seems to need the blade guard, which we often think doesn't work for us because it obscures the cut area or doesn't ride up properly on the part we are cutting etc. It's a tradeoff.