Comparing thoughts on SawStop
I post this thread as an extension of some thoughts that came up on "The Next Unisaw" thread. Didn't want to hijack that thread, but did want to allow for a discussion of some interesting thoughts on Sawstop.
Dev, if you've found me here,
First, I enjoyed your disussion of vintage machines. There are some gems from the past. As Bart mentioned on the previous thread they were built for producion work, and as such they are heavy duty and seem to last forever. They also , as you mentioned, allow for some types of work (moulding etc.)that can't or shouldn't be done on the typical cabinet saw. The old boys are a different breed. I remember an old Oliver from a night class I took at a Tech school. There was a foot brake to stop the blade from spinning after you turned the saw off. Unfortunately it was broken. If you know your safety, you don't leave the saw until the blade has stopped as someone else could come along not realizing the balde was still spinning and get hurt. Not much of an issue on my Jet or a Unisaw as the spin down is maybe 30 seconds? When you'd turn this Oliver off it was several minutes before that buzzard stopped. An inconvenience to be sure, but that's quality. I can only imagine the kind of bearings that thing must've had. I'd put that one in my shop anyday (but I'd fix the footbrake)
OK, the Sawstop. Always a bone of contention. I've followed the story from the beginning as I thought it was a great idea and long overdue. It was an important feature to me for a couple of reasons: 1) I was a hobbiest woodworker, but a dentist by trade. Kind of needed to keep my fingers attached. So when the issues of safe practices come up, believe me I was/am meticulous! 2) My brother pulled a radial arm saw across his index finger. The doctors thought they'd need to amputate (complete the amputation, I should say) but my Brother asked them to please try anything. The finger was in fact saved, but is fused at the middle knucle so he can't bend it. Certainly could've been worse but ask him what it would be worth to regain the normal use of his finger and the answer will be many times the cost of several sawstop saws, blades and brakes.
I wish that Delta, Jet, Powermatic et. al. would have adopted the technology when it was presented. My guess is that they may now be wishing the same thing. I'm inclined to repond to a number of points made about the Sawstop. No personal offense intended, believe me I've read numerous threads and seen the same points time and time again. This is just the first time I have responed as it was a moot point to me until the technolgy actually hit the market.
"I would caution anyone about a false sense of security from these so called safty devices. Learn to use the saw correctly by using correct techniques and you will be O.K. Take a class if you have to but learn the correct techniques!"
A ten inch blade spinning with the tips near the speed of sound scares the xxxxxxxout of me. Having a brake mechanism would not change that one ioda. I don't think anyone wants to test drive the brake. I don't personally think this idea that people will get careless because there is a safety brake present holds water. More importantly, we do know that a false sense of security comes with repetitious use, so that danger is already present and is an argument for not against a safety device.
I mentioned that I am meticulous about safety. I know and apply good techniques as you suggest, and most certainly this reduces my risk substantially. But this argument suggests that as long as I do just that I cannot get hurt. We'd have to read specific reports, so I say this without scientific certainty, but it seems possible that accidents have occured despite safe practices. Once again it is even more important to flip the argument over. DO people use safe techniques? I go to the hardwood shop and often need a sheet cut in half to transport it. One guy manhandles the sheet onto a unisaw that is already running has no safety guard anywhere near it. The sheet hits the blade before it does the fence and gets pushed thru with remarkable speed. As near as I can tell, he's not paying much attention, he is cetainly not watching the board /fence interface as one should. He pushes the sheet all the way thru with hands on both sides of the cut and runs them beyond the blade. He's also wearing gloves so as not to get a splinter! This guy does this for a job. Anecdotal evidence? yes. But do I need to be scientific here. I've seen this type of practice too many times in too many places to delude myself into thinking it is uncommon. Now we could argue that these folks can mutilate themselves if they so choose. But it does not lend credibility to the "well just don't put your hand in the blade" argument. (I have heard this statement used in a serious manner several times, it does not apply here as the use of safe techniques is suggested thoughtfully and correctly) Still, from a realistic and economic standpoint, safe practices are not universally applied and the economic burden that results is some level of magnitude beyond the cost of the brake system. Broken blades catridges and all.
"And according to the owner of northfield machinery in MN who still makes the older heavy iron, (www.northfieldwoodworking.com), this device is actually itself a safety hazard. On larger, carbide tipped blades, the teeth have a habbit of comming off with extreme kinetic energry. In english, that is schrapnel! I for one do not wish to have a doctor pulling out forrest blade schrapnel from every part of the front side of my body when this thing kicks in by accident. Secondly, its a one shot device. An aluminium alloy boot is jammed into the blade path at the same time that the entire yoke assembly is dumped into the bowls of the saw cabinet to get the blade out of path in milli-seconds. You will now need to get both a new shoe and a new blade as most blades of any quality will be destroyed by this violence."
Well I'm from MN, but I still can't take the word of a machinery owner that this device creates shrapnel. Is there a study that shows or even suggests this? Any evidence of any kind? I would definitely be want to be aware of this and so would appreciate any information. Sawstop shot this thing off repeatedly in development and subsequent testing. Heck, they do it at shows with a crowd gathered around. Would they do that if they tought it sprayed shrapnel? They have the most to lose should there be an injury caused by the action of this device.
Yes your blade and cartridge are shot. A very nice blade, $120, cartidge, $60. $180. So to employ that as an argument against this device begs the question: what is a finger worth to you? $180? If this thing goes off and I still have ten fingers, I'll use all ten to count out the bills to buy a blade, and a cartridge. Steve Gass will get a Holiday card every year for the rest of my life, with my ten fingerprints on it. You could lose $180 on a miss fire. I'll take it. They have worked hard on preventing misfires, and to the best of my knowledge there has been one incident in the field (piece of metal tape on underside of a board establihed an electrical path from blade to table, which drew current and quite properly released the brake. No shrapnel reported.)
"how can one person push these features as a required safety standard but also hold everyone culpable in the event that they dont pay him royalties for violating his patent? If this wasn't about greed, then he should do what mercedes did with the crumple zone patent... give it away to the world for free. But the facts are the facts. The attempt to put this requirement into the standards is a feeble way of blackmailing companies into having to pay his royalties. Furthermore, every major manufacturer in this country has already evaluated his invention and effectively turned it down.
1) the system was offered to manufacturer's in exchange for a royalty. They chose not to implement the system and not to pay a royalty. Is there a reason they should get to refuse to pay royaties, but then violate his patent. I don't think even the Manufacturers believe that.
2) Who ever said it wasn't about greed. It is about greed and so is every other object ever invented. I think the vast majority of things are invented in the hope that they will sell and generate a profit. That's capitalism: if you can invent and make something that people will buy, you get money. Lot's of good inventions came out of that sytem.
Your analogy with Mercedes may not be the best comparison. They did release a patent on a safety feature, but I doubt that it was less greedy. More likely the PR for releasing it was worth more than they figured to lose by letting the competition have it. They did mention it in a series of commercials after all. If they had no greed they wouldn't have needed to profit from the PR. More significant is that Mercedes-Benz is a multi-billion dollar corporation. Steve Gass is a single individual. He perceived a need, pursued a solution, found one and deserves the results. Remember the jury is still out. He may make millions or go bankcrupt.
Had you invented this device, would you have given it away?
As to every manufacturer turning it down, I did not hear of one that said it did not work. I heard several say that they felt the cost of implementing it would be prohibitive. Sounds greedy. They actually feared being sued by someone who was injured on one of their other machines that didn't have the device.
I for one am glad that someboby found a way to make a saw with the brake (apparently the cost wasn't prohibitive so much as a risk that several large corporations didn't want to take, but one greedy individual did).
As to forcing the technology via governmental routes....I'm never for that. I'd say the cards are dealt, play the hand. They turned it down, he ran an end around. The capitalistic system not only inspires inventions , it makes very objective decisions. The market will decide. (and you may have already read my prediction: Sawstop does well, gains market share, one or more of the aforementioned mfgrs bids to buy them out)
I can only say two things on the regulations issue. It was offered first. I think there denial was a shock (it was to me). There may be some vengenge involved. I think it would take a better man than me not to react the same way.
If regulating this maddens you, let's not forget that the current safety guards are mandated. So if you fight one, fight the other and I will join you.
In the end, despite my novel length post. We are really more in agreement than not. We may disagree as to the relative merits of the sawstop safety feature. You won't buy one and I will. But you won't keep me from buying one, and I won't force you to buy one. And that's as it should be.
I welcome your reply/response or anything else. I hope we get some other opinions in here as well.
All the best,
Ken
Reply With Quote