Embeded in link is comment that sawstop is going to have a 400 dollar version.

[Bob Coates]

At least that is what I read.
It is a discussion on why it has taken so long to come up with safety requirements for table saws.

http://www.npr.org/2017/08/10/542474...-safer-drag-on

[Bruce Wrenn]

At least that is what I read.
It is a discussion on why it has taken so long to come up with safety requirements for table saws.

http://www.npr.org/2017/08/10/542474...-safer-drag-on

The answer for the $400 table saw is his patent will soon run out, and others will flood the market, so he's trying to "head them off at the pass." I like his idea, but not his attempts to run down everybody's throat.

[Jacob Mac]

How soon is the patent over? I want a Sawstop, but if more options are available soon...

[Ryan J Carpenter]

I heard this on the radio yesterday and I agree that it is kind of a dirty way to force everyone to buy or license his technology while coming off as a humanitarian. Looks like his patents seem to be pretty strong and estimated to last for 4-7 more years.

It struck me as interesting that despite the large influx of sawstops to commercial and home shops that the number of injuries per year hasn't changed significantly. I am curious to see the data breakdown (diy self-taught, hobby woodworking, cabinet makers, home construction, etc). People I know with tablesaw (very small sample size) were not following safe tablesaw operating procedures on cheap used job site saws that wern't properly adjusted - a class of injury that would stick around until all those $20-100 used saws stopped being available on Craigslist.

Don't get me wrong - upgrading to a sawstop from my Unisaw would be a no brainer if I was swimming in cash - but until then it is the same risk-benefit calculations as all my other flesh-eating woodworking equipment.

[Nick Decker]

I'm all for the SawStop technology, and I own one of their saws, but I have a problem with the government requiring it.

[eugene thomas]

He sure is worried about saving fingers. Long as he sells the saw.

[Ben Rivel]

Wow, that would be pretty surprising to see a $400 SawStop. It would be good to feed competition in that jobsite saw market.

[Adam Herman]

even with the recent color change to green? I'm not sure I see festool selling a table saw for $400... that price point is crowded for sure.

[Mike Henderson]

Wow, that would be pretty surprising to see a $400 SawStop. It would be good to feed competition in that jobsite saw market.

I don't see how a construction company can have a job site saw without flesh sensing. As soon as someone hurts themselves on the saw, they'll sue and I can hear their attorney now. "Mr. Construction Company, you were aware that there were job site saws that had a flesh sensing feature, and that feature would have saved my client's fingers. That saw would have cost you less than $300 ($400??) more than the saw you bought. Why did you cheap out and buy a saw without that feature?"

Seems the company's insurance provider would force them to use a saw with flesh sensing.

Mike

[Joe Jensen]

I don't see how a construction company can have a job site saw without flesh sensing. As soon as someone hurts themselves on the saw, they'll sue and I can hear their attorney now. "Mr. Construction Company, you were aware that there were job site saws that had a flesh sensing feature, and that feature would have saved my client's fingers. That saw would have cost you less than $300 ($400??) more than the saw you bought. Why did you cheap out and buy a saw without that feature?"

Seems the company's insurance provider would force them to use a saw with flesh sensing.

Mike

Mike is spot on. I chatted with a large tool dealer, entry level stuff up to real commercial machines. He said the only cabinet saws they sell now to commercial buyers are Sawstops. Most replacing existing cabinet saws at the demand of insurance carriers. The cost of the change to Sawstop is equal or less than the increased insurance premium without.

[keith micinski]

I don't see how a construction company can have a job site saw without flesh sensing. As soon as someone hurts themselves on the saw, they'll sue and I can hear their attorney now. "Mr. Construction Company, you were aware that there were job site saws that had a flesh sensing feature, and that feature would have saved my client's fingers. That saw would have cost you less than $300 ($400??) more than the saw you bought. Why did you cheap out and buy a saw without that feature?"

Seems the company's insurance provider would force them to use a saw with flesh sensing.

Mike

By by this logic no company could exist because every time anything happened they would be sued out of business by not owning a bullet proof s class Mercedes to transport people and materials the safest way possible to a place where a robot does the work for you because again that would be the safest way to do the job.

[Kevin Groenke]

I'm all for the SawStop technology, and I own one of their saws, but I have a problem with the government requiring it.

I am all for the SawStop technology and I'm a signatory to the original CPSC petition. I think it is unfortunate that the technology was not widely licensed by other manufacturers and I'm sure that parties and financial interests on both sides have contributed to SawStop having an effective monopoly on tablesaws that don't amputate, mangle, disfigure, etc and cost billions annually.

I find it a bit bewildering that there is a rider in the federal budget exempting use of monies being used for finalization of any CPSC rule re:SawStop.

"SEC. 502. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be used to finalize any rule by the Consumer Product Safety Commission relating to blade-contact injuries on table saws."

Do you think somebody in congress came up with that themselves or did it come from PTI or other representatives of non-SawStop interests?
IMO this is different from Gass petitioning the CPSC only in that the ultimate result will be more injuries, lawsuits, pain, and suffering rather than less.

[andy bessette]

...I have a problem with the government requiring it.

This. Too many nanny-staters.

[Mike Henderson]

By by this logic no company could exist because every time anything happened they would be sued out of business by not owning a bullet proof s class Mercedes to transport people and materials the safest way possible to a place where a robot does the work for you because again that would be the safest way to do the job.

No, the law only requires reasonable care and takes into account the financial cost. It does not require a bullet proof Mercedes to transport people.

When the situation is something like a $300 upgrade to a job site saw to save a worker's finger or hand, people in the jury tend to look at the company as not caring and cheap and the company usually loses. The company has an obligation to do reasonable things to protect their workers.

To contrast your position, if the company used a truck that had bald tires and bad brakes to transport the workers, is that okay?

The law attempts to be reasonable and the juries who decide these cases (and the appellate courts) usually consider what's reasonable in the situation.

In my opinion, adding a one time charge of $300 to a job site saw, which will be used on many jobs, is not unreasonable. Let's say that the saw will only last for ten jobs - that's $30 extra per job. And the saw will probably last more than ten jobs. That's nothing compared to the loss of a finger.

Mike

[keith micinski]

Your argument somehow has a perfectly functioning table saw with no defects, but not no flesh sensing technology, being compared to bald tires and bad brakes. Interesting.