Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 72

Thread: SawStop files petition with CPSC.

  1. #46
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Springfield, OR
    Posts
    122

    Post CPSC Contact

    I've located a web address where opinions on the SawStop petition can be e-mailed to the CPSC Commissioners:

    cpsc-os@cpsc.gov

    Another approach from a large tool manufacturer's perspective would be to inquire as a consumer to Delta or Jet/Powermatic or General Tool or Grizzly. Anyone know people at these firms that could provide an explanation of SawStop's failure to generate any interest?

    Patrick, I'm not opposed to the technology of safety. It's just not the usual way to go about the process (appealing to the CPSC BEFORE marketing the device.) The perceived concern is, I believe, an unwillingness to embrace new technology as REQUIRED before it functions within the marketplace. I truly believe that the saw manufacturers would incorporate SawStop if they felt it would make THEIR saw more marketable. Ultimately more saw sales equals more profits.

    Regardless of how you feel on the issue, contact the CPSC and register your opinion. To paraphrase: "Don't curse the darkness if you're unwilling to light a candle..."

    Ed Weiser

  2. #47
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Lafayette, IN
    Posts
    4,563
    Patrick, I think your comment about your GFI popping shows that you have missed at least part of the point about SawStop. You're annoyed when you have to press a little red button for no reason just to use an outlet. What happens when the SawStop misfires? It's a piston that's rammed into the blade--you're out a blade and the cartridge for SawStop, not to mention the downtime as you wait for replacements.

    Someone brought up airbags...I know airbags were around for at least 20-25 years before they started finding their way into cars and became mandatory. Why? Unproven technology.

    How about this. What if I came up with a $400 tool that guaranteed no paint spillage while rolling paint on a wall and tried to get Wooster, Graco, Wagner, etc. to buy the technology. They subsequently turn me down because they know the market doesn't want it. So I try to market it myself...still no dice. My last resort? I go to the CPSC and get them to mandate its use when all paint is being applied. Now everyone has to buy MY technology, and I can name whatever price I want.

    The bottom line is, THAT is NOT how AMERICA should work.

    Oh, and if this does go through, suddenly a 13" TS sounds very appealing!
    Jason

    "Don't get stuck on stupid." --Lt. Gen. Russel Honore


  3. #48
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    SE PA - Central Bucks County
    Posts
    65,694
    I am wondering why that if the SawStop folks are so concerned about safety that they don't help this along by putting their patent in the public domain? It would lend credibility to their petition...

  4. #49
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Kutztown PA
    Posts
    1,255
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Smith
    This must be a first for me I've read all the responses... I must say it is kind of odd to be the only dissenter.

    ... although I am one of these "woodworkers everywhere" and I don't take their filing as a slap on the face. I don't think they are calling me a stupid ww'er that can't work safely! I think they are making this public for all the non-ww'er people that will see this and think, "wow, that really makes sense! -
    My apologies if I implied that the feeling was universal. I am not so naive as to think that every single woodworker in the US takes this as an insult, but rather that the feeling is quite widespread. Just look at the posts coming in and the locations of the posters. Furthermore, there really isn't anything public about this. Most people in the US can't even name their congressional representative, so I think it is a safe bet they aren't browsing through the CPSC website. Secondly, I don't think that people who aren't woodworkers really have any business in how I run my shop. In fact, being quite libertarian in my outlook, I don't think ANYONE besides me has any business in how I run my shop as long as I am obeying the laws of the land and being a good neighbor.

    The safety equipment that came with my Delta contractor saw in 2001 is the same basic stuff that was issued at least 20, if not 40, if not 60 years prior. Yet we've seen a revolution in microchips and CAD capability that have left TS trunnions and 10" TS blades behind.
    This is an invalid comparison between a mature technology and an infant technology.

    Safety always seems to be... how many people do we all think have dropped $400 for killer overarm guards? Not too many. So I must politely disagree with your assessment that these tool mfg's are implementing new safety equipment in their saws when it makes profitable sense to do it.
    If there were no profit in it, manufacturers would not be building "killer overarm guards". The whole crux of the matter is this. The safety equipment is out there. It is the decision of each individual user on how much and of what type safety equipment he or she is willing to use. If you go back and read through this thread, virtually everyone, including myself is on record as saying the Saw Stop is a pretty good idea. What we don't like is the idea of being compelled to use it.

    Let me give you an example. I am a professional woodworker. As part of my business, I teach people how to turn on the lathe. Safety is a big thing for me on and off the lathe. One of my chief safety devices is a PAPR (powered air personal respirator). It sells for close to $600. Lots of my friends and associates have one (so much for the theory that safety doesn't sell). It costs more than the lathes of a lot of my students, and is the current pinnacle in facial and respiratory protection. When a student comes to my shop, I require full facial protection. It does not have to be an air helmet, but it does need to be at least a face shield. The price difference is somewhere around $575.00, making a face shield affordable for anyone who is interested in turning.

    There are three points to this. In the first place, I do not require them to possess the same degree of protection that I have personally decided on for myself. In the second place, I am not forcing anyone to come to my shop. In the third place, I am not traveling about to other shops forcing people to use a faceshield. They are completely capable of making that decision for themselves. If they aren't, experience is a hard teacher. The real big overarching point to all this is they all - no, WE all have the freedom to make the choice. We are not compelled to make it by someone who thinks they know better.

    Even my own choice is on a continuum. I wear the helmet 100% of the time when I am alone in my shop. I wear it some of the time when teaching or demonstrating, removing it when I deem it safe, and for efficacy in teaching. If the Saw Stop people were in charge of air helmets, I would have no option but to scream through the lexan faceshield and over the sound of the fan motor when teaching or demonstrating because I would not be "safe enough" in their mind.

    I couldn't care less about SawStop's business tactics - tactics that are just like any other for-profit company, don't delude yourself.
    I am not deluded, and I resent the implication. I do not see any other tool companies running to the Feds to make the rest of us buy their product.


    I want their technology in my saw for my own safety and the safety of other ww'ers.
    No one is stopping you from buying one. Why not invest in the company so they can produce the thing on the free market?

    The actual end-consumer cost of it is negligible.
    Everything businesses do cost the consumer. Business is not in the business of giving things away. We already pay a premium for every tool we buy because of government regulation because of the extra costs incurred just for paperwork. Any costs incurred are passed on to us, the financiers of that business.

    Just my opinion folks. I am still surprised to be the only dissenter. If you feel that strongly about this maybe it would help to take a sec and email one of the guys that's posted recently about losing a finger or three to the TS.
    I think it is safe to say Terry is probably reading this, and if he feels like commenting, I am sure he will. Remember, the issue is not about whether or not it is a good idea, but rather whether or not we can decide for ourselves.

    BTW, I am really surprised that link is generating THIS much interest, response and paranoia about the government.

    Patrick
    I am really disappointed in this last statement. Up until this posting of yours, the discussion, while passionate, was civil. In this post you have accused me of being delusional, and all of us who disagree with you as paranoid. Many of us disagree with your perspective, but no one has resorted to personal attack.

    By the way, I have a "killer overarm guard", for which I paid $350.00 at a woodworking show in '99. It is cumbersome and dangerous (IMO) to use, and has been off the saw for almost a year now. I'd be glad to sell it to you for a real good price.

    Bill

  5. #50

    I'll weigh in now

    I have real philosophical problems with the idea of mandating safety devices of one particular design or type. This is a attempt to guarantee a market for a device which has been unsuccessful in selling itself to a large and diverse group of manufacturers. Worse still from my viewpoint is the fact that it only protects from one type of injury ( cut digits) and does so only slightly better than any number of stock or aftermarket or home designed blade guards. It does not address the problems of kickback and it doesn't offer any protection against a kerf closing on a cut. Safety issues which cause at least an equal number of serious injuries.

    Here in NH we have our state motto- Live Free or Die. While it is not license for irresponsibility, it demands of us that we take responsibility for our own actions. The primary line of defense against injury is a combination of knowledge and safe working habits. This holds true on all tools we use, not just tablesaws. Rhetorically, of what use is a device which stops the blade instantly if you have a guard, splitter, and stand to the side of your saw while using a push block, featherboards, and other devices in combination? Remember, this device is designed to work on capacitance and doesn't stop the blade if it encounters a problem with the wood it is cutting. It only saves fingers and hot dogs, neither of which should be in the way of the blade under any circumstances.

    Bottom line- I deeply resent a corporation trying to mandate the use of its device when it has failed in the marketplace and I equally resent the implication that both my work habits are unsafe and that I need to be protected from myself. I worked hard to develop safe work habits and I believe that only I can keep myself from from being injured.
    Dave Anderson

    Chester, NH

  6. #51
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Sharon Center, OH
    Posts
    35
    Bill - I'm sorry you took that personally, as it was not meant that way. I respect your thoughts and don't think you are delusional at all, nor paranoid. And I sure didn't say everyone who disagrees with my opinion is paranoid, but this link has certainly generated some of that. Perhaps I could have chosen better words.

    I do hope, however, you go the CPSC site and read at a minimum page 9 of the 1st petition. I would hope that everyone who has responded at least reads that, if not the rest of both petitions in entirety.

    Jim Becker: There should be enough information between the two filed petitions to make your own better version of SawStop. I did a quick patent search but didn't come up with anything. Maybe they didn't bother getting one!

    Jason Roehl: That was kinda my whole point of wanting the technology. If this thing works right and doesn't pop all the time, then it's non-impacting. Works when you need it but you can't tell it's there when you don't.

    Dave Anderson: I understand where you are coming from, however this issue is above personal responsibility. Finger injuries come from all walks of life, and I would bet many of those are uninsured carpenters that will then need public assistance in some form or another. IMO I think the hobbiest part - where people take the most care to be safe and responsible - of the finger injury stats is probably the smallest.

    One point I don't think has come up is that you can turn this thing off. There is no one from the gov't standing behind you in your shop making sure it's still turned on, or even installed. You could remove it entirely and sell it on eBay. Or put it on the shelf right next to the overarm guard that came with the saw. I wonder if there would have been this big of a response when overarm guards were mandated, but now we take them in stride simply because they come with the saw. I see a lot of parallels with that.

    I will let everyone get back to work and make this responses my last. Since I am still the only one disagreeing there's not much point to debate this. This would be a good time over a grill and a few beers but it doesn't work well online - words are taken wrong too easily. You can all agree together now! But before you send that email to the CPSC at least READ THE FIRST TEN PAGES OF THE PETITION. That's a minimum pre-req.

    BTW, if you really feel strongly about this, why not call one or all three of the filers and ask them exactly why they did this? Their phone numbers are on the petition. I think I will call them later today just to get their take on why they did it this way.

    Best regards to all.
    Patrick
    Last edited by Ken Salisbury; 07-14-2003 at 10:42 AM.

  7. #52
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (The Sun and Fun Capital of The South)
    Posts
    3,203

    Very Active Discussion

    I have read all of the posts in this thread and although it is a very lively discussion, there have been some subtle personal attacks in both directions. We can all debate this issue without those. Please continue this discussion in a constructive manner which will make my moderator duties much easier - I don't want to have to edit any of the posts if possible and won't unless it gets "out of control".<p>
    Please do keep the discussion going ! ! !

    Thanks !!</p>
    Last edited by Ken Salisbury; 07-14-2003 at 1:14 PM.
    "If you believe in yourself and have dedication and pride - and never quit, you'll be a winner. The price of victory is high - but so are the rewards" - - Coach Paul "Bear" Bryant
    Ken Salisbury Passed away on May 1st, 2008 and will forever be in our hearts.

  8. #53
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Ipswich, Ma
    Posts
    681
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Smith
    This must be a first for me I've read all the responses... I must say it is kind of odd to be the only dissenter.
    You're not the only dissenter.

    - Ed

  9. #54
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Algonquin, IL
    Posts
    303
    Patrick,
    Please watch your facts.

    1) you cannot remove the SawStop. It is an integral part of the saw. That is why it cannot be added on as an aftermarket kit.

    2) You can only disable it for one cut (one cycle of the power). Disableing is only included for metal cutting on occasion.

    Put me in the camp of making it available as an option, not a federal requirement. If we start here, then every powered tool, garden and kitchen device would require such a upgrade..
    “Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity”

  10. #55
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Sharon Center, OH
    Posts
    35

    Mike - interesting info.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Circo
    Patrick, Please watch your facts.
    Hi Mike. Your correction intrigued me, so even though I said I woudn't reply any more, I went in search of some information to see what the facts really are. Looking at the patent applications (I found them, see next post) Saw Stop does not appear to have anti-defeatable mechanisms built into it. The patent applications are decidedly vague however, using words like "may implement" or "Various... implementations". So, could you "remove it entirely and sell it on eBay" as I quipped below? Probably not, but it doesn't look like any production plans have been finalized so I think it's acceptable to call that one a 'maybe, but probably not'.

    As for a switch that only works for one cut, there is mention of that as an option in the patent application. But it also mentions another switch option could be used to cut power to the brake that drops into the blade for multiple cutting operations, thereby bypassing the Saw Stop device until the switch is flipped again to bring power back to it.

    As for making the device an option on new saws - I think I agree with you, as long as it's actually made an option. After reading through the petition it sure seems like the tool companies were colluding to make sure this technology never made it to market as an option on their equipment. Sure reads like a conspiracy theory.

    Lots of fascinating views on this subject. I wonder when CPSC will make a judgement or recommendation? Hopefully it will be soon.

    Best Regards,
    Patrick

  11. #56
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Sharon Center, OH
    Posts
    35

    Saw Stop patent applications (link)

    Hello everyone. I took it on myself to find out more information about the Saw Stop devices in response to an inquiry from a poster here. It turns out the information is indeed public.

    The Saw Stop patent applications are available online at the US Patent Office. The link takes you directly to the Advanced Search box of patent applications. If you plug in the inventor's name as a search, you will see the results. Copy/paste this into the search box: in/gass-stephen-$ and 35 hits will come back.

    Worth noting are Saw Stop applications for table saws, band saws, miter saws, and routers. Maybe a shaper is next.

    This will be my last post on this unless someone has a correction to one of my previous posts. Have a great day all.

    Best Regards,
    Patrick

  12. #57
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Osceola, Indiana
    Posts
    130

    Thumbs up Good responses...

    I think that most here are intrested in table saw safety like me, but don't want a mandate on a device that might work properly and then maybe not work. Most here would like a choice in the matter and buy for themself said device. And chances are if it was put on the market as an manufactured add on, (and I think it is, right?) it would work and work well. It would have to, after all if it was full of problems the manufactures would be in trouble.

    I say NO to any kind of mandate (Federal or not) of any device for table saws or anything els for that matter, even if it works, even if it's safe.
    Cool Place, this Sawmill Creek.

  13. #58
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Manhattan Beach, CA
    Posts
    91

    Safety Schmafety

    If these folks were truly interested in improving <u>the product</u> (table saw) they would NOT be petitioning the Government for <i>their product</i> to be "mandatory."

    Rather, they, and all current U.S. manufacturers, would be pushing for a Euro style splitter as the mandate.

    Kickback, not cut "hot dogs", is the number one cause of serious table saw injuries. Some kickback induced injuries DO include cut hands, arms and digits IF said kickback drags the operator's appendage into the spinning blade.

    Do I <u>think</u> about a cut finger? Yes. But, I'm obsessed about kickback!

    I don't have a blade guard on my table saw. I do have the splitter installed and beyond that use jigs and featherboards where appropriate. My work-pattern and use or non-use of "safety" equipment tell the story - my safety focus is on kickback and its prevention.

    And, finally, this observation from the LEFT leaning LEFT coast of CALIFORNIA - I don't want the government <u>telling</u> me I HAVE to do anything!
    Dave Anderson, SoCal - Work Safely!

  14. #59
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    141
    What ever became of this petition?

  15. #60
    I agree 100% with Ron and others. Put out a product if it has value the consumers will support it.
    Dave


    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Meadows
    While I agree with the idea of Sawstop, I don't agree that they should be a mandated accessory on every new tablesaw. They should devise a method that is easily retrofitted onto current saw designs and let the end user choose about its use.

    I could say a lot more about this subject, but we don't do politics here

    Ron

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •