Saw Stop Technology on Every Saw

[Faust M. Ruggiero]

I don't get it. I'm not even a Saw Stop owner nor do I want to discuss why I am not. What I really can't figure out is why Saw Stop is the only brand selling their current technology. There has already been a stunning judgment against another brand due to a bad accident and it was rewarded because their saw did not have the Saw Stop technology. I would have thought by now every saw manufacturer would have come up with their own version just to cover their collective tush. I'm not suggesting every saw in America should be equipped that way but I can't figure out why a version from PM and General and Delta haven't hit the market yet. Any insight about this??
fmr

[Tony Bilello]

I'm with you. I also thought that the higher end models would have similar technology but they don't. I can't wait to hear from someone that is really in the know.
Hey wait. ....The owner or manager from Grizzly gets on here from time to time. Maybe he could share his philosophy with us. I'm sure there is a good reason.

[Eiji Fuller]

Im all for SawStop and there product but would rather it be an option than madantory. I dont feel I would ever need it but would gladly pay extra to have it in my shop if I had employees or was instructing.

Also there is no need for them on sliders.

[Dennis McGarry]

I don't get it. I'm not even a Saw Stop owner nor do I want to discuss why I am not. What I really can't figure out is why Saw Stop is the only brand selling their current technology. There has already been a stunning judgment against another brand due to a bad accident and it was rewarded because their saw did not have the Saw Stop technology. I would have thought by now every saw manufacturer would have come up with their own version just to cover their collective tush. I'm not suggesting every saw in America should be equipped that way but I can't figure out why a version from PM and General and Delta haven't hit the market yet. Any insight about this??
fmr

Main reason I would think is that it is a very unique system and development costs are very high on a completely different approach other then the saw stop method and he owns the patent on it. Lic fees are most likely the factor as well as tooling...

[Faust M. Ruggiero]

I'm sure you are correct Dennis but how many 6.5 million dollar judgments will it take to over shadow the development costs?
fmr

[Greg Peterson]

10, 9, 8 ......

[Joe Mioux]

Long story short (if that is possible with this topic, :rolleyes: )

The owner of SS, Steve Gass, has a Phd in Physics and is a Patent Attorney.

He developed the devise and patented it. He tried to sell a license agreements to the other WW companies. They were not interested so he started Saw Stop the company.

The brake adds @ $600 to the total cost of the saw, the saw sells for $1K plus more than others because he designed a really really nice saw with very precise manufacturing tolerances.

[Dan Friedrichs]

That's funny, Greg :)

I think the simple answer is that it's patented. I haven't seen the patents, but I bet they cover a wide range of items. For instance:

1) Sensing a finger contact is REALLY tricky. SS's use of both resistive and capacitive sensing seems to make it very accurate (AFAIK, there hasn't been a single report case of it failing to fire upon finger contact, and most, if not all, of the mis-fires are explained by user error) There is basically no other way to do it than how SS does it - at least not as accurately.

2) SS uses the blade's inertia to pull it under the table - presumably, that idea is patented. So another manufacturer would have to come up with a way to stop it without invoking that action. Stoping the blade dead cold and leaving it above the table would be hard!

3) How can you stop the blade at all? Slam it into a hunk of metal? SS probably patented that. Can you think of another way?

4) Actuating the thingie that stops the blade is hard. SS uses an explosive charge - presumably because no electromechanical means was found to be quick enough. So if you invent your own stopping device, you'd have to find a faster (non-explosive) means of moving the brake into position.

So that's my take - I think SS came up with several really innovative technologies that can't be easily cloned without violating their patent.

[John Mark Lane]

I like the option of being able to buy a table saw that is nothing but a cast iron table, with a motor spinning a blade, and whatever fence and miter system I choose to employ. I don't like people telling me what I have to have in terms of safety equipment. I like being able to make that choice myself, and I like having the option of choosing "none".

I appreciate technological developments. I do not appreciate someone else telling me what to do.

[Stephen Cherry]

I don't like people telling me what I have to have in terms of safety equipment. I like being able to make that choice myself, and I like having the option of choosing "none".

I appreciate technological developments. I do not appreciate someone else telling me what to do.

Remember when we were free?

[Neal Clayton]

i remember when this thread was posted last, about what, 3-4 days ago?

(thus proving my last point in that thread).

[Kent A Bathurst]

10, 9, 8 ......


heh-heh-heh.

[Adam Strong]

Two words completely answer your question....

Patents and Lawsuits.

[Cody Colston]

The reason Sawstop technology is not used on other manufacturer's saws is simple...Gass wanted too much in royalty payments for every saw sold using his technology. He's a lawyer, what else would one expect from him.

Then, there's the issue of liability when new technology is involved. Yeah, that guy that sued Ryobi got a $1.5 million dollar judgment in his favor (being appealed) but how much would it cost if the technology had been utilized, failed and someone lost a finger?

Now that the technology has been proven effective and reliable, at least to this date, I expect that we will eventually see Sawstop or similar devices on all new tablesaw models because it is basically a better mousetrap. Who wouldn't appreciate having that last line of defense in the event the operator makes a mistake...we're all human.

I've read that some of the tool manufacturers have been doing R&D on their own version of flesh-sensing, blade-stopping technology. It would be great for the consumer if they did develop their own patented designs because competition drives down the price and we all like lower prices.

[Paul Ryan]

Honestly I think it is because the other manufacturers are too cheap. Someone posted information a while back, regarding Delta and other manufacturers having and independent source design a system for them that could be installed on their saws. However it hasn't been followed up because in the other manufacturers words "Saftey Doesn't Sell". It was said that the newly designed system was much different so it didn't infringe on patents. Using compressed air cartridges and other things.

Personally I think Delta is kicking themselves for not releasing the new Uni with some system. Considering they are getting their buts kicked, in sales.

[Alan Schaffter]

Dan- a few comments:


That's funny, Greg :)

I think the simple answer is that it's patented. I haven't seen the patents, but I bet they cover a wide range of items. For instance:

1) Sensing a finger contact is REALLY tricky.

Not so. Its been around for many years and SS didn't invent it. Versions have been used in elevators, etc. etc. for many years.


2) SS uses the blade's inertia to pull it under the table - presumably, that idea is patented.

His method is patented, but easy to work around from a patent/engineering standpoint.


3) Can you think of another way?

Yes, a number of them. One would be a blade linked to separate toothed brake assembly- stops the blade, does the retract, but doesn't destroy the blade.


4) SS uses an explosive charge - presumably because no electromechanical means was found to be quick enough.

Not so, definitely NOT explosive. The SS is not placarded "Contains Explosives" and that is why replacements ship via mail and not via a special explosives carrier! Current causes a wire to melt which, via appropriate mechanical linkage, releases the brake. Look at the slo-mo video close-up. You can see the wire glow and melt. A relatively common technology.


So that's my take - I think SS came up with several really innovative technologies that can't be easily cloned without violating their patent.

Sawstop applied a number of existing technologies to their tablesaw. You woefully underestimate Silicon Valley engineers. Many electronics stuff is kept secret but not patented anymore because the patent process is too expensive, too time consuming, technological developments and improvements come too fast, when your patent is published by the USPTO it tells everyone EXACTLY how you did what you did and therefore makes it easy to come up with a comparable, competitive, but non-infringing design. Every Sawstop function can be done via other methods, trust me.

I would say the main reasons all the majors haven't done anything are:

1. Expense. Remember, in business it is all about the bottom line. They may eventually change their tune. Only time will tell.

2. By doing so they are admitting their previous designs are flawed and unsafe and so open themselves up even more than they already are to lawsuits by people injured by a TS since from the time SS first tried to license them the SS design.

[Dan Friedrichs]

Not so. Its been around for many years and SS didn't invent it. Versions have been used in elevators, etc. etc. for many years.
Do they use both resistive and capacitive sensing? I don't dispute that it's possible to do other ways, I just suspect getting the necessary accuracy would be very hard (slightly wet wood, moisture in air, etc...)




Not so, definitely NOT explosive. ...Current cause a wire to melt which, via appropriate mechanical linkage, releases the brake. Look at the slo-mo video close-up. You can see the wire glow and melt. A relatively common technology.
I stand corrected - I saw the slow-mo video, and thought that was a very small explosive charge being fired to release whatever was holding the spring. I guess a fusable link makes more sense.



Every Sawstop function can be done via other methods, trust me.
I agree. I don't think there is a better overall way to achieve the same function, though. Any other manufacturer is going to, at best, come up with an inferior design to achieve the same result.

[Alan Schaffter]

Do they use both resistive and capacitive sensing? I don't dispute that it's possible to do other ways, I just suspect getting the necessary accuracy would be very hard (slightly wet wood, moisture in air, etc...)

I forget how they do it, but its all how you tweek and design it. You can read their patent to see. Again, if you know the patent process, which they do, it is easy to get a patent. Likewise, if you know the patent process and technology you can easily work around an existing patent. My brother is a EE in Silicon Valley and says no problem.


fusable link

Though I didn't call it such, that is exactly what it is.


I don't think there is a better overall way to achieve the same function though. Any other manufacturer is going to, at best, come up with an inferior design to achieve the same result.

Don't sell good ole US (or Japanese, German, or even Chinese) technology and engineering short!. How many really unique inventions have you seen that stood the test of time and weren't quickly copied? IPOD- nope, etc., etc.

[Dave MacArthur]

Seriously, Faust...
This is the 1000th thread on the exact same subject... What about the sawstop sticky prohibiting threads talking about the lawsuit is hard to understand?


We have nothing against SS threads but the recent lawsuit is instigating a new round of interest and unfortunately, that specific topic about SS degenerates into heated political discussions and general ugliness.

We let a few of the early threads go on for a little while but each time, they crashed and burned and we had to lock them down. I think we left most (if not all) of them in the forum for public view so anyone can search and read them but they are all closed to posting.

Please bear with us as this shall pass in time and hopefully regular SS discussion can continue.

Please feel free to start and contribute to SS threads but leave the lawsuit and any reference to it out of the discussion, please.

[Bruce Page]

Dave, I have to agree with you.

This thread is closed.