Beware the ****

[Jim C Martin]

Hello All:
Several months ago I installed a B0RK riving knife. While I had a few issues with installation I eventually got those worked out and the B0RK seemed like a nice addition to my Unisaw. I should also mention that Bob was helpful with questions I had along the way.
Then yesterday morning before work I was making a few cuts. On one cut, just as I switched on the saw I got hit hard by the Bolt on riving knife. Lucky for me it hit me right on the collarbone and I was wearing a thick jacket. The impact resulted in a serious contusion and I may have a knot on the bone but it could have been SO much worse. As in I could easily have one eye right now. So, those of you who are so interested in tablesaw safety that you have bought or are considering buying the bolt on riving knife, beware. Its not for no reason he has you sign a waiver before purchasing. I contacted him and his response included "I've used my B0RK for 3+ years and have shipped over 200 of them. I've been made aware of 3 splitter/saw blade collisions prior to yours and all were attributed to user error." While I suppose its possible that I made a user error I am very careful when it comes to tablesaw safety and am relatively handy with mechanical devices. At any rate, his numbers indicate that 4 (including me) out of 200 ****s he has sold have eventually give the user an issue of some kind. You can make your own decision on buying one or continuing to use the one you have. Let me emphasize that I do not have an axe to grind with Bob, but I feel morally obligated to share my experience. Below you will see pics of the riving knife after it was ejected and of my collarbone. Oh the irony of being injured by a safety device.
Good luck,
Jim
213226213227

[John Coloccia]

How does it mount? How did it contact the saw blade? I've gone to his site and I can't figure out exactly what it does or how it mounts.

[Jim C Martin]

Takes a bit of explaining but here is a review with pics.
http://lumberjocks.com/reviews/product/1554

[John Lanciani]

Looks to me like it was touching the saw teeth before you hit the start button. Did you happen to drop a piece of stock on it? Because of the single bolt mount it would be pretty easy for the knife to shift if you hit it if the bolt wasn't torqued down, which would also allow it to get forcibly removed as it did. Is the knife steel or aluminum?

[Rod Sheridan]

If it has a single mounting bolt I wouldn't use it.

The riving knife on my saw has a bolt and a pin spaced an inch apart so the riving knife can't rotate.....................Regards, Rod.

[Jim C Martin]

No, didn't drop anything on it. Its aluminum. Also, I snug it up pretty tight anytime I adjust the height. No obvious answer to why it went balistic.

[Dan Hintz]

"I've used my B0RK for 3+ years and have shipped over 200 of them. I've been made aware of 3 splitter/saw blade collisions prior to yours and all were attributed to user error."
Who did the attributing? If it was his decision that they were all user error, well, that's kind of the tail wagging the dog. He figures they must be user error, so they are. A single bolt holding that on with no catch in the back to prevent it from being pulled out of position seems like a bad design to me... but then, I've never looked at other designs, so I can't compare.

[Jeff Monson]

I'd rather have no splitter at all than that design. 1 thumbnut to hold on a riving knife is not safe. Obviously yours vibrated loose, or something pushed the splitter into the blade causing it to eject at you. Either case is easily possible. This is a very whimpy design, IMHO. It should have 2 attaching points, this would help eliminate both situations. Glad you were not more seriously injured, I'd trash the **** or send it back to the dork.

[Mike Heidrick]

If it is still straight just clean up the knicks (if you want) and add a star washer. Done. I bet you will not let it get loose again ;)

[Kevin W Johnson]

If it is still straight just clean up the knicks (if you want) and add a star washer. Done. I bet you will not let it get loose again ;)

If I were him, it wouldn't get a second chance at hitting me again. It needs two points of attachment, or a closed end to prevent it from being expelled from the machine. The slot is for quick and easy, however I'd opt for slower and safe.

[scott spencer]

Jim - It sounds like your B0RK wasn't tight enough, and/or got moved. I've used one since August 2008, and have been really happy with it. It's a retrofit device intended for saws that weren't design with a riving knife, and I'll agree that it's not quite as elegant as a riving knife designed from the ground up, but it is safe and effective if used properly. There's always room for improvement and he's been improving the design steadily since I first heard about it. However, it seems like your intent on placing blame elsewhere.... something obviously occurred in your shop to cause the knife to move out of position and come out. If it was entirely design associated, you would have had the issue right from the start. If the blade were somehow forced into the blade it should have just shaved some of the aluminum off the knife, not launched, which hints strongly that it wasn't tightened fully.

So why not just work with him on some improvement ideas as opposed to the public lashing? How is it you never felt morally obligated to contribute anything else on these boards? There are always plenty of newbies who benefit from basic advice that I'm sure you could have helped with. To me, it doesn't seem fair to hit Bob with full blame....he's offering a riving knife solution for folks who otherwise wouldnt' have the option, and has done plenty good with AFAIC.

Jeff - The name calling is out of line....he hasn't misbehaved in anyway that I'm aware of.

[Matt Meiser]

It was those hose clamp mounting system that scared me on these when I looked.

If the manufacturer doesn't want to deal with it, file a complaint with the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Be sure to let them know he's reported a 2% accident rate. Thats a lot higher than many recalled products on their list. I don't get the mentality that we should accept design defects from these small time tool companies. I ran into the same with another company and had my intelligence questioned when I reported a possible safety problem.

You might look at Lee Styron's Shark Guard to replace it. More expensive but it is a splitter and guard solution that works well, has great visibility, and sometimes too-good dust collection.

[Ole Anderson]

A good design would not be so dependant on a perfect installation by the end user. With that kind of mishap rate, a recall is in order, IMHO. Been there, done that before it got ugly, based on a supplier's misrepresentation. If I were the manufacturer, I wouldn't be able to sleep until I took care of it. Any profits can be eaten up instantly by one injury payment. Worse if the lawyers get involved. I piece of wood flying at you at 100 mph is bad enough, but a chunk of metal is scary.

[John Coloccia]

Jim - It sounds like your B0RK wasn't tight enough, and/or got moved. I've used one since August 2008, and have been really happy with it. It's a retrofit device intended for saws that weren't design with a riving knife, and I'll agree that it's not quite as elegant as a riving knife designed from the ground up, but it is safe and effective if used properly. There's always room for improvement and he's been improving the design steadily since I first heard about it. However, it seems like your intent on placing blame elsewhere.... something obviously occurred in your shop to cause the knife to move out of position and come out. If it was entirely design associated, you would have had the issue right from the start. If the blade were somehow forced into the blade it should have just shaved some of the aluminum off the knife, not launched, which hints strongly that it wasn't tightened fully.

So why not just work with him on some improvement ideas as opposed to the public lashing? How is it you never felt morally obligated to contribute anything else on these boards? There are always plenty of newbies who benefit from basic advice that I'm sure you could have helped with. To me, it doesn't seem fair to hit Bob with full blame....he's offering a riving knife solution for folks who otherwise wouldnt' have the option, and has done plenty good with AFAIC.

Jeff - The name calling is out of line....he hasn't misbehaved in anyway that I'm aware of.

What are you talking about? I thought the OP was very calm, collected and balanced. He's reporting the incident, he's reporting that the owner claims a fairly high accident rate, and he's reporting that he doesn't know why it happened. I think you're really off base here, Scott.

edit: And for the record, it's inappropriate to use one thumbwheel and friction to prevent rotation of an object, especially one that can cause serious injury if it rotates. That necessarily puts the axis of rotation centered on the bolt, so any vibration or external force will tend to turn the fastener. IF that's actually how it's mounted and the pictures aren't misleading, the mounting is poorly designed and it's inevitable that they will be susceptible to loosening from vibration if nothing else.

[john lawson]

Yeah. sure; file a complaint with the Consumer Product Safety Commission!!!!!

I'm sure that will inspire more small businesses to offer solutions to safety issues. Jeez, that's what we need more government involvement. Why not recommend that saw blades have the sharp teeth removed before use? A guy makes a product undeniably improves safety and this is the response. I have a factory riving knife on my Rojek. It is very well made but because I did not tighten it sufficiently or bumped it with wood it has engaged the blade twice. Once while I was using it, once when a fellow woodworker was using it. I am now more careful when setting it (it has a single nut to tighten along with a magnetic "holder")

I don't have a problem with "public lashings" or sharing your opinions about quality or design improvements. Suggesting someone contact the Consumer Product Safety Commission is tantamount to suggesting someone file suit against someone else, and, for a small business or individual this means financial ruin, possibly personal financial ruin.

Woodworking is dangerous, what else do you need to know?

And someone can report me to the Consumer Product Safety Commission for not being politically correct or breaking some other thought rule.

[glenn bradley]

It was those hose clamp mounting system that scared me on these when I looked

This too put me off but, I think it is a viable product. The machines we work with are dangerous and it is up to us to assure that everything is in safe working order every time we move to turn on that switch. I'm glad Jim wasn't seriously injured and appreciate his level-headed report of the incident. A throat insert can slap you in the face if it is not fastened down and I hear plenty of folks say they run them that way. Safety first, second and third.

[Dan Hintz]

I don't have a problem with "public lashings" or sharing your opinions about quality or design improvements. Suggesting someone contact the Consumer Product Safety Commission is tantamount to suggesting someone file suit against someone else, and, for a small business or individual this means financial ruin, possibly personal financial ruin.
If you're going to create a product for public consumption that may get them killed, I think you had better get the design right or expect a lawsuit. There's a reason safety-based products go through so much testing, licensing, etc. If you're unwilling to go through that as a small business, then you take the risk of financial ruin when something fails due to inappropriate design.

[Jeff Monson]

So why not just work with him on some improvement ideas as opposed to the public lashing? How is it you never felt morally obligated to contribute anything else on these boards? There are always plenty of newbies who benefit from basic advice that I'm sure you could have helped with. To me, it doesn't seem fair to hit Bob with full blame....he's offering a riving knife solution for folks who otherwise wouldnt' have the option, and has done plenty good with AFAIC.

Jeff - The name calling is out of line....he hasn't misbehaved in anyway that I'm aware of.

It was not directed at the OP, I think the design of the knife is just not safe for the application. If the inventor of this device is a member here on SMC then I apologize to him....but he needs to redesign this product. Its not safe, having a single thumbnut to hold a riving knife, within a fraction of an inch away from a spinning saw blade? I dont blame the OP one bit for posting this, and the fashion on which it was done, no problems in my book.

[john lawson]

I too have no problem with the OP, he simply reported what happened and added his opinions. But may be right or wrong about what caused the accident.

Too, the product may need to be improved. If this guy sells a bad product or ignores an obvious improvement that would make his product better or safer then the market will leave him.

But again, suggesting the equivalent of legal action without knowing all the facts is, in my opinion, problematic for our industry/hobby. Recently a race car driver was killed. The reason he was killed was he was racing and something happened so quickly that he could not slow down. My conclusion is that racing is dangerous.

There are hundreds of thousands of table saws that might benefit from a B.O.R.K if it is used properly. I own a Shopsmith 10ER, a Unisaw and a Rojek. When I use the 10ER I am very careful because it has few safety features on it and I rarely use it in table saw mode. When I use the Unisaw I always think "prevent kickback" because it has no riving knife. The Rojek is much better than either the 10ER or the Unisaw, but I still try to work safely. I do not own a B.O.R.K so I have no dog in this fight. But I believe a B.O.R.K is a significant safety upgrade and if I did not have my Rojek I would probably install a B.O.R.K or some other add on riving device.

I lament the direction we are headed. " The enemy of good is perfection"

"First, we kill all the lawyers", Shakespeare

[Greg Peterson]

John - I disagree with your stance on consumer safety. If a product does not provide the level of safety it claims to offer, or worse yet creates a condition even more unsafe than if the product were not used, why should consumers not have a legal recourse? Why should the manufacturer decide what is an acceptable failure rate?

Wood working equipment is inherently dangerous and we all acknowledge that each time we go into the shop. There should be no tolerance for safety equipment that creates a potentially greater risk of injury than if it were not used at all.

Filing a complaint on this product in particular is a means of holding this producer to the same standards that all other manufacturers in this field are held to. We certainly would not allow an aftermarket design like this to be imported from China. Why should we hold a small domestic producer to a lower standard or no standard at all?

[David Kumm]

I'm not sure we hold small manufacturers to lower standards than imports. The OP did us a service by posting the incident. Our opinions as to the appropriate remedy are probably not relevant. While I can't imagine a riving knife held with a wing nut or thumb screw, I also can't imagine a woodworker not replacing it with some thing that can be tightened down more securely. Seems like the buyers and seller should work together to achieve a safe product. The concept is valid, the execution is poor. Dave

[scott spencer]

What are you talking about? I thought the OP was very calm, collected and balanced. He's reporting the incident, he's reporting that the owner claims a fairly high accident rate, and he's reporting that he doesn't know why it happened. I think you're really off base here, Scott.

edit: And for the record, it's inappropriate to use one thumbwheel and friction to prevent rotation of an object, especially one that can cause serious injury if it rotates. That necessarily puts the axis of rotation centered on the bolt, so any vibration or external force will tend to turn the fastener. IF that's actually how it's mounted and the pictures aren't misleading, the mounting is poorly designed and it's inevitable that they will be susceptible to loosening from vibration if nothing else.



John - I'm just saying it would have been nice for him to try working with Bob a little more before posting publicly. Bob's just one of us...a regular part time wwer who's tried to offer an alternative to those of us with older saws. It's not a mass produced device...it's hand made and made available to the few who inquire about it. There's undoubtedly room for improvement in the design, but I'm also saying there is some user responsibility here. Since Jim chose to post this publicly, it opens the discussion to comments that aren't well informed or constructive, and some defamation goes along with that. It's an unfortunate situation, and an unfortunate path to choose until he's more sure what took place.

[J.R. Rutter]

Kudos to people who invent and sell things like the ****. I just hope that Bob has some serious liability insurance coverage. Getting blasted with a bolt-on safety device does seem to call for a PSA. If I had one of these, I would want to know that this happened!

edit lol at "B0RK" being censored!

[Greg Peterson]

Scott - We do not have a full accounting of what communications took place between the two parties. Can not say if any meaningful discussion was engaged as to improved design or upgrade design options were offered. Granted, the OP presents the producer as somewhat aloof, but that is just my reading. YMMV.

While I am not an expert on safety device design, IMHO, the design seems relatively unrefined. However, I am not familiar with the limitations of the Unisaw design that limits the designer to using such a product design. It could be that this is simply the best design option, in which case I would be reluctant to use it. Failing to regularly check to make sure it is tightly secured is too much to ask of a safety device in my book. Especially if the unit can become a dangerous projectile.

How many more times can I use the word 'design'? :D

[john lawson]

Greg: you say you disagree with stance on consumer safety, in what way? How do you conclude that this product did not provide the level of safety it claimed to offer? It is an add-on device that one has to install on a table saw and requires some level of mechanical skill and understanding. We have the OP giving an anecdotal description of an accident that happened. Based on the description he gave my inference is that the device was loose when he started the saw and it was thrown at him. Do I know this? No, I don't. But it is much more logical that it was either loose or bumped to a position that caused it to be engage and when the saw was turned on..........something happened. A table saw generates a lot of power that is required to effectively cut a piece of wood. When something else gets in the way it receives that power the same as a piece of wood. If you, as a consumer install something very close to a blade spinning at 4000 + rpm you need to make sure it is secure.

I agree that in looking at the design it could be improved. My riving knife is made of heavy steel. The nut that holds it is large and when you tighten it up you are putting a lot of torque on the device that will help keep it from moving. In addition it could use either a lock nut or robust lock washer that will hold it during saw vibration. But I still say this device is an safety upgrade to a machine that has none. I can only hope that the owner of the company survives this type of publicity and wants to improve the product and follows through. Perversley, doing so might cause more liability because a lawyer will claim that he did so becuase "he knew the product was dangerous".

You say "wood working equipment is inherently dangerous and we all acknowledge that each time we go into the shop". Then your next sentence says "There should be no tolerance for safety equipment that creates a potentially greater risk of injury than if were not used at all". Really?

Let me ask you a question (that I know cannot be answered). How many times did the OP have his hand or finger saved the by B.O.R.K before the accident he posted?

My posting had nothing to do with consumer safety. It has to do with the difficult climate a business faces every day in the United States. If you believe that filing a complaint with the CPSC will make old obsolete table saws safer then I disagree, it will make them more dangerous unless the federal government forces us to scrap them all, and then buy new ones with riving knives or electronic technology such as used by SawStop ( I love their saw, I abhor their position on trying to force everyone to use it).

You say that filing a complaint on a product like this is a means of holding this producer to standards, I say if you file a complaint with the CPSC, and they take it up, it is likely a death sentence for the product and if the business is small a death sentence for the business as well. The moral hazard here is that any other entrepenuer will hestitate to offer a product in an area that has been "targeted" by the CPSC.

As woodworkers we should be careful who we ask to help us.

[J.R. Rutter]

You say that filing a complaint on a product like this is a means of holding this producer to standards, I say if you file a complaint with the CPSC, and they take it up, it is likely a death sentence for the product and if the business is small a death sentence for the business as well. The moral hazard here is that any other entrepenuer will hestitate to offer a product in an area that has been "targeted" by the CPSC.

As an entrepreneur, I sympathize with anyone trying to create and sell something in America today. I just have to observe that in the event of a serious accident involving this device, the manufacturer could not only lose his business, but everything else that he has as well. In this case, a death sentence early on might be a blessing in disguise. Not that I'm wishing this outcome on anyone, just saying that this is the reality of small business product liability.

[Greg Peterson]

John, the logic is clear when I say that wood working equipment is dangerous enough without having to account for a so-called safety device that may create an injury worse than the one it is suppose to prevent.

And if a producer brings a safety device to market, regardless of who they are or what size their operations, the product itself should not become a larger threat to the user than the accident they are trying to prevent. We have a rich, colorful history of entities with a conflict of interest deciding what is safe.

As for the regulatory environment you refer, your are factually incorrect. The US regulatory environment is simply one of the most lenient out of 184 countries.

It isn't a matter of perfect being the enemy of good, it's a matter of not making a situation worse.

"A guy makes a product undeniably improves safety and this is the response."
If you consider a design that allows the knife to be ejected at the user an improvement I guess there is no further discussion required.


"I have a factory riving knife on my Rojek. It is very well made but because I did not tighten it sufficiently or bumped it with wood it has engaged the blade twice. Once while I was using it, once when a fellow woodworker was using it. I am now more careful when setting it (it has a single nut to tighten along with a magnetic "holder")"
My lowly Rigid R4511 locks the riving knife in position so that it can not bump into the blade nor be lifted out. Any design that allows the knife to make contact with the blade would cause me concern, especially if it could damage the blade.

"The moral hazard here is that any other entrepenuer will hestitate to offer a product in an area that has been "targeted" by the CPSC."
See, I read it just the opposite. If one is going to bring a safety device to market, they know what design pitfalls to avoid. The consumer wins by having a better product. That is if it is indeed the consumer you care about rather than the producer.

[john lawson]

Greg: I will respond to this thread once more, after that we can agree to disagree, chocolate vs. vanilla etc.

As far as me being factually incorrect about the regulatory environment, how do you know that? I have lived in Europe and while their safety requirements are stricter than ours, the regulatory environment is not. They do not have the same kind of confrontational government regulators and plaintiff's lawyers patrolling for victims that we have. They also place much more responsibility on individuals for their behavior and actions. As an example you may legally drive a car on some sections of the German autobahn at over 200 miles per hour, but you had better never pass anyone on the right, because if you do you will be severley fined. If you believe that Asia, or Latin America have stricter standards that the United States, again, we will have to disagree. In most 3rd world countries the regulations are weak and those that are not are simply bought off with bribes. I have worked there as well.

As far as you last comment about "if it is indeed the consumer you care about rather than the producer"; I believe you have made your feelings clear. You see, I care about both, not one over the other. And if we allow our litigious urges to continue unabated the consumer will have less to choose from. You cannot have consumers without producers, and vice versa.

Last, it's woodworking and it's dangerous; if you can't accept that you should get another hobby or profession.

[Greg Peterson]

According to the partisan Heritage Foundations own report, the US is 9th overall in the world. They say the US is second among countries in North America but they don't mention which country. I'll assume they are ranking Canada ahead of the US. Were it Mexico I'm sure they would have no problem holding that up as an example of the miracle of deregulation.

The IMF ranks the US 5th overall (out of 184 nations) in ease of doing business.

I can provide links if you like.

Like I said in an earlier post, we've seen what happens when we let producers decide what is an acceptable safety standard.

Glad to see you are coming around to my way of thinking; it's a hobby that can be dangerous. Someone buying the **** should have a reasonable expectation that it will not be launched at them. Given that 2% of users, by the producers own figures, have experienced the same accident, I remain reluctant to classify this device as a safety device.

[Rod Sheridan]

Dan, I can give you a comparison, my Hammer B3 has a bolt, and a pin above and below the bolt to prevent the riving knife from rotating...........Rod

[Jim C Martin]

Hi Scott:
Sorry if you think this post was too much for my first. I spend most of my online time over at OWWM and some at Router forums. I do lurk here a bit. Anyway, I felt this needed to go out to as many woodworkers as possible.
Now as to why I felt I should post: I basically just got shot by this safety device. I did interact with Bob about making this incident known to his buyers and potential buyers but it was clear he had no intention to do so. So I could do nothing, but how bad would I feel if I did not make this post and then read tomorrow that someone had lost an eye or died of a B0RK to the head? How negligent would I be if I did not disclose this to the woodworking community? Maybe you would be fine with that but I am not. As I mentioned, it may have been my error but the consequences of an error that I cannot even figure out were potentially severe. If you feel confident in yours then by all means keep using it and my conscience will be clear that I have disclosed the incident for your consideration.
Start with ten end with ten,
Jim

[Bruce Wrenn]

My condolences for the injury. But does his instructions say anything about checking unit each time before use. Most do. If they do, and you didn't then the blame rest upon you. Reminds me of hardboard siding issues. There was a bunch which literally fell apart. Manufacturer's rep.would visit site and ask to see some pieces removed. If end cuts weren't primed (even though HB itself failed) he just looked at homeowner and said. "You have no case against us, as it wasn't installed as per our instructions."

[Jim C Martin]

Hello All:
I just received the email shown below in italics from Bob Ross. I want to keep this whole thing completely transparent so here are my responses addressed directly to Bob:
First, I have no interest in a public debate, only in putting the information out there so that others can make informed decisions. Remember that I asked you to disseminate this information and you indicated you had no intention of doing so. You could have even framed the information within the context of "Four user errors have occurred resulting in... The errors typically occur due to... " I simply had to let woodworkers know since you would not.
Second, in the original post I mentioned that I had issues with alignment and that you were helpful and that it seemed to be working fine. I also said it might have been user error. What else do you want? As to returning it because of the alignment issues, I certainly wish I had.
Third: You wrote: “using a star or lock washer and a fender washer” To which I say "Excuse Me?" What star or lock washer? None was included with mine and none are mentioned in the instructions which you sent me. Mine has always been mounted with just the flat washer as per the instructions. Here is the picture directly from the instructions, please note the text on the pic, it says nothing about a star or lock washer. Nor do the words star or lock appear anywhere in the document according to the acrobat search feature. Perhaps you amended the instructions somewhere along the line and didn't bother telling current owners?
0213376
Fourth: When DID you change the design to have an open end as opposed to the closed slot shown here http://lumberjocks.com/reviews/1485? If the design still had a closed slot I would not be icing my collarbone right now.
Finally, regardless of what you wrote below theB0RK did contact the saw blade in my case and perhaps in three other cases. How badly were the other three "user errors" injured?
I have gotten this information out to the woodworking community and my conscience is clear.
Stay safe,
Jim


On 11/20/2011 7:04 PM, Bob Ross wrote:
Jim,

Rather than get into a public debate with you on the forums, I will ask you to amend your posts to include the following facts:

Six months after purchase you wanted to return the B0RK because you were having trouble adjusting it.

Following that exchange and your reporting that you had successfully aligned the splitter, you suggested using Locktite to keep the adjustment screws in position when the splitter was not in use. I responded that keeping the fender washer tightened against the adjustment screws would hold them in place.

The B0RK splitter is mounted to the adjustment plate using a star or lock washer and a fender washer which compress the splitter against four small screw heads. When properly tightened, it is virtually impossible to rotate or move the splitter on the adjustment plate. In addition, a safety stop is included below the splitter mounting bolt as a backup. This stop prevents the splitter from rotating if the tightening knob is not secured. In other words, if the B0RK is properly aligned and the knob is tight and the stop is properly positioned and tight, the B0RK splitter cannot contact the saw blade. Therefore, if the B0RK splitter contacted the saw blade, it was misaligned or the mounting hardware was loose. I would call this user error.

Bob

[Jim C Martin]

does his instructions say anything about checking unit each time before use

No such cautionary note in the instruction I have. I can provide a pdf of the instructions if you'd like to see them.
Jim

[Alan Schaffter]

All I can saw is that when I looked at this device a few years ago I said in a post here it didn't look like it was ready for prime time. It just didn't have the necessary engineering yet. I still maintain that is the case today. If you look at the structure of a TS (trunnions, yoke, arbor assembly, motor mount, etc.) this device just doesn't compare from safety and engineering standpoints- does it still mount an aluminum bracket with a hose clamp?!?!?! Yikes! I am not adverse to modifying my machines and have done so- added VFDs, made my own mobile base and extension tables, installed larger motor in a bandsaw, etc., etc.- I consider my mechanical abilities to be much higher than those of the average woodworker, but I would NEVER put that device on my saw, nor market it to others. Sorry, if this sounds a little harsh, but that's the way I see it. Installation requires people who may not have much mechanical ability to make a potentially dangerous modification in an area of the saw where absolutely no error is acceptable. When I was a skydiver in my younger (crazier) days, I would never repair or modify my packs or parachutes- only a certified rigger was entrusted to do that- he jump tested it before returning it to me!

I believe it is possible to make a safe after-market riving knife, that tracks both blade tilt and elevation precisely, and that can be safely installed by an end user- it just doesn't exist yet.

FYI the strength of the bracket is totally compromised by the slot! The bracket should be steel and the bend cut welded closed! And what about the temper/strength of the aluminum after it has been bent? As I said- needs more engineering!

https://s3.amazonaws.com/ljimg/lci5iv8.jpg

[Steve Meliza]

I think the liability waiver is proof enough that it isn't ready for use by the average consumer.

[Mike Goetzke]

I resisted from buying this device when it came out for many concerns listed here. I had a Ryobi Bt3100 with a riving knife and then purchased a Delta Unisaw - missed the riving knife. But, I did buy a Shark Guard and love it. Anyway, seems strange b o r k is a banned word here even in the S&S but when there is negative news about it it's allowed to continue beyond two pages of posts.

Mike

[Dan Hintz]

Anyway, seems strange b o r k is a banned word here even in the S&S but when there is negative news about it it's allowed to continue beyond two pages of posts.
It's likely the word is "banned" because of its alternate meaning, which means it is removed automatically like any other swear word. It has nothing to do with the product itself...

[jonathan eagle]

Jim,
I appreciate hearing about this sort of thing and the calm way you presented the facts.
I've wondered about getting some sort of retrofit, myself.
It is clear to me that this sort of product would have to be carefully engineered due to the nature of where it is used.
It is also clear to me that this product is not carefully engineered.
Jonathan


Hello All:
Several months ago I installed a B0RK riving knife. While I had a few issues with installation I eventually got those worked out and the B0RK seemed like a nice addition to my Unisaw. I should also mention that Bob was helpful with questions I had along the way.
Then yesterday morning before work I was making a few cuts. On one cut, just as I switched on the saw I got hit hard by the Bolt on riving knife. Lucky for me it hit me right on the collarbone and I was wearing a thick jacket. The impact resulted in a serious contusion and I may have a knot on the bone but it could have been SO much worse. As in I could easily have one eye right now. So, those of you who are so interested in tablesaw safety that you have bought or are considering buying the bolt on riving knife, beware. Its not for no reason he has you sign a waiver before purchasing. I contacted him and his response included "I've used my B0RK for 3+ years and have shipped over 200 of them. I've been made aware of 3 splitter/saw blade collisions prior to yours and all were attributed to user error." While I suppose its possible that I made a user error I am very careful when it comes to tablesaw safety and am relatively handy with mechanical devices. At any rate, his numbers indicate that 4 (including me) out of 200 ****s he has sold have eventually give the user an issue of some kind. You can make your own decision on buying one or continuing to use the one you have. Let me emphasize that I do not have an axe to grind with Bob, but I feel morally obligated to share my experience. Below you will see pics of the riving knife after it was ejected and of my collarbone. Oh the irony of being injured by a safety device.
Good luck,
Jim
213226213227

[Richard Wagner]

I am just thankful that my very old Shopsmith Mark V came with a riving knife (as original equipment) that is part of the upper saw guard.

[David Weaver]

To an earlier post, when it is a safety issue and someone gets hit in the collarbone (which is too close to permanent damage), what does it matter if a seller is a forum poster? I hope that isn't a general sentiment.

[Paul Johnstone]

Never mind

[Kevin W Johnson]

I think the liability waiver is proof enough that it isn't ready for use by the average consumer.

I'm not sure about the other 49 states, but I'm pretty certain he'd lose his tail because that waiver isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

[Jim C Martin]

Hello All:
Since my last post Bob Ross and I have exchanged a few emails. In my effort to maintain full transparency and fairness I have copied them below. The first is his response to the specific questions I posed in an earlier post. Below that you will see my responses and his responses etc. As before, I will let you make your own decisions about using or buying **** and about dealing with Mr. Ross. I need to be shed of this as I actually have a demanding job and I now feel that I have discharged my moral duty of making woodworkers aware of potential risks. As I stated in my original post it is possible that I may have made a user error but for the life of me I cannot see what that was. Finally, while you guys don’t know me, rest assured that I am not the type of user who owns one pair of pliers. While I was earning my mechanical engineering degree I worked for three summers in an extrusion die shop. These days I run a research lab where I build or modify all of the equipment myself. So, while I may not have credentials as a master tool maker I do have some experience and am not completely incompetent.
Be safe,
Jim

************************************************** *************
Bob’s first Response to my email.
First I want to correct something you posted. At no time did I "indicate" that I was not going to do something regarding notifying past, current or future users about potential dangers. When I twice asked you for specific details, your response was "Beats me what went wrong". I wanted specifics in order to formulate a response. I have never claimed the **** design to be perfect but I will stand by my earlier statement: Unless something was allowed to become misaligned or loose, the **** splitter CANNOT contact the saw blade.

I can't respond on SMC; I'm persona non gratin there. It's ironic that when the **** was being developed, discussions were prohibited because they were considered advertising and now the feeding frenzy is front and center. To those of you that have not seen or used a ****, you're opinions are welcome but a lot of you are assuming details that are not true. Also, I'm not doing this to get rich and I'm not knowingly putting something dangerous out there. Properly installed and maintained (like any other power tool accessory), the **** has proven itself to be safe and useful. As to my being a dork, I've been called worse by better.

The photo marked #5 is from the old instructions (the new ones are dated 3/19/11). I don't remember exactly when I added the star/lock washers but I'm pretty sure you got one. The new instructions do not mention the washers at all. I can tell you from my own experience that lock washer or no, if the knob is tightened reasonably tight, the splitter will not move.

The other photo is of a prototype. I don't think I've ever shipped one that had a closed slot. The thinking is that if the splitter can be removed without removing the knob and washers, dropping the knob/washers into the bottom of the saw can be avoided. Once affixed to the mounting plate, the strength of splitter is not compromised by the through cut of the slot. I am considering including a plate and screws to allow those that aren't confident that they can keep the knob and safety stop tight a method of closing the slot.

I hope this helps,
************************************************** ********
My response
First: The impression I got was that you wanted to call this another case of user error and pass it off as "not Bob's fault". As to my response of "beats me", it does beat me, what else do you want me to say? I don't know why I got shot by your ****. Further, I'm not sure what my obligation is to help you re engineer your product. Did you intend to pay me an engineering consulting fee? I doubt that. Do you even intend to refund my purchase fee? I doubt that too. Finally, where exactly have you made others aware of the previous three "user errors"? That would help me believe you might have actually posted my experience.
Second: I will post this to SMC for you. I'll wait for your responses to these points.
Third: I didn't do any name calling, that was someone on the forum.
Forth: So, just to confirm, you changed the instructions but did not send out updates to users.
Fifth: While the open slot might be a convenience, a closed slot has a safety value you might consider.
************************************************** ***********
Bob’s second response
Here's one example of "user error". http://www.forums.woodnet.net/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=5654919&page=&view=&sb=5&o=&fpart=1&vc=1
************************************************** *************
My second response
Okay, but did you post that or the user? Looks like it was someone named Andrew.
************************************************** ************
Bobs third response
I'm very sorry you got hurt and I'm very grateful it wasn't worse but I'm tired of playing 5th grade with you. I strongly believe you failed to keep your **** connections tight and you're blaming me for that failure. Provide definitive proof that the **** failed because of something for which I am responsible and I will refund your purchase price and provide full disclosure to the woodworking public and any potential **** buyers in the future. Except for responding to any proof that you provide, I will no longer communicate with you.

[Dan Hintz]

I'm very sorry you got hurt and I'm very grateful it wasn't worse but I'm tired of playing 5th grade with you. I strongly believe you failed to keep your **** connections tight and you're blaming me for that failure.
That (and the picture of the design from before) answers my question right there... a nut could easily vibrate loose, especially with nothing but a flat washer holding it down. If he believes that design is worthy of a safety device, and it's the user's job to ensure the nut has not vibrated loose with every flip of the switch (a properly designed one will not), he's in fantasy land.

I, for one, will not purchase from such a "gentleman".

[Scott Donley]

It's likely the word is "banned" because of its alternate meaning, which means it is removed automatically like any other swear word. It has nothing to do with the product itself... Not what Keith said in this thread. http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?175654-NIB-************-Riving-Knife-For-Sale-SOLD!

[Dan Hintz]

Yep, didn't see that thread until after I posted... not enough energy to go edit my original.

[Floyd Mah]

I think the bottom line on riving knives is that you cannot get the safety of a riving knife for anything less than the price of a new design saw, with an integral riving knife. I built an add-on riving knife (http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?112419-Riving-knife-for-Model-10-Delta-Contractor-s-saw) which I posted two years ago and have seen an elegantly designed one here (http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?133210-Delta-34-350-12-14-quot-riving-knife-retrofit&p=1363815&highlight=#post1363815), so that I know first hand that it is very complicated to both build and install a well-functioning riving knife. Any design which claims/permits easy installation/adjustment most probably won't give you the safety or function of a true riving knife. I made a rough estimate of the price of producing a riving knife for retro-fit and figured that it would probably exceed the cost of a decent, used saw from CL. Then there is the liability of producing a safety device. No one-man shop can produce these things and properly guarantee it's safe function, especially when installed and maintained by the end-user. Unless you are an engineer/machinist, you should sell your saw and buy a new saw with built-in safety devices. Of course this is a costly decision, but probably the safest course. After all, most of us don't have body parts, especially eyes, that are expendable.

[ben searight]

I think the bottom line on riving knives is that you cannot get the safety of a riving knife for anything less than the price of a new design saw, with an integral riving knife. I built an add-on riving knife (http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?112419-Riving-knife-for-Model-10-Delta-Contractor-s-saw) which I posted two years ago and have seen an elegantly designed one here (http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?133210-Delta-34-350-12-14-quot-riving-knife-retrofit&p=1363815&highlight=#post1363815), so that I know first hand that it is very complicated to both build and install a well-functioning riving knife. Any design which claims/permits easy installation/adjustment most probably won't give you the safety or function of a true riving knife. I made a rough estimate of the price of producing a riving knife for retro-fit and figured that it would probably exceed the cost of a decent, used saw from CL. Then there is the liability of producing a safety device. No one-man shop can produce these things and properly guarantee it's safe function, especially when installed and maintained by the end-user. Unless you are an engineer/machinist, you should sell your saw and buy a new saw with built-in safety devices. Of course this is a costly decision, but probably the safest course. After all, most of us don't have body parts, especially eyes, that are expendable.

Both of these designs are far superior to the **** with respect to preventing the rotation of the RK. Boil this thread down and that's what is left, the **** is poorly, POORLY, designed. Maybe it should be attached with elmers glue and bailing wire.

[Steve Meliza]

The designer admits to having ruined two bolt on riving knives (and presumably two saw blades) while cutting the initial slot in a zero clearance insert and a customer has done likewise when cutting the slot in a new sled. These were determined to be "user error" for forgetting to remove the riving knife first and not reason enough to stop using a product that would allow a moment of forgetfulness to cause potential for great harm. Any reputable company would recall the product and redesign it to never be capable of hitting the saw blade or be ejected towards the user. Trailers have safety chains to address user error or hitch failure, but I guess our vital organs are not valuable enough to permit this addition.

[Alan Schaffter]

Before we get carried away- I don't consider damage caused by using the B.O.R..K riving knife improperly- trying to raise it up through a new miter sled- necessarily a problem with the design. I think the results might be similar with any commercial riving knife, though maybe not- a firmly mounted, hardened steel knife might raise the sled high enough so the user would realize his error, before the knife is forced into the blade, unless the sled was securely clamped to the TS top- then the extra effort required to to turn the elevation crank should be a tip-off. I just think the B.O.R..K needs ALLOT of work.

Remember, just because you can do something wrong doesn't mean there is a problem with the design- How many folks have cut through or shortened their MDF, ply, or fancy aluminum extrusion, miter gauge extension fence by forgetting to reset its position when shifting from left to right miter slot or going from a 45 to a 90 cut?

[John Coloccia]

I think the problem is that the failure mode is launching a piece of metal at the user and apparent unwillingness on the part of the manufacturer to acknowledge that's a problem. If all it did was run into the blade and ruin a blade, I don't think we'd be 4 pages into a thread. If your bandsaw launched a piece of metal at you every time you forgot to lock the guide post, we'd probably consider that unsafe as well.

[Jim Matthews]

This sort of reasoning is just boneheaded.

By this reasoning, we would still have open drive belts and bolt action rifles without a safety.
Adding a projectile to the one piece of equipment most often involved in woodworking accidents is a step backward.

[Ben Hatcher]

I'm in the faulty design camp on this one. I get the open end is intended to make it easier to remove, but placing it on the bottom also makes it easier for the blade to remove it. Such a compromise should never be made because the consequence of a failure greatly outweighs the benefit of the feature. Quite honestly, I think that any design that allows the rk to contact the blade in a situation that one could reasonably foresee a user making is negligent. A design that further allows the knife to eject upon contact is completely negligent.

[Alan Schaffter]

I agree with the above- I was ONLY talking about the one accident at a link where the user tried to raise the B.O.R..K into an un-cut miter sled.

[John Coloccia]

I agree with the above- I was ONLY talking about the one accident at a link where the user tried to raise the B.O.R..K into an un-cut miter sled.

There have been several people that have tried to cut a ZCI with the riving knife still attached on the Sawstop. That's an expensive mistake.