sawstop FUD

[Andrew Shaber]

I found this article (referenced on woodcentral) and thought it was interesting. It doesn't indicate anything bad about the saws but it is interesting the inventor is trying to force his patent into law. It seems like a good product but I'm less inclined to be interested in the saw because of what he is trying to do.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/09/AR2006100901172.html

[Steve Rowe]

I found this article (referenced on woodcentral) and thought it was interesting. It doesn't indicate anything bad about the saws but it is interesting the inventor is trying to force his patent into law. It seems like a good product but I'm less inclined to be interested in the saw because of what he is trying to do.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/09/AR2006100901172.html

I am not so sure he is doing anything different than any of us would be doing had we developed the technology. It either has merit or it does not. If you research the archives of the CPSC analysis for the petition, a compelling case seems to be made. Whether the sawstop is the only technology or method to improve TS safety is another question. It seems this technology is a lot less expensive than mandating European sliders on every saw. Regardless, I believe the manufacturers have no-one but themselves to blame for the rulemaking. If they made effective guards and splitters that were actually usable, there probably would be little need for the Sawstop technology.

I wonder if folks have the same feeling about the developers of anti-lock brakes, traction control systems, vehicle stability control systems, air bags, 3rd brakelights, seat belts, and the list could go on forever. I for one am glad to have the opportunity to purchase safer products.
Steve

[Rob Bodenschatz]

This thread won't make it to midnight.

[Mike Heidrick]

It seems like a good product but I'm less inclined to be interested in the saw because of what he is trying to do.


Then why did you post about it?

[Jim Becker]

Folks...this is a preemptive "PLAY NICE" request. This subject has been discussed many, many, many times here and elsewhere and there are folks passionate about it. Don't let your own passion make you say things counter to good community interaction. Thank you in advance for your cooperation and understanding.

Jim
SMC Moderator

[Mike Henderson]

Folks...this is a preemptive "PLAY NICE" request. This subject has been discussed many, many, many times here and elsewhere and there are folks passionate about it. Don't let your own passion make you say things counter to good community interaction. Thank you in advance for your cooperation and understanding.

Jim
SMC Moderator
I agree. This subject has been beat to death too many times already. For those who haven't read the many threads, search the archives.

Mike

[Anthony Anderson]

PLEEEEEAAAASSSSEEEE, Search the Archives. Let this one go already. Pull this thread before it starts. Then don't buy the saw, if you don't like what he is doing. It's your fingers. Sincerely, Regards, Bill

[Frank Chaffee]

Hmmm…

Staying in the realm of results, rather than straying into the political…

Reminds me of the seatbelt we see in every new automobile these days; an example nearly every one of us relates to daily. Did the automakers push hard to implement life saving seatbelts in cars? …And why have we laws to require use of seatbelts?

To go back further in history, once upon a time rail cars were coupled manually, rather than with the efficient system we all benefit from now. Many switchyard workers lost hands, arms, or lives every year coupling railcars. When a better, safer, more efficient design was introduced, railroad companies and the manly men in the switchyard alike resisted loudly.

Exactly what new safety measures have tablesaw manufacturers come up with since the introduction of the Sawstop technology? Surely, some monies must be available for R&D.

And hiring foxes to guard the henhouse; well we get what we pay for.

Frank

[lou sansone]

I find this topic somewhat interesting from a macro level, but at the micro level it has been beat to death.

lou

[Robert Mickley]

Hmmm…

Staying in the realm of results, rather than straying into the political…

Reminds me of the seatbelt we see in every new automobile these days; an example nearly every one of us relates to daily. Did the automakers push hard to implement life saving seatbelts in cars? …And why have we laws to require use of seatbelts?
Frank

Is that relative? This is an honest quaestion, since I want to know who exactly developed the seat belts? An independant who licensed it to the automakers, or the auto industry itself?

I'm only asking since if the auto industry developed it the cost was probably lower than if an outside firm did it then licensed it to them.

Big differance, on one hand you have the government saying you have to come up with a solution. On the other you someone wanting the government to say your going to use this solution.

I think the sawstop idea is great. I just don't like the guys tactics. If its a great as he claims the new sawstop saws will make it on their own merit. Some of the guys here have bought them and so far I haven't heard any complaints. And thats great. Because when he starts taking significant money away from the big toolmakers they will either develop their own saw or buy his.

I still want to see a video of what happens when you slam the hot dog down on the blade simulating a loss of balance.

[Greg Funk]

I wonder if folks have the same feeling about the developers of anti-lock brakes, traction control systems, vehicle stability control systems, air bags, 3rd brakelights, seat belts, and the list could go on forever. I for one am glad to have the opportunity to purchase safer products.
Steve

I personally prefer the approach taken by the developers of at least the first 4 of the above 6 examples. These technologies were developed by component manufacturers like Bosch and sold to car makers who thought they could gain a competitive advantage by incorporating them. Initially they come out in high end vehicles and eventually make it into the mass market. While I can't say for certain I don't think Bosch spends large amounts of money lobbying the government for mandatory ABS, stability control etc.

I think the Saw Stop is good technology but I don't like the idea of manufacturers being forced to include it. I would prefer Gass concentrated on building his business and making it a 'no-brainer' for manufacturers to license his technolgoy. As mentioned in the article 8% seems pretty steep for just the license rights.

Greg

[Frank Chaffee]

Is that relative? This is an honest quaestion, since I want to know who exactly developed the seat belts? An independant who licensed it to the automakers, or the auto industry itself?

I'm only asking since if the auto industry developed it the cost was probably lower than if an outside firm did it then licensed it to them.
Hi Robert,
I won’t comment on where I think a demand for safety equipment should come from, because frankly, I don’t know. To answer your question…

Near as I can tell, the first U.S. Patent of a seatbelt for use in automobiles was granted in 1885 to Edward J. Claghorn.

In the 1930’s, some US physicians equipped their own cars with seatbelts and encouraged automobile manufacturers to make them standard equipment.

In 1962 US auto companies began to provide seat belt anchors in cars, and in 1968 it was compulsory to do so.

Frank

[Joseph O'Leary]

I was in Redmond Machinery in Atlanta today and got a good look at many of the different saws that I read about here at the creek, Delta, General, Powermatic, ShopFox, Jet, Steel City and yes, Sawstop. Forget the safety stuff, I think the goverment should mandate the new quality standard set by Sawstop!!:D I don't want to insult anyones equipment, heck I have a reconditioned Delta contractors saw (dialed in well, two cast iron wings). I can tell you this though, side by side the difference in smoothness (best all encompassing word I could think of) hits you right in the face. I can't afford one now, and I hope they make a contractors version, but I will have one in my shop before my boys are old enough to be taught how to use a table saw. Government mandate or not.;)

[Wayne Watling]

I don't really agree that the seatbelt/airbag analogy is in anyway like the SS situation as it applies to a single hobbiest woodworker. When you drive a car you are responsible for not only yourself but your passengers safety, when you use your TS in your own workshop you put only yourself at risk and the decision about safety devices should be left up to you the owner operator.
I'll mention that its different for schools and business where the administrator and owners have an obligation to make everything as safe as possible for people under their supervision.

Best Regards

[Ted Baca]

As a recent purchaser of the SS I can only say, I made a tool decision. I was able to make a political decision in November, and I was much more disappointed with that than I was with the SawStop purchase. We as Americans buy so much from countries that are not our allies and spend no time debating it because of the savings of our mighty dollar. SawStop is an American company that is using a Tiawanese manufacture as is Jet, Powermatic, Delta etc. We don't debate those politics. It is a great idea whose time has come. And safety features aside, it is a great saw. If I had invented it I would capitalize on it as much as I could. The inventor spent a lot of money developing this technology, I am sure he would like as maximum return on his investment, as any of us would. I could say more but I really need to get back to making some sawdust.

[Jim Bell]

Table saws don't kill 50,000 people a year.in accidents. Cars do. Seat belts work. The saw stop will prevent a serious injury if adjusted properly. The problem is a table saw can hurt you severly in many other ways than the saw stop equipment addresses. When I first read of the saw stop I thought great. Then I read about their method of marketing(through Congress as I remember) and my respect for the inventor diminished quickly. I will not buy a saw stop. My saw is a Delta unisaw. If Delta comes out with a similar upgrade at a reasonable price I'll probably buy it. What concerns me is the lack of indignation reguarding their methods of "marketing". It strikes me as being Unamerican, underhanded and a slap in the face of the common man.My ONLY problem with saw stop is their method of operating. A novice may feel he is completely safe with the technology and hurt himself severly through ignorance (kickback, ect). I think the technology is great. My best to each of you, be safe with your tools whoever makes them:)

[Joe Jensen]

Is that relative? This is an honest quaestion, since I want to know who exactly developed the seat belts? An independant who licensed it to the automakers, or the auto industry itself?

I'm only asking since if the auto industry developed it the cost was probably lower than if an outside firm did it then licensed it to them.

Big differance, on one hand you have the government saying you have to come up with a solution. On the other you someone wanting the government to say your going to use this solution.

I think the sawstop idea is great. I just don't like the guys tactics. If its a great as he claims the new sawstop saws will make it on their own merit. Some of the guys here have bought them and so far I haven't heard any complaints. And thats great. Because when he starts taking significant money away from the big toolmakers they will either develop their own saw or buy his.

I still want to see a video of what happens when you slam the hot dog down on the blade simulating a loss of balance.

Robert, I've posted this link a few times in the past, but here it is again for your convenience. Wood Magazine did their own tests of SawStop with hot dogs to simulate kickback, falling into the blade, dragging your hand back across the blade etc. Same effectiveness. Here are the videos, made by wood magazine, and not SawStop. Please let me know what you think of these videos.
http://www.woodmagazine.com/wood/story.jhtml?storyid=/templatedata/wood/story/data/sawstop_highspeed.xml&catref=wd5

BTW, what happens if you fall into the blade without Sawstop, no wait, I know the answer to that...joe

[Dan Forman]

Lets remember too that the auto industry fought every manditory safety recommendation presented, just as it continues to fight any manditory fuel efficiency goals. They only take the short view, how can we make a quick buck now. They are just beginning to see the cost of that strategy.

Dan

[Peter Stahl]

Folks...this is a preemptive "PLAY NICE" request. This subject has been discussed many, many, many times here and elsewhere and there are folks passionate about it. Don't let your own passion make you say things counter to good community interaction. Thank you in advance for your cooperation and understanding.

Jim
SMC Moderator

You guys better be nice, Jim must be really mad as I've never seen him turn red like this before.;) As far as the sawstop goes I doubt they'll force this on us wood hackers. By the time our government puts this into law his patten will be expired anyway.

[Don Bullock]

I know that many of you who have been around for a while have problems with posts like this that rehash old arguments, but I’m very thankful it was posted. I’m just getting back into woodworking after being out of the hobby for about twenty five years. Until I saw some posts like this about Sawstop I had no idea the technology existed. While I’m not in the position to fork out $3,000 for a table saw right now, I certainly would if I had the money available. What an article like this has done for me is make me more aware of the dangers of my present, early 1970s Craftsman, table saw. As a result of what I’ve seen and read you can bet that until I can save up the $3,000 for the Sawstop that I will be using pushers and feather boards a lot more than I have in the past in order to keep my fingers as far away from that new Forrester blade I installed as possible. A Sawstop or similar technology will be in my shop as soon as I can possibly afford it. I’m hoping that it doesn’t take an Act of Congress to get other saw makers to put all the Sawstop safety features on their products so that I’ll have more choice when I’m ready. Yes, as suggested I'll search the achieves for other posts on this subject, but thanks for bring it up again so this newcomer could read what it's all about.

[Mark Singer]

looks like the Sawstop won't stop.....it just keeps going:rolleyes:

[Mitchell Andrus]

Sawstop will make the user complacent about safety in the same way young drivers got complacent about driving cars with airbags. Known fact: User responsability for safety goes out the window when you think you won't get hurt.

I can't wait for the first lawsuit resulting from a Lexus parellel parking fiasco.

Force a 'safer saw' upon the market... what after that? Router Stop? Jointer Stop? Mitersaw Stop?

Aren't most table saw accidents on the most widely sold table saw type - the portable and sub $600.00 contractor saw? These are bought by weekend warriors unlikely to buy a cabinet saw version costing $2,000.00 more.

The effect of adding costs to the 'big, safe' saw will be a dense market for used 'unsafe' saws. As a professional, I can afford the Sawstop, my weekend duffer neighbor will be buying the 'unsafe' tablesaw listed for sale in the newspaper. He's the one the law is meant to protect - right?

[Al Willits]

I almost get the feeling from some Sawstop owners that to say the methods of Sawstop to mandate his device is a personal affront to the Sawstop owners, not sure that correct though.
I think from reading these and previous posts on the Sawstop, the reoccurring theme is, gov't mandating.
And the opposition to it.

Gotta say I agree with that, seems the gov't has a bit of trouble with mandating, and can't wait to make us more safe in our lives, not matter how foolish.
Seat belts were mentioned several times, do you know at first there was a move to include motorcycles in that?
Anybody who's rode long enough to dump a bike is well aware (imho) that being strapped to a cart wheeling bike is not the preferred way of crashing.

Also at $3500 or so a pop, this saw no matter how nice it is, will probably be financially out of reach for many hobbyist's, and we'll just have to do what generations of wood workers before us did....be careful.

Can't say I blame Sawstop for trying to make his product mandatory, but I think personally its BS, and will never buy one of his saws.
I would upgrade mine if a affordable upgrade was marketed by someone else though.

Nothing wrong with being safer, just keep the gov't out of it.

Just a thought....

Al

[Gary Whitt]

I am not so sure he is doing anything different than any of us would be doing had we developed the technology. It either has merit or it does not. Steve
I wouldn't do things the way he does.

If it has merit, the saw will sell on that merit; no need to force other companies.

[Chuck Wood]

I was in Redmond Machinery in Atlanta today and got a good look at many of the different saws that I read about here at the creek, Delta, General, Powermatic, ShopFox, Jet, Steel City and yes, Sawstop. Forget the safety stuff, I think the goverment should mandate the new quality standard set by Sawstop!!:D I don't want to insult anyones equipment, heck I have a reconditioned Delta contractors saw (dialed in well, two cast iron wings). I can tell you this though, side by side the difference in smoothness (best all encompassing word I could think of) hits you right in the face. I can't afford one now, and I hope they make a contractors version, but I will have one in my shop before my boys are old enough to be taught how to use a table saw. Government mandate or not.;)

Joseph,

Check out this link! It may get you there sooner then later!

http://www.sawstop.com/products-contractor-saw.htm

:)

[Matt Moore]

Yes this has been debated and discussed until most of us were blue in the face.......

Fast forward 5-10 years from now, most likely, most saws will have some sort of safelty technology like this.

One of the problems with these threads is so much of the information is not accurate. For example: I have heard 2 stories about Gass' attempts to have government mandate the technology. 1st stories is that the mandate would include HIS technology, 2nd story is that the mandate is just for some kind of safety technology like his.

So which is true. I don't even know and I am not sure that anyone does. We can learn alot from forums but we can also be misled.

This topic always comes down to two things.
1. The political situation that surrounds it & the newness of the company.
2. The quality/innovation of the saw itself.

Many people get latched onto the #1 and will say something like "I will never own a SawStop after the attempts he made to mandate it" or "I think the saw is great but I just can't support his political ways" or "the company is too new and they may not survive". I think even some just don't like that he is a lawyer.

Many people get latched onto #2 and say something like "Political stuff aside, this is a great saw with a great safety technology and for me it is worth it" or "Wow, the quality of this saw is 2nd to none besides the safety technology".

For me I am in the 2nd camp that I described. There is so much rumor and wrong info about he political side of this argument I really don't know what to believe and really don't care. It sounds alot like the weeks before elections when each opponent is bashing the other and you don't know what to believe.

What I do know is that I can feel and touch the saw, see it in action and read real reviews and testimonials. I choose to go with the cold hard facts and agree the saw is great and the safety technology is greater and is worth the $ to me.

[Al Garay]

SawStop is a solution but I don't want it to become the defacto solution. I'm concern if government was to get in the way (big IF), then it may discourage other creative solutions.

If safety sells (which it does), other manufacturers will come up with competitive solutions. There are engineers and patent lawyers working to improve on the SawStop design. My bet is there will be affordable solutions coming out 2-3 years from now.

Meanwhile, those who are focused on using safe practices will have bargains on second-hand table saws.

[Dan Clark]

You know, what's funny is the furor this saw has caused. Lots of people (like me) would not consider buying a table saw without the technology. Lots of other people are screaming, "over my dead body!" But...

When the time comes to buy a table table saw many if not most of these people will buy a SawStop or something similar if the price is reasonable. Right now, it's easy for the naysayers to say "No" now. No cost either way. And many are justifying why their current saw is "perfectly safe if used properly".

When decision-time comes, SawStop WILL be on their minds. They KNOW it exists. Then, all their moral and ethical arguments against SawStop will start loosing their appeal. They'll look at their fingers and say, "Hmmm... What happens IF the worst happens?!? I don't like this SawStop guy, but... Day-am, it's my fingers we're talkin' about here!"

It's like this every time new technology comes along. Iconoclasts scream "Never!" In-place businesses with huge investments in old technology mount big campaigns decrying the new technology. Salesmen who get behind-the-scenes spiffs push the old stuff. Pretty soon, the industry starts announcing new "safety" products - some good; some bogus. Gradually it gets sorted out and products incorporate the new technology.

It will be fun for the next 5-10 years. But I have NO doubt that the virtually all table saws sold will have SawStop-like technology within 10 years. Maybe 5 years.

Dan.

[Glen Blanchard]

I agree with Matt. I don't really care about the politics. I feel that I have an obligation to my family to do what I can to assure my 10 fingers stay with me (I am rather partial to them - my fingers and my family). I work with my hands for a living (Dentist) so a table saw injury would not be a good thing. This saw has a margins of safety not present on other saws. The decision was simple for me. The saw is obviously not for everyone. It was, however, the right decision for me.

[Alex Shanku]

I think Mitchell was on the right path, and brought up a more pertanent arguement; mainly, the bulk of table saws sold in America are most likely cheap, portable units. Many manufactures sell these units for around $100 and there is no way possible to incorporate the saw-stop safety features into these saws...


And then, as was mentioned, what about all the other equipment in the shop that has the potential to cut,tear,etc....

My 2 cents..

Alex

[Wayne Watling]

You know, what's funny is the furor this saw has caused. Lots of people (like me) would not consider buying a table saw without the technology. Lots of other people are screaming, "over my dead body!" But...

When the time comes to buy a table table saw many if not most of these people will buy a SawStop or something similar if the price is reasonable. Right now, it's easy for the naysayers to say "No" now. No cost either way. And many are justifying why their current saw is "perfectly safe if used properly".

When decision-time comes, SawStop WILL be on their minds. They KNOW it exists. Then, all their moral and ethical arguments against SawStop will start loosing their appeal. They'll look at their fingers and say, "Hmmm... What happens IF the worst happens?!? I don't like this SawStop guy, but... Day-am, it's my fingers we're talkin' about here!"

It's like this every time new technology comes along. Iconoclasts scream "Never!" In-place businesses with huge investments in old technology mount big campaigns decrying the new technology. Salesmen who get behind-the-scenes spiffs push the old stuff. Pretty soon, the industry starts announcing new "safety" products - some good; some bogus. Gradually it gets sorted out and products incorporate the new technology.

It will be fun for the next 5-10 years. But I have NO doubt that the virtually all table saws sold will have SawStop-like technology within 10 years. Maybe 5 years.

Dan.

Yes Dan, over my dead body and PURELY out of principle. I'd rather pay 4 times more for a european slider than let 1 dime get into his pocket and yes I have put my money where my mouth is.
The money hungry patent attorney took the wrong route in my opinion and is now offering himself as an expert witness in lawsuit which could establish some sort of precedent or ruling for the SS technology. As I mentioned in a previous thread he is also filing patents on many derivations of the technology which makes it difficult for any machine manufacturer to create a simular system. Okay, no laws are being broken but we dont have to like or agree with what is being done and I don't.

As has been said countless times very few are disputing the quality of the machine and even the technology (although there is still some doubt in my mind regarding a certain kick-back scenario). What is in doubt is the methology of the marketer by attempting to force every hobbist woodworker to pay an 8% fee on tablesaws and whatever else he can adapt his gaget to.

Best Regards.

[Donnie Raines]

And my comments:

[Matt Moore]

looks like the Sawstop won't stop.....it just keeps going:rolleyes:

Yep and it helps the SawStop company every time.

http://www.rpei.net/images/matt/bunny.jpg

[Dan Clark]

Yes Dan, over my dead body and PURELY out of principle. I'd rather pay 4 times more for a european slider than let 1 dime get into the pocket of Gass and yes I have put my money where my mouth is.


Are you planning to buy a table saw or just talkin' principle. If you're not buying a saw now, I'd be curious to see how you feel when you have to make a decision for a new saw. Enquiring minds want to know.

Have a nice day,

Dan.

[Randal Stevenson]

I am going to jump in for a second. I know people do not like the way the patent holder is doing things, but he is using his expertese, in a system that is so messed up, as to not only allow, but encourage this.
You guys should really watch the stuff on patent law in your papers, and check out how messed up it is. Apple got nailed by a patent law lawsuit, for something that they had been doing for at least a year before the patent had been filed (Creative verse Apple). It involved the interface of the Ipod. That is probably one you have heard about as an example.

Between things like that, and the lack of people taking personal responsibility these days, and our litigous nature it's all factoring in.
If he were turned down by other manufacturers, and he went on to produce the saw on his own and just try to drive the competition into the ground, this wouldn't keep being posted. He is using a broken system to the best of his ability (better knowledge then us), we should push for the system being fixed then, instead of complaining.

[John Bailey]

And my comments:

Good one Donnie!!:D:D

John

[Andrew Shaber]

Hey sorry, I didn't mean to stir the pot so much. I haven't been on this forum for 8 months so I'm a little behind. I would suggest to the search the archive requests, not searching is a reality of forums. I'd love to upgrade to what appears to be a top notch saw. As said by many though, if other manufacturers get in this market, I'd rather buy from them.

I see a fundamental problem when the manufacturer/inventor/patent owner is able to force into law the use of thier invention. I think it is a conflict of interest. As a capitalist market, I will consider placing my dollars against this conflict of interest. However, if the other manufactures never enter the market, I may not be given this choice.

[Robert Mayer]

These sawstop threads should be closed immediately unless new information is posted. Between this forum and woodnet its been beaten to a pulp. Lets get back to woodworking and move on.

[Mike Henderson]

I see a fundamental problem when the manufacturer/inventor/patent owner is able to force into law the use of thier invention. I think it is a conflict of interest. As a capitalist market, I will consider placing my dollars against this conflict of interest. However, if the other manufactures never enter the market, I may not be given this choice.
As stated by someone earlier, please check out the facts. The SawStop inventor cannot "force into law" anything. I'm sure there's a bunch of companies who would like to "force into law" a requirement that everyone would have to use their product. It simply cannot be done.

Gass (the inventor) has petitioned the Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC) to begin a study of table saw safety which could result in rule making that could require additional safety features on table saws.

The actions Gass has taken are actions that any responsible manufacturer/inventor would take. If you were an investor in Gass' company, you would be entirely correct in demanding that Gass take the actions he did, if he did not choose to do them himself. Everything Gass has done is legal and ethical. In fact, one could easily argue that it would be unethical NOT to approach the CPSC.

This has all been discussed many times before in this forum.

Mike

[Al Garay]

Shoot. I would think the ShopBot CNC router would be a further leap in safety, technology and performance. I'd rather have a PRTAlpha ... the point being, there are choices.

http://www.shopbottools.com/prtalpha.htm

[Rob Bodenschatz]

These sawstop threads should be closed immediately unless new information is posted. Between this forum and woodnet its been beaten to a pulp. Lets get back to woodworking and move on.
Don't like it, don't read it.

[Matt Moore]

These sawstop threads should be closed immediately unless new information is posted. Between this forum and woodnet its been beaten to a pulp. Lets get back to woodworking and move on.

Close your eyes and move on.

The forum would be boring if we did not have discussions like this sometimes.

Personally, I think we should start a SS thread everyday. :)

All the press on the forums just keeps this topic to the forefront and there will be more and more people that just don't care about the "political" issues around it and will buy it.

It just helps the company succeed.

Therefore, those of you that hate SS and Gass so much should just ignore these threads so that you do not help the marketing of the SS product.
:D

[Jim Bell]

Don Bullock (http://www.sawmillcreek.org/member.php?u=10721) http://www.sawmillcreek.org/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif vbmenu_register("postmenu_481628", true);
2007 Contributor
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: California
Posts: 42


I know that many of you who have been around for a while have problems with posts like this that rehash old arguments, but I’m very thankful it was posted. I’m just getting back into woodworking after being out of the hobby for about twenty five years. Until I saw some posts like this about Sawstop I had no idea the technology existed. While I’m not in the position to fork out $3,000 for a table saw right now, I certainly would if I had the money available. What an article like this has done for me is make me more aware of the dangers of my present, early 1970s Craftsman, table saw. As a result of what I’ve seen and read you can bet that until I can save up the $3,000 for the Sawstop that I will be using pushers and feather boards a lot more than I have in the past in order to keep my fingers as far away from that new Forrester blade I installed as possible. A Sawstop or similar technology will be in my shop as soon as I can possibly afford it. I’m hoping that it doesn’t take an Act of Congress to get other saw makers to put all the Sawstop safety features on their products so that I’ll have more choice when I’m ready. Yes, as suggested I'll search the achieves for other posts on this subject, but thanks for bring it up again so this newcomer could read what it's all about.
__________________
Don Bullock:cool:

Don Welcome back to the Woodworking arena. I have bad news though.......... that 3 grand is just for the saw. If you want a fence and other necessary attachments it's closer to $4500.00. For me it will take an act of congress to put me in their market. What I would like to see would be for everyone who buys a table saw to take a few lessons from a professional as to proper operation and maintenance of their new saw. Or at least read the operating instructions carefully a time or two. Also if the mfrs would install a decent blade on all saws when shipped many problems I suppose would solve themselves. For what it's worth I was at a saw stop demo. It worked as advertised. I did notice however a large sticker warning people that saw stop is in no way responsible or liable for any injury or death while using their product. Mabe we should compare the product warning to say the warning on a pack of cigarettes instead of the automobile:) . I do agree the tool industry in this country has been complacent concerning technology and safety in general. I also agree it could and should be better. I am a fan of the thought of running my hand into a saw blade and at worst needing a stitch or two. Nobody short of a blithering idiot would disagree with that. I just don't like mandates from the government put in motion by private enterprise, when the only reason for doing so is the substantial cost increase most just cannot afford. I respect each of you who have purchased or will purchase a saw stop. My concern or disagreement is not with you. I want us all to work safe and be safe. Just a thought, is the lighting in your shop/work area adequate? I vacumed the tubes and bulbs in my workshop this weekend. What a difference! How about those windows? Do you ever work when tired? Ever have a day when you know a whirling blade is just not a good idea but you go anyway? Ever get mad or frustrated and instead of taking a walk outside to let it go, decide to MAKE it happen anyway? We all have these days. What was the result the last time you actually knew better but continued anyway? Guys I've been at this stuff for 35+ yrs. I have bought and used tools some of you would laugh at I once had a $115.00 table saw (new) witha $65.00 CMT General 10" blade. It actually did a decent job. Kinda tippy though. Perhaps instead of arguing and rehashing this over and over we put together a thread on table saw tips to help make what we have safer. I have years of experience with all kinds of tools both good and bad. Some scary, some just plain stooopit and some funny. I'm sure most of the posters just on this thread have much to share too. I mean we have an architect and an inventor and a dentist that I know of here. Besides I think mabe we're giving the moderators an ulcer:D With our combined effort we could prevnt an injury or two I'm sure:)

[Jim Murphy]

For example: I have heard 2 stories about Gass' attempts to have government mandate the technology. 1st stories is that the mandate would include HIS technology, 2nd story is that the mandate is just for some kind of safety technology like his.

I read up on this proposed Consumer Product Safety Commission issue a few months ago. The answer is #2. The proposed regulation would not require incorporating SawStop's proprietary technology, but manufacturers would have to incorporate technology which would have a similar ability to prevent a deep cut should flesh contact the blade while operating.

I am sure the Creek's engineers, or other technically competent people can find the details, but as I recall the proposal has objective standards -- that is, a cut of a certain depth assuming a certain speed of hand to blade. The responses by the lawyers hired by SawStop's competitors argued that SawStop is currently the only technology available to accomplish such a feat (guess they were caught napping), that they are working really, really hard to come up with better technology, which they are sure will happen someday. They also apparently don't want to pay a license fee to SawStop, presumably because they don't want to fund a competitor.

Best I can tell, we are witnessing some old fashioned bare-knuckled business fight for market share. I don't see anyone wearing a pure white hat, or offering to turn over any profits to charity. All these characters are out for their own bottom line (how else can you explain the lack of even a riving knife on American machines until recently?)

When all this shakes out, I bet the competition will inure to the benefit of woodworkers. SawStop, through market pressures or regulation (or lawyers through litigation) will push the established manufacturers to come up with a safer product, and when that is done, market pressures will push SawStop to become more competitive on their price. Even woodworkers who want no part of this technology will benefit because the prices on used machines will probably drop as some part of the market decides to buy the new technology, increasing the supply of used machines.

I am no fan of government regulation, but I am not surprised that businessmen try to use regulations against their competition. If the shoe was on the other foot.....the tactics would be the same.

[Lee DeRaud]

I read up on this proposed Consumer Product Safety Commission issue a few months ago. The answer is #2. The proposed regulation would not require incorporating SawStop's proprietary technology, but manufacturers would have to incorporate technology which would have a similar ability to prevent a deep cut should flesh contact the blade while operating.The critical question in play is:
Given the way patents are being (mis)interpreted these days, is it even possible to develop "technology which would have a similar ability to prevent a deep cut should flesh contact the blade while operating" without violating one or more of the SS patents?

[Mike Henderson]

The critical question in play is:
Given the way patents are being (mis)interpreted these days, is it even possible to develop "technology which would have a similar ability to prevent a deep cut should flesh contact the blade while operating" without violating one or more of the SS patents?
Whenever there is some standards activity, or rule making (as in this case), the real fight is to define the objective. What Gass is trying to do right now (I'm sure) is to get the CPSC to define the problem in such a way that his patents have to be used.

What the other saw companies are doing is attempting to get the objective defined in such a way that they can get around Gass' patents.

The standards bodies (and I'm sure the CPSC works the same way) try to avoid patents unless the holder of the patent(s) agrees, in writing, to license under terms acceptable to everyone else (not free, but reasonable). If the patent holder tries to extract too much money, the rule making body will usually find another way to achieve their purpose (that avoids the patents).

I expect that everyone will get together and agree on a patent royalty that they all can live with before the rule making goes forward.

If you think about patents, the above is the only way it can really work. If there weren't these agreements prior to the rule making, the inventor could refuse to license anyone, basically putting everyone else out of business.

While it wasn't a standards activity, Polaroid did that with instant photography (they drove Kodak out of instant photography), but it wasn't a successful strategy in the long run.

Mike

[Chuck Hanger]

I would have to say that I have read enough about Saw Stop. Even watched the videos. Still have not seen what would happen in a "real life experience" as ramming that HOT DOG into the blade like it would happen in real life. No one just slides their finger into a saw blade spinning at 4000 RPM. It happenes by accident and with quick motion.
Heard enough,
Chuck

[Ed Kowaski]

Chuck I'm wondering what you base your statments on.

I know of several cases where people just slide their fingers into a spinning saw blade.

I know of several cases where people tangled with the back of the blade removing a cut off from the table.

Now I suppose that only an idiot would do something that stupid... just like only an idiot would cut a part the wrong size. "Stuff" happens sometimes.

I have read a report on the hot dog slammed into the blade.

I have read several reports on excellent real life Sawstop saves.

[Joe Jensen]

I would have to say that I have read enough about Saw Stop. Even watched the videos. Still have not seen what would happen in a "real life experience" as ramming that HOT DOG into the blade like it would happen in real life. No one just slides their finger into a saw blade spinning at 4000 RPM. It happenes by accident and with quick motion.
Heard enough,
Chuck

Chuck, I've posted this link a few times in the past, but here it is again for your convenience. Wood Magazine did their own tests of SawStop with hot dogs to simulate kickback, falling into the blade, dragging your hand back across the blade etc. Same effectiveness. Here are the videos, made by wood magazine, and not SawStop. Please let me know what you think of these videos.
http://www.woodmagazine.com/wood/sto...xml&catref=wd5 (http://www.woodmagazine.com/wood/story.jhtml?storyid=/templatedata/wood/story/data/sawstop_highspeed.xml&catref=wd5)

Have you watched those videos?...joe

[Jake Helmboldt]

let's kill this thread. How many times are people going to rehash what has already been rehashed several times over. Really folks, this is getting absurd. It is becoming like a skipping record, often with the same misinformation over and over.

As others have said, read the archives, and if there is something to add that has not already been said a dozen times (doubtful) then post something.

Jake

[Rob Bodenschatz]

Hey Jake. If you don't like it, why are you reading it? Doesn't make much sense to me.

[Ted Miller]

I know I am new here but this is the first thread I have seen of this kind about the SS. I have been a wooder all of my life and I have owned only two tablesaws, the only reason I sold my old one is it was my dads and I needed to move up to a 12" blade. I personally did not purchase my new saw looking at safety or color but workmanship and performance was top of my list. I am not naive but I respect my tools greatly, I use caution and my brain whenever the power comes on. If these safety concerns ever get moved into law will we still have our old saws we have had for years and I cannot see this being law in our life time...

[John Bailey]

Let's keep our cool folks. Most of us have read threads concerning SawStop, and have watched them go down hill fast, and we don't want to have that happen. Some of the new members will have a little difficulty using the archives. Remember, we have over 1,000 new members in the last 6 weeks, or so. There's good info in this thread, as long as everyone stays civil. For you old folks that have seen all this before, please, be patient. For the new folks, just understand this has been an issue that folks have strong opinions about, and in the past, at times, has gotten a little heated.

Thanks for your understanding.

John

[Steve Rowe]

let's kill this thread. How many times are people going to rehash what has already been rehashed several times over. Really folks, this is getting absurd. It is becoming like a skipping record, often with the same misinformation over and over.

As others have said, read the archives, and if there is something to add that has not already been said a dozen times (doubtful) then post something.

Jake

As a reminder the TOS states in part; "It is our policy to support the free flow of information in a manner best befitting the woodworking community at large. SawMill Creek is an online community where woodworkers may come together to share and discuss a common interest."

This suggestion as well as a number of others does not seem to encourage the free flow of information of interest to woodworkers. Clearly, this topic was of interest to the original poster and apparently many others. Should we disallow threads where information is available in the archives? There are a lot of topics (i.e. - Forrest WWII, shop heating, shop cooling, which tablesaw should I buy, my bandsaw won't start, and the list goes on) that have a lot of archive information that would also be dis-allowed if this were the criterion. Disallowing threads of interest to woodworkers would eventually cause this forum to become irrelavant. I for one, don't want to see that happen.

Steve

[Jim Becker]

Steve, there is nothing wrong with having this thread about SawStop or any other woodworking topic. What is of most concern is the disrespect to others that begins to show as folks get passionate about their point of view on certain subjects. Dialog and debate is great...and encouraged here at SMC. Disrespect is not encouraged and will not be tolerated by the moderators, nor should it be tolerated by the members.

Any member who feels that a post is in violation of that premise can report it to the moderators who have responsibility for that particular forum by clicking on the red and white triangle at the top-right of any post.

Thank you in advance for your understanding, acceptance and cooperation with this community standard.

Jim
SMC Moderator

[Lee DeRaud]

Whenever there is some standards activity, or rule making (as in this case), the real fight is to define the objective. What Gass is trying to do right now (I'm sure) is to get the CPSC to define the problem in such a way that his patents have to be used.

What the other saw companies are doing is attempting to get the objective defined in such a way that they can get around Gass' patents.Exactly.
The standards bodies (and I'm sure the CPSC works the same way) try to avoid patents unless the holder of the patent(s) agrees, in writing, to license under terms acceptable to everyone else (not free, but reasonable). If the patent holder tries to extract too much money, the rule making body will usually find another way to achieve their purpose (that avoids the patents).

I expect that everyone will get together and agree on a patent royalty that they all can live with before the rule making goes forward.One can hope. (One can also be disappointed, but I'm trying not to think about that, given that this is entirely the wrong time of year to let cynicism run free.)
If you think about patents, the above is the only way it can really work. If there weren't these agreements prior to the rule making, the inventor could refuse to license anyone, basically putting everyone else out of business.

While it wasn't a standards activity, Polaroid did that with instant photography (they drove Kodak out of instant photography), but it wasn't a successful strategy in the long run.Yeah, but in the "short" run (which was way longer than a lot of companies stay in business these days), they made a ton of money. Dunno about SawStop, but I suspect many companies would love to attain that level of "failure".

[Mike Henderson]

Exactly.One can hope. (One can also be disappointed, but I'm trying not to think about that, given that this is entirely the wrong time of year to let cynicism run free.)Yeah, but in the "short" run (which was way longer than a lot of companies stay in business these days), they made a ton of money. Dunno about SawStop, but I suspect many companies would love to attain that level of "failure".
Yeah, every company wants to attain monopoly status - it allows you to extract excess profits from the market. But in the long run, it winds up being bad for the company - they quit innovating and lose their edge. Xerox is another example.

What was it that the Godfather said? "Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer." Having a good competitor keeps a company sharp.

Back to the CPSC just for a minute - There's no way that the CPSC will grant anyone monopoly status (approve Gass' technique without written agreements on licensing and royalties). While safety features are good, a vibrant competitive market is MUCH more important.

Mike

[Don Bullock]

Jim,
First of all, Thanks for the welcome. I'm happy about getting back into working with wood. It's something I have truly missed. Now that I'm less than two years to retirement I'm looking forward to making furniture and other projects again.

Second, my fingers are worth the $4,500 you quote, but at the rate I'm purchasing equipment and tools by the time I can stop and save that much for a SawStop I'm sure they will have come down in price. That's the nature of any new technology these days.

Third, discussions like this always amaze me. Someone brought up the seatbelt anology. Well, no one made big bucks on that one because the patents had expired before they were mandated. I wonder, using another automobile technology, if those who are taking a stand based on all the legal haggeling enjoy and use the intermitent wiper system for their windshield wipers. The guy who invented that technology is making a bundle. The car makers stole the idea, but the courts finally ruled in his favor. He makes a certain amount of money on every vehicle that is built with intermitent windshield wipers. Perhaps the path of the SawStop backers is not as unusual and underhanded as people think. At least they are doing it out in the open and making the saw companies "play fair." I doupt that his technology will ever become mandated, but as I stated before, I am hoping that other saw builders use his technology or even come up with something better.

Don

[Wayne Watling]

Are you planning to buy a table saw or just talkin' principle. If you're not buying a saw now, I'd be curious to see how you feel when you have to make a decision for a new saw. Enquiring minds want to know.
Have a nice day,
Dan.

Sorry Dan I didn't see your post until now. I am in the process of purchasing a slider, it will arrive end of Dec. This was long after I knew about the SS machine and hopefully that slider will last me a life time.
If in the future I need to upgrade and all new saws incorporate SS technology I suspect any SS patents would have expired by then, if not I would just find another saw.
Obviously the technology is good so it would be silly to reject it out of hand, hopefully the saw manufactures will develop an alternative.

Best Regards.

[Wilbur Pan]

For those of you who are opposed to the idea of the SawStop people using anticompetitive behavior to "force" their invention on the market:

If you made your post on a computer running Windows, please go get a sledgehammer and pound your computer into bits no larger than 3 inches in diameter, immediately.

[Wilbur Pan]

I would have to say that I have read enough about Saw Stop. Even watched the videos. Still have not seen what would happen in a "real life experience" as ramming that HOT DOG into the blade like it would happen in real life. No one just slides their finger into a saw blade spinning at 4000 RPM. It happenes by accident and with quick motion.
Heard enough,
Chuck
Chuck,

Please read this post of mine (http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?p=469419&#post469419), and others I posted later in that thread. It will explain why the "SawStop mechanism will fail if the hand is moving fast enough" argument doesn't hold water.

Bottom line: If you want to sever a limb on a SawStop, you need to be hitting the SawStop blade with a speed of at least 34 mph, and probably closer to 70 mph.

[Art Mann]

The automobile industry analogy is a good one, but not seat belts. The Sawstop technology is more akin to all-wheel-drive (not 4WD) technology, active suspension systems or stability control systems. Such systems are known to reduce the probability of losing control of the vehicle, thus saving lives. Many luxury or expensive sports cars are equipped with such technology. However, a government mandated inclusion of this technology would dramatically raise the price of every vehicle. The net result would be that many people could no longer afford to buy a new car of any kind. Mr. Gass is trying to do the same thing to the tablesaw industry. He is the equivalent of a luxury car only car manufacturer in my analogy. The current cost of the Sawstop brake technology exceeds the purchase price of some cheaper model saws and that is all many people can afford. Is it really a good thing to try to promote a government mandate that would force woodworking to be a hobby for the affluent only?

[Gregg Feldstone]

Why is 8% soooo high for the rights to manufacture a product that someone put his whole life into? Shouldn't he be rewarded for having such a good idea and making it work? I think that eventually, all talble saws will have a similar safety device. It would be nice if someone would incorporate something like this on a slider/combo machine.....than I can have the best of all worlds when I can afford it.

[Mike Henderson]

Why is 8% soooo high for the rights to manufacture a product that someone put his whole life into? Shouldn't he be rewarded for having such a good idea and making it work? I think that eventually, all talble saws will have a similar safety device. It would be nice if someone would incorporate something like this on a slider/combo machine.....than I can have the best of all worlds when I can afford it.
The problem I see with an 8% royalty on the total price of the saw is that the SawStop mechanism only makes up a small part of the cost of the saw. Let's say the price that the royalty is computed on is $2,000 (maybe it's computed on the price to the dealer), giving a royalty of $160. Now, let's look at the cost of the part that Gass has covered by his patent. The mechanism sells retail for about $75 so the cost of that part to the dealer may be about $50. Let's assume that there are other things covered by Gass' patent and that stuff costs another $50 for a total of $100 worth of stuff covered by the patents. The royalty of $160 is 160% on the items covered by the patents.

Let's give Gass the benefit of the doubt and assume that the materials covered by his patents are $160, making the royalty 100%.

Most companies in commodity markets are lucky to get a profit after tax of 10%. The 8% royalty would almost eliminate the profit, unless the companies paying the royalty could get a higher price for their products (it's a bit more complex because the royalty is a business expense so it doesn't really flow directly off the bottom line).

My opinion (for what that's worth) is that a fair royalty would be 2% of the total price of the product (or about $40 on a saw). For every saw sold by a licensee, SawStop would get $40 in pure profit (zero cost of goods), directly to their bottom line, for the life of the patent. That's a pretty good deal.

Mike

[Let me add one additional example. Suppose that I invent a high end slider saw - something new that's never been done before. The saw is very expensive - let's say $100,000 - but it's very productive and commercial shops are waiting in line to buy it. Why should SawStop get 8% of all the ideas that I created and put into this new saw? They only contributed the blade stop mechanism, not all the other things that make my new saw really attractive in the marketplace. Ideally, SawStop should receive a royalty on the parts that they invented, not on everything else in the product.]

[Owen Gregg]

If they could only incorporate that same technology on the hammer. While it is entertaining to see the "I just hammered my finger instead of the nail" dance, I could definitely see a niche market for such an invention.

[Mike Heidrick]

If they could only incorporate that same technology on the hammer. While it is entertaining to see the "I just hammered my finger instead of the nail" dance, I could definitely see a niche market for such an invention.

Yeah, but then we would be letting the action of a lawyer slide. That would cause many people to explode thus defeating the purpose of the SlideStop. We could just call that saw Deadblow.

[Matt Moore]

For those of you who are opposed to the idea of the SawStop people using anticompetitive behavior to "force" their invention on the market:

If you made your post on a computer running Windows, please go get a sledgehammer and pound your computer into bits no larger than 3 inches in diameter, immediately. :rolleyes:

Very good point. I would guess that what Mr. Gass has done is not so different that has been done over and over and over in the past. The difference is that today, we have be ability to easily find out just about anything since information is so readily available.

[Wayne Watling]

My opinion (for what that's worth) is that a fair royalty would be 2% of the total price of the product (or about $40 on a saw). For every saw sold by a licensee, SawStop would get $40 in pure profit (zero cost of goods), directly to their bottom line, for the life of the patent. That's a pretty good deal.

Mike

[Let me add one additional example. Suppose that I invent a high end slider saw - something new that's never been done before. The saw is very expensive - let's say $100,000 - but it's very productive and commercial shops are waiting in line to buy it. Why should SawStop get 8% of all the ideas that I created and put into this new saw? They only contributed the blade stop mechanism, not all the other things that make my new saw really attractive in the marketplace. Ideally, SawStop should receive a royalty on the parts that they invented, not on everything else in the product.]

There's nothing wrong with 8% or even 2% if your Mr Gass, in my opinion its still too high for a mandated safety product. Then factor in the cost of the hardware itself and that puts most hobbists out of the game all together. Not that I would pay it but I expect something in the order of $0.50 per unit would be reasonable for this type of patent.
Then we will all have to factor in the cost of false positives, every time the unit is tripped due to high moisture we will need a new blade and brake mechanism.

Best Regards

[Gary Whitt]

For me it will take an act of congress to put me in their market.
If Gass has his way, that will happen.

[Steve Schoene]

I am concerned about the added costs of a mandated SawStop type mechanism.

The folks who post here are not representative of the entire market for tablesaws. It surprised me to learn that, according to the Power Tool Institute, of the 725,000 tablesaws sold in the U.S. in a recent year the majoritywere gear driven models with universal motors. Further, it is likely that none of these low-end saws could be redesigned to accept a SawStop like technology--in part because with the blade linked to the motor armature the mass to be stopped "instantly" is much higher--perhaps six or seven times higher than just the blade as in belt drive saws. This suggests that the entire class of universal motor saws might be eliminated. Therefore, it looks pretty clear that mandating SawStop or equivalent would eliminate the half of the models with the lowest prices. No great loss some might say, but clearly most buyers of new saws want low prices. And, the models in the upper half of the price range would increase in price to encorporate the SawStop mechanism. The face of hobbyist woodworking would change dramatically I would think.

All those of us to began with low-end saws and graduated to higher grade equipment as our interest grew might never have begun--with an entry level price dramatically higher. Only some of those buying at the low priced end would step up to buy saws priced in what would now place them in the top half of the price range.

I've got a Unisaw, and the check would clear if I bought a SawStop, but a great many others aren't willing or able to pay for high-end saws when they are unsure of how long their interest will last.

By the way, the voluntary standard for power tools that includes table saws, UL 987, mandates that effective January 31, 2008 all new table saw models must have a riving knive, though existing models have until January 31, 2014 to be modified to include a riving knife. That strikes me as being the more important safety change, and one that has been reached voluntarily by all makers who agree to be UL listed. (Which is 95% of saws sold in the US.)

[Steven Wilson]

By the way, the voluntary standard for power tools that includes table saws, UL 987, mandates that effective January 31, 2008 all new table saw models must have a riving knive, though existing models have until January 31, 2014 to be modified to include a riving knife. That strikes me as being the more important safety change, and one that has been reached voluntarily by all makers who agree to be UL listed. (Which is 95% of saws sold in the US.)

I agree with you Steve on the importance of the UL change. A properly designed and setup riving knife is a much more important safety change than the blade braking mechanism of the saw stop. A properly setup and adjusted riving knife will prevent most (maybe all) kickback, pushback, and associated amputations (hand being drawn to the blade during a kickback) which are the injuries we suffer the most. The only reason I would consider buying the sawstop table saw is because it has a riving knife.

[Dan Lee]

Steve
Great point about the universal motor saws I'd never thought about those whenever these SS disussions come up. I'd imagine a great number of those are job site saws needed by folks to make a living. Personally I hate those things but my brother does home remodeling and uses one every day. I think without them we might see the days of people mounting a skil saw under a piece of plywood again

[Matt Moore]

One of the issues I see with the argument about the cost of the adding the technology to all saws is that the only cost comparison we have it the current cabinet saw offered by SS. The higher cost is likely due to many things, not just the SS technology. Such as company startup costs, higher quality all-around, SS technology, riving knife, larger surfaces and I am sure the list could go on.

The costs for SS to implement its own technology from NOTHING to the cabinet saw they are selling is far greater than the cost would be for a company like Delta or Jet to implement the changes. Also, remember, they did not just copy a Unisaw and add the technology to it. They designed a saw that is second to none in quality and has the added safety. Quality products from smaller companies freqently cost more (just like many here that sell their own woodworking for high $ compared to the stuff in a furniture store). Why should it cost the same?

[Matt Moore]

Steve
Great point about the universal motor saws I'd never thought about those whenever these SS disussions come up. I'd imagine a great number of those are job site saws needed by folks to make a living. Personally I hate those things but my brother does home remodeling and uses one every day. I think without them we might see the days of people mounting a skil saw under a piece of plywood again

This is a valid question but don't assume the issue cannot be overcome. Five years ago we did not imagine that a stop system would exists for any tablesaw. Give it time, inginuity will conquer.

[Alex Shanku]

For those of you who are opposed to the idea of the SawStop people using anticompetitive behavior to "force" their invention on the market:

If you made your post on a computer running Windows, please go get a sledgehammer and pound your computer into bits no larger than 3 inches in diameter, immediately.


Or use a mac, or linux.........

[Mike Henderson]

It surprised me to learn that, according to the Power Tool Institute, of the 725,000 tablesaws sold in the U.S. in a recent year the majoritywere gear driven models with universal motors. Further, it is likely that none of these low-end saws could be redesigned to accept a SawStop like technology--in part because with the blade linked to the motor armature the mass to be stopped "instantly" is much higher--perhaps six or seven times higher than just the blade as in belt drive saws. This suggests that the entire class of universal motor saws might be eliminated.
By the way, the voluntary standard for power tools that includes table saws, UL 987, mandates that effective January 31, 2008 all new table saw models must have a riving knive, though existing models have until January 31, 2014 to be modified to include a riving knife. That strikes me as being the more important safety change, and one that has been reached voluntarily by all makers who agree to be UL listed. (Which is 95% of saws sold in the US.)
I generally agree with the points you made here, but I think your analysis of the problem of stopping a gear driven universal motor saw is not correct. I think you're assuming that when you stop a belt driven blade, the mass of the belts and the induction motor rotor does not figure into the rotational inertia. While the belts can slip, there is a certain friction involved which couples the rotational inertia of the belts and the induction motor rotor to the blade.

It's hard to know exactly how much rotational inertia is involved in a belt driven blade, but I would expect that it's probably close to the amount in a gear driven universal motor system. Even if the universal motor system had more rotational inertia, I doubt that it's enough to make a major difference in the performance of the blade stopping system.

Since the motor is directly coupled to the blade, the inertia for dropping the blade would be higher so the blade might not drop as fast. I don't know, but I suspect that stopping the blade is more important than dropping it.

Your point about cost, however, is well taken. If the SawStop mechanism adds $200 to the retail cost of a universal motor table saw, it will be a significant increase in the price. We could see people making table saws out of circular saws.

Mike

[added note: If the blade really is "dropped" and not powered down, the extra mass of the gear coupled universal motor will not make a difference. The acceleration due to gravity is independent of mass.]

[Steve Schoene]

The $100 to $150 is the estimate given by SawStop in arguing for the CPSC regulation. This is not likely to be too low. As it stands the Saw Stop product sells for $3,700 compared to the Powermatic PM2000 at $2,400 (including shipping in each case). This is roughly a $1,300 premium for SawStop. (PM2000 does have riving knive, and also has built in rollers not included in SawStop.)

I don't doubt that even more robust stops can be made for the universal motor saws, but miniaturizing the mechanism, and making it more powerful has got to be more expensive than doing for a cabinet saw. When adding even $100 to the cost doubles the cost of some saws, the low-end would be doomed. I'd bet if Saw-Stop or the like were the rule, the lowest price new tablesaw would be over $500. Remember, the manufacturers would also have to charge extra for the additional potential legal liability from the new technology.

[Brad Olson]

One of the issues I see with the argument about the cost of the adding the technology to all saws is that the only cost comparison we have it the current cabinet saw offered by SS. The higher cost is likely due to many things, not just the SS technology. Such as company startup costs, higher quality all-around, SS technology, riving knife, larger surfaces and I am sure the list could go on.

The costs for SS to implement its own technology from NOTHING to the cabinet saw they are selling is far greater than the cost would be for a company like Delta or Jet to implement the changes. Also, remember, they did not just copy a Unisaw and add the technology to it. They designed a saw that is second to none in quality and has the added safety. Quality products from smaller companies freqently cost more (just like many here that sell their own woodworking for high $ compared to the stuff in a furniture store). Why should it cost the same?

I talked with Gass at a WWing show and he seemed to think they could outfit a saw for $100 and very likely much less if there was mass adoption.

So on a $300 portable saw you are going to push the price up to $350-400

As to false positives, there are few, because you can operate the saw in test mode to make sure your wet wood won't trip the SS mechanism. If you cut wet wood and trip the mechansim, it is your own fault for not doing a 30 second test before cutting.

[Jim Murphy]

It surprised me to learn that, according to the Power Tool Institute, of the 725,000 tablesaws sold in the U.S. in a recent year the majoritywere gear driven models with universal motors.


I found that statistic interesting, and was also surprised by it. Blame my contrary Irish nature, but when I see a statistic like that, I assume it is not telling the whole story, and is likely misleading.

The statistic is meant to bolster an argument that because there are so many low-end saws sold (which at present are incompatible with blade stopping technology), that safety should not be increased on ANY saws. (I know that is not logical, but that's what they were arguing. Let's just ignore that for now.)

First, it seems clear that the low end saws do not last as long as others -- well-maintained cabinet saws last for decades, and most likely account for many more linear feet of cutting than the gear driven saws (a generalization, I realize. I also realize that there are members here who can show me an ancient gear-driven saw that has been a workhorse for years, but I suspect that would be the exception.) Who knows how many gear-driven saws equal one belt-driven saw? And how many belt-driven saws are contractor saws vs. cabinet saws?

Second, it would be interesting to see if that year was representative (the Power Tool Institute -- lawyers and lobbiests -- just MIGHT have been tempted to cherry pick the data. Call me cynical, but it is worth checking.) It would not surprise me that the ratio between gear-driven saws sold vs. belt-driven probably varies from year to year -- probably driven by such things as the economy, temporary favorable tax treatment of capital improvements, etc.

So from what I can see, that statistic doesn't tell us very much at all on the universe of saws in use -- how many of the different kinds, the amount of use of the different kinds, and the likelihood of injury.

Now perhaps the Power Tool Institute was trying to argue that the low-end saws should be exempt from regulation, based on a technical impracticablity argument. That makes sense to me -- if it can't be done, it should not be required by the government to be done. I don't know enough about the technology to know what is technically feasible.

Regarding the price of saws getting too high and keeping people from the trade/hobby: Well, I have a strong feeling that as safety improves, that these new saws will be in great demand. This should cause the price of used, high quality saws to drop, making woodworking more affordable than before. That could be good news for woodworking, but bad news for present day woodworkers who will be selling cheap, essentially subsidizing the new woodworker.

Just some stray thoughts.

[Homer Faucett]

Remember, the manufacturers would also have to charge extra for the additional potential legal liability from the new technology.

Can someone run this legal theory by me? I keep hearing it mentioned in different places, but it runs counter to all tort theory that I have been taught, and the two litigators I just spoke with seemed to think it's a flimsy argument.

I'm guessing that the legal theory must rest on some reliance basis (I relied on the technology to my detriment . . .), but it sounds like a weak excuse that was used by the manufacturers to turn down licensing the technology in the first place.

Generally, in products liability cases, proof of safety technology is a mitigating factor in finding negligence.

P.S.--I'm not directing this necessarily at you, Steve, as much as I'm just asking if someone can come up with an argument or case law that supports it. I have seen it mentioned in articles as the reason that the technology was not adopted. No attack intended, just curious.

[Gary Whitt]

I talked with Gass at a WWing show and he seemed to think they could outfit a saw for $100 and very likely much less if there was mass adoption.

So on a $300 portable saw you are going to push the price up to $350-400

He said the same thing for the cabinet saw.

It costs 3 times his estimate.

He uses fuzzy math.

[CPeter James]

Some years back, John Deere developed the ROPS system used on tractors and industrial construction equipment. This is the bar or cab or roof on a tractor that protects the operator in case of a rollover. They could not sell it or even give it away on their tractors because the operators said it would never happen to them and it was sissy to have it. What did they do? They gave the rights to use it and all their developments and designs to any one that wanted to use it for FREE. Now it is required and how many lives and injuries have been prevented. BTW, John Deere is still doing very well, thank you, and has a very loyal following.

The point is, that Mr Gass makes a very top quality saw and even without the safety features, it is still desirable. He might even sell more IF the competition used his system and pushed their cost up by the cost of the system, without the royalities. It worked of John Deere.

CPeter

[Steve Schoene]

Here is the way I understand it.--doesn't make it right, but it makes sense. The old technology saw makers don't get sued much based on injuries using standard table saws because the technology is so old (since before WWII) and so well understood that the injured person assumed the risk. Also, because most injuries on a tablesaw stem from doing something wrong and was not following directions or widely known standard operating proceedure it is also hard for the negligent party to sue the manufacturer.

Then comes this new technology that claims you won't get injured using it. (Yes, there are a few caveats in the literature.) Then, if something bad happens, it is more likely to be, or be claimed to be, the manufacturers fault--the device didn't trigger, or the triggering sent carbide blade tips through the air, or .... etc. Now that is a lawsuit every time since the user didn't sign on to have risk of injury.

[Homer Faucett]

Here is the way I understand it.--doesn't make it right, but it makes sense. The old technology saw makers don't get sued much based on injuries using standard table saws because the technology is so old (since before WWII) and so well understood that the injured person assumed the risk. Also, because most injuries on a tablesaw stem from doing something wrong and was not following directions or widely known standard operating proceedure it is also hard for the negligent party to sue the manufacturer.

Then comes this new technology that claims you won't get injured using it. (Yes, there are a few caveats in the literature.) Then, if something bad happens, it is more likely to be, or be claimed to be, the manufacturers fault--the device didn't trigger, or the triggering sent carbide blade tips through the air, or .... etc. Now that is a lawsuit every time since the user didn't sign on to have risk of injury.

I would agree that, under your scenario, there might be an increase in risk/potential cost. However, that is not a risk that is inherent in adopting the technology.

Instead, it's a risk that is created by improper advertising.

It seems to me, and the litigators I just talked to, that adopting the technology but not overselling it would actually be more likely to decrease legal costs.

Thanks for the thoughtful response, and the time I know it took to respond, Steve. That's what's good about the 'Creek, and what makes revisiting old topics useful.

[Jim Murphy]

Actually, the old-line manufacturers are probably mad at SS because SS's invention has increased their legal liability. One defense to a product liability suit is "state of the art." Which means that the product is not unreasonably dangerous because it already incorporates all the safety features available. In the past, the saw manufacturers could argue that their saws were safe because to avoid the injury they would have to design a saw that wouldn't cause a serious injury even if someone's hand touched the blade, and that is not feasible. That used to be a winning argument -- but as the kids say -- Now, not so much. If their insurance underwriters are aware of SawStop, I bet their premiums go up.

[Brad Olson]

He said the same thing for the cabinet saw.

It costs 3 times his estimate.

He uses fuzzy math.

No, he built a $3000+ tablesaw and added SS to it and has priced it at a premium due to low sales volume.

The cost of the mechanism is still $60 or so for the stopper and not much more for the electronics.

[Christopher Pine]

I vote nay to this tactic and to the product... If I want it it is available and I will pay for it.. I don't want the government protecting me from myself! That goes for seatbelts, motorcycle helmets, and anything else like that.
YOu won't convince me otherwise and I will not you if you differ so thats about it.....

Chris

[Homer Faucett]

Actually, the old-line manufacturers are probably mad at SS because SS's invention has increased their legal liability. One defense to a product liability suit is "state of the art." Which means that the product is not unreasonably dangerous because it already incorporates all the safety features available. In the past, the saw manufacturers could argue that their saws were safe because to avoid the injury they would have to design a saw that wouldn't cause a serious injury even if someone's hand touched the blade, and that is not feasible. That used to be a winning argument -- but as the kids say -- Now, not so much.

I couldn't have said it any better. That's the way I understand it.

[Jeff Borges]

lets see, since I have already removed about 1/4 of the tip of my left thumb, (a combo of bad technique and a fence that moved -which coincidentally is why the saw I own was not ranked as editors choice in its particular review), I learned the lesson... but since my saw is hot rodded and frankensteined and cuts like a champ.... the legislation doesn't matter to me. unless of course we become a SawStop police state! In which case.. No sir. I do not own a table saw.

I won't be buying a new saw, and this technology is still new..so lets just see how many amputation lawsuits it takes to change the rules and products again. Either way...I really appreciate the intelligent conversation this has started.....


WOOD IS GOOD!!!!

[Matt Moore]

No, he built a $3000+ tablesaw and added SS to it and has priced it at a premium due to low sales volume.

The cost of the mechanism is still $60 or so for the stopper and not much more for the electronics.

Thanks Brad for pointing that out.

[Gary Whitt]

No, he built a $3000+ tablesaw and added SS to it and has priced it at a premium due to low sales volume.

The cost of the mechanism is still $60 or so for the stopper and not much more for the electronics.
So, you're saying without the SS cartridge technology, his saw is worth $3000 ?
And with the "$60 cartridge and not much more for the electronics", why is the price over $4000 :confused:

No way is that saw built any better than a PM66, PM2000 (has riving knife) or Unisaw.

They are priced much less.

[Matt Moore]

So, you're saying without the SS cartridge technology, his saw is worth $3000 ?
And with the "$60 cartridge and not much more for the electronics", why is the price over $4000 :confused:

No way is that saw built any better than a PM66, PM2000 (has riving knife) or Unisaw.

They are priced much less.

Gary
If you read reviews, real testimonies and those that have seen/compared the saw.... The SS IS built better than the PMs & Unisaw. We could argue by what $ amount it is better but it appears that it is worth it to alot of people.

[Alister Orme]

My new Saw stop gets delivered this morning:):):):):):).

I started work at 16...know three guys who have messed up their hands...

This was a no brainer....it's a great saw. Fullstop.

[Wilbur Pan]

People seem to be focused on the component costs of the SawStop and it's final price.

Dining room tables made of solid mahogany can easily sell for $2500, being made with about $400 worth of 4/4 lumber and finishing materials.

[Glen Blanchard]

People seem to be focused on the component costs of the SawStop and it's final price.


Either you are willing to pay a premium for the safety technology of this saw, or you are not. I likely would have never had a serious table saw accident using my Jet cabinet saw - a saw I loved, btw. However, had the worst happened, I forever would have been wondering how things might have been had I bought a SS. Does that make the price tag of the SS reasonable to me? You bet, no question.

[Keith Outten]

Debate the issues if you will but the reality is many woodworkers cannot afford the best or even the safest machines. Price is often an absolute deal breaker, it was when I purchased my last table saw. I don't mean just hobby woodworkers, this applies to small commercial shops as well. In the real world most everyone has a budget they must live with.

We would all love to be able to buy the best, the biggest, the safest machines available but it isn't possible for a large majority of woodworkers. Everyone knows that large cars and trucks are safer to drive than small cars. In spite of that a large percentage of people purchase small cars because it is all they can afford even though they would prefer their family be in the safest car possible.

I don't own a SawStop table saw and probably never will, even though I honestly believe they are probably the safest saw on the market today. Because I can't afford to purchase the best or the safest I have to be more careful. This debate is as much about an individuals financial capability as it is safety.

Please be understanding, the woodworkers who will read this thread will most assuredly have budgets that fall somewhere between the earth and the stars.

The best table saw, band saw or screwdriver for any woodworker is the best the individual can afford to purchase that meets their needs . Even if an individuals budget is unlimited there are other factors to consider that may be relative to that individuals situation. The bottom line is there is no such tool that anyone could possibly prove to be the best machine for everyone.

.

[Glen Blanchard]

The depth of one's pockets plays a big role in one's purchasing decisions. What is interesting Keith, is that I don't recall having seen put into words what you have just stated. I don't frequently see the argument, "It does not currently fit in my budget, but I wish it did. If it ever does I am likely to buy it" - which I think is what you are saying. Instead, I most often see something like, "There is no way I am paying that much for a table saw". These are two very different perspectives.

[Keith Outten]

"The best table saw, band saw or screwdriver for any woodworker is the best the individual can afford to purchase that meets their needs".

I guess my opinion was a bit vague but I did address your point Glen. The phrase "meets their needs" is the key. In other words the phrase "I wouldn't pay $2000.00 for a table saw" may be based on an individuals needs and that is clearly a reasonable point of view. I have through the years updated almost every machine in my shop because my needs changed. Knowing full well my table saw isn't the best or safest machine in its class I purchased a CNC router that cost more than double the price of a SS table saw. My needs dictated the purchase of the new router and those needs took precedence over a table saw upgrade because of my work requirements. Every machine in my shop has its own safety level, I understand this to be true and I act accordingly when using each machine. If I had an unlimited budget every machine in my workshop would be the safest and best quality on the market in spite of my needs. Since I must consider the cost of every machine I do a best value assessment when selecting equipment. Safety is always a single function of the equation but not the only factor.

Here it comes....I would not pay $2,000.00 for a table saw because my needs don't require that level of performance and my lower price saw has the necessary safety performance to meet my needs. Part of any safety evaluation involves the operators knowledge and expertise. I submit to all that I have the very best table saw on the market that best fits my needs. Should one of my daughters express an interest in becoming a woodworker I would be ordering a SS table saw right away...because my needs would be changing.

I submit that almost every debate involving one tool being better than the other is a waste of time because there are too many variables to consider over and above technical specifications. Discussing the features of any tool is well worth the time when an individual is in the process of evaluating a machine he/she might purchase or just wants to know more about. The legal impact of any new technology is just a fact of life we must all live with in almost every case and although worthy of debate there is little reason to get overheated.

For the record these are just my opinions...I am not an expert...and I could be dead wrong.

.

[Glen Blanchard]

I submit to all that I have the very best table saw on the market that best fits my needs.

.
And there is nobody (in their right mind, anyway) who should challenge your assertion, as you are the only one who can make the determination.

But you could have at least made some sort of controversial statement that would allow us to continue the thread. Wait, I am getting images of a dead horse. Never mind. :-)

[Joe Jensen]

No way is that saw built any better than a PM66, PM2000 (has riving knife) or Unisaw.

They are priced much less.

I love this quote. Have you seen one? Have you seen inside one? Can you saw that about every other saw in the world?

Would I have upgraded from my PM66 to SS without the safety feature, no. Is it better built than the PM66 and nicer to use, yes. But then, I've actually seen and played with one...joe

[Brad Olson]

So, you're saying without the SS cartridge technology, his saw is worth $3000 ?
And with the "$60 cartridge and not much more for the electronics", why is the price over $4000 :confused:

No way is that saw built any better than a PM66, PM2000 (has riving knife) or Unisaw.

They are priced much less.

Its on par with the PM2000, possibly a bit better. The SS is definately bigger and beefier and has some nicer features than the PM2000. Also realize SS is a startup company so there is no way than can build their saw at the same price WMH tool group can.

Also I think they keep upping the price because the market will bear it. Many of us forget that SS doesn't mind if the hobby market buys their saw, but their primary target is industry and cabinet shops where saw accidents are expensive. If you look at their website you see that a lot of their product expansion if focused on industrial type saws. The industrial market also is less price sensetive than is the hobby market and more likely to buy multiple units.

I also envision the $300 sawsop version as being terminal. Ie if you trigger the mechanism, you buy a new saw. I think this would be not only cost effective, but a good compromise. Yea it sucks if you kill your saw, but at least you have your fingers. Airbags are the same way, you trigger it (even accidentally, which does happen quite often) you are out $500-1000 to put in a new bag.

[Lee DeRaud]

I also envision the $300 sawsop version as being terminal. Ie if you trigger the mechanism, you buy a new saw. I think this would be not only cost effective, but a good compromise. Yea it sucks if you kill your saw, but at least you have your fingers. Airbags are the same way, you trigger it (even accidentally, which does happen quite often) you are out $500-1000 to put in a new bag.Totally bad analogy. How would you like it if, when the airbag went off (even accidently), you had to buy a new car?!?

[Bob Swenson]

You guys are beating a dead horse. We own a black beauty and love it; it is every thing in a cabinet saw that I ever wanted. We were early buyers and never regretted the sight unseen purchase. I am thinking of buying one to just do dadoes with.

I feel the same way
About the saw as I did about my old Rolls. There are a couple of reasons why you might not buy this jewel, you don’t need it, you don’t have the money, you have the money but are too cheap to spend it, or you are so skilled that you think you won’t cut your fingers off. Good luck, give this thread up and go cut wood.
Ten finger Bob

[Matt Moore]

You guys are beating a dead horse. We own a black beauty and love it; it is every thing in a cabinet saw that I ever wanted. We were early buyers and never regretted the sight unseen purchase. I am thinking of buying one to just do dadoes with.

I feel the same way
About the saw as I did about my old Rolls. There are a couple of reasons why you might not buy this jewel, you don’t need it, you don’t have the money, you have the money but are too cheap to spend it, or you are so skilled that you think you won’t cut your fingers off. Good luck, give this thread up and go cut wood.
Ten finger Bob

I can't give it up. I get addicted to threads like this. It is fun to have a debate and see what kind of stuff everyone comes up with.

This has been one of the more civilized threads about SS that I can recall.

I want to keep my 10 fingers too.

Famous last words "It will never happen to me"

[Brad Olson]

Totally bad analogy. How would you like it if, when the airbag went off (even accidently), you had to buy a new car?!?

Why? If they can make a $300 tablesaw beefy enough to take multiple hits, then go for it, but I don't see that it will be practical to make a $200-300 aluminum topped tablesaw take multiple stop hits.

Plus have you ever repaired a broken or mis-fired airbag? My mom's passenger airbag tripped due to a malfunction and it cost $1500 to repair, much more than a $300 table saw. Obviously in the bigger saws, they would be designed for multiple hits.

I'd guess you'd have to replace the motor and arbor assembly at the very least. I know for a fact my old Ryobi wouldn't sustain a sawstop type hit without killing the arbor assembly. But would it be worth buying a new $300 tablesaw if it saved a finger? By the time it filters down it would be more reliable (are false hits even an issue) and don't forget you can ALWAYS test the whether a wood will trip the wood in test mode WITHOUT the blade running.

To me yes this is worth it. I've known guys who lost fingers and they would trade a cheap tablesaw anyday to have that finger back.

If we say that the most accidents happen on these "novice" saws, then it follow that this is the best place to be putting this technology.

Is it marketable? I don't know, nor do I care, but if the technology is there why not use it? If the market won't take it, then so be it.

[Lee DeRaud]

Why? If they can make a $300 tablesaw beefy enough to take multiple hits, then go for it, but I don't see that it will be practical to make a $200-300 aluminum topped tablesaw take multiple stop hits.

Plus have you ever repaired a broken or mis-fired airbag? My mom's passenger airbag tripped due to a malfunction and it cost $1500 to repair, much more than a $300 table saw. Obviously in the bigger saws, they would be designed for multiple hits.You compared "trip the blade sensor, replace the saw" to "trip the airbag, replace the airbag". Yes, the airbag is more expensive than the class of saws you're talking about...but it's dirt cheap compared to most of the cars it's installed in.

I see your point, but a bad (and illogical) analogy does absolutely nothing to support it.

[Joe Jensen]

In several of these threads people have posting things like"SS will never work for kickback". I've posted links to SS videos on "Wood Magazine's" website simulating kickback and drag back injuries with convenient links asking those posters for their opinions of the "Wood Magazine". I'd really like to get their feedback...joe

[Nick Roper]

This thread won't make it to midnight.

Meterorologist or Pollster in your other life Rob?:D

[Heather Deans]

Hi Guys- I am in the process of purchasing a Saw Stop for the university I work in- the safety feature is just too valuable when working with the range of students I'm dealing with on a daily basis. I did wait to make a final decision until I had seen the saw, and lets just say I was very happy with the quality of the saw itself, in addition to the multiple safety features- there's more than just the blade retraction feature! What I'm really writing about though is accidental triggers. My shop builds theatre scenery primarily, and it is commen for us to reuse lumber. We try to get all the screws and construction staples out of these pieces, but things do sneak through. I'm on the verge of having a conversation with my co-workers about whether we should have two table saws in the shop (I'd rather not) and use the saw stop for "clean" cuts- which seems very silly to me- especially since we never intentionally hit metal.... Have those of you with the saws had trouble with metal at all? Any accidental triggers? I've never really seen this issue addressed any where else I've checked yet!
Thanks-Heather

[John Bush]

Hi Heather,
If I ever have any concern for an unwanted trigger due to metal contact or moisture levels of the wood I switch to bypass mode. It is simple to do and the "brain" of the saw resets to auto each time you turn off the saw.
I have milled a lot of recycled barn beams and use a metal detector to look for any surprises. It is sensitive enough to find staples, and even has reacted to rust residue left by an extracted nail. I think that would be a better(safer) way to manage less than ideal lumber than using an extra saw. Good luck, JCB.

[Art Mulder]

In several of these threads people have posting things like"SS will never work for kickback". I've posted links to SS videos on "Wood Magazine's" website simulating kickback and drag back injuries with convenient links asking those posters for their opinions of the "Wood Magazine". I'd really like to get their feedback...

Me too, Joe. I've posted that link in an earlier discussion also.

I really, really, like that video where the guy whacks the blade with the hot dog.

My oldest son is 9. So far, I've let him use the scroll saw, and we've done a bit of drilling and sanding. Some day I'm going to face having to let him use the tablesaw. :eek:

[Bob Swenson]

Heather;
John is right; we mill and make moldings with a Wood Master, scan all questionable wood with a “WIZARD III” metal detector, cut one true edge with the Festool saw and a guide rail, then do the fine work on the SS. Works great!
Buy two Sawstops, no waiting.
Bob