Saw Stop Question

[Gary Keedwell]

There is a little debate going on in another forum. Maybe this belongs in Off Topic but here goes: One side of the coin says that the inventor of saw stop wanted too much money for royalties so manufacturers balked. The other side of the coin is that manufacturers didn't like the legal ramifications if they incorporated it into their machines. I don't want to state what side I think is right to be fair.
Anybody know for sure?

Gary

[James Phillips]

The guy developed a technology and tried to sell it. The manufacturers did not think they could sell them for the amount required to justify the purchase of the technology. Simple economic decision (which turned out to be mistaken). I am not sure on this, but this is what I was told.

[Randal Stevenson]

Going to have to agree with both. The article I read almost 2 years ago, stated that while there was some interest, they thought the fees were too high, and while arguing that point, one of a group of them (different manufacturers), brought up a legal question (how can it be that Joe Blow can invent this in his garage and we can't come up with it, are we liable for NOT comming up with it, etc).

[Greg Pavlov]

Going to have to agree with both. The article I read almost 2 years ago, stated that while there was some interest, they thought the fees were too high, and while arguing that point, one of a group of them (different manufacturers), brought up a legal question (how can it be that Joe Blow can invent this in his garage and we can't come up with it, are we liable for NOT comming up with it, etc).
I don't know what the arguments/discussions actually were, since I - like most people - wasn't present for them, but to me, many of the suppositions lose credence when viewed in light of the fact that riving knife technology has been available for a long time and most N.A. manufacturers and importers were ignoring them. I very much suspect that its sudden popularity among such manufacturers is the direct result of Sawstop's appearance on the market.

[John Karam]

I once heard a Saw Stop Rep say that they did their own machine because other manufactures were worried about being liable if someone got hurt while using their system with the saw stop technology (If it malfunctioned and cut a persons finger off).

Food for thought.

[Jason Beam]

I spoke to the man himself at AWFS in Las Vegas. He says that they wanted a certain percentage royalty and nobody wanted to pay that much. They also pointed out the required retooling costs because their castings would have had to be redone for most of their saws.

I spoke to a Steel City rep who was with Delta at the time and he said they came to them with a deal that outlined a royalty that Delta felt was too high and turned them down.

I got this information from people who were highly involved in the deal so I'm sticking with that story.

[Gary Keedwell]

Wow Jason..sounds real convincing. My lasting impression was the legal aspect but I should have been more suspicious, since money is usually the answer to many questions:rolleyes: Maybe it was both?

Gary

[Jason Beam]

Given that the inventor and top execs of Saw Stop are lawyers, I wouldn't be surprised if there was some legal fears on the other end of the table. Kinda like paying the mob for protection, huh?

[Bob Wingard]

The version I heard has it that representatives from all the major manufacturers banned together and rejected the technology in hopes they could cause it to go away .. .. it didn't .. ..

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Gary,

Early on there was a lot of discussion about Sawstop. What I heard is that they approached the major manufacturers. The major manufacturers would have had to retool their saw heads(for lack of a better term) to make the device work and Sawstop wanted a very high percentage for their patented device. When the manufacturers didn't buy into to it, Sawstop petitioned the Consumer Product Safety Commission to force all manufacturers to use their device or a similar device. It's been a couple of years now since I last saw anything about the results of that petition. If you do a search here on Sawstop and look you'll find some old threads where it got very heated discussions going. I didn't particularly care for their "forcing" the issue with the CPSC as in my opinion it would force the lower income w/w out of w/w by making the cost of a table saw beyond their financial means. It got several heated discussions several years ago.

[Scott Rollins]

I have a sawstop so I have a bias toward the saw($$$:eek: $$$). I spoke to one of the technical reps (Tony) who said that "a" protection system of similar design would be required on all saws sold in USA in a couple of years (I think he said 2015).

Any way here is a article that was published...

http://medgadget.com/archives/2006/08/the_saga_of_the.html

Excerpt:

The power tool industry, however, has a very different view of the subject. Representatives cite a plethora of technical problems with SawStop technology, including too many "false positives" or "nuisance trips," cost of replacement cartridges after the brake fires, and difficulties cutting conductive materials, such as moist wood. Moreover, they say, Gass is asking for an 8 percent royalty on each saw sold, a figure they describe as ridiculous.



Despite these challenges, the Consumer Product Safety Commision has sided with Gass...
Acting on a petition from Gass, engineers at the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission recommended that the government begin a "rulemaking process" that could result in mandatory safety standards for table saws. Days later, the agency's commissioners shocked the power tool industry by concurring with the recommendation.There's no doubt this is excellent technology. However, it would also be unfortunate that the price of every table saw increase by $50 because regulators have decided to play nanny. Gass's proposed royalties seem to be the biggest reason the industry has issues with his technology.

[Gary Keedwell]

Ken,

I remember the threads Ken. I started a search but got caught up with time constraints. I was hoping for a quick definitive answer but I can see that it is more complex then I thought.:(

Gary

[Mike Henderson]

Anyone can petition the CPSC for anything but that doesn't mean that the petition will cause any rule making.

During the previous discussions, some people objected to requiring safety features, such as the blade stop mechanism, for a variety of reasons, including the one Ken mentioned - that it'd add to the cost of the saw.

The problem with not requiring safety features is that the poor wind up disproportionally exposed to the risks because they can least afford the safety features and will purchase equipment without it. But the poor are also least able to pay for the treatment required for the injuries caused by the lack of safety equipment. So the rest of us pay for their treatment.

That’s the reason we have safety regulations in many different areas of life. As a society we want to protect people from injury, not just because we care about our fellow citizens, but to protect ourselves from the financial burden of the injuries caused by the lack of safety features.

Like all complex issues, the issue is one of degree - how much protection at how much cost. Not easy to answer but best decided by a free exchange of opinions by the citizens.

Mike

[Kevin Groenke]

Well stated Mike.

The best recounting of the story that I've seen is here:
http://www.designnews.com/article/CA6360672.html

[Gary Keedwell]

Well stated Mike.

The best recounting of the story that I've seen is here:
http://www.designnews.com/article/CA6360672.html
I could not find anything at that link. :)

[Scott Kilroy]

I don't know much about the sawstop story. However I know a lawyer who specializes corporate liability who shared this little bit of general information with me. Just about any company that sells a product in the USA has to be concerned about offering a safety feature that then fails, or offering a safety feature on only part of your product line. The example he gave was (from his firsthand experience) was of a zipper manufacturer coming out with "child safe" feature (if it broke none of the parts were a choking hazard) and that some clothing manufacturers started requiring this zipper in adult clothing since they had a history of knowing about choking hazards in all zippers they could have been accused of ignoring the deaths of adult zipper eaters (must be a bigger problem that I realized).

[Joe Dusel (Vista, CA)]

I'm sorry, but the type of fence on the SawStop looks dangerous to me. I wouldn't feel safe using a fence that didn't slide back and forth to accommodate doing cut-offs using a miter gauge. :cool: I think someone should sue them.

I actually think the technology is a great idea, and having the Euro style riving knife is a great idea. Forcing it on other manufacturers I'm not crazy about - and of course not having a Euro style fence is a big mistake. Plus, there is no slider... What good is a saw without a slider? :cool:

Joe

[Scott Felicetti]

Well stated Mike.

The best recounting of the story that I've seen is here:
http://www.designnews.com/article/CA6360672.html

Link is bad?

Patents expire lets say 21 years if I remember correctly on something like this. I don't know how many years have already ticked by. On it's own, Saw Stop isn't going to take a large market share away from the table saw manufacturers. In a few more years the patent will expire and every Asian made machine can include such technology (free of royalty). The only hope would have been to successfully lobby Congress to get such technology mandated. Saw Stop could have cleaned up if that happened. A few good Personal Injury lawsuits (yeah stop yelling) against the standard machine makers could have done it. If I represented an injured plaintiff injured while using a standard table saw, the Saw Stop and technology behind it would be one of the things my jury would hear before they went to deliberate. Maybe not tomorrow but eventually you will see this or similar technology on every table saw sold in the future.

[Cliff Rohrabacher]

You forgot to mention that manufacturers of consumer products will kill to save a nickel.

They tend to make things crappier rather than better. After all the consumer is not known for discernment.

[Eric Gustafson]

You forgot to mention that manufacturers of consumer products will kill to save a nickel.

They tend to make things crappier rather than better. After all the consumer is not known for discernment.

Most people I meet are suspicious of business in general. Most people are afterall, consumers. To be fair to a business, however, you have to look all factors. Business owners are always in competition with someone, unless they have a patent, copyright, or can otherwise monopolize their product. Lose that competition and you lose your busines.

If a saw manufacturer can improve their product without increasing its cost, then it would make sense to do so, but no improvement is without any cost. Every change to a production line adds cost at first. First for the engineering , then the tooling, and don't forget the mistakes. So a supplier must ask themselves if those costs can be recovered and whether they will gain an competitive edge. If they are wrong they will price themselves out of their market segment. This seems to be the situation with the Saw Stop. How many new saw owners buy some other saw right now because of price? The SawStop technology adds material cost, labor, tooling, and royalties. The current market for table saws has a lot of competition. A lot of improvments have been made over the years, and at a reduced price because of Chinese manufacturing. Certainly, there are quality problems, but over all, quality has improved and will likely improve more over time. We get a lot of bang for our buck.

Business entreprenures are accustomed to accept risk, but business managers are less so inclined. Hence, fault the tool manufactures for not seeing a good opportunity to set themselves apart, but realize this is not the only industry to resist change. Think of American automakers and airbags, fuel economy, etc.

[Dave Sinkus]

I don't know how the 8% royalty is calculated, but I was surprised it was that low. I was thinking it was $200 per cartridge (or whatever they call the brakeing mechanism).

Not to beat the dead horse, but the statement about "too many false positives" and the cost with replacing those cartridges......there was a thread not too long ago (maybe not on SMC) about a "false positive" that the guy couldn't figure out why it fired only to find out he nicked the very tip of his aluminum miter gauge fence. The same for wet wood, conductive material, or hot dogs -- if it conducts, it triggers the braking mechanism. They have an override capability.

I see where the China or Taiwan manufacturers would need to retool, but some of those saws are painted different colors and sold under different brand names. In the end, it is money. I think the most liability for anyone would be on SawStop's part. Can you imagine if it doesn't fire and some one can't post a story about a finger save? I would think that lawsuit would be astronomical for their foolproof system failing.

[James Ross]

A neighbor has a new Saw Stop and has had two "accidental" trips. Both times he was talking to someone while sawing and his cross cut fence touched the blade, tripping the safety feature.

Required two new Forrest Woodworker II blades and two replacement cartridges. He says he will not be talking while sawing in the future.

Alan

[Chuck Burns]

I had a SawStop delivered last Friday and I am most impressed with the saw. After using it all day Sat and Sunday I can say that the sheer quality of the machine justifies it's price irregardless of the safety features. The crating was outstanding as was the internal packaging and the owners manual is the best I have ever seen.

As to the royalty of 8%; I would have guessed it would have been higher. I had a question and spoke to Tony at SawStop. He said they are working on several products for future release; a jointer, CSMS and bandsaw. Apparently they feel that with additional volume they could moderate pricing somewhat.

As to whether people would pay for the technology SS has sold 9000 saws since it's introduction. Thats a fairly decent number but I have no idea how it compares to the sales of the PM2000, PM66, Unisaw or other cabinet saws. Tony at SS did tell me that they have had customers tell them that after replacing their other saws with SS that their yearly workers comp premium went down by more than the cost of the saws.

[Greg Pavlov]

............
As to whether people would pay for the technology SS has sold 9000 saws since it's introduction. Thats a fairly decent number but I have no idea how it compares to the sales of the PM2000, PM66, Unisaw or other cabinet saws. Tony at SS did tell me that they have had customers tell them that after replacing their other saws with SS that their yearly workers comp premium went down by more than the cost of the saws.
I don't know if any high schools are buying shop equipment these days, but if they do I suspect that it would be difficult for them to buy any table saw other than the Saw Stop.