SawStop Video
- Thread starter jonny round boy
- Start date
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2007
- Messages
- 636
hanshamm said:
I was going to stay out of this but you keep on bringing up about the mechanism not being fast enough. 5.5 mph works out be 8 feet per second. Are you planning on pushing 8 foot boards through the saw in less than 1 second??? Must be one sharp blade you have.
If you're concerned about tripping and falling into the blade, I have 2 answers. Don't keep the blade running while you're not cutting and use the blade guards, that is what they are designed for.
Do you really think the Saw Stop is not safe enough? Don't you think the competition and lawyers would love to show one story of the Saw Stop NOT saving a finger? I haven't seen one or heard of one yet.
I'm not concerned with the actually feeding your fingers into the blade like a piece of wood. From what I've learned of flesh-blade contact it is usually after a kick back incident. Kickback is 85% of the blade tip speed ie. 120mph. Even if your hand only ends up moving at a fraction of the speed its going to do some major damage, which sawstop does elude to. I still think its a good thing but we should employ more safety like adjustable fences/short fence like the sliding saws.
waynelang2001
Member
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2010
- Messages
- 506
fritter63 said:
I see no relivance in posting seatbelt statictics here. Even if people become less careful when using the sawstop they will still not loss a finger. Besides, I think the fact that this system is a " one time use " system would be enough for people to want to be even more careful when using it. I mean who wants to fork out to replace it every time it activates. I for one would not mind if all companies where to have this system installed.
waynelang2001
Member
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2010
- Messages
- 506
fritter63 said:
I know it was an analogy, if you read my comment you will understand why this analogy does not work when refering to the sawstop.
waynelang2001
Member
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2010
- Messages
- 506
hanshamm said:
I guess we all have our own ideas of how this system would change the way we work.
Qwas said:
Qwas, I'm with you on this. +10
Maybe all of us are getting a bit wrapped around the axle on this. I think we all agree that we need to be safe and that no tool can keep us safe if we want to do something stupid with it. I don't think Saw Stop is saying that it is safe enough for us to toss small children on the blade to show it works. It is just one more safety feature to all the already used safety features. Heck, you didn't see ear and eye protection worn by hobbyists 30 years a go... now you do. Even hunting.... now we use electronic ear protection when hunting. Will that along keep us totally safe...no...but it helps...
Maybe we should all take a step back and go on to another topic.
Cheers,
Steve
FESTOOL IS AWESOME!hanshamm said:
Patents these days are 20 years. It used to be 17 but because of efforts to have a uniform world wide approach to patents it was upped to 20.
I seem to recollect reading that the base patents for the Saw Stop were granted in 2000. So in about 10 years we will see the knock offs appear.
mastercabman
Member
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2007
- Messages
- 1,854
I like to know if there are been "serious" injuries reported from using the SS ?(in good working order)
Other than a small cut that may require a couple stiches.
Other than a small cut that may require a couple stiches.
fritter63 said:
Greater safety mechanisms MAY lead to more careless behavior in activities that are already inherently dangerous, like cave diving, but I doubt that translates well to daily tasks. As someone whose life was unquestionably saved due to the usage of a seatbelt I cannot ever recall taking a risk while driving informed by some notion of, "What the heck, I have a seatbelt on." And that includes all those years of being a young driver with the typical feeling of immortality.
I think, but cannot personally prove, that folks who take risks while performing any particular task are probably more likely to take risks in general, and that the converse is also true, caution here as well as caution there.
Being responsible for yourself also includes using those mechanisms society offers, such as insurance (or maybe even a SawStop), to insulate your fellow citizen from loss resulting from mistakes you might make, even when you think you never will.
Kev
Member
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2011
- Messages
- 7,698
hanshamm said:
Here's where my problem with this starts ...
If you mandate a patented product for safety - all you are doing is effectively creating a cash-flow for what is here, an incomplete safety gadget.
I don't agree with long patents for things that provide safety - governing bodies should buy the patents from the inventors for reasonably generous amounts and make them freely available to incorporate and improve. If anything is to be incorporated as a mandate in a design, it should be the minimum effective performance results before the equipment may be sold - not incorporating a component product with a patent simply generating revenue for the inventor.
Note: I'm not saying the inventor here IS just doing it for the money. But having a product mandated for safety looks awfully attractive! Plus I see this as lazy governing.
Anyway - setting minimum standards and progressively refining them creates a need for innovation. Add an expensive mandated component to a product that could normally be a few hundred dollars today kills the market dead.
Am I the only one that sees something like this as potentially being the death of the low end domestic table saw in the US? How would a mandate impact setups like modular benches with a power handsaw inverted?
Anyway guys - I'm an interested observer - hoping that this doesn't leak outside of the confines of the US if it does ever get mandated there!
Kev.
mastercabman said:
I don't know. But I can tell you what I witnessed first hand at a demo at the Woodcraft in Houston. They brought out the wiener. I made them dry it off thoroughly because we don't cut plywood with wet hands, usually. They let a Woodcraft rep do the test. He used 1/2 baltic birch ply on the Contractor saw. It was kind of funny, he was quite nervous about it. He pushed it through at a good clip. I've never cut 1/2 ply any faster. Who knows what the exact speed was but the pace reminded me of someone (not me of course) making too quick a cut. BAM! Almost as loud as my impact driver, which I never wear ear protection when using. But I digress. Several of us who were immediately around the saw checked the dog. We couldn't find ANY blemish. We hunted and hunted. We kidded them about using some kind of super reinforced wiener. I was astounded.
I was also astounded that Steve Gass, in that radio interview that was linked earlier in this thread, never once mentioned the excellent riving knife on his saw. Makes me wonder what the statistics on injuries will be once saws with riving knives saturate the workplace. Makes me wonder what would happen to table saw injury stats if dado blades were outlawed. Makes me wonder if that goof on the Ryobi would have been hurt if he'd been using one of the newer Ryobi saws that come with a knife. And finally it makes me wonder, based on how things have turned out, if he's glad the saw had no riving knife. I mean seeing how he's now the symbol of a great cause and all, plus, he'll never have to cut flooring again, with any kind of saw.
Kev said:
I very much like the idea of performance based standards. But there is occasionally going to be that game changing patent like the Saw Stop.
And if you get into a situation where we are mandating that inventors turn over their patents for some payment that is limited and not what they would get in a free market, what inventor or company is going to be attracted to the idea of working on safety systems? Such a policy will slow down the progress of technology in this area. Not to mention that this sort of law would likely be unconstitutional in the US anyway.
As far as cutting off the availability of cheap table saws, if that happens, well that wouldn't be the first thing that has been driven off the market because it was unsafe. Every society ultimately has the make up its mind if the benefits of certain things are worth their costs.
Kev
Member
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2011
- Messages
- 7,698
andvari said:
This is the bit that makes me shudder.
Assumption 1 - Greed is good, only tackle safety if there's a massive bucket of money in it for you ...
Assumption 2 - It's OK to force people to buy something - even if they absolutely don't want it (mandate), but it's "unconstitutional" to offer a reasonable payment to inventors rather than leaving them to patent and profit ... rather than structure for the potential of easy future innovation.
If both of these assumptions are true - I'm very glad to be living in Australia. [big grin]
I'll say this - believe me if you want to, if I came up with a concept that would improve safety or save lives - I'd give it freely, with no desire for personal benefits. If the effort to develop it cost me personally in terms of R&D, all I'd like in return is reasonable reimbursement.
(based on this thread and a few others posted recently, I'm beginning to think my value set is quite different to values held by many here)
Kev.
Kev,
Its one thing to give away an idea sketched on a napkin, but another to give away technology that takes years and/or large amounts of money to develop. I find it hard to believe someone would freely give away safety technology and expect nothing in return if it took years and/or millions of dollars to develop it. I sure wouldn't, and in my opinion, that's just unrealistic.
Fred
Its one thing to give away an idea sketched on a napkin, but another to give away technology that takes years and/or large amounts of money to develop. I find it hard to believe someone would freely give away safety technology and expect nothing in return if it took years and/or millions of dollars to develop it. I sure wouldn't, and in my opinion, that's just unrealistic.
Fred
EWTHeckman
Member
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2011
- Messages
- 294
Some people invent things because they want to change the world. Some invent simply because it's fun. Some invent to get rich. All of them have physical needs.
In all cases of inventing, work and resources needs to be put into the invention before any money can be made on that invention. Obviously some inventions require more resources than others. (Design time and tools, materials to build prototypes, physical needs such as food, clothing, shelter, etc.) The first three types of people will often produce more than one invention in their lifetime. But if you limit how much money they can earn from one invention, you wind up limiting the resources they have available to develop more inventions.
Another common scenario is someone who wants to get rich and has some resources, but doesn't have the skills to invent new things teaming up with someone who does have those skills. If you have the latter person without the inventor, then the inventor has to do different work to eat, meaning he can't invent things. The person who funds an inventor (and takes the monetary risk) is usually called a venture capitalist. (This is the basis for investing; which is money loaned to others with the expectation of receiving that money back plus interest. Retirement savings is the most common example of such investing.)
The idea of patents is to allow the inventor to enjoy the rewards for the work he put in to creating a new invention. Then after a period of time (20 years) that invention becomes available for anyone to use. The idea is to harness the motivations which are common to human nature (which does include greed) to benefit everyone. If you remove the profit motive from invention, you wind up significantly reducing the number of inventions generated because you reduce the risk/reward equation to just risk.
Please be careful about what you are calling "greed". Taking someone else's property—including intellectual property—because you want to get it cheaper/free/sooner than you otherwise could also strikes me as greedy.
Note: I'm aware that this is a touchy subject, and easy to be insulting. I worked hard to try to craft my points to be as inoffensive as possible. If I've failed, please forgive me.
In all cases of inventing, work and resources needs to be put into the invention before any money can be made on that invention. Obviously some inventions require more resources than others. (Design time and tools, materials to build prototypes, physical needs such as food, clothing, shelter, etc.) The first three types of people will often produce more than one invention in their lifetime. But if you limit how much money they can earn from one invention, you wind up limiting the resources they have available to develop more inventions.
Another common scenario is someone who wants to get rich and has some resources, but doesn't have the skills to invent new things teaming up with someone who does have those skills. If you have the latter person without the inventor, then the inventor has to do different work to eat, meaning he can't invent things. The person who funds an inventor (and takes the monetary risk) is usually called a venture capitalist. (This is the basis for investing; which is money loaned to others with the expectation of receiving that money back plus interest. Retirement savings is the most common example of such investing.)
The idea of patents is to allow the inventor to enjoy the rewards for the work he put in to creating a new invention. Then after a period of time (20 years) that invention becomes available for anyone to use. The idea is to harness the motivations which are common to human nature (which does include greed) to benefit everyone. If you remove the profit motive from invention, you wind up significantly reducing the number of inventions generated because you reduce the risk/reward equation to just risk.
Please be careful about what you are calling "greed". Taking someone else's property—including intellectual property—because you want to get it cheaper/free/sooner than you otherwise could also strikes me as greedy.
Note: I'm aware that this is a touchy subject, and easy to be insulting. I worked hard to try to craft my points to be as inoffensive as possible. If I've failed, please forgive me.
Similar threads
