Thread: Table saw which one, laguna, sawstop and hammar

You wouldnt be forced to buy "their" tech, but legislation could be passed to force saws to have certain safety features like saw stop but not necersarily sawstop. Just like seat belts, brakes, headlights etc in cars. All of those are forced safety.

Originally Posted by ian

it might, but unless your shed's floor is perfectly level, moving a saw like a Hammer results in subtle changes in stress in the saw's base which in turn can throw the slider off enough to require recalibration of the right angle fence

Details? I have a hammer with the mobility kit which has not yet been installed. I am interested to know more.

3% or 8% is better than 0% they now get for every saw sold by a NEW competitor.

Everyone, and I mean everyone, I know either has a sawstop or will be getting one. Their sales figures must be going gangbusters. What men's club, shed, school and or workplace will get anything BUT a sawstop?

The bureaucratic decision here is that there is NO alternative. None. Some dumb kid looses a finger, lawyers argue "whose decision was it to not use a sawstop?"... Career over, super gone, school sued. Business, same. Shed, same. Educational facility, same. There is absolutely no defence to the argument. It's game over with any injury on a traditional Tablesaw.

I can can see the salespeoples pitch to governments, schools, businesses and sheds right now. Part of the presentation kit is a few lawyers business cards for the injured people to ring! ....

Salesman: "Sorry? Did we loose the tender? Be sure to let Mr Fingerless know your name and ensure they get that business card I included in the quote. Good luck with your impending job hunting prospects!!"

The negligence is absolutely unavoidable. Either as a buyer you didn't buy one... which is negligent, or you didn't know about them, in which you are negligent. Too expensive you will argue?? The rest were cheaper!! Well, Mr Lawyer will make that price difference look like pocket change when you write that Lotto Winning cheque to cover their life altering injury.

The BizDevs and dickhead lawyers for Ryobi are probably now working elsewhere and disavowing any knowledge of that licensing negotiation on their CV. What a galactic balls-up.

With Festool now onto it, Tablesaw manufacturers must be having a collective terminal coronary.

Originally Posted by Pearo

Details? I have a hammer with the mobility kit which has not yet been installed. I am interested to know more.

my full size combination machine(Robland NX410 Pro) has a mobility kit, and I have moved it from time to time. the right angle fence is no longer true and need re-calibration.

basically everytime you move a slider saw, the slider will need to be trued. they are not designed to be moved around, Manufacturer gave you the mobility kit to help you to move it, but there is cost to it - you need to true your slider.

Fortunately to calibrate the fence is not too difficult on my Robland. not sure how Hammer is constructed but shouldnt differ too much, a slider is a slider.

Originally Posted by ian

it might, but unless your shed's floor is perfectly level, moving a saw like a Hammer results in subtle changes in stress in the saw's base which in turn can throw the slider off enough to require recalibration of the right angle fence

99% of floors aren't level, I've fitted kitchens with a up to 50mm fall's in concrete slabs over 3 meters on new builds.

Id like to think that the Hammers are built to withstand that, id be more concerned with the cheaper models being moved.

Thats why i didn't agree with ruling out the K3 as an option, due to it not being suited to moving.

Anyhow, Its really not hard to quickly level up a saw after moving it, and if you mark out the spot, once set up, any saw can be placed back in the same spot, if you want to save 5 mins.


At the end of the day, three different machines, and the Hammer has a completely different price aspect.

Originally Posted by Kuffy

You wouldnt be forced to buy "their" tech, but legislation could be passed to force saws to have certain safety features like saw stop but not necersarily sawstop. Just like seat belts, brakes, headlights etc in cars. All of those are forced safety.

Yeah, I wouldn't be too happy in this case either tbh. I'm happy with mandated safety when you could hurt someone else if you don't have it. But I'm getting tired of the nanny state we appear to be turning into and I feel that if I don't want to pay more for a particular safety feature that could, maybe one day affect me, I should have a choice in whether I buy it (and by extension so should manufacturers have the choice in making saws with/without it).

I for one would prefer the cost that manufacturers would need to incur in implementing this safety feature be spent on better dust collection design. Should that be mandated by legislation? My point is, let the market decide, we don't need legislation.

+10000000 likes

Originally Posted by Kuffy

You wouldnt be forced to buy "their" tech, but legislation could be passed to force saws to have certain safety features like saw stop but not necersarily sawstop. Just like seat belts, brakes, headlights etc in cars. All of those are forced safety.

At least Volvo had the decency to make their 3 point seatbelt available to all manufacturers free of charge. They didn't try and force legislation changes that would have strong armed their tech into the market. I've got no problem with people buying Sawstops but they're not for me, simple as that. I'm a weekend warrior, a new 3hp table saw will be the biggest purchase for the shop I ever make and I can't justify spending twice the price just for safety purposes. If you can then more power to you.

Originally Posted by woodPixel

3% or 8% is better than 0% they now get for every saw sold by a NEW competitor.
.

I think you miss-understand me. I'm saying 8%, even 3%, is way too much to expect a manufaturer to pay. Waaaay too much. No wonder saw stop couldnt find any manufacturers crazy enough to sign up.

Originally Posted by DomAU

Also, I have nothing against sawstop, but I would if I were forced to buy a saw with their tech and be forced to pay probably 20-30% extra for it. I hate when things like this are forced onto people. Let everyone decide for themselves if they value the feature and how much, if anything, they are willing to pay for it.

I'm sorry, but at the end of the day "your" decision to not value the feature ends up costing "me" through the "magic" of taxation.

From the US Consumer Product Safety Commission (full reference https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/Pro...017%202017.pdf ) my emphasis

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission has determined preliminarily that there may be an unreasonable risk of blade-contact injuries associated with table saws. In 2015,there were an estimated 33,400 table saw, emergency department-treated injuries. Of these,CPSC staff estimates that 30,800 (92 percent) are likely related to the victim making contact with the saw blade. CPSC staff’s review of the existing data indicates that currently available safety devices, such as the modular blade guard and riving knife, do not adequately address the unreasonable risk of blade-contact injuries on table saws. To address this risk, the Commission proposes a rule that is based, in part, on work conducted by Underwriters Laboratories Inc. The proposed rule would establish a performance standard that requires table saws, when powered on, to limit the depth of cut to 3.5 millimeters when a test probe, acting as surrogate for a human body/finger, contacts the spinning blade at a radial approach rate of 1 meter per second (m/s).The proposed rule would address an estimated 54,800 medically treated blade-contact injuries annually. The Commission estimates that the proposed rule’s aggregate net benefits on an annual basis could range from about $625 million to about $2,300 million.

Please take up with the CPSC the apparent discrepancy in the numbers between the beginning and end of this extract from the linked document.


Converting the CPSC's upper range annual estimate of $2.3 billion USD in net "savings" to an equivalent number for Australia -- i.e. adjusting for the difference in population size and the USD to AUD exchange rate -- you get around $250 million AUD in "savings". These savings would principally manifest as reductions in health care costs, including improved productivity.


If we assume that Australia contains 100,000 workers and weekend warriors who own / use a table saw, then, using the CPSC's upper bound estimate, on average each of these wood workers is "costing" the community $2,500 annually.

Phrased as "on average table saws used by hobby woodworkers costs the community $2,500 per year in additional health care costs" it's not too big a jump to see that governments might want to intervene to "save" the community that sort of expense by mandating the inclusion of a technology costing an additional "less than $200 per saw". (The Health Minister's photo op speech would base the additional costs on the cost of the replacement brake cartridge.)

Originally Posted by bueller

At least Volvo had the decency to make their 3 point seatbelt available to all manufacturers free of charge. They didn't try and force legislation changes that would have strong armed their tech into the market. I've got no problem with people buying Sawstops but they're not for me, simple as that. I'm a weekend warrior, a new 3hp table saw will be the biggest purchase for the shop I ever make and I can't justify spending twice the price just for safety purposes. If you can then more power to you.

I think you have hit on why so many people, myself included, get so quickly inflammed when talking about Sawstop. It's the whole "trying to force it on you" thing that immediately gets my back up. I'm stubborn at the best of times so when someone says "you must do this for you own good" I immediately take the opposing view. Ain't nobody gonna tell me what to do when it comes to my own safety, especially when they are only doing it to make a financial gain for themselves.

Also, the legal value of a finger is between $6000 and $36000 (approx). Based on about a 1/5000 chance of losing a finger on a table saw, which is a fair assumption based on available data when adjusted for a trained, aware and carefull operator, it puts the monetary value of the sawstop function somewhere between $1.2 and $8- . Ok. For $8- I'm happy to sign up. Actually I'm feeling generous so make it an even $20.

Originally Posted by ian

it might, but unless your shed's floor is perfectly level, moving a saw like a Hammer results in subtle changes in stress in the saw's base which in turn can throw the slider off enough to require recalibration of the right angle fence

I bought my Minimax CU300 used from interstate. Got it off the pallet, onto its mobility kit, wheeled it into place and put the slider table and crosscut fence on. Checked for square, to my surprise it was. Didn't believe it so I did a cut test which confirmed it was square. Since then I've moved it a couple of times in my workshop and checked it for square each time but I've never felt I needed to recalibrate the crosscut fence.

Originally Posted by bryn23

99% of floors aren't level,

Id like to think that the Hammers are built to withstand that, id be more concerned with the cheaper models being moved.

Thats why i didn't agree with ruling out the K3 as an option, due to it not being suited to moving.

Anyhow, Its really not hard to quickly level up a saw after moving it, and if you mark out the spot, once set up, any saw can be placed back in the same spot, if you want to save 5 mins.

Albert's post covered the detail

Originally Posted by Albert

my full size combination machine(Robland NX410 Pro) has a mobility kit, and I have moved it from time to time. the right angle fence is no longer true and need re-calibration.

basically every time you move a slider saw, the slider will need to be trued. they are not designed to be moved around, Manufacturer gave you the mobility kit to help you to move it, but there is cost to it - you need to true your slider.

not sure how Hammer is constructed but shouldn't differ too much, a slider is a slider.

for the OP, if they go for a Hammer, it will come down to how much re-leveling / re-calibrating they are prepared to undertake

Originally Posted by DomAU

I've seen, first-hand, automotive manufacturers not implement parts during vehicle development that would improve performance noticeably due to less than $1 per car cost.

Would they be the same manufacturers that are no longer manufacturing?