Thread: SAWSTOP - The Argument

Hmmm. Lignum would rather stalk you in any thread you open, than respond to the topic with some real arguments and evidence.

Typical.

Brendan,


I've stayed out of the debate on SS sofar, not because the mechanism works or not or whether it's a sales gimmick but simply because it has no relevance to me.

I'm only a simple woodworker who mainly is involved in maintaining, repairing and improving my house and garden and building the necessary furniture as required. I'm not a professional woodworker just a weekend warrior. I don't earn a living from woodworking, in fact I'm retired.

For many years I used a Triton workcentre, being the earlier MK3, bought way back in 1993/4, and I after tweaking it, I was happy and did the major alterations including building all the kitchen, pantry and laundry cupboards.

Then I upgraded to the TSC10HB and, again with a bit of tweaking, I can use the Triton sliding extension table to make it do everything I would ever need it to do.

This upgrade costing $ 1495 including blade and dado set was expensive enough for me and the most I could justify for a TS.

I also think that the SS is too expensive for most members here and as such we no doubt are not your sales target. No doubt your SS is great but too expensive for most of us so the argument of its relative merits is not a concern to me.

Nevertheless good luck with the SS.


Peter.

God gave us ten fingers just in case we lose a few....

And I can tell you he is not happy for you to be meddling about with nature

I saw the very impressive demo at the newcastle wood show and for anyone doing production work on as table saw I reckon that the sawstop is a must-have. I must see at least half a dozen blokes every year who are missing fingers or half a hand. In fact one came up to me at newcastle and showed me ten stitches in his left hand where he had tried to put his circular saw through a handheld bit of wood (and his hand). This technology should continue and develop. It would be great to see every bit of machinery in the workshop made safer by this sort of system and the more it is used and developed the more the price will come down.

My thoughts on this technology are:

History. The owners/developers of Sawstop need a serious a$$ kicking for the manner they tried to get legislation through the US government to enforce the use of their product. Regardless of what they claimed their intent to be, people's perceptions of their actions were that they just looked grubby and sneaky. In business, perceptions speak louder than facts. Their actions probably set back the uptake of a good idea by decades. That said, should this affect the value the technology can offer to the industry? I don't think so.

Does it work? Yes, and it works very well. Clearly people have fingers they would have lost, and the cost is in the hundreds (replacing cartridges) instead of the thousands (medical etc), without ongoing problems (learning to use two or three fingers etc).

Who is it for? The price at present is simply out of range for most home woodworkers. It is within range of businesses and training institutions that have a duty of care, and these are most likely going to be the first 'targets' for the marketing of the product in Oz. IMHO it is also here that they SHOULD be first targeted. Trainees and full time workers are at greatest risk and exposure, so common sense says hit the market first where the greatest hours of use are (provided that also meets with the statistics for the greatest accidents).

Once (if) the machines become more accepted, hopefully the price can come down or they can be licensed to other machines; or China will release their versions. Some of us buy a Volvo or Mercedes because it has safety features we like, others say the heck with that - too expensive - I'll just drive carefully until they are available for everyone. Just like ABS, airbags etc. Similarly, woodworkers and small businesses might say "I know my tools and am the only one using them, therefore I am happy not to go to a greater expense than I think is necessary for my needs".

Insurance companies in the US drop premiums when companies introduce this type of thing, what are the Australian insurance companies going to do? Out of all the questions being asked, this is the one I would like answered, because if they do not make any benefit available for adopters of the technology then companies are going to think twice before going to the extra expense of the Sawstop.

I can see a place for SS. Just because it is expensive and the risk is rare doesn't mean the device should be ignored or banned.

I do think that the inventor has shown himself to be seriously poor in commercial decision-making - his early efforts were almost as if he wanted to fail: to attempt to get legislation requiring the use of a patented device is just asking for trouble because it will get opposition from everyone who will be forced to buy it. Similarly, asking for high licence fees is a guaranteed p.o..

I think that it is a pity that it isn't a $100-$500 add-on that we can all install or that can be supplied and installed readily, but that's not the point either, because that isn't what's being offered. It's also a pity that the inventor didn't think in terms of the razor blade analogy - his best bet would have been to offer low licence fees for manufacturers to install the feature and then get his payout in things like new cartridges. In fact, I think this should be seen as an example of a person who has a great invention who has beaten the world away from him (rather than having the world beat a pathway to his door).

We've used the car analogy a number of times before in discussing SawStop because the only way that the feature can be acquired is by buying a TS with a serious price tag. The fact is that it is being aimed at a premium market, it's a bit like a 3 series BMW or an Audi 4; it really isn't much more than a top of the range Toyota or Mazda, but a premium is being charged for supposed quality and engineering improvements. It works for those car marques - I am not sure that there is a market for a premium 10" cabinet saw. But I will go and kick its tyres when I am upgrading from the Triton, if only to see what the difference between it and the competition is (assuming that it is still around at the time) so I can see what I am missing out on for my money.

My point is that there is no need to rubbish the device, whatever you may think about the commercial nous of the people behind it. I suspect that in 16 years (or whenever the patent expires) and the device can be supplied by anyone without paying licence fees, we will find it being pushed by at least one and probably several mainstrem suppliers.

I've been running a table saw for many years. Many. I use a cabinet saw daily. I have no fear of running the saw, but, I respect it. My mind is on my work when I'm cutting. When the day comes that I feel the saw can NOT hurt me, I will quit using it.

I wasn't going to say anything about this side of the SS story as I thought I was the only who thought that way but...

I've got to admit that the developer sealed it for me when I heard about him trying to force Americans to buy his device though legislation. Not that I probably would have bought a SS product but if there were a chance it's completely dead now. The arrogance of even attempting such a stunt - it's scummy business practices.

Everything in life is a risk balancing act.
We take out insurance to reduce the financial risk to us of disaster.

The question here is one of risk. Is the risk to me of not using the device worth more or less than the cost.

Each person will evaluate this within their own guidelines and arrive at their own decision. No decision is right or wrong, just different based on their evaluation of the risk factors.

From my point of view it is not worth the cost as I only rarely use a table saw and the cost would prohibit any use.

When I'm running woodworking courses, by far the most nervous time for me is after the long safety lecture, and when the students actually start using the tablesaw for themselves. I spend the next couple of hours in a cold sweat pacing and watching intensely until they are up to the router table steps. At that point I am still diligent (router tables can still bite obviously), but I don't have the same premonitions of flying digits and limbs. I would give a lot to have SawStop protection on those machines. I am certainly not saying that I'd change any aspect of my work practices, relying on the SS mechanism instead of common sense and diligence. I don't change how I drive a car based on the presence or absence of airbags either.

It is a shame that the majority of us won't ever be in the financial position to be able to justify the price. I couldn't justify the extra price of a car with curtain airbags or the predictive braking thing some now have either, even though I have no doubt the added safety factor they bring to motoring.

Actually there is really no argument.

If you let other people use your tablesaw then you are obliged to have the safest machine available. Sawstop would be that one and if you dont use it, and someone loses fingers, you are up the creek because you

a) are aware that there is a danger
b) you chose not to remove that danger from the workplace

you have failed in your duty of care.

If you only use the saw yourself and have no concerns that you will cut yourself then dont get one.

Simple really.

From what I've seen the saw itself is a reasonable enough item; however its pricepoint is way above what I'm willing to pay for a hobby interest, and when I look at the number of potentially finger removing tools that I have, I would be paying $2.5k extra to reduce the risk of injury with a tool that I would use for maybe one hour in every 20 hours of mucking around in the shed.

Looking at injury statistics, I'd be better off investing my safety money in stuff to help me move heavy things (muscle stress is 42% of claims), avoiding being hit by things (18%) and not falling or tripping over (15%).

That's 75% of all manufacturing workplace injuries right there, so my priorities should be a ladder safety device, some grippy but comfortable to walk on rubber matting and better shelving in the shed, and a keyless chuck for the drill press to stop me getting walloped by the chuck key when I forget to remove it.

From another site (pdf file in the link), tool wise, the danger list seems to be grinders (5%), knives (4%), and welding equipment (4%) other power tools (4%), hand tools (3%) and fixed plant/machinery (2%) - so as fixed plant, it's not high up there on the risk list.

If it was for business use, and especially if it was a main tool and had a high rate of operator turnover/inexperienced operators then it could be pretty much a no-brainer choice; one chopped finger could easily loose $2.5k of business time. But I get the feeling that it's the wrong size tool for all but the smallest businesses, so I'm not sure of the market size.

In short, I think it's a brilliant device, if it was money no object I'd have one, but as it is, I'll have to wait till the chinese knock-offs arrive.

Originally Posted by dazzler

If you let other people use your tablesaw then you are obliged to have the safest machine available. Sawstop would be that one and if you dont use it, and someone loses fingers, you are up the creek because you

Sorry but that is nonsense. For start, the safest saw available would not be a sawstop, and sawstop is not a foolproof safe saw. A safer saw would be automated milling machine where the operator sits in an airconditioned booth and timber goes in one end and fully milled timber comes out the other. The not insignificant risk of handling the timber in - out then becomes the biggest risk.

Unless a device use is mandatory (like a seatbelt) all you are obliged to do is take every reasonable precaution - the key word is reasonable. If the machine you have purchased is unmodified from the manufactures spec, regularly inspected and serviced, and you provide reasonable instruction to the user in the safe use of the machine then your liability is substantially reduced. Note I said reduced. The same applies to saw stop. If it kicked back on an un-instructed user you would be in the same doo-doo as any other saw on which you allowed an uninstructed user to operate.

In schools, Tafes and workplaces the sawstop probably saves its cost in the savings in paperwork and bureaucracy when someone cuts themselves. This is probably how it is priced.

The easiest way around this is not to let anyone use your tools.

BobL

Apples with apples. If you are a business and you are going to use a CABINET SAW then you must use the safest one for your operator. We are talking reasonableness. It would be reasonable to expect the business to have the safest cabinet saw available. It would be unreasonable to expect the business to completely change thier operations to a completely different system.

This is how it would go in court;

SOLICITOR: "Mr L, tell the court why my client was using a cabinet saw that did not have a mechanism for stopping the blade when my client accidentally touched the spinning blade and is now missing his fingers."

Over to you BobL