A nice feature to have for the BT4K ;?)

[venkatbo]

Like in:
http://www.taunton.com/finewoodworking/pages/w00188.asp

Have seen demos of it on tv... here's a clip:
http://www.sawstop.com/media/Table%20Saw%20(real).rm
http://www.sawstop.com/products-cabinet-saw.htm

/venkat

[leehljp]

That has been discussed here in the past. It is a great idea, but there seems to be some behind the scenes politics behind its use. Kind of expensive to add on and replacement trigger/stop and new blade make it prohibitive for most people.

It is cheaper than a hand but some people can barely afford $300.00 for a saw itself.

[final_t]

Any company that is trying to legislate to get a law passed that makes their product manditory is an out-and-out scam artist. If the product doesn't work in the marketplace no matter how good it is, then perhaps it's the wrong product?

Also, this thing is like airbags. It doesn't make the user safer, it actaully makes them MORE careless. Why? Because the user will slip into the same mental mode that drivers now have with regards to paying attention - they feel they don't need to be a careful because the device will save them.

[430752]

here we go again!

Agreed on the cost issue, that is if you can't afford it anyway. I mean, I'd gladly pay $150+ for a new blade and cartridge in order to save some skin. But, if you can't afford the price of admission, then you can't buy the peanuts and cracker jacks.

as far as the legislative thing, I don't like legislation of anything. Too much of it. But since we've already legislated a whole bunch of stuff, I don't see why this is evil. Me thinks that congress was about to legislate airbags until the auto cos. volunteered it. Or the v-chip on tvs, or etc. The saw stop guy is responding to an industry that said no way, don't want it. If they did so in the face of a better option, maybe a bit of a swift kick in the pants would help?

Now as far as airbags making us less safe, c'mon! Do you think anyone is going down the road, saying "well, I better not make that pass on the inside of that big truck doing 80, but what the heck, I've got an airbag!"

people are fraidy-cats anyway, airbags give a peace of mind, not an incentive to reckless behavior. same thing with the saw. Are you gonna jam your hand in there thinking "what the heck, I'm protected!", or are going do the same stuff cuz in the back of yer mind yer thinking "what if it doesn't work?"

curt j.

[Tequila]

The SawStop comes up as a topic every now and then. I think most of the members here (myself included) have had a chance to voice their opinions.

http://www.bt3central.com/showthread.php?t=16970
http://www.bt3central.com/showthread.php?t=13034
http://www.bt3central.com/showthread.php?t=12932
http://www.bt3central.com/showthread.php?t=10094
http://www.bt3central.com/showthread.php?t=4532
http://www.bt3central.com/showthread.php?t=4549

[r1968]

Not just upfront costs

Each cartridge cost about $60 and the dado version costs more. You willl probably add about $500 to the cost of the saw up front. If at all, saw manufacturers will probably go to rivving knife before they introduce something like this.
--raj

[scorrpio]

I mentioned this in other threads: While I am no engineer, I have some knowledge of mechanics and physics and I firlmly believe that SawStop could be engineered to be a lot less damaging to the blade and to not require a fairly pricy cartridge replacement. In other words, it has been engineered for maximum maintenance expense = more money to the maker of cartriges.
I suspect that many saw manufaturers think along same lines and would not adopt a design like that. And now that system is patented, others cannot produce variations upon it without inventor's permission. If inventor's legislation fails, maybe he'll back down and rework the design to be more economical.

Comparison to airbag is a bit off. On the road, a reckless move by any other driver can cause me to crash. In the shop, operator's safety is almost 100% dependent on the operator - there are no reckless idiots to push my hand into the blade, as long as I am not being that reckless idiot myself. Also, it has to be a fairly severe crash for airbags to deploy. If the bag pops, the car itself will be an undrivable mess. It really makes no sense to reengineer air bags in such a way that you can just stuff it back in, and keep driving. With a saw, you want to go put a bandaid on your scratched finger, reset the brake system, raise the (undamaged) blade back, and keep working.

Besides, SawStop is not a 100% guarantee from injury. If a piece of clothing contacts the blade, it won't help. If you accidentally touch blade body on the side, the rapidly dropping blade will still likely result in injury. And it gives zero protection vs. kickback.
It is great technology, but engineered for greed, rather than for efficiency. The proof is in inventor's actions. When saw manufacturers would not adopt the design, he did not try to improve upon the design - he instead started lobbying for legislation to make the device mandatory as is.

[dwolsten]

And now that system is patented, others cannot produce variations upon it without inventor's permission.

That's not true. People make improvements on other patented inventions all the time, and file new patents, referencing the old patents. You don't need permission; that's the whole idea of the patent system: to get inventions publicly disclosed so that they aren't kept secret and lost. Of course, whether this system really works as designed these days is another argument.

The only problem with improvements on other patents is that you still can't make and sell anything with your improvements without licensing the first patent (until it expires). But at least you can block the original patent holder, and require him to pay a license fee to you if he decides to use your improvement.

However, I don't think this invention totally precludes the invention of an alternative saw-stopping mechanism. The patent doesn't (or at least shouldn't) patent all possible ways to detect a finger and stop a saw blade, only the specific methods and apparatus used by the inventor. So if someone else can come up with a better way, which doesn't infringe on any of the original claims, they can do so.