SawStop technology mandatory?

[Russianwolf]

I see it ... or don't see it, rather ... the other way around. The brake is what's needed to stop the blade virtually instantaneously, in order to prevent injury; I read somewhere that the elasped time from when the sensor is triggered until the blade is stationary equates to something like 1/10" of rotation measured at the teeth tips. That is FAST. The device's "destructive" brake design is the only way to stop the blade that quickly and still be relatively cheap; i.e., there might be other systems that could theoretically do it, but they would cost far more money, making it even less likely that this device would ever be made mandatory on all table saws. The inventor chose the system he uses as a least-of-all-evils compromise: he knew that nothing is cheaper than brute force.

I don't, however, fully understand the need for the blade to retract below the table's top surface. Since the blade stops that quickly, why couldn't it remain exposed? (It'd be no different than if the saw was sitting there with the power switched off.)

but if the blade instantly retracts under the table as soon as it senses the "finger" what need is the brake? As the blade lowers (even if not quite as fast as the braking action, both happen faster than I can see in the video) it would automatically pull away from the "finger" as the exposed blade section gets smaller. And once under the table, the blade is pretty much harmless even spinning. So again, why the need for the destructive brake? No matter what you are going to have a cut. I think either the brake or the drop would limit it to just a minor cut and not a serverance.

The only reason I can see for the brake in addition to the drop is $$$$.

[25]

If that thing gets put on all saws, those hand saws are going to get really heavy.

[scorrpio]

Cost matters little. I wouldn't want the thing for free. Maybe if I also got a lifetime supply of cartriges and replacement blades... nah, not even then. Time spent replacing cartridge and the blade after a false positive is too valuable.

A safety feature that protects someone other than me from me is important.

A safety feature that protects me from someone other than me is EXTREMELY important. (btw, seatbelts and airbags rate in here)

A safety feature that protects exclusively me from me is of very little importance - and is downright an annoyance when it is as invasive and costly as SawStop. In a car, I would equate it to a feature that catapulted me and all passengers our of the car if it detected my car coming in contact with anything else.

If it is made mandatory, I'll be real glad to buy cheap one of the Powermatics many commersial shops will be ditching to replace with a SawStop.

[maxparot]

It seems to me that in the last decade or so government has forgotten that it's true role is to protect the individual from the masses and not to protect the individual from themselves.

[Jeffrey Schronce]

Everyone keeps citing false positive stops. Anyone or anything backing this up?

[LarryG]

but if the blade instantly retracts under the table as soon as it senses the "finger" what need is the brake?

Mike, I literally do not know. Perhaps I should clarify that when I wrote that I didn't understand the reason for the blade dropping below the table, I wasn't accusing it of being unneccesary complication. I was only saying that I don't fully understand the reason it retracts.

I do, however, assume and accept that there is some good reason. I will give the inventor the benefit of the doubt that there are good, sound technical, operational, economic, or manufacturing reasons for the way this safety device is designed and constructed. I would guess, as stated before, that it all gets back to cost, one way or the other.

Many people have suggested, perhaps even in this thread (I haven't reread it fully for a couple days, so I forget), that the inventor's hidden agenda is to sell replacement cartridges after the device triggers. Maybe I'm just being naive, but I don't think so ... if you think it through, you will quickly realize that that would be counterproductive. The same applies to claims that the device is more complicated or expensive than it needs to be. The inventor's goal is to make this device mandatory on all table saws. The best way to achieve that is to come up with the simplest, most trouble-free, and -- above all -- cheapest possible design. The more needlessly complex the device is, the more trouble it causes (false positives, or failure to work when needed), and the more it costs (whether initially or when replaced), the steeper the hill this guy will have to climb.

I therefore think that he's made it as simple and as foolproof and as cheap as current technology allows. The problem is, it's still not cheap enough; and it still addresses only ONE segment of table saw safety. It might be different if it made table saws ENTIRELY safe, but it doesn't. There's still kickback, and although I don't tremble in fear every time I turn on my BT, I still worry more about kickback than I do the slim possibility of my sticking my finger into the moving blade.

[BobSch]

It seems to me that in the last decade or so government has forgotten that it's true role is to protect the individual from the masses and not to protect the individual from themselves.

It almost seems that members of "the government" (bless their black and flabby little souls) are only interested in supporting whomever gives them the most campaign $$ or can bring the most $$ into their state. Or, if they're a bureaucrat, offers the best chance to enlarge their fiefdom.

But then, I've been a surly curmudgen for years...

[scorrpio]

Actually, I believe that blade dropping was essentially a side effect. Blade momentum has to go someplace, so when it brakes, momentum transfers to the trunnion. Rather than strip the blade elevation gear, it simply has it disengage.

Yes, the design IS very simple, uses rather few parts, and will be CHEAP TO MAKE. Thing is, if he found ways to make it work without destroying the blade, OR need to replace essentially entire mechanism upon firing, it would get a lot more acceptance.

[bigsteel15]

Maybe this is a bad idea, but if something is to be done to mandate safety on a TS, then why not have a brake mechanism the same as some circular saws, only better maybe and also a foot pedal so that you don't have to use you hand to shut off the machine. Maybe it would be a balance issue for some people.
My neighbor swears that the brake on his PC CS saved his fingers from being totally gone.

[drumpriest]

Larry, not to be argumentative, but the channels involved in making something mandatory are those of the government. The simple and inexpensive have little to do with it. It's mostly about the exchange of money, and where they can get money and gain control. The best design doesn't always win, and in fact often doesn't.

If you are correct, and the reasoning is altruistic, then it is a similar argument as the Brady bill, which goes towards stripping the constitution of its power. One person is afraid of something (even if that fear is justified), therefore the entire country will have to deal with the repercussions of one person's fear.

There are many ways to make table saws safer, perhaps the easiest is to not use table saws. Perhaps we should have a mandatory saftey license to be obtained at expense from the big G to ensure that those using table saws know what they are doing....

I agree that the device makes a lot of sense when it comes to commercial applications, but in the everyday shop, it'll have to get better to be a serious consideration among woodworkers. And again, woodworkers are currently buying saws every day sans riving knives, which is an easier saftey mechanism to have on a saw.

[KBCraig]

Bless your hearts. I should have known that woodworkers, and especially BT3Kers, being an independent lot, would not want such a thing thrust upon them by government edict. Especially not through the unaccountable bureaucratic "rulemaking" process at the behest of someone with great financial incentive, instead of the legislative process!

This subject was actually why I rejoined BT3central after an absence of some months. I was curious to see if it had been mentioned. I'm glad to see the good folks here, as well as those at rec.woodworking, are keeping up the fight for the independent spirit!

Kevin

[LarryG]

Larry, not to be argumentative, but the channels involved in making something mandatory are those of the government. The simple and inexpensive have little to do with it.

I didn't express my thoughts clearly. I think making the design simple and cheap was done with the hope the mfrs would adopt the device voluntarily, by reducing the two main objections they would automatically have (additional complexity, additional cost). IIRC it was not until Gass was rounded snubbed by the industry that he began his campaign to legislate his way to riches. And as others have noted, THAT is what stinks about this whole business.

[LCHIEN]

Well there are a lot of issues and we don't know the whole story.
First of all, if the device were royalty-free and it cost nothing to implement and did not disrupt manufacturing to implement we would all have one. But for some economic or practical reasons we don't. We don't really know what it takes to implement and we for sure don't know the terms that Gass was pitching to the industry - it may have been $1000 royalty per saw for all we know.

either because of the implementation costs or the royalty costs or both or perhaps because of other licensing issues (perhaps Gass wanted the words SAW STOP in 6" high letters on the front of every saw) or maybe because Gass was an a-hole about the whole thing manufacturers did not bite. Maybe because he was competing with them (I don't know which came first). And in the end they hope to make money selling to you. In the scheme of things a finger has a value (I think my death and dismemberment policy spells it out quite clearly) and the saw stop times the cost + the royalty divided by the potential number of instances did not measure up.

All we really know is that Gass having failed to convince the saw manufacturers went after legislators to introduce legislation that would grant him the businessman's dream- an mandated saftey item with exclusive patent protection - and or putting out of business a number of saw manufacturers and denying the hobby to those that can't afford his terms.

[Imadunatic]

However, does anyone know how to shut this "feature" off? I would think it would have to have a required shutoff, due to lumber mills and green wood, freshly treated cca (or whatever it's called now), jobsite saws (think of rainy places), etc.

It has a manual overide for the exact example that you laid out, Workbench's article on it showed it, IIRC, it used a key, similar to a cash register overide.

[Stytooner]

Well there are a lot of issues and we don't know the whole story.
First of all, if the device were royalty-free and it cost nothing to implement and did not disrupt manufacturing to implement we would all have one. But for some economic or practical reasons we don't. We don't really know what it takes to implement and we for sure don't know the terms that Gass was pitching to the industry - it may have been $1000 royalty per saw for all we know.

He was asking 8% firm on royalties. This is high unless he was not only going to let them use the technology, but also give them the cartridges. I'm sure that wasn't the case though. 8% firm per unit just to use his design is too high.