Here we go, CPSC wants safer table saws

[pelligrini]

Just out of curiosity, does anyone know why SawStop is so expensive?

The blade stopping tech does add to the cost, but it is one nice saw even without it. The saw itself is very well built, with good materials and craftsmanship. I believe that is the major cost of of a Sawstop.

I'd guess that there is a fair amount of markup for profitability in there too based on what I've observed from Gass.

[Cochese]

$200 is certainly reasonable for that technology, if it was a choice and not a mandate.

The problem is that it wouldn't be just $200. While SawStop replaces your brake free of charge if it was due to finger contact, you aren't going to be sitting and waiting weeks for that to happen. So at least one spare brake is in order. Plus replacement blades - $50-$120 per time, and those aren't replaced free.

Am I saying a finger or hand isn't important? Absolutely not. I'd be severely impacted by my career if I was missing a hand. Probably would have to find a new line of work.

I did a bit of reading, and from Gass's own comments he is open to similar products being implemented. We'll see how much the four patent attorneys at SawStop allow that to happen.

[dbhost]

The blade stopping tech does add to the cost, but it is one nice saw even without it. The saw itself is very well built, with good materials and craftsmanship. I believe that is the major cost of of a Sawstop.

I'd guess that there is a fair amount of markup for profitability in there too based on what I've observed from Gass.

I have had the pleasure of seeing the Grizzly G1023 up close and personal, as well as a G0691, a new Uni, and of course the Sawstop. I don't see the Sawstop 3HP Professional Cabinet Saw w/ 52" fence ($2,999.00) as being any better, or worse of a saw than the Grizzly G0691 ($1,395.00). Assuming say a $200.00 upcharge for the Sawstop technology on just such a saw, Why does the Sawstop sell for a penny over $1,600.00? You said it, a (more than) fair amount of markup for profitability. I am sure economies of scale has a LOT to do with it, but double the cost?

[Cochese]

I'm not even sure about economies of scale, either. SawStop claims to be the 'leading cabinet saw supplier in the country' two years ago.

[pelligrini]

I have had the pleasure of seeing the Grizzly G1023 up close and personal, as well as a G0691, a new Uni, and of course the Sawstop. I don't see the Sawstop 3HP Professional Cabinet Saw w/ 52" fence ($2,999.00) as being any better, or worse of a saw than the Grizzly G0691 ($1,395.00).

A new Uni with similar specs is right along the lines of the Sawstop. I've briefly played with a Sawstop, and a few other cabinet saws at my local Woodcraft, but not a Grizzly. I can't really compare them firsthand.

[radhak]

I have had the pleasure of seeing the Grizzly G1023 up close and personal, as well as a G0691, a new Uni, and of course the Sawstop. I don't see the Sawstop 3HP Professional Cabinet Saw w/ 52" fence ($2,999.00) as being any better, or worse of a saw than the Grizzly G0691 ($1,395.00). Assuming say a $200.00 upcharge for the Sawstop technology on just such a saw, Why does the Sawstop sell for a penny over $1,600.00? You said it, a (more than) fair amount of markup for profitability. I am sure economies of scale has a LOT to do with it, but double the cost?

Because they want to be compared with the Unisaw, rather than the Grizzly. Personally, I would be hard put to find any major issue with the G0691 that makes it half the price of a Unisaw, or anything so magical about the Unisaw that justifies a 100% jump over the Grizzly. But its all about placement and perception - and we all take it for granted that a Unisaw is an ultimate possession . After all, there are tools we buy, then there are Festools !

[LarryG]

Assuming say a $200.00 upcharge for the Sawstop technology on just such a saw, Why does the Sawstop sell for a penny over $1,600.00?

Well ... sure, but you could substitute $1400 and say the same thing for the SawStop-less Unisaw. Broadly speaking its specs are very similar to the Grizzly, too, so why does it cost more than twice as much?

In the relatively recent past, one of the woodworking mags compared a bunch of 10" cabinet saw and picked the SawStop as the overall winner, and not just because it was the only saw in the test with a blade braking mechanism. It was because the SawStop had the best overall combination of features and performance. And as I recall, it was actually a couple hundred bucks cheaper than the Unisaw.

I also remember it being only slightly more expensive than the then-current price of a Powermatic PM2000, the price of which has gone up considerably since I bought mine. I'm working from memory, which is always risky, but in round numbers I think I paid about $2000 for my PM2000; at the time of the magazine test that had risen to $2600; the SawStop was $2900. If I were shopping today and willing to spend $2600 on a PM2000, I'd certainly consider a SawStop for only $300 more. I mean, why wouldn't I? (One reason might be that I, like many, am no fan of Gass's tactics, but I'm talking about a comparison of the saws on their own merits.) If I could buy the best saw in the test AND get a safety device that at least so far seems remarkably effective, I'd be a fool not to spend the extra money.

[JimD]

The cost for the SawStop technology has multiple pieces. The inventor indicates the hardware will add about $150 to the price of the saw. He thinks that could come down to about $100 if they get into mass production. The part he does not readily say is that he also wants a 8% royalty. So on a $1000 saw, he wants $80 to use is patent. On a $2,000 saw he wants $160.

If he is right and ultimately the hardware comes down to $100, you might pay $200 for this. Right now, if he is right, it is probably more like $250 considering you need a fairly sturdy saw to handle an explosive charge going off inside it. I doubt a BT3100 could withstand the explosive charge used to stop the blade. It is probably still more than $200 if you factor in any markup on the costs, which is standard and necessary practice, or the added risk represented by the device.

A problem the manufacturers have is not only does the inventor want a hefty royalty but they and not he are responsible if the device doesn't work. The manufacturer pays the $200-300+ to put the device on the saw and if somebody is injured because the device doesn't work, they still have to deal with that, the inventor has no liability. Manufacturers sensibly have to add something to the markup for this device to cover this risk.

My frustration is I think the technology has merit, I would pay something extra to get it, but I don't like the attempt at forcing the technology on me, at a high price, through legal action. I suspect if the royalty was reasonable and the risk shared, manufacturers could justify offering it as an option or something. But as it stands, I can't really blame the manufacturers. I do not think the deal they were presented is reasonable and I don't think trying to force it on them through regulatory action or lawsuits is reputable.

I have used a table saw for more than 30 years now and never gotten and injury from it. But I have some scars on my left hand from a biscuit joiner so I know I am capable of stupid things.

I am not trying to attack the inventor, but I object to his methods and the effect I fear on my costs in pursuing my hobby of woodworking. I think he should reduce his royalty and/or accept some risk instead of trying to get his high price through regulatory and legal action.

Jim

[woodturner]

Assuming that, in large volumes, the SawStop technology added $1000 to the cost of every saw,

I haven't seen anything suggesting the cost of Sawstop is anywhere near that high - $50 to $100 is a number that is commonly thrown out.

As a practical matter, if mandated by the CPSC, there will also likely be mandated licensing - probably $0.50 to $1.00 per saw. If the patent owner doesn't agree to "reasonable" licensing fees, there is a way to "confiscate" the patent.

The technology does cost something, but (as an engineer with experience designing products for manufacture) I think the likely retail cost increase for the table saw is in the range of $20 - WHEN it is mass produced.

[Cubsfan]

I haven't seen anything suggesting the cost of Sawstop is anywhere near that high - $50 to $100 is a number that is commonly thrown out.

As a practical matter, if mandated by the CPSC, there will also likely be mandated licensing - probably $0.50 to $1.00 per saw. If the patent owner doesn't agree to "reasonable" licensing fees, there is a way to "confiscate" the patent.

The technology does cost something, but (as an engineer with experience designing products for manufacture) I think the likely retail cost increase for the table saw is in the range of $20 - WHEN it is mass produced.

Let's up that and say it's actually $100 (just for argument sake). If this came with every saw made, and added $100 to every saw made, would anyone really complain? Seems like the only real complaints stem from the thought that it will add $1000 to each and every saw. I mean, the riving knife which was recently mandated must have added something to the cost of a saw, but I've never seen anyone complain about that.

[LarryG]

I think the "it adds $1000 to the cost of a saw" anti-SawStop war cry dates back to when the average price of a top-flight cabinet saw was ~$2000 and the SawStop hit the market at ~$3000. People looked at the SawStop cabinet saw and asked, "Okay, so what's different? Why does it cost $1000 more than these other cabinet saws?" The only obvious difference was the blade-braking device. Strictly speaking that $1000 figure was probably not accurate then, and it's certainly not accurate now.

[JimD]

Contemplating a cost increase less than a few hundred dollars seems illogical to me. Really inexpensive saws, like the one in the Ryobi lawsuit, just can't reasonably take the stress of a near immediate blade stop. So you have to get rid of all the saws below some price/sturdiness point. My guess is that you are eliminating anything less sturdy than a good contractors saw. Then you have to add the cost of the device, mounting it and wiring it. They you have to add the royalty.

My prediction is that if this thing becomes mandatory there will be no new table saw sold for much less than $1000 and that could be optimistic. If the royalty becomes a much more sensible $1-5 per saw, then maybe the cost adder can come down to around $100 which seems supportable to me. But we need to remember that we have also eliminated the possibility of some lighter weight but still useful saws (like my BT3100).

Jim

[All Thumbs]

It's not flesh sensing it's more in the line of a pico-micro voltage sensor device that detects a rise in blade conductivity that when activated drives a soft metal crush block into the blade and instantly lowers the blade below the table top. So there are two devices at work. The sensor crush block device and the sensor blade lowering device. These more or less have to function at the same time and within a microsecond or less of the blade conductivity rise.

IMHO, a spring that retracts the saw's blade to below the table, while cutting the power to the motor, would work nearly as well. No need to stop the blade in a millionth of a second if the blade is no longer anywhere near the flesh.

One plus of my method over the SS method is you wouldn't destroy a blade every time you did the hot dog test.

[sailor55330]

My opinion doesn't really count for much, but I think the concept of mandating greater safety measures on certain power tools is good. On my current saw, with hearing protection on, I can see how someone could lose focus and have a bad accident. Newer saws are just that smooth and quiet. As others have said, I'm not sure that Gass's intention is to better the hobby, but that can't be controlled. If I could have afforded a SS, I wouldn't have slowed down. I've personally known 1 person who lost much of the nerve function of his right hand in a TS accident. Sadly, he was a QB at the collegiate level and it was his throwing hand.

If I could get SS type technology as a retrofit to my saw, I wouldn't slow down.

[Eagan]

Didn't the other saw manufacturers form a group to "side step" the SawStop patents? Maybe they will come up with technology which will provide 90% of the protection for 10% of the cost.

I remember reading that they did, and would have a new device on the market soon. This was several years ago.

I did see a web page offering suggestions about how to use your power tools safely. I think this was their approach.

Reality as explained from a GM patent attorney. Big business hates it when an individual invents and patents something. If it was another company, they could just swap patents. Otherwise they have to come up with cash.