Shopsmith Forums

JPG40504 wrote:There is little difference between a monopoly(GASS) getting the government to mandate a product and an oligopoly(PTI) doing the same thing(IMHO).

My point exactly. Yet if that's true, PTI is no better than Gass and yet everyone calls Gass names and nobody seems to have gotten worked up by PTI.

JPG40504 wrote:Comparing the costs of riving knife to saw stop is like comparing apple seeds to apple trees. Not on the same scale!

I don't think any of us can honestly say we know (and we may never know) what the incremental cost of blade stopping technology using SawStop's technology would be if it were adopted industry-wide and the economies of scale involved in high-volume manufacture/production were brought to bear on the problem as opposed to one relatively new and small company (SawStop) making/buying the necessary hardware in far smaller numbers. In fact, nobody here really knows how much the hardware costs SawStop now and whether the cost of the hardware contributes significantly to the prices SawStop currently charges for its saws. While it may seem reasonable to assume it is more expensive to incorporate SawStop technology rather than a new riving knife design, none of us really knows that to be true or if it is true, how much more it would be. I suspect, however, that hardware in the case of both riving knives and blade breaking technology is not terribly significant compared to the one-time major expense of redesigning and retooling to manufacture a saw that incorporates either a riving knife or blade-breaking technology.

JPG40504 wrote:In the sawstop case, the existence of a single patented design adhering to the 'requested' mandate alters the balance. I do not believe the riving knife requested 'mandate' involved a single design, but was a more general requirement that was met by each individual manufacturer's unique design.

Why should it make a difference to the end user? I mean in either case somebody is using the government to force somebody else to buy and pay for a technology they may not want and which the manufacturer would otherwise have to offer up in the free market with the hope the technology would be well received and rapidly adopted by consumers. PTI successfully avoiding taking the financial risk on incorporating riving knives by getting riving knives required in a "voluntary" standard that directly impacts all of us users for whom the standard is most definitely involuntary. Gass has already taken the financial risk on his technology and now is trying to guarantee a return on his investment. It is not a substantive difference in my view but a timing issue. One (PTI) got a guaranteed return on its investment before putting its technology out in the market. The other (Gass) made his investment first and went to market with his product and now is seeking a guaranteed return. Why is one worse or better than the other?

As to the specificity of the standards involved, I again fail to see why it should make a difference to me or you. We all know Gass has proposed a standard that PTI currently says only Gass's patented technology can meet (I think Gass has said it would be difficult to comply without using his technology). I do not necessarily trust either PTI or Gass to be telling the truth on that question, since they both have financial incentives and motives in making those comments (PTI is trying to get CPSC not to adopt the standard and Gass is trying to convince PTI that they better just pay him a royalty rather than trying to invent a new way to skin the cat). Assuming it is true, however, why should your or I care whether a technology being forced on us is making money for every manufacturer equally (as is the case with riving knives) or whether a portion of the money we involuntarily pay for a technology forced upon us indirectly provides a special benefit (through royalty payments) to an inventor like Gass (at least until the patent runs out)?

In the final analysis, doesn't the end user, you and me, lose the same amount of theoretical freedom whether CPSC mandates a patented breaking technology that the PTI manufacturers then have to license from Gass or whether PTI comes up with a riving knife standard that PTI jams down our throats through CPSC and for which we pay (whether we want a riving knife or not)?

By the way, I don't really have a problem with what PTI did or Gass is trying to do; I'm just trying to figure out why people think there is a qualitative difference between what Gass is trying to do on blade breaks and what PTI already did on riving knives and why some people react so negatively to Gass's techniques while hardly giving a second thought to PTI's. To my way of thinking PTI and Gass are both doing the same thing to the end user --although PTI's technique seems more subtle because they call it voluntary when, to the end user, it is anything but.

Thanks for the thoughtful comments JPG, Dusty and others.


--Al

chucks wrote:What's so funny? That is something that has already happened, that we today do not have a say in... The Saw stop question is different. It should be debated on it's merits..not by arguing about other topics.

If it is true that none of us end user had a say on riving knives when PTI proposed and CPSC adopted the voluntary standard, then isn't that worse? At least if CPSC goes forward with mandatory rule making, we all get the right to comment on the rule and there is at least a theoretical chance our voices will contribute to the result pro or con.

dusty wrote:This discussion is no different than many we engage in here on the forum. There is much we (the forum as a whole) do not know about what is going on in the manufacturing arena.

The riving knife is an example. Riving knives are much more prevalent now than they were a couple years ago. The rules have changed somewhere. I say this because I believe Shopsmith was driven to produce the new riving knife. I do not believe that they just thought it would be a nice thing for all of us to have. If the profit margin was greater you might convince me they did it for that reason. The profit margin a a couple bucks per item. Not enough to cover engineering and documentation costs to say nothing of start up manufacturing costs.

Back to SawStop. Does anyone know if the buzz at CPSC involves only new equipment manufactured after some (yet to be defined) manufacturing date OR are they proposing a mandatory retrofit or prohibition of existing equipment AND are they talking only about table saws in commercial shops?

CPSC phased in the "voluntary" riving knife standard and it applied only to newly sold tools after a certain date. I bet you are right that is why Shopsmith now offers one.

I understand that all of CPSC's safety mandates only apply to newly manufactured items, so any blade break technology would only be required on newly made saws. CPSC does have the power to require unsafe products previously sold to be removed from the market through recalls, but that power has seldom been used and nothing in any of the CPSC filings or materials has ever hinted that CPSC is considering a recall on previously sold saws. Also, the safety standard appears to apply to all saws that can be characterized as consumer products, i.e. that consumers can buy -- it doesn't matter whether you use the saw for pleasure or business. In both cases, if you buy a saw you are a consumer. Probably OSHA would be the only agency that could impose special rules for equipment used in commercial work places as opposed to generally for all saws.

This one I was able to read without my blood pressure increasing.

But this got my blood boiling again. I may be wrong but reading between the lines I draw the conclusion that if you own a SawStop you can use only certain saw blades. What is referenced here is the actual petition by SawStop to the CPSC. It is not boring reading.

Near the bottom of the first page of the petition I read this:

The detection and reaction systems may be designed to function with only certain saw blades as specified in an operation manual or in markings on the saw.

Now I must go to Woodcraft to browse and ask questions. The local Woodcraft sells SawStop and they seem to be quite proud of it. They have one setup just inside the door. You can not miss seeing it as you walk in.

Dusty, thanks for the link. The author does a great job of expressing my thoughts, and did so before me, so I cannot take credit. Oh well. Anyway, when thousands of units become available unforeseen consequences are inevitable. Again, I relate to the drug industry, think Thalidomide.
Just wondering. If I trim a piece of picture frame with gold leaf, will it ruin my SawStop? How about other semi-conductive coatings?
Few still argue about the safety of mandated seat-belts, but every once in a while someone becomes trapped.
I guess I'm just still a fan of personal responsibility.
Gary

dusty wrote:This one I was able to read without my blood pressure increasing.

But this got my blood boiling again. I may be wrong but reading between the lines I draw the conclusion that if you own a SawStop you can use only certain saw blades. What is referenced here is the actual petition by SawStop to the CPSC. It is not boring reading.

Near the bottom of the first page of the petition I read this:

The detection and reaction systems may be designed to function with only certain saw blades as specified in an operation manual or in markings on the saw.

Now I must go to Woodcraft to browse and ask questions. The local Woodcraft sells SawStop and they seem to be quite proud of it. They have one setup just inside the door. You can not miss seeing it as you walk in.

Because there has to be a relatively small gap between the blade and the brake, I think that's right. In other words, I don't think you could put a six inch saw blade on a SawStop designed for a 10 inch blade because the gap would be too big between the brake and the blade. And I think in the case of SawStop, they also need a different width break cartridge than the normal brake cartridge.

So I guess if you buy a SawStop you toss your dado set and molding head?

.

I believe you are right that SawStop doesn't accomodate molding heads. It does accomodate all 8 inch dados. Smaller dados it won't accomodate

One test done that was included in the application that Dusty provided the link clearly states that the design is 10" blades only. However this dis apply to the prototype being tested at that time. Other size(smaller) and molder were specifically mentioned as being non-compatible.

However an operator may 'volutionally' chose to disable the protection to allow wet wood and these other incompatible operations. That italicized word is from Gass's application. Gotta be a subtle legal difference from voluntary.

Also non-compatible are blades with plastic arbor adapters.

He not be greedy, he only wants 8% of wholesale cost for licensing! The total added cost is a 25% increase.

Thanks Dusty! I gained a much better understanding of the 'system(s)'.

I wonder if they have any injury figures that correlate any possible difference between the number of injuries received by those who learned to use a tablesaw in school and those who had no training???
Such a shame so much is being taken from today's students that could enhance their quality of life...
One of my common quotes is "Education not legislation" regarding many matters.


.