Shopsmith Forums

One thing I did notice was that a very small percentage of 'incidents' were school/student related!!! Do not know if that indicates proper training, or the lack of opportunity of being trained.

JPG40504 wrote:...He not be greedy, he only wants 8% of wholesale cost for licensing! The total added cost is a 25% increase.

Total added cost is a 25% increase. This fact is not proven by his privately manufactured saws that sell at appoximately twice the cost of like equipped saws from other manufactures. In fact the Saw Stop contractor saw sells for the approx cost of a Delta Unisaw and the Saw Stop "cabnet saw" sells for about the twice the cost of a Powermatic cabinet saw. To me this is a 100% increase.

There is two problems with the 8% of wholesale costs.

1 the establishment and release of actual wholesale costs. These actual numbers are trade secrets to all manufactures and to devulge them is not something any are likely to do.

2. lost of profit for the manufacture of saw

Ed in Tampa wrote:Total added cost is a 25% increase. This fact is not proven by his privately manufactured saws that sell at appoximately twice the cost of like equipped saws from other manufactures. In fact the Saw Stop contractor saw sells for the approx cost of a Delta Unisaw and the Saw Stop "cabnet saw" sells for about the twice the cost of a Powermatic cabinet saw. To me this is a 100% increase.

I think that's speculation. SawStop is a small company compared to the other table saw makers. Suppose you wanted to go into the table saw business -- just high quality table saws with no blade braking technology. Don't you think that with your start up costs you would end up having to charge more for your saws, whether cabinet saws or contractor saws, than a company that had been in business for decades and which had a larger share of the market and sold more units and could therefore buy in bulk?

I think that is part of what makes SawStop saws more expensive than competing products from Delta and Powermatic. Yes, of course, the blade brake technology adds cost too. But presumably they'd cost more to begin with since you've got all the start up costs (design, manufacture in small quantities) of a small company.

That, by the way, is probably why the big boys thought they could prevent SawStop from ever coming to market at all -- the cost of getting into the market would make Gass think twice about doing it and his saws wouldn't be priced competitively (with or without braking technology) until (if ever) he got a similar size of the market.

algale wrote:I think that's speculation. SawStop is a small company compared to the other table saw makers. Suppose you wanted to go into the table saw business -- just high quality table saws with no blade braking technology. Don't you think that with your start up costs you would end up having to charge more for your saws, whether cabinet saws or contractor saws, than a company that had been in business for decades and which had a larger share of the market and sold more units and could therefore buy in bulk?

I think that is part of what makes SawStop saws more expensive than competing products from Delta and Powermatic. Yes, of course, the blade brake technology adds cost too. But presumably they'd cost more to begin with since you've got all the start up costs (design, manufacture in small quantities) of a small company.

That, by the way, is probably why the big boys thought they could prevent SawStop from ever coming to market at all -- the cost of getting into the market would make Gass think twice about doing it and his saws wouldn't be priced competitively (with or without braking technology) until (if ever) he got a similar size of the market.

I sorta like the way you are thinking but I believe you might be wrong. It is my understanding that Gass attempted to get into the "SawStop Brake" market and the big boys turned him down (mostly because of the fees that he was demanding). Gass, in an attempt to recoup his investment costs, built his own table saw. He holds a bundle of patents that now prevent the big boys from entering the market with this same technology.

His SawStop table saw looks as though it might be a real capable competitor with the likes of Unisaw. If he had come on the market with a price competitive approach, I think he might have taken over. He would have had an even better chance of doing that if it (SawStop) was Made in the USA which it is not.

The devil in me makes me hope he holds them until they all expire.

dusty wrote:I sorta like the way you are thinking but I believe you might be wrong. It is my understanding that Gass attempted to get into the "SawStop Brake" market and the big boys turned him down (mostly because of the fees that he was demanding). Gass, in an attempt to recoup his investment costs, built his own table saw. He holds a bundle of patents that now prevent the big boys from entering the market with this same technology.

His SawStop table saw looks as though it might be a real capable competitor with the likes of Unisaw. If he had come on the market with a price competitive approach, I think he might have taken over. He would have had an even better chance of doing that if it (SawStop) was Made in the USA which it is not.

The devil in me makes me hope he holds them until they all expire.

Well, I think we are both right. As you point out, the record is clear that Gass never wanted to be in the business of making table saws or brakes; he wanted to license his invention to the big boys for them to make and install on their saws; he'd just sit back and collect royalties.

They refused to take out a license. The reasons why they refused may never be fully known, but I suspect it was a combination of (1) thinking Gass's licensing fee was too high, (2) fears that if they only made some saws with Gass' technology, their other saws would be ripe for products liability suits, and (3) thinking that if they all said no together, Gass would never make it to market because of the high costs of starting from ground zero to make table saws plus the added costs of the brakes. They probably figured Gass would either come back to them on his hands and knees and negotiate a lincense on their terms or the technology would never see the light of day -- either of which probably would have been just fine with them.

What happened, of couse, is that Gass bit the proverbial bullet and came to market with some premium saws with his proprietary technology.

I agree that if he could price his saws at the same prices of his competitors and make them in the U.S. and offer brake technology, his market share would likely be larger than it currently is. But I suspect the start up nature of his business makes that very, very hard. He's got essentially one product line (table saws) that he recently built from scratch and he's trying to sell that in a market that is saturated with major tool makers who in some cases have been doing this for decades and who have many different product lines.

Even without his brake technology, how could he possibly hope to start from scratch and make a saw as good as a Powermatic or a Unisaw at the same price as those guys? My guess is he couldn't and went overseas in order to try to keep his manufacturing costs down so the price difference between his saws and theirs was at a level where he could get some of the market as long as he was also offering something unique -- like his blade brake.

Start up costs must indeed be considered. However there have been some new comers that entered the market recently and did it at very competive costs. Steel City, Ridgid, Orion (makers of the Sears saws), Shop Fox ( probably oldest of the new). I am aware Ridgid was Emerson that once made almost all of Sears saws. But they moved everything to overseas manufacturing and completely changed the saw so any and all old tooling had to be changed. I'm also aware that Shop Fox and Grizzly are nearly identical but the manufacture claims they are build in different countries with their own tooling.

I'm also aware that Sawstop worked for years (long after many of their self imposed deadlines) to bring what they did to market. I think they quickly realized that to incorporate their technology was no simple matter and had to upscale their plans many times until a finished product was produced.

Second there was little or nothing preventing Gass from taking an existing manufactures saw incorporating his technology and selling it as a improved Gass modified saw. There are many manufactures that reverse engineer and I don't see any of them being above doing just that.

I think the major manufactures turned Gass down for two reasons.
I don't think he could successfully prove his technology would not fail, a failure which would in fact make certain a suit that would prevail.

Costs you need two cartridges for the Gass saw one for regular sawing and one for Dado's plus replacements should either discharge.
You need to modify the saw to contain the cartridge and probably reengineer the arbor and all it's adjustment mechanism.
You need all aspects of the saw is properly grounded and that any potential of even the most miminal stray current is eliminated including static.

Ed in Tampa wrote:Start up costs must indeed be considered. However there have been some new comers that entered the market recently and did it at very competive costs. Steel City, Ridgid, Orion (makers of the Sears saws), Shop Fox ( probably oldest of the new). I am aware Ridgid was Emerson that once made almost all of Sears saws. But they moved everything to overseas manufacturing and completely changed the saw so any and all old tooling had to be changed. I'm also aware that Shop Fox and Grizzly are nearly identical but the manufacture claims they are build in different countries with their own tooling.

I'm also aware that Sawstop worked for years (long after many of their self imposed deadlines) to bring what they did to market. I think they quickly realized that to incorporate their technology was no simple matter and had to upscale their plans many times until a finished product was produced.

Second there was little or nothing preventing Gass from taking an existing manufactures saw incorporating his technology and selling it as a improved Gass modified saw. There are many manufactures that reverse engineer and I don't see any of them being above doing just that.

I think the major manufactures turned Gass down for two reasons.
I don't think he could successfully prove his technology would not fail, a failure which would in fact make certain a suit that would prevail.

Costs you need two cartridges for the Gass saw one for regular sawing and one for Dado's plus replacements should either discharge.
You need to modify the saw to contain the cartridge and probably reengineer the arbor and all it's adjustment mechanism.
You need all aspects of the saw is properly grounded and that any potential of even the most miminal stray current is eliminated including static.

Fair points, but from what I understand the makers you identified, Steel City, Rigid, Orion, ShopFox, aren't really in the same league with Powermatic or Unisaw (the saws SawStops are most frequently compared to interms of quality, fit, finish) or SawStop? Those saws are less expensive than Powermatic and Unisaw (and SawStop) for a reason. I suppose Gass could have targeted medium and lower end saws as his market and if I were making the decision, perhaps that's what I would have done. I don't think there's any inherently insoluble engineering problem with building his technology into saws that are comparable to the offerings of the companies you identified. Instead it appears Gass wanted to build high end saws -- some would say the best on the market -- to which he added his safety equipment. I can't blame the guy any more than one can blame Mercedes for refusing to offer cheaply made cars to compete in the low end car market.

algale wrote:Fair points, but from what I understand the makers you identified, Steel City, Rigid, Orion, ShopFox, aren't really in the same league with Powermatic or Unisaw (the saws SawStops are most frequently compared to interms of quality, fit, finish) or SawStop? Those saws are less expensive than Powermatic and Unisaw (and SawStop) for a reason. I suppose Gass could have targeted medium and lower end saws as his market and if I were making the decision, perhaps that's what I would have done. I don't think there's any inherently insoluble engineering problem with building his technology into saws that are comparable to the offerings of the companies you identified. Instead it appears Gass wanted to build high end saws -- some would say the best on the market -- to which he added his safety equipment. I can't blame the guy any more than one can blame Mercedes for refusing to offer cheaply made cars to compete in the low end car market.

Except that he has solicited the Government to create MANDATES that if adopted would to totally and solely in his financial favor.

dusty wrote:Except that he has solicited the Government to create MANDATES that if adopted would to totally and solely in his financial favor.

Not "totally and solely in his financial favor." Even under Gass's proposed licensing arrangement, only a portion would end up in Gass' pocket as a licensing fee. Meanwhile, the rest would be kept by the manufacturers. But as I tried to explain in my earlier posts, I see little difference to the end user (me and you) between what Gass has tried to do and what PTI did do in getting the so-called "voluntary" riving knife standards that they drafted put in place. In both cases consumers will end up involuntary having to pay for something that some may not want or need. In both cases, industry will end up getting a guaranteed return on investment on safety equipment. Once our choices as consumers are eliminated and we have to pay for something, why should it matter to us whether what we pay stays 100% with the collective group of manufacturers of table saws in proportion to their respective market shares (as in the case of riving knives) as opposed to some portion of that pie being diverted to Gass in the form of a licensing fee (as in the case of blade braking technology)? Your choice (and money) is gone in both cases. Why is it ok for all the manufacturers to game the system but not one? Would it be ok if two of the major makers had jointly come up with SawStop and petitioned CPSC? How about 3? What about just the PTI makers who got the "voluntary" (it is only voluntary as to them!) riving knife standard put through? Seems to me we make too big a deal about Gass standing to benefit from CPSC mandatory rule making and spend too little time thinking about why we let the big players in the industry get together to use "voluntary" rule making to force something upon us with the same end result (to us).

algale wrote:Fair points, but from what I understand the makers you identified, Steel City, Rigid, Orion, ShopFox, aren't really in the same league with Powermatic or Unisaw (the saws SawStops are most frequently compared to interms of quality, fit, finish) or SawStop? Those saws are less expensive than Powermatic and Unisaw (and SawStop) for a reason. I suppose Gass could have targeted medium and lower end saws as his market and if I were making the decision, perhaps that's what I would have done. I don't think there's any inherently insoluble engineering problem with building his technology into saws that are comparable to the offerings of the companies you identified. Instead it appears Gass wanted to build high end saws -- some would say the best on the market -- to which he added his safety equipment. I can't blame the guy any more than one can blame Mercedes for refusing to offer cheaply made cars to compete in the low end car market.

But from the very beginning that was not the case.

Gass at one time said he would build a saw with his technology for little more than cost of existing saws then on the market.

That attempt lasted for many many years and faced many missed deadlines and delays.

While no one I know is privy to all the whys for all of this, however a strong argument could be made that Gass found in impossible to manufacture the saw with his technology at existing prices.

Therefore to save face he switched horses amid stream and instead developed a premium machine that costs more than other premium machines to hide the cost of his technology.

Hence he has the argument hey my machine is superior to anything presently on the market so it should cost more.

What gets lost in that argument is the fact that he hasn't produced a machine that incorporates his technology and cost only slightly more than the existing machines presently on market.

Until he does we must view his technology as premium technology whose cost can only be absorbed by high dollar premium machines.

Thus his argument that it would only add a few percentage points to wholesale cost is without merit.