Shopsmith Forums

Ed in Tampa wrote: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.

Resptfully I disagree. You have set up a classic false dichotomy, Ed. Just because Gass arguably couldn't produce a saw as cheap as other saws that also incorporated his technology (I don't know that to be true, but let's assume it is) doesn't prove that other, larger, saw makers couldn't do it if they tried.

algale wrote:Resptfully I disagree. You have set up a classic false dichotomy, Ed. Just because Gass arguably couldn't produce a saw as cheap as other saws that also incorporated his technology (I don't know that to be true, but let's assume it is) doesn't prove that other, larger, saw makers couldn't do it if they tried.

You missed the point(s) entirely!


P.S. Dusty's blood pressure link reveals some interesting history. Although quite lengthy, it is worth reading.

His 'presentation' has a few idiosyncrasies of its own. He thinks he can argue from both sides. Some of his 'positives' are just as easily used as 'negatives'. He does not maintain consistent values. His values change when it is to his 'advantage'.

Translation - read it with a grain of salt!

JPG40504 wrote:You missed the point(s) entirely!


P.S. Dusty's blood pressure link reveals some interesting history. Although quite lengthy, it is worth reading.

His 'presentation' has a few idiosyncrasies of its own. He thinks he can argue from both sides. Some of his 'positives' are just as easily used as 'negatives'. He does not maintain consistent values. His values change when it is to his 'advantage'.

Translation - read it with a grain of salt!

I'm sorry if I missed your point entirely; I really did try to understand what you were trying to say. But I am afraid I'm still not getting those points any differently than I interpreted them when I reasponded to them.

P.S., I did read both of Dusty's links (I had read Gass's petition long before, in fact). Not sure which positives you view as negatives or what values you are saying he has changed. I do, agree, however, that everything Gass says or writes should be taken ith a grain of salt as it is obviously to his advantage. In fact, I think I said in an earlier post that nobody should take at face value what either the self-interested PTI or the self-interested Mr. Gass say before CPSC as both sides are obviously trying to advance their own agendas.

You missed Ed's points. Ed alluded to the early cost estimate(by Gass) that was unattainable(in spite of his later best efforts) and his then covering it up by changing the parameters(more 'premium' model).

The things I was alluding to are subtle. Without going back and digging out the specific examples, some of his supporting facts are accurate, but if one uses the 'logic' that he draws conclusions from those examples, would yield a positive conclusion from similar examples that he considers a negative.

It depends upon whose ox is being gored.

He changes the premises to suit his own purpose. Called reverse logic! Lawyers are supposed to be taught 'logic'. Unfortunately quite often so as to confuse those not similarly 'trained'.

Now I understand individuals with different upbringing and values 'see' things differently. Has to do with value weighting!

G'day!

JPG40504 wrote:You missed Ed's points. Ed alluded to the early cost estimate(by Gass) that was unattainable(in spite of his later best efforts) and his then covering it up by changing the parameters(more 'premium' model).

The things I was alluding to are subtle. Without going back and digging out the specific examples, some of his supporting facts are accurate, but if one uses the 'logic' that he draws conclusions from those examples, would yield a positive conclusion from similar examples that he considers a negative.

It depends upon whose ox is being gored.

He changes the premises to suit his own purpose. Called reverse logic! Lawyers are supposed to be taught 'logic'. Unfortunately quite often so as to confuse those not similarly 'trained'.

Now I understand individuals with different upbringing and values 'see' things differently. Has to do with value weighting!

G'day!

Well, if that was Ed's point, I got it and I think my prior post responded to it: the fact that Gass didn't produce a cheap saw that incorporated Sawstop technology (whether he couldn't produce one or switched gears and decided the premium market was a better place to enter the market) doesn't prove other's already in the business couldn't produce entry level table saws with SawStop technology or what the price of those saws might end up being if the entire industry were making these things.

I agree with your point about values affecting the way you see things. I've said I see nothing wrong with what PTI did about riving knives or what Gass is trying to do with blade braking technology. I'm still waiting for someone who values their liberty or financial interests differently than I apparently do and who is upset by Gass to explain how PTI's tactics are in the last analysis meaningfully different than Gass's tactics.

===========================

algale wrote:Well, if that was Ed's point, I got it and I think my prior post responded to it: the fact that Gass didn't produce a cheap saw that incorporated Sawstop technology (whether he couldn't produce one or switched gears and decided the premium market was a better place to enter the market) doesn't prove other's already in the business couldn't produce entry level table saws with SawStop technology or what the price of those saws might end up being if the entire industry were making these things.

I agree with your point about values affecting the way you see things. I've said I see nothing wrong with what PTI did about riving knives or what Gass is trying to do with blade braking technology. I'm still waiting for someone who values their liberty or financial interests differently than I apparently do and who is upset by Gass to explain how PTI's tactics are in the last analysis meaningfully different than Gass's tactics.

You are very right the fact that Gass had to back up and take a different track does not prove that an existing manufacture could possibly build a saw with Gass' technology for cheaper.

However it does prove that Gass was unable to do what he claimed he could do and that was produce a saw competitively priced with the exist market.

Now put that into the sequence of events and we see a trend.

First Gass invents the technology for the "good of mankind" but protects it so intenstively that no one can begin to apply that technology without paying him his demanded royalities.

Gass then pitches it to manufactures who summarily reject it.

Gass then tries to force it through legislation to make his technology manditory on all saws. That fails

Gass then says he is going to prove everyone wrong and build saws with his technology that are competitively priced with the existing saws of that day.

That process stalled and stalled and stalled.

Then Gass brings to market a saw with a lot of flash and shiney surfaces that incorporates his technology but at inflated prices, nearly double the price of competative saws.

Basically they sale like someone would expect a saw that costs twice as much as every thing else on the market costs.

Then Gass returns to the legislative arena to once again force manufactures to incorporate his technology into their saws and he still claims that the cost of his technology would not significantly increase the price of their saws.

Surely everyone can see what is taking place. If you can't be competitive and sell you idea then try to get it legislated so everyone has to buy your technology.

That concept sickens me and should sicken everyone that believes in freedom and free market place.

Gas knows as does everyone else that if he went to legislature to get this mandated and said I don't know the actual cost but it cost me nearly double the cost of existing equipment to get something to market they would probably say no. So instead he claims the manufactures can do it even though they say they can't.

Who do you think is right? Gass who did everything in his power to make it happen and couldn't or the manufactures that have been building saws for years and know costs?

Ed in Tampa wrote:You are very right the fact that Gass had to back up and take a different track does not prove that an existing manufacture could possibly build a saw with Gass' technology for cheaper.

However it does prove that Gass was unable to do what he claimed he could do and that was produce a saw competitively priced with the exist market.

Now put that into the sequence of events and we see a trend.

First Gass invents the technology for the "good of mankind" but protects it so intenstively that no one can begin to apply that technology without paying him his demanded royalities.

Gass then pitches it to manufactures who summarily reject it.

Gass then tries to force it through legislation to make his technology manditory on all saws. That fails

Gass then says he is going to prove everyone wrong and build saws with his technology that are competitively priced with the existing saws of that day.

That process stalled and stalled and stalled.

Then Gass brings to market a saw with a lot of flash and shiney surfaces that incorporates his technology but at inflated prices, nearly double the price of competative saws.

Basically they sale like someone would expect a saw that costs twice as much as every thing else on the market costs.

Then Gass returns to the legislative arena to once again force manufactures to incorporate his technology into their saws and he still claims that the cost of his technology would not significantly increase the price of their saws.

Surely everyone can see what is taking place. If you can't be competitive and sell you idea then try to get it legislated so everyone has to buy your technology.

That concept sickens me and should sicken everyone that believes in freedom and free market place.

Gas knows as does everyone else that if he went to legislature to get this mandated and said I don't know the actual cost but it cost me nearly double the cost of existing equipment to get something to market they would probably say no. So instead he claims the manufactures can do it even though they say they can't.

Who do you think is right? Gass who did everything in his power to make it happen and couldn't or the manufactures that have been building saws for years and know costs?

Well, I don't agree with your premise that a SawStop costs nearly double of existing, comparable piece of equipment. I think if you price a Unisaw and a comparable SawStop, they are only a few hundred dollars apart on saws that cost in the $3000-plus range. The fact that you can buy some table saws for half the price of SawStop is irrelevant. One may as well ask why Unisaws cost twice as much as some saws. The obvious answer is you are getting more from your money in terms of quality engineering, materials, fit and finish.

Also, you are incorrect that the PTI makers "summarily rejected" Gass and his idea. To the contrary, it came out in the press and at the Ossario trial that Ryobi had come within a whisker of taking a license on Gass's technology. It appears that the rest of the PTI group got to Ryobi at the last minute and told them it was a bad idea for all of them for any one of them to do business with Gass. So much for a truly free and open market, something that exists more in text books than in the real world.

Regardless, to answer your question of whom do I believe, I am just as skeptical of the PTI folks who say it is cost prohibitive to put this technology on their saws as I am of Gass saying it won't impact costs significantly. In other words, I am an equal opportunity skeptic.

Lastly, I surely do see what Gass is trying to do in terms of regulation that will make his technology mandatory in the market and which will enrich him at the expense of the other manufacturers. I just don't see a difference with what PTI did on riving knives. Try buying a table saw today without one. You can't. Why? Because PTI got CPSC on board with a "voluntary" standard (only voluntary as to the manufacturers) and now you, me and everyone else who wants a new table saw must buy and pay for that riving knife (blade guard too). I'm not saying that what PTI did was bad, just that it isn't different in principle from what Gass is trying to do. Both are manipulating the supposedly free market to their own advantages and trying to get someone else to pay for their innovations by eliminating the ability to choose not to use that innovation.

So my question remains, if you are sickened by someone trying to force you to buy their technology, why aren't you also upset with PTI for manipulating the market by forcing riving knives and blade guards on you? I mean, I think these technologies have merit, but if you are all for freedom of choice, wouldn't it be nice if someone could offer a table saw without these safety gadgets?

algale wrote:Well, I don't agree with your premise that a SawStop costs nearly double of existing, comparable piece of equipment. I think if you price a Unisaw and a comparable SawStop, they are only a few hundred dollars apart on saws that cost in the $3000-plus range. The fact that you can buy some table saws for half the price of SawStop is irrelevant. One may as well ask why Unisaws cost twice as much as some saws. The obvious answer is you are getting more from your money in terms of quality engineering, materials, fit and finish.

Also, you are incorrect that the PTI makers "summarily rejected" Gass and his idea. To the contrary, it came out in the press and at the Ossario trial that Ryobi had come within a whisker of taking a license on Gass's technology. It appears that the rest of the PTI group got to Ryobi at the last minute and told them it was a bad idea for all of them for any one of them to do business with Gass. So much for a truly free and open market, something that exists more in text books than in the real world.

Regardless, to answer your question of whom do I believe, I am just as skeptical of the PTI folks who say it is cost prohibitive to put this technology on their saws as I am of Gass saying it won't impact costs significantly. In other words, I am an equal opportunity skeptic.

Lastly, I surely do see what Gass is trying to do in terms of regulation that will make his technology mandatory in the market and which will enrich him at the expense of the other manufacturers. I just don't see a difference with what PTI did on riving knives. Try buying a table saw today without one. You can't. Why? Because PTI got CPSC on board with a "voluntary" standard (only voluntary as to the manufacturers) and now you, me and everyone else who wants a new table saw must buy and pay for that riving knife (blade guard too). I'm not saying that what PTI did was bad, just that it isn't different in principle from what Gass is trying to do. Both are manipulating the supposedly free market to their own advantages and trying to get someone else to pay for their innovations by eliminating the ability to choose not to use that innovation.

So my question remains, if you are sickened by someone trying to force you to buy their technology, why aren't you also upset with PTI for manipulating the market by forcing riving knives and blade guards on you? I mean, I think these technologies have merit, but if you are all for freedom of choice, wouldn't it be nice if someone could offer a table saw without these safety gadgets?

But it is NOT IRRELEVANT! It might be to the professional craftsman but it is not to the amateur hobbyist. I consider myself pretty average for this discussion and I cannot afford $3000 for a table saw. I couldn't afford my Mark V except I bought it when it was less than $1200 w/bandsaw and evem then I bought it on sale.

NO, IT IS NOT IRRELEVANT but price is not what makes me feel as I do about Gass. It is his attempt to create that MANDATE for his own financial good while attempting to cloak it in what is good for mankind's safety.

If it is so damn good - just put it on the market and let the free market place determine his future (WITHOUT GOVERNMENT MANDATES).

One Other Point/Question: My Mark V has had a riving knife "FOREVER". When is it that PTI allegedly forced a riving knife into my life?

OKAY I have said about all that I intend to say about the SawStop until this entire fiasco comes to a conclusion.

You do not realize it, but you answered your own question.

You cited the Ryobi back tracking because of peer pressure.

You cited the PTI collectively petitioning riving knives.

Both those actions differ from Gass's petition in the following 'details'.

Gas is in it for himself(and associates).

PTI realized that unless the entire industry adopted riving knives that those that did would be at a competitive disadvantage. Hence the petition so as to level the field. The PTI members reached a consensus that riving knives were a practical entity. A failing(???) riving knife will not halt production for an extended period.

Similarly PTI realizes that the saw stop 'feature' is no where near as practical($$$)(= catastrophic inability to continue production with a 'tripped' machine). We are a 'hobby market', but commercial enterprises are hurt financially when a production machine 'goes down'. Bottom line they do not want to be connected to a debacle that I believe saw stop would become.(sorta like every other version of windows that has intolerable 'issues'). I do not think that action was entirely self centered. I think they see the added cost as an undesirable fact. The reliability is unknown. The consequences too severe.

That is the way I see a small difference. Small but 'more correct' IMHO.