I mean the ones that stores are currently selling but won't be compliant with the new law. Those stores won't be able to sell them after the law goes into effect, so they will lower the prices to unload them as fast as possible.
If SawStop's smart, they'll agree to allow competing table saws to use the technology with our without the proposed rule.
And then rake in money by having the monopoly on replacement brake cartridges.
I thought they opened up the patent, but the pushback has been from manufacturers because requiring sawstop-like systems on new units would increase production cost.
In my opinion, it’s like saying seatbelts are too expensive to put on economy models of cars.
Pretty sure when this came up a few weeks ago I read that they said they would open it up if it passed. There was some deal with letting Bosch use it but by the time they agreed to it Bosch had already abandoned their efforts.
This was a link in the same article. Bosch has a number of reasons for not selling it anymore, but some you wouldn't even think of like cell phone signals triggering the brake. https://toolguyd.com/bosch-reaxx-table-saw-why-you-cant-buy-it/
I thought Bosch was the ones who tried to screw SawStop? Didn't they use the time during negotiations to come up with an infringing design & once they had it pulled out of negotiations? It was only then that SawStop sued them for infringement.
Bosch came up with a better design on a smaller jobsite saw.
Sawstop was trying to force the existing manufacturers to license their tech. That doesn’t usually go over very well in a ‘negotiation’.
I want the safety tech on all table saws…but not if it enriches only one company who has an overly broad patent.
Only article I saw was to “release” the ‘840 patent, which is already expired and publicly available.
Edit: not expired. Appealed PTA and got 10 years extra term adjustment.
It’s actually not expired until April 2033. There’s another 3739 days of patent term adjustment that’s not listed on the patent as issued. Had to check the USPTO to find that out.
Based on replies to your comment people are really thinking SS tech is some crazy space aged expensive technology.
It's an incredibly simple device and the patent has the manufacturing blueprint. The increase in manufacturing would be incredibly miniscule. A one time minor retooling of a few parts of the process.
The "cost" is the liquidation sales and stall in demand on existing inventory and runout that would lead to a loss until inventory is replaced with incorporated tech.
If the ruling went into place, it would basically guarantee that existing inventory would be exempt. OSHA would likely have an adoption window for industry. But many consumers would hold off to wait until the new tech is implemented.
Second, they are trying to trick the consumer to expect higher prices so they can get away with jacking up the price. They want this ruling to go through so they can increase prices by 20% against a cost increase of 1%. They just want it slow enough to not stall current sales.
I believe the pushback is partially due to the toaster model of innovation. The tech is fairly basic, and has been in a fight to the bottom for consumer price to where there’s a perception that any cost addition makes the product non-competitive.
I agree, when the market is stable. But there is a pseudo natural collusion on increases in prices when there is PR coverage to do so.
Just look at food prices. Food is as competitive as it gets, but COVID supply chains gave food companies PR coverage to increase prices without consumer pushback. All the sudden the 10 major food companies are having record breaking profits because they could increase prices permanently when supply costs had a short term blip.
I think that's what the table saw market is hoping to happen. Raise a bunch of hell about costs so us consumers aren't surprised that prices go up. Because yes for a short period of time costs did too. But once all the manufacturing stabilizes, and costs fall back down, prices will stay at the new level and we'll all just accept it.
Eventually, there may be a "race to the bottom" but it won't be a quick race since you'd have to forgo that juicy markup to chase volume and be able to manufacture that volume or you're just gonna be selling the same quantity for less.
I think the reality is that if they agree to it they are admitting that all of their previous saws that are sold are “dangerous” and should be recalled/retrofitted.
Edit: autoincorrected a word
The only similar opened patent I am familiar with is John Deere’s ROPS patent. Legislation was put out to require it afterwards, but older tractors weren’t required to be refit with them.
That may not be completely applicable here, but there is some precedent to not need a refit. I don’t know if seatbelts for cars were similar.
I don't think it's a liability. It's all but guaranteed the ruling would
A) exempt all prior sales, existing inventory and any inventory in progress at the time of cutover.
B) OSHA would incorporate overtime. Who knows how long, maybe 10 years, maybe 20.
Their concern is that consumer demand would come to a screeching halt as everyone would want to wait until the tech is available. Pro's don't want to have to buy one saw today and then buy another when OSHA makes them update. And household consumers will just hold off their purchase.
Prices for "legacy" inventory would have to drop like crazy to get them off the shelves.
Agreed. Of course that risk would be less if they had just introduced it over time before a mandate. They also could work to retrofit the design but I imagine that's hard for lots of models due to the invasive design requirements.
Yeah, your second point is actually why I think sawstop is trying to fast track the ruling. If it's immediate, all the manufacturers will have to just use the existing design as detailed in the patent. They won't have time to create their own version.
What sawstop is not releasing is their patent on the charges. So all the sudden virtually all table saws will use a safety feature that requires a part SS owns the patent for.
A delayed ruling would allow other manufacturers to come up with their own systems and their own versions of the "charge", or whether it would even use one
No they've been assholes don't fall for it they're owned by the third largest tool conglomerate on the planet. Don't litigate a safety patent. Theyre completly sadistic fuckheads at this pojnt
SS had every right to litigate. Their entire product is based on that tech. If anyone could just ignore their patents they wouldn't exist today. They did also create a licensing agreement with Bosch in 2018 that would have let them sell the saw.
Where SS is the true ass hole is everything to do with this rule proposal. They are fighting desperately now because they would be raising the prices of every single one of their competitors saws significantly while also getting liscensing deals with several manufacturers.
This rule is not being pushed for the benefit of consumers. It's being pushed for the benefit of SS
No it’s more akin to saying the camera based collision avoidance and reaction system it to expensive to put in the economy models of cars because it will double the price. The seatbelt is more like the blade guard that comes with every saw that most people don’t use (just like seatbelts)
Funny thing, that’s pretty close to what I’m working on now. South Africa actually has legislation for allowing/interfacing 3rd party collision mitigation systems in construction and it’s definitely pushing adoption and system development. I don’t think it will ever be required on older machines, but I wouldn’t be surprised if there was a push to make it standard on some machines.
Except the SS tech isn't anything crazy from a cost perspective. Manufacturers are falsely making a bunch of cost claims to A) delay the inevitable one time cost of having a miniscule retooling of some manufacturing processes and B) provide a false signal to the market so we expect prices to jump to give them coverage to actually increase prices unjustifiably.
This would increase costs significantly less than installing safety belts in cars
Yeah, airbags are actually also a pretty cheap and simple tech. A sensor that fires a single use charge, but completely replaceable.
I buy that analogy
From the perspective of the entire car manufacturing process, that is pretty minor. Zero engine, transmission, exhaust, braking, steering (past the column), suspension, environmental condition, frame, shell, cooling, signalling, wheels, passenger space, storage/trunk design, etc.
When initially implemented it was a physical sensor and closed loop from entire charging system, so there was not any retooling of electronics or existing sensors.
I'd argue there wasn't a "steering wheel redesign" because those had already been done before airbags became mandatory. And as with all patents, the design of the product had to be detailed enough that it could be replicated
There’s absolutely zero evidence for your claim and I’m tired of people like you that make such unfounded claims in attempts to manipulate others. Take a hike. I don’t want sawstop tech and I don’t need it, so don’t force me to buy it.
I bought my Skil table saw for $265 last fall. This rule would raise the price of the same saw to over $750.
It's not minor production costs, it's a huge amount of R&D and engineering. There is a link in that article about why Bosch didn't relaunch the Reaxx saw when they had the chance. One of the reasons is that Cell phone signals interfere with the finger detection and they would have to redesign the technology to update for new Cellular standards.
They built an inferior product to saw stop, and now have the green light to just wholesale license SS tech.
They knew it was a flawed product when they launched it, and that's just bad R&D
There's only so many ways you can pull a saw blade away so quickly and SS had the patents for most of them. From what I have heard is that people with Reaxx really liked that it didn't destroy either the cartridge or the saw blade, so it had it's positives.
There is an article that's hyperlinked inside the posted article that has bosch's response as to why they didn't relaunch it. They did say it would still take ~6 years of R&D to recreate it because so many modifications need to me made, and that is with the license they have from SS. They also said that the tool side of their business doesn't have experience in the technology needed, so they had to rely on their appliance teams to help support.
Go to some developing countries - they have brand new cars lacking all the safety you're used to available for sale, some from major companies. Like the nissan micra for example, can't be sold in the US because it's too much of a deathtrap. Pretty sure they made the 90s sentra for 20 years, and the VW bug for like fifty, for these markets.
So yeah honestly. There are plenty of takers for cheaper cars that cut costs on safety. Like seat belts and airbags. Many people would prefer to own an unsafe shitbox than to walk.
This comparison is orders of magnitude different.
* In 1975 it cost **6%** of the car's value to put a seat belts in
* Between 1970 and 2012 330,000 LIVES were saved by seatbelts.
* 7900 **LIVES** a Year
* A Ryobi Jobsite Table Saw is $150; A SawStop Jobsite Table Saw is $900;
* Making this safety device **83%** of the value.
* I'm sure there are more, but SawStop has published only 12 FINGERS saved in 20 years
* 0.6 **FINGERS** a Year
* [https://www.sawstop.com/finger-saves/](https://www.sawstop.com/finger-saves/)
Additionally the comparison is backwards. Seatbelts are the minimum safety for an consumer, SawStop is the maximum usually used by Professionals. Professional race cars have much more expensive safety equipment than economy cars. Should we force all manufactures to install 5 point harnesses and HANS devices, then make everyone wear helmets? This is why race car chassis are typically double or triple the price.
Seatbelts are something small that has a big impact. Sawstop is something extremely expensive that has a very small impact.
> A Ryobi Jobsite Table Saw is $150; A SawStop Jobsite Table Saw is $900
At least compare a saw that's striving for *vaguely* comparable build quality, jesus christ.
Not the point at all!
Ryobi is an economy table saw. SawStop is a Professional bespoke table saw.
Economy cars have seatbelts. Professional race cars have roll cages and 3x the expense safety equipment. This is the inequality drawn from his seatbelt comparison.
Dude is saying Ryobi table saws should have Professional safety equipment is like saying economy cars should have race car safety equipment.
The seatbelt comparison is more like electronic equipment should have fuses not $600+ electrical safety stops.
I can buy 6 Ryobi Table saws for the price of one SawStop. You could never buy 6 economy cars without seatbelts for the price of one car with seatbelts.
That link is a page with a few written testimony's, its not any kind of inclusive list. Ive probably seen 12 finger saves so far this year just posted to Reddit.
Also I'd rather lose my own finger due to MY OWN stupidity that lose my life because of SOMEONE ELSES recklessness in a car. Saw stop protects you from you, seatbelts more often than not protect you from someone else. Nobody is running around shoving other people's hands in saws
I did cut my thumb, not off, but in half. I did this on a bandsaw cutting metal. The blade caught the metal, flipped it pushing my thumb in. I cut down my fingernail in middle; down into the bone.
No, I don't want a saw stop.
I have always respected table saws more, and learned to respect band saws more. Additionally, I always now wear heavy leather gloves working with metal. I did this mostly before, but didn't for that "one last quick cut".
You asked for the opinion of someone who has had this sort of accident, then dismissed it with a personal insult. Seems like a very quality way of having a debate. Great work there!
> effectively result in a government-mandated monopoly – and it could result in the use of lower-cost circular saws and plywood as makeshift table saws, which can be more hazardous than utilizing a dedicated tool.
The best thing about paid-for officials is when they create a proposal for what they’re going to do, it’s the exact thing they’re going to do, just not to the thing you think they’re going to do it to.
This will create a government-mandated monopoly for SawStop, and ensure that people continue to use finger-rippin pieces of shit for decades to come.
A smart engineer would devise a saw that doesn’t require new parts for every stop activation. The problem with the saw stops is the unexpected nails or moisture in the wood and the required override process making the stop useless in the first place. Every trigger is 400 bucks out of pocket and that’s not accounting for machine down time.
There's a huge amount of mass and energy to stop on a dime. And the slower you stop, the more of your fingers you lose.
Crumple designs for quickly stopping the blade is exactly how it can be so safe. Making it slower makes it less safe for a convenience and cost savings.
And a cartridge is $100, no way it costs you 400. I'm guessing you've never owned one.
Saw Stop has a lot to gain from the ruling. Every competitor of theirs will raise their prices significantly.
Additionally, if all the patents listed in this article aren't made available, there's nothing stopping sawstop from litigating against other companies when they are forced to implement the rule. Even if it isn't found to violate a patent, it could delay the sales of new saws for those companies.
Alright hoss's. All I'm going to say is I have a unique job where I drive to about 50 different barn, shed, modular, and panel shops monthly. Sawstops are not common, even in plants that have the money. If we don't force this stuff at a consumer level I'm honestly fine with it, but I really want to see it mandated in businesses. There have been 4 fingers lost in two accidents at one location in the last 6 months. The average skill level at these factories is very low nowadays. The pay is usually abysmal, and these jobs are often times done by very disadvantaged people that have never operated any power equipment before getting hired at these shit holes.
If a homeowner buys a 150 dollar job saw, doesn't read the manual or watch safety videos, and loses a finger I really don't care. But expecting these kids and immigrants to run saws for 50 hours a week with no protection is just a time bomb. All it takes is one off day, working too fast or with too little sleep and that's it. Partial disability for life.
That’s my problem. As I understand it, the rule is only targeting consumer saws. 731 Woodworks has released 3 or 4 videos on the topic. Something that stood out to me was the stats about injuries and amputations being used to justify the rule. Why did that stand out? A very high percentage of those injuries and amputations are in commercial settings. Like, I’m all for increased safety, but target the sector where the problem is happening.
I'll have to check those videos out. I don't know the breakdown between personal and commercial injuries but I can say with confidence that the problem seems to be systemic. I've got clients that haven't had an amputation in the decades they've been in business and I have clients that have multiple amputations a year. I've got Amish guys that rig gas engines to ancient saws that have all their fingers, and I've got publicly traded clients with new equipment with all guards removed that maim employees constantly. They always end up squirming out of heavy fines, I think because if they had to pay 6 figures like they've been threatened with they would be out of business. They absolutely deserve to be out of business though. It's hard not to blast the names of these guys publicly if I'm honest.
Expecting an untrained person to use a dangerous machine without safeties or proper training is how you get lawsuits. Extra safety features for reputable companies involves balancing retooling costs vs lawsuits and/or loss of productivity.
Clearly that threshold hasn't been met if sites are not upgrading equipment. Gonna guess its on account of many of the accidents being negligence by the operators, not the owners. Not saying that there is no pressure in any shops from employers to perform in an unsafe manner, but that needs to be addressed by the employees and lawsuits filed.
Government mandated safety features are only a band aid with companies like that, and many would just fake them or bribe inspectors to overlook the bypasses.
As for the sleep thing, that can can happen at almost any job. Plenty of fast food workers have been permanently injured on the job from being too tired or working too fast. Its not unique to wood shops or even heavy industry. There are a lot of factors involved, which means one machine having one extra safety feature may not make a huge difference overall. That's not saying not to push for this, but that its not a magic bullet and that people need to temper their expectations of the overall impact.
This is the current climate and how the world works today. Every power tool you buy for yourself is dangerous. Professional shops usually have better safety equipment than home users. The cost of lawsuits are built into the price of doing business.
What should happen is a rule to force insurance companies to require AIM technology on any table saws used by the business. This would still require companies to develop and implement the tech without utterly destroying the jobsite saw market.
I was actually taking to someone about this the other day. The force created from a blade going Mach fuck to zero is tremendous. Last thing you want is the arbor snapping and that blade playing pinball in your garage or your saw in general sending pieces flying at you. I’m not even sure how many times a sawstop saw can be tripped, before maybe I’d want to peek under the skirt just to make sure everything is good.
More elegant, but that still requires a droppable arbor and compatible motor mount - and probably motor, too, in practice.
That's a lot of the guts, and it needs to be a good price to make any sense at all.
A coworker did the math and pointed out that the medical deductible was far higher than the additional cost to get a SawStop.
His wife had no issues with that.
Once there is competition in the marketplace, the price will drop for safety-enhanced equipment. It won’t drop to the level of equipment without safety features, but it will come in below the current price point for SawStop.
“**Preserving Woodworking Traditions and Blocking Government-Mandated Monopolies Act**”
really should be called:
“**Preserving Corporate Tool Company Profits and Blocking Safety Regulations Act**”
It's the same crap that always happens when new technology or a new methodology threatens the bottom line of a huge corporation. Suddenly the old way is all about tradition and freedom.
See, I do think safety is extremely important. However, SawStop Saws will not get any more expensive, so if this means more choices and the funding for better safety down the line, I’m all for it.
I would hope though that when the patent expires, the original mandate goes back into effect.
Yes saw stop doesn't get more expensive. Everything else does. This rule is for the benefit of saw stop. If it were for the benefit of consumers, then more safety options would have been proposed and brought for discussion and not just AIM.
Given that more money is spent every year on table saw injuries than table saws right now, currently we're all just subsidizing table saw manufacturers with our health insurance and workplace compensation insurance premiums. The real cost of a table saw without the extra safety measures is about two to three times the sticker price, so those with safety mechanisms are probably cheaper in the long run.
I do agree that other safety options should be explored, but right now more safety rules are direly needed, and there is one tech that's been market proven. There should be a separate issue opened up about limiting the scope of patents, not just in this case, so competing technologies can actually make it to market.
When the cost barrier for entry is too high people will resort to more dangerous means.
I do think that when you look at something like a cabinet table saw and maybe even include contractor table saw the cost difference isn't unreasonable to add this technology. The problem is jobsite was that will become exponentially more expensive.
When you consider hobbiests/home owners/weekend warriors, it's not a justify able price point for a single tool.
Patents plural? All patents? Enough to make other manufacturers actually compete in this new realm or just enough to be forced to not compete in the old one? What if they don't follow through? Devil is in the details, hope this is actually legit.
Exactly.
I’d love to see what everyone here is taking about be a reality…table saws that all have some form of an effective braking system.
However, sawstop has good lawyers. Given their past tactics I do not trust them to “release ALL their patents” in good faith. They are a company driven by profits, period. There is an angle here that benefits them.
I AM SICK OF SAWSTOP TRYING TO MANDATE THEIR SYSTEM. (And I have one).
If they actually cared they’d release ALL the patents and then pursue the mandate. The current approach stinks like a play to make one last surge of profits as their patent is aging out…aka they have a well known product on the market…any competition will take time to get a compliant product to market…in the interim…
It's not just an angle that benefits them. Every part of this rule will benefit them.
1. All competitors prices will raise significantly
2. Many companies will have to license the tech from SS because R&D would be to expensive and time consuming
3. Companies that develop their own could be sued even if they don't infringe on the patent. They could delay the release of some of these companies beyond the date set by the proposed rule, effectively eliminating them from the market for a period of time.
If they hadn’t already shown their @$$ and tried this a few years ago…I might be more inclined to trust the concept.
As it sits I know someone who was negotiating a marketing deal with them (YT promo/influencer) and their legal department was vicious. They almost canceled the deal until they were able to eliminate the “you owe us a blood sweat and semen sample along with your first born and your entire YT channel if we decide it is ours”…I’m exaggerating but not by much.
It was pretty stark compare to typical contracts. It was almost a non-compete for promoting anything else without coming out and saying it. And for those saying this is paranoia…look at Marc at the Wood Whisperer and how Powermatic absolutely F-ed him in the end.
That's also what it sounded like their initial licensing proposals were for companies early on. They had companies interested in liscensing until they heard the terms demanded
And the exchange in the hearing between commissioner Trumpka and the SS CEO just screamed to me like it was coordinated beforehand.
Trumpka -"you should be ashamed that you defended your patent against bosch"
SS CEO -"it's our legal right to defend out patent"
Trumpka -"OK I guess you're right"
SS CEO -"If our patent is preventing this rule, we will make the 840 patent available to the public if the rule is put in place"
Trumpka -"you are the greatest hero of mankind, all other companies are evil. With this information I think we should now move up the date companies have to have it ready by"
Paraphrasing a bit, but that was pretty accurately the tone.
Yep, if sawstop really cared about safety, they would not have sued Bosch. The inventor of saw stop tried for years to get the government to mandate his technology so he could get rich. Now granted, he sold the company, but saw stop is a shady company.. They do not give a rip about preventing injuries. It's all about the profit.
Congress could also just invalidate their patents with a law, and if they actually cared about there not being a monopoly could pass that bill right now. In fact they could pass a bill limiting or outlawing all safety feature related patents, and while they are at it invalidate all drug patents.
So your saws don't injure people, why do people volunteer time teaching or working at soup kitchens? Because not everyone is a selfish prick like the CEOs of this world.
I continue to see the sentiment online of "this is unnecessary, *I've* used a saw safely for years, people who get injured are doing something dumb" etc. But the fact remains that there are an estimated 30,000 table saw injuries a year (which we're all footing some of the bill for). How many of those injured probably said the same thing right up until that moment?
This is why I ended up buying a euro style sliding saw instead of a sawstop. I can do like 95% of the cuts without using the rip fence and instead have everything clamped to the sliding table with me clear of the danger zones in all ways. In old industrial saws I’ve seen a 2x4 kick back and spear itself into a block wall. The vast majority of injuries are either directly or indirectly due you kickback. Having said that the sawstop machines also have a really nice riving knife setup which helps with a large percent of those problems as well (assuming not removed), although it doesn’t do much if you’re using a dado head.
Yes that's not a great argument against this, but this ruling is heavily flawed. The biggest issue is the impact it will have on the cost of a saw. The most common saw on the market is the jobsite table saw. The price of most would triple.
People argue about the cost of losing a finger, but when you can't afford the premium safety feature, you instead do the same job just in a more dangerous fashion.
Additionally, there's no discussion on different safety features. There is only one option being hammered through and it's the most expensive premium option that overwhelming benefits just one company and hurting all their competitors.
How many had the user removed the guard and/or the riving knife?
When people get injured by a SawStop in bypass mode, isn’t that an argument that bypass mode should be eliminated to protect people who do the wrong thing?
Agreed but some folks treat saw accidents like some epidemic crisis, like we’re all walking around with 3 fingers left. For Sawstop this is at best maybe 10% about spreading safety, and 90% about giving the company that charges 4x more than everyone else a monopoly the tablesaw market.
I believe those stats are for all saws. I don't believe OSHA breaks table saws into its own category. At least I could not find one when I researched into it.
The 30,000 figures are drawn from data submitted to the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) by emergency rooms across the country, https://www.cpsc.gov/Research--Statistics/NEISS-Injury-Data, as discussed here - https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/11/01/2023-23898/safety-standard-addressing-blade-contact-injuries-on-table-saws
A significant number of table saw injuries appear to be non occupational, according to a study published by the National Institutes of Health https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4154236/#R11
Regardless of any shitty politicians, the CPSC ruling needs to be stopped. It's a bad ruling for a whole slew of reasons and this bill did call out some of them pretty accurately.
Nobody will sell table saws for less then material costs, labor, distribution costs, advertising and profit margin. So likely what will happen is entry level table saws will not be manufactured anymore. Market forces for products have their limits
> They keep getting...better mileage
CAFE laws have made it so the vehicles they put for sale just keep getting bigger since they cant make the smaller cars match the required mileage.
There's no value for the manufacturer because they aren't huge sellers and can't be marked up a whole lot over cost.
Buyers are voting with their wallets and the market is trending bigger, and has been for a long time. This
In the US anyway.
You are paying for a big ass screen and a bunch of creature comforts. I don’t think prices have too much to do with these companies trying to recoup costs.
If this happens it will be the end of cheaper base level saws and entry price for a table saw will be $1000.
I have a SS and it’s a good saw but was $1800. Most table saw accidents could be prevented by utilizing the basic safety features
Sawstop has said if the committee enacts the safety standard for breaking technology on all tablesaw in the USA that they would no longer enforce any other patents with regards to breaking technology
They didn't say this. They said they will make 1 patent available publicly if the rule gets put into effect. They did not say they would not take action on any other patent infringements.
They didn't even confirm that they would license their technology if the rule is implemented.
friendly reiminder the majority of table saw usage is by people who are selling their labor for an hourly wage and using whatever piece of shit the owner/business provides
If you don't want your taxpayer & insurance dollars paying for the medical bills associated with the tens of thousands of injuries that non-sawstop saws incur every year, support regulations to make sawstop mandatory.
Also do the same thing if you value your fingers at more than $3,000 apiece.
well they revoked a womans right to chose, potable water rights .. why not saw saftey laws .. lets kill people so they can complain, sorry canpain ( not a SP)
This is a bipartisan action and they're doing it because sawstop still owns the patents on its technology. Their argument is that the bill would effectively give sawstop a monopoly on table saws for the next several years, and could lead to people using makeshift table saws made from circular saws to save money.
There would probably be more injuries after the rule because the high cost of saws will have people coming up with more dangerous solutions when they can't afford a table saw.
right to choose what, push sticks? I wish to have the right to choose push sticks. I'd even allow them to put disclaimers on regular saws.
This saw may cut you ways you can't imagine, and it may throw things at you if you defeat safety devices. You are an adult, you need to make adult choices. Please note that while you are allowed to legally buy this saw and we encourage you to use push sticks and all safety devices for this saw, prevent minors and idiots from using it and never operate it with your hands on or over the table unless they are holding push sticks....
....you may also in this country go and buy overpriced devices that are expensive, initially and continuously, and that are marketed by people who in our opinion are more interested in their wealth than they are your safety, but you can make a legitimate case that if you refuse to use push sticks, you may be poorer but have more fingers.
kthxbai
Seat belts in cars were first patented in the late 1800s. The three-point style seatbelt that we know today was developed in the late 1950s; however, there was not a major push to make seatbelts mandatory in cars until the 80s/90s. And even though seat belts are required to some degree in every state now (with New Hampshire being the most lax), lots of people still refuse to wear them.
We are talking about a safety device so of course there's going to be the chorus of "we have to save the children" contingent pushing for full adoption of this safety device across the industry because "no cost is too high when we're talking about the lives of our children", but we are still talking about a product that is protected under patent law and mandatory adoption would be creating a monopoly with the cost being passed on to the consumer. If this wasn't a safety thing...let's say that a company developed a quick-change blade mechanism that was infinitely better than what we have now and was protected by patent, then would we support the mandatory adoption of this new mechanism across the industry or would we recognize that adoption would be a monopoly?
Table saws are already expensive and this mandatory add-on would make them more expensive. Yes, a safety device might save a finger, but how many of us have been using table saws our entire lives without a single incident? How many of us are actually using the anti-kickback device or the blade guard that our saws already come with?
I'm not opposed to safety features. Tools are inherently dangerous. The problem I have with safety devices is the attitude shift of people when safety devices are widespread. When a dangerous machine has a safety device on it, people start thinking that the machine is safe. It's not. It's still a dangerous tool with a spinning metal blade with the ability to cause a lot of damage. How many posts have we seen in this group alone where people are posting about their saw stop having engaged and commenting that this is their third or fourth time it's happened? Dude, seriously? At what point should that person just realize that they are doing stupid things?
And while we're at it, this safety device has been developed for one type of tool--the table saw. But what about all the other incredibly dangerous tools. In the hierarchy of tools, I am way more scared of a circular saw or a miter saw than a table saw. I am curious (obviously not curious enough to actually research it, but still...) which common woodworking tool is the cause of the most injuries. I suspect it is not the table saw. If safety really is the reason behind this push and the pushback with the legislation, then why isn't the industry mandate to include similar safety devices on all things with spinning metal blades? This is a case of a product finding a need rather than a need finding a product.
The focus on table saws comes mostly from the frequency of use. On average someone would make far more cuts on a table saw than a jointer. Without any hard evidence I'd bet jointer injuries would probably be higher rate per use than table saws.
One of the many things I find frustrating about this rule on table saws is the glaring lack of discussion on other safety features. There are so many safety accessories that replace the need for having your hands near the blade. Featherboards and stock guides are great examples. You no longer have to use your hands to keep pressure down on the workpiece or against the fence. Auto feeders to push the workpiece through.
I just get the feeling that the reason for this ruling moving forward is that Sawstop finally bought the right commissioner to get traction.
Table saws are plausibly the most dangerous common tool. Jointers are another high on the list but they are less common. Miter saws aren’t even close. In fact miter saws are basically the safer replacement from the previous generations “most dangerous tool” which is the radial arm saw. But I think one answer to your question is that safety mechanisms that apply to things like miter saws have not been developed. Something like the saw stop mechanism may be workable for miter saws but I kind of doubt it. More likely to apply to jointers but jointers are smaller devices generally so maybe there just isn’t room in practice?
The entire last part of your comment is illustrating my point. If the true concern is making tools safer, then why isn't there a mandatory push to develop similar safety devices for all tools with the potential for inflicting harm? If a jointer is too small to install a safety device and safety is the primary concern, then mandate that they be bigger to accommodate a safety device. Having a slightly larger tool is a small price to pay when safety is the highest concern.
If you're refuting my assertions, then you have to admit that safety isn't the highest concern. And safety, despite this issue's trappings, is not what is driving this debate. It's money. I don't support legislation that creates a monopoly. Saw stops are readily available for sale if someone values the safety features enough to pay the premium. And I'm glad they're out there. However, until it becomes affordable, I am just going to continue using my tools as safely as I can without the feature.
Moreover, If safety is tantamount, then there is alternative legislation that already exists to strip patent protections from a product in order to make it widely available to the masses for the common good. Why, if safety is the end all be all in this debate, isn't that option being pursued for the saw stop technology?
The saw they should be concerned about, if any, is the radial arm saw (ras). You have to try real hard to lose an appendage on a table saw. The ras is known to pull work from hand or drive itself over the work and those who are unsuspecting can have their hands pulled into the spinning blade. But really, lawmakers need to take a break with all the new laws they keep coming up with. They're taking a toll on our freedom.
Radial arm saws are phenomenal production tools if you use them correctly. Did some YouTuber make a video about them or something? Because I see a lot of people who’ve never used one afraid of them lately. Used them in shops with dozens of guys never had an issue. 1000x better than a miter saw for certain types of work. Literally any tool is super dangerous if you aren’t trained on it.
I want to see the statistics of accidents happening with youngsters trained with freaking saw stops etc. then becoming reliant on that crap with no training on a real table saw, then helping Gramps cut fence planks in the backyard on his old iron belt driven 1945 Craftsman and losing a finger because he was never taught how to really use a f'ing saw. It's like using training wheels until adulthood then being taken off and pushed down a hill. ***Learn to use the tools correctly!!! Then they will still be able to throw "peace signs" in selfies without two hands.
There's a **very simple** reason why sawstop is promising to releasing their patent conditionally for the CPSC mandate.
Sawstop is a relative smaller company compared to the other table saw companies, they don't have the economy of scale to compete. With many of their patents are expiring, should other companies invest and come out with alternatives saw brake/AIM technologies - Sawstop cannot survive in a market with cheaper \~$300 saws **and** \~$600 saws that have alternative saw brakes/AIM technology. Thus by proposing the mandate, they will only compete in a market with the \~$600 saws priced closer to their own products.
It's simply a calculated loss cutting strategy. Otherwise, as many have said, sawstop would've released their patents unconditionally.
I’m not in favor of the rule, but tool companies are doing the same thing everyone is bitching about SawStop doing. Ryobi is clearly directly in the ear of someone in Congress.
Lobbying is the best return on investment a corporation can make without paying for the externality of all the lost fingers. And people still wonder what is wrong with the first past the post electoral system. Plutocracy!
The bulk of the lobbying has been from saw stop. What happens to them if this rule goes into place?
1. Prices for every single one of their competitors goes up.
2. Most of their competitors will seek licensing from sawstop.
3. They will litigate heavily on anything even close to their patents to delay saws coming to market before the rule change is enforced. Meaning less competition on the market for a period of time.
They've lobbied non stop to the CPSC because they will get filthy stinking rich.
I like the bill's name: "Preserving Woodworking Traditions and Blocking Government-Mandated Monopolies Act"
Might as well just call it MWGA. Making Woodworking Great Again. (By amputating fingers)
Apparently, you haven't heard of push sticks. I don't know anyone yet who used push sticks and cut fingers off. I feel pretty safe using a table saw using a simple rule - when the wood hold is anywhere over the table, a push stick is on the wood. Beats supporting shysters and limiting legal options for people who try to legislate safety into their pockets.
I’m only disappointed about this because the liquidation prices on current saws before the law goes into effect would be amazing.
The price would be cut in half.
I think you have a finger on it.
They could drop one, maybe two digits.
Guess they got a kickback from table saw lobbyists
That is a very cutting comment
Wood you guys just stop!
You mean Like Saw Stop?
I suppose we should table this for now.
[удалено]
Perhaps even quartersawn.
Why would they liquidate, the rush to stock up on freedom saws would spike sales, not drop them.
I actually think the opposite will happen. News saws will be much more expensive
I mean the ones that stores are currently selling but won't be compliant with the new law. Those stores won't be able to sell them after the law goes into effect, so they will lower the prices to unload them as fast as possible.
Potentially single digit prices!
If SawStop's smart, they'll agree to allow competing table saws to use the technology with our without the proposed rule. And then rake in money by having the monopoly on replacement brake cartridges.
I thought they opened up the patent, but the pushback has been from manufacturers because requiring sawstop-like systems on new units would increase production cost. In my opinion, it’s like saying seatbelts are too expensive to put on economy models of cars.
Pretty sure when this came up a few weeks ago I read that they said they would open it up if it passed. There was some deal with letting Bosch use it but by the time they agreed to it Bosch had already abandoned their efforts.
This was a link in the same article. Bosch has a number of reasons for not selling it anymore, but some you wouldn't even think of like cell phone signals triggering the brake. https://toolguyd.com/bosch-reaxx-table-saw-why-you-cant-buy-it/
Yes, they stated IF it went into effect they would give up 1 specific patent.
They already screwed Bosch once. Why would a huge company want to get burned 2x and enrich the one that burned them?
I thought Bosch was the ones who tried to screw SawStop? Didn't they use the time during negotiations to come up with an infringing design & once they had it pulled out of negotiations? It was only then that SawStop sued them for infringement.
Bosch came up with a better design on a smaller jobsite saw. Sawstop was trying to force the existing manufacturers to license their tech. That doesn’t usually go over very well in a ‘negotiation’. I want the safety tech on all table saws…but not if it enriches only one company who has an overly broad patent.
Only article I saw was to “release” the ‘840 patent, which is already expired and publicly available. Edit: not expired. Appealed PTA and got 10 years extra term adjustment.
Can anyone explain this? What lawyer magic makes a patent get an extra ten years just because a company asks nicely?
Are you sure it expired? The article linked here said otherwise.
It’s actually not expired until April 2033. There’s another 3739 days of patent term adjustment that’s not listed on the patent as issued. Had to check the USPTO to find that out.
They said they would conditionally open it. Meaning for the right royalties
Based on replies to your comment people are really thinking SS tech is some crazy space aged expensive technology. It's an incredibly simple device and the patent has the manufacturing blueprint. The increase in manufacturing would be incredibly miniscule. A one time minor retooling of a few parts of the process. The "cost" is the liquidation sales and stall in demand on existing inventory and runout that would lead to a loss until inventory is replaced with incorporated tech. If the ruling went into place, it would basically guarantee that existing inventory would be exempt. OSHA would likely have an adoption window for industry. But many consumers would hold off to wait until the new tech is implemented. Second, they are trying to trick the consumer to expect higher prices so they can get away with jacking up the price. They want this ruling to go through so they can increase prices by 20% against a cost increase of 1%. They just want it slow enough to not stall current sales.
I believe the pushback is partially due to the toaster model of innovation. The tech is fairly basic, and has been in a fight to the bottom for consumer price to where there’s a perception that any cost addition makes the product non-competitive.
I agree, when the market is stable. But there is a pseudo natural collusion on increases in prices when there is PR coverage to do so. Just look at food prices. Food is as competitive as it gets, but COVID supply chains gave food companies PR coverage to increase prices without consumer pushback. All the sudden the 10 major food companies are having record breaking profits because they could increase prices permanently when supply costs had a short term blip. I think that's what the table saw market is hoping to happen. Raise a bunch of hell about costs so us consumers aren't surprised that prices go up. Because yes for a short period of time costs did too. But once all the manufacturing stabilizes, and costs fall back down, prices will stay at the new level and we'll all just accept it. Eventually, there may be a "race to the bottom" but it won't be a quick race since you'd have to forgo that juicy markup to chase volume and be able to manufacture that volume or you're just gonna be selling the same quantity for less.
I think the reality is that if they agree to it they are admitting that all of their previous saws that are sold are “dangerous” and should be recalled/retrofitted. Edit: autoincorrected a word
The only similar opened patent I am familiar with is John Deere’s ROPS patent. Legislation was put out to require it afterwards, but older tractors weren’t required to be refit with them. That may not be completely applicable here, but there is some precedent to not need a refit. I don’t know if seatbelts for cars were similar.
This. They don't want to open that liability, so they are willing to allow some folks to lose some fingers for their bottom lines.
I don't think it's a liability. It's all but guaranteed the ruling would A) exempt all prior sales, existing inventory and any inventory in progress at the time of cutover. B) OSHA would incorporate overtime. Who knows how long, maybe 10 years, maybe 20. Their concern is that consumer demand would come to a screeching halt as everyone would want to wait until the tech is available. Pro's don't want to have to buy one saw today and then buy another when OSHA makes them update. And household consumers will just hold off their purchase. Prices for "legacy" inventory would have to drop like crazy to get them off the shelves.
Agreed. Of course that risk would be less if they had just introduced it over time before a mandate. They also could work to retrofit the design but I imagine that's hard for lots of models due to the invasive design requirements.
Yeah, your second point is actually why I think sawstop is trying to fast track the ruling. If it's immediate, all the manufacturers will have to just use the existing design as detailed in the patent. They won't have time to create their own version. What sawstop is not releasing is their patent on the charges. So all the sudden virtually all table saws will use a safety feature that requires a part SS owns the patent for. A delayed ruling would allow other manufacturers to come up with their own systems and their own versions of the "charge", or whether it would even use one
No they've been assholes don't fall for it they're owned by the third largest tool conglomerate on the planet. Don't litigate a safety patent. Theyre completly sadistic fuckheads at this pojnt
SS had every right to litigate. Their entire product is based on that tech. If anyone could just ignore their patents they wouldn't exist today. They did also create a licensing agreement with Bosch in 2018 that would have let them sell the saw. Where SS is the true ass hole is everything to do with this rule proposal. They are fighting desperately now because they would be raising the prices of every single one of their competitors saws significantly while also getting liscensing deals with several manufacturers. This rule is not being pushed for the benefit of consumers. It's being pushed for the benefit of SS
More like "seatbelts are too expensive to put into the cars my employees drive for work."
No it’s more akin to saying the camera based collision avoidance and reaction system it to expensive to put in the economy models of cars because it will double the price. The seatbelt is more like the blade guard that comes with every saw that most people don’t use (just like seatbelts)
Automatic stop tech (collision detection) is being federally mandated too.
Funny thing, that’s pretty close to what I’m working on now. South Africa actually has legislation for allowing/interfacing 3rd party collision mitigation systems in construction and it’s definitely pushing adoption and system development. I don’t think it will ever be required on older machines, but I wouldn’t be surprised if there was a push to make it standard on some machines.
This would only be a good analogy if seatbelts tripled the price of economy model cars… like wtf lol how is it even comparable 😂
Except the SS tech isn't anything crazy from a cost perspective. Manufacturers are falsely making a bunch of cost claims to A) delay the inevitable one time cost of having a miniscule retooling of some manufacturing processes and B) provide a false signal to the market so we expect prices to jump to give them coverage to actually increase prices unjustifiably. This would increase costs significantly less than installing safety belts in cars
A better analogy would be airbags.
Yeah, airbags are actually also a pretty cheap and simple tech. A sensor that fires a single use charge, but completely replaceable. I buy that analogy
Certainly required more than a "miniscule" retooling. Completely redesigned steering wheel, dash, electronics, sensors, etc.
From the perspective of the entire car manufacturing process, that is pretty minor. Zero engine, transmission, exhaust, braking, steering (past the column), suspension, environmental condition, frame, shell, cooling, signalling, wheels, passenger space, storage/trunk design, etc. When initially implemented it was a physical sensor and closed loop from entire charging system, so there was not any retooling of electronics or existing sensors. I'd argue there wasn't a "steering wheel redesign" because those had already been done before airbags became mandatory. And as with all patents, the design of the product had to be detailed enough that it could be replicated
Except that in this case, it would equate to needing to redesign the entire cars frame to accommodate the airbag.
There’s absolutely zero evidence for your claim and I’m tired of people like you that make such unfounded claims in attempts to manipulate others. Take a hike. I don’t want sawstop tech and I don’t need it, so don’t force me to buy it.
I bought my Skil table saw for $265 last fall. This rule would raise the price of the same saw to over $750. It's not minor production costs, it's a huge amount of R&D and engineering. There is a link in that article about why Bosch didn't relaunch the Reaxx saw when they had the chance. One of the reasons is that Cell phone signals interfere with the finger detection and they would have to redesign the technology to update for new Cellular standards.
They built an inferior product to saw stop, and now have the green light to just wholesale license SS tech. They knew it was a flawed product when they launched it, and that's just bad R&D
There's only so many ways you can pull a saw blade away so quickly and SS had the patents for most of them. From what I have heard is that people with Reaxx really liked that it didn't destroy either the cartridge or the saw blade, so it had it's positives. There is an article that's hyperlinked inside the posted article that has bosch's response as to why they didn't relaunch it. They did say it would still take ~6 years of R&D to recreate it because so many modifications need to me made, and that is with the license they have from SS. They also said that the tool side of their business doesn't have experience in the technology needed, so they had to rely on their appliance teams to help support.
Go to some developing countries - they have brand new cars lacking all the safety you're used to available for sale, some from major companies. Like the nissan micra for example, can't be sold in the US because it's too much of a deathtrap. Pretty sure they made the 90s sentra for 20 years, and the VW bug for like fifty, for these markets. So yeah honestly. There are plenty of takers for cheaper cars that cut costs on safety. Like seat belts and airbags. Many people would prefer to own an unsafe shitbox than to walk.
This comparison is orders of magnitude different. * In 1975 it cost **6%** of the car's value to put a seat belts in * Between 1970 and 2012 330,000 LIVES were saved by seatbelts. * 7900 **LIVES** a Year * A Ryobi Jobsite Table Saw is $150; A SawStop Jobsite Table Saw is $900; * Making this safety device **83%** of the value. * I'm sure there are more, but SawStop has published only 12 FINGERS saved in 20 years * 0.6 **FINGERS** a Year * [https://www.sawstop.com/finger-saves/](https://www.sawstop.com/finger-saves/) Additionally the comparison is backwards. Seatbelts are the minimum safety for an consumer, SawStop is the maximum usually used by Professionals. Professional race cars have much more expensive safety equipment than economy cars. Should we force all manufactures to install 5 point harnesses and HANS devices, then make everyone wear helmets? This is why race car chassis are typically double or triple the price. Seatbelts are something small that has a big impact. Sawstop is something extremely expensive that has a very small impact.
> A Ryobi Jobsite Table Saw is $150; A SawStop Jobsite Table Saw is $900 At least compare a saw that's striving for *vaguely* comparable build quality, jesus christ.
You don't think comparing a lada without seatbelts with a BMW with seatbelts is fair? :)
Not the point at all! Ryobi is an economy table saw. SawStop is a Professional bespoke table saw. Economy cars have seatbelts. Professional race cars have roll cages and 3x the expense safety equipment. This is the inequality drawn from his seatbelt comparison. Dude is saying Ryobi table saws should have Professional safety equipment is like saying economy cars should have race car safety equipment. The seatbelt comparison is more like electronic equipment should have fuses not $600+ electrical safety stops. I can buy 6 Ryobi Table saws for the price of one SawStop. You could never buy 6 economy cars without seatbelts for the price of one car with seatbelts.
That link is a page with a few written testimony's, its not any kind of inclusive list. Ive probably seen 12 finger saves so far this year just posted to Reddit.
Sure find me a better reference. I haven't been able to find one anywhere close to the 8000 LIVES a year magnitude.
Also I'd rather lose my own finger due to MY OWN stupidity that lose my life because of SOMEONE ELSES recklessness in a car. Saw stop protects you from you, seatbelts more often than not protect you from someone else. Nobody is running around shoving other people's hands in saws
How about we ask all those people who have sawn their finger off if they think paying extra would have been worth it?
I did cut my thumb, not off, but in half. I did this on a bandsaw cutting metal. The blade caught the metal, flipped it pushing my thumb in. I cut down my fingernail in middle; down into the bone. No, I don't want a saw stop. I have always respected table saws more, and learned to respect band saws more. Additionally, I always now wear heavy leather gloves working with metal. I did this mostly before, but didn't for that "one last quick cut".
What can I say? Some people are just quicker learners than others.
You asked for the opinion of someone who has had this sort of accident, then dismissed it with a personal insult. Seems like a very quality way of having a debate. Great work there!
They announced weeks ago if they adopt a rule requiring it the key patents are instantly released.
They already do.
> effectively result in a government-mandated monopoly – and it could result in the use of lower-cost circular saws and plywood as makeshift table saws, which can be more hazardous than utilizing a dedicated tool. The best thing about paid-for officials is when they create a proposal for what they’re going to do, it’s the exact thing they’re going to do, just not to the thing you think they’re going to do it to. This will create a government-mandated monopoly for SawStop, and ensure that people continue to use finger-rippin pieces of shit for decades to come.
A smart engineer would devise a saw that doesn’t require new parts for every stop activation. The problem with the saw stops is the unexpected nails or moisture in the wood and the required override process making the stop useless in the first place. Every trigger is 400 bucks out of pocket and that’s not accounting for machine down time.
The reaxx is more like $70 because the cartridge still needs replacing. But no new blade or anything.
There's a huge amount of mass and energy to stop on a dime. And the slower you stop, the more of your fingers you lose. Crumple designs for quickly stopping the blade is exactly how it can be so safe. Making it slower makes it less safe for a convenience and cost savings. And a cartridge is $100, no way it costs you 400. I'm guessing you've never owned one.
Turns out, there’s a massive amount of energy dissipation in stopping a 4000rpm saw blade in a fraction of a second, and something is going to deform…
Saw Stop has a lot to gain from the ruling. Every competitor of theirs will raise their prices significantly. Additionally, if all the patents listed in this article aren't made available, there's nothing stopping sawstop from litigating against other companies when they are forced to implement the rule. Even if it isn't found to violate a patent, it could delay the sales of new saws for those companies.
They already did this.
Alright hoss's. All I'm going to say is I have a unique job where I drive to about 50 different barn, shed, modular, and panel shops monthly. Sawstops are not common, even in plants that have the money. If we don't force this stuff at a consumer level I'm honestly fine with it, but I really want to see it mandated in businesses. There have been 4 fingers lost in two accidents at one location in the last 6 months. The average skill level at these factories is very low nowadays. The pay is usually abysmal, and these jobs are often times done by very disadvantaged people that have never operated any power equipment before getting hired at these shit holes. If a homeowner buys a 150 dollar job saw, doesn't read the manual or watch safety videos, and loses a finger I really don't care. But expecting these kids and immigrants to run saws for 50 hours a week with no protection is just a time bomb. All it takes is one off day, working too fast or with too little sleep and that's it. Partial disability for life.
Hear hear
That’s my problem. As I understand it, the rule is only targeting consumer saws. 731 Woodworks has released 3 or 4 videos on the topic. Something that stood out to me was the stats about injuries and amputations being used to justify the rule. Why did that stand out? A very high percentage of those injuries and amputations are in commercial settings. Like, I’m all for increased safety, but target the sector where the problem is happening.
I'll have to check those videos out. I don't know the breakdown between personal and commercial injuries but I can say with confidence that the problem seems to be systemic. I've got clients that haven't had an amputation in the decades they've been in business and I have clients that have multiple amputations a year. I've got Amish guys that rig gas engines to ancient saws that have all their fingers, and I've got publicly traded clients with new equipment with all guards removed that maim employees constantly. They always end up squirming out of heavy fines, I think because if they had to pay 6 figures like they've been threatened with they would be out of business. They absolutely deserve to be out of business though. It's hard not to blast the names of these guys publicly if I'm honest.
Expecting an untrained person to use a dangerous machine without safeties or proper training is how you get lawsuits. Extra safety features for reputable companies involves balancing retooling costs vs lawsuits and/or loss of productivity. Clearly that threshold hasn't been met if sites are not upgrading equipment. Gonna guess its on account of many of the accidents being negligence by the operators, not the owners. Not saying that there is no pressure in any shops from employers to perform in an unsafe manner, but that needs to be addressed by the employees and lawsuits filed. Government mandated safety features are only a band aid with companies like that, and many would just fake them or bribe inspectors to overlook the bypasses. As for the sleep thing, that can can happen at almost any job. Plenty of fast food workers have been permanently injured on the job from being too tired or working too fast. Its not unique to wood shops or even heavy industry. There are a lot of factors involved, which means one machine having one extra safety feature may not make a huge difference overall. That's not saying not to push for this, but that its not a magic bullet and that people need to temper their expectations of the overall impact.
This is the current climate and how the world works today. Every power tool you buy for yourself is dangerous. Professional shops usually have better safety equipment than home users. The cost of lawsuits are built into the price of doing business.
What should happen is a rule to force insurance companies to require AIM technology on any table saws used by the business. This would still require companies to develop and implement the tech without utterly destroying the jobsite saw market.
Exactly! Make this an OSHA grandfathering mandate first before it making it consumer protection.
I just want a company that retrofits old saws with technology. I love my unifence, and I don't have money to pay saw stop prices on a hobby
Pretty much everything under the table has to be beefed up for the brake to work and not destroy the say. There won’t be a retrofit.
I was actually taking to someone about this the other day. The force created from a blade going Mach fuck to zero is tremendous. Last thing you want is the arbor snapping and that blade playing pinball in your garage or your saw in general sending pieces flying at you. I’m not even sure how many times a sawstop saw can be tripped, before maybe I’d want to peek under the skirt just to make sure everything is good.
The reaxx just drops the blade down, thus saving the blade. No immediate deceleration with that method, maybe easier to retrofit.
More elegant, but that still requires a droppable arbor and compatible motor mount - and probably motor, too, in practice. That's a lot of the guts, and it needs to be a good price to make any sense at all.
Mach fuck, I have a new speed to reach in my car
It's likely that anyone trying to make an affordable jobsite saw that can match these standards will have to make the entire saw self destruct
Thank you! I came here to say this.
A coworker did the math and pointed out that the medical deductible was far higher than the additional cost to get a SawStop. His wife had no issues with that.
Honestly I think SawStops should be FSA eligible purchases.
Once there is competition in the marketplace, the price will drop for safety-enhanced equipment. It won’t drop to the level of equipment without safety features, but it will come in below the current price point for SawStop.
I heard they got a kickback
Nice
TLDR: I have the right to cut my fingers off cause ‘Merica.
Next you're going to come after my right to set myself on fire with an angle grinder. I thought this was 'merica.
They already came for your right to light yourself on fire. Have you tried using a new gas can?
“**Preserving Woodworking Traditions and Blocking Government-Mandated Monopolies Act**” really should be called: “**Preserving Corporate Tool Company Profits and Blocking Safety Regulations Act**” It's the same crap that always happens when new technology or a new methodology threatens the bottom line of a huge corporation. Suddenly the old way is all about tradition and freedom.
See, I do think safety is extremely important. However, SawStop Saws will not get any more expensive, so if this means more choices and the funding for better safety down the line, I’m all for it. I would hope though that when the patent expires, the original mandate goes back into effect.
Yes saw stop doesn't get more expensive. Everything else does. This rule is for the benefit of saw stop. If it were for the benefit of consumers, then more safety options would have been proposed and brought for discussion and not just AIM.
Given that more money is spent every year on table saw injuries than table saws right now, currently we're all just subsidizing table saw manufacturers with our health insurance and workplace compensation insurance premiums. The real cost of a table saw without the extra safety measures is about two to three times the sticker price, so those with safety mechanisms are probably cheaper in the long run. I do agree that other safety options should be explored, but right now more safety rules are direly needed, and there is one tech that's been market proven. There should be a separate issue opened up about limiting the scope of patents, not just in this case, so competing technologies can actually make it to market.
When the cost barrier for entry is too high people will resort to more dangerous means. I do think that when you look at something like a cabinet table saw and maybe even include contractor table saw the cost difference isn't unreasonable to add this technology. The problem is jobsite was that will become exponentially more expensive. When you consider hobbiests/home owners/weekend warriors, it's not a justify able price point for a single tool.
Just reminding everyone that sawstop agreed to open up its patents if the tech becomes required by law.
They agreed to release ***one*** patent. This legislation mentions several more that they haven’t said boo about.
Patents plural? All patents? Enough to make other manufacturers actually compete in this new realm or just enough to be forced to not compete in the old one? What if they don't follow through? Devil is in the details, hope this is actually legit.
Just the one. And according to google patents it’s already expired so I don’t get it
Exactly. I’d love to see what everyone here is taking about be a reality…table saws that all have some form of an effective braking system. However, sawstop has good lawyers. Given their past tactics I do not trust them to “release ALL their patents” in good faith. They are a company driven by profits, period. There is an angle here that benefits them. I AM SICK OF SAWSTOP TRYING TO MANDATE THEIR SYSTEM. (And I have one). If they actually cared they’d release ALL the patents and then pursue the mandate. The current approach stinks like a play to make one last surge of profits as their patent is aging out…aka they have a well known product on the market…any competition will take time to get a compliant product to market…in the interim…
It's not just an angle that benefits them. Every part of this rule will benefit them. 1. All competitors prices will raise significantly 2. Many companies will have to license the tech from SS because R&D would be to expensive and time consuming 3. Companies that develop their own could be sued even if they don't infringe on the patent. They could delay the release of some of these companies beyond the date set by the proposed rule, effectively eliminating them from the market for a period of time.
If they hadn’t already shown their @$$ and tried this a few years ago…I might be more inclined to trust the concept. As it sits I know someone who was negotiating a marketing deal with them (YT promo/influencer) and their legal department was vicious. They almost canceled the deal until they were able to eliminate the “you owe us a blood sweat and semen sample along with your first born and your entire YT channel if we decide it is ours”…I’m exaggerating but not by much. It was pretty stark compare to typical contracts. It was almost a non-compete for promoting anything else without coming out and saying it. And for those saying this is paranoia…look at Marc at the Wood Whisperer and how Powermatic absolutely F-ed him in the end.
That's also what it sounded like their initial licensing proposals were for companies early on. They had companies interested in liscensing until they heard the terms demanded And the exchange in the hearing between commissioner Trumpka and the SS CEO just screamed to me like it was coordinated beforehand. Trumpka -"you should be ashamed that you defended your patent against bosch" SS CEO -"it's our legal right to defend out patent" Trumpka -"OK I guess you're right" SS CEO -"If our patent is preventing this rule, we will make the 840 patent available to the public if the rule is put in place" Trumpka -"you are the greatest hero of mankind, all other companies are evil. With this information I think we should now move up the date companies have to have it ready by" Paraphrasing a bit, but that was pretty accurately the tone.
😂
They also sued Bosch and took their IMHO superior product off the market
Yep, if sawstop really cared about safety, they would not have sued Bosch. The inventor of saw stop tried for years to get the government to mandate his technology so he could get rich. Now granted, he sold the company, but saw stop is a shady company.. They do not give a rip about preventing injuries. It's all about the profit.
Congress could also just invalidate their patents with a law, and if they actually cared about there not being a monopoly could pass that bill right now. In fact they could pass a bill limiting or outlawing all safety feature related patents, and while they are at it invalidate all drug patents.
Then why would anyone spends money inventing those things in the first place?
So your saws don't injure people, why do people volunteer time teaching or working at soup kitchens? Because not everyone is a selfish prick like the CEOs of this world.
And we all know that's a lie.
I continue to see the sentiment online of "this is unnecessary, *I've* used a saw safely for years, people who get injured are doing something dumb" etc. But the fact remains that there are an estimated 30,000 table saw injuries a year (which we're all footing some of the bill for). How many of those injured probably said the same thing right up until that moment?
How many are caused by kickback. Something that sawstop is unable to prevent.
Very true
Aren't blade guards, riving knifes, and kickback pawls required by law?
everyone takes that shit off the first day.
Everyone takes off the blade guard… not the riving knife.
This is why I ended up buying a euro style sliding saw instead of a sawstop. I can do like 95% of the cuts without using the rip fence and instead have everything clamped to the sliding table with me clear of the danger zones in all ways. In old industrial saws I’ve seen a 2x4 kick back and spear itself into a block wall. The vast majority of injuries are either directly or indirectly due you kickback. Having said that the sawstop machines also have a really nice riving knife setup which helps with a large percent of those problems as well (assuming not removed), although it doesn’t do much if you’re using a dado head.
Yes that's not a great argument against this, but this ruling is heavily flawed. The biggest issue is the impact it will have on the cost of a saw. The most common saw on the market is the jobsite table saw. The price of most would triple. People argue about the cost of losing a finger, but when you can't afford the premium safety feature, you instead do the same job just in a more dangerous fashion. Additionally, there's no discussion on different safety features. There is only one option being hammered through and it's the most expensive premium option that overwhelming benefits just one company and hurting all their competitors.
Is there a breakdown of occupational vs recreational? I could see an OSHA requirement but not a blanket law
How many had the user removed the guard and/or the riving knife? When people get injured by a SawStop in bypass mode, isn’t that an argument that bypass mode should be eliminated to protect people who do the wrong thing?
Agreed but some folks treat saw accidents like some epidemic crisis, like we’re all walking around with 3 fingers left. For Sawstop this is at best maybe 10% about spreading safety, and 90% about giving the company that charges 4x more than everyone else a monopoly the tablesaw market.
I believe those stats are for all saws. I don't believe OSHA breaks table saws into its own category. At least I could not find one when I researched into it.
The 30,000 figures are drawn from data submitted to the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) by emergency rooms across the country, https://www.cpsc.gov/Research--Statistics/NEISS-Injury-Data, as discussed here - https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/11/01/2023-23898/safety-standard-addressing-blade-contact-injuries-on-table-saws A significant number of table saw injuries appear to be non occupational, according to a study published by the National Institutes of Health https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4154236/#R11
Don’t have hard and fast opinions on the rule or legislation but Jeff Duncan is a dumb fuck through and through.
Regardless of any shitty politicians, the CPSC ruling needs to be stopped. It's a bad ruling for a whole slew of reasons and this bill did call out some of them pretty accurately.
Glad I'll never need to buy a new saw....
Making no comment on safety, but practically speaking, a requirement by law would effectively kill the price point of the entry-level table saw.
Regular folks tables saws about to look like the Cuban car market. All 50’s bodies with whatever parts will fit to keep them running.
Or, market forces would cause table saw sales to drop and drive the price of a safe table saw down.
Nobody will sell table saws for less then material costs, labor, distribution costs, advertising and profit margin. So likely what will happen is entry level table saws will not be manufactured anymore. Market forces for products have their limits
Yup. It's like cars. They keep getting safer and better mileage, but prices keep going up to. You definitely pay for the improving technology.
> They keep getting...better mileage CAFE laws have made it so the vehicles they put for sale just keep getting bigger since they cant make the smaller cars match the required mileage.
They can make them match the required mileage if they wanted to, they just don't sell. People just don't want them because there's no value in it.
I don’t follow your no value point, are you saying that the size or the mileage has no value? Or both?
There's no value for the manufacturer because they aren't huge sellers and can't be marked up a whole lot over cost. Buyers are voting with their wallets and the market is trending bigger, and has been for a long time. This In the US anyway.
You are paying for a big ass screen and a bunch of creature comforts. I don’t think prices have too much to do with these companies trying to recoup costs.
If this happens it will be the end of cheaper base level saws and entry price for a table saw will be $1000. I have a SS and it’s a good saw but was $1800. Most table saw accidents could be prevented by utilizing the basic safety features
I’m glad sawstop tech exists, but I don’t want it and I sure as hell don’t want to be forced to use it.
you mean they don't want to give sawstop an effective monopoly on saws in the US? color me shocked. LOL.
Sawstop has said if the committee enacts the safety standard for breaking technology on all tablesaw in the USA that they would no longer enforce any other patents with regards to breaking technology
Have they said they’d release *all* the patents listed in this legislation?
No they did not. Just the 840 patent
Sounds like this legislation is “calling BS on that” put into law 😀😀
Next week on prime news: “US company lies to make a profit. How everyone is shocked to hear it”
Lol that sounds like a newspaper headline from Sim City 2000
They told the truth. They know it will take their competition shitloads of money to catch them, and they'll be the only game in town for awhile.
Are there actually people stupid enough to believe that?
I recall them saying they would agree to sell their technology
They didn't say this. They said they will make 1 patent available publicly if the rule gets put into effect. They did not say they would not take action on any other patent infringements. They didn't even confirm that they would license their technology if the rule is implemented.
I feel like there should be a middle ground here to make everyone happy and safe.
there is. If you want a sawstop, buy a sawstop.
which is fine until you try to work safely anywhere other than your home.
friendly reiminder the majority of table saw usage is by people who are selling their labor for an hourly wage and using whatever piece of shit the owner/business provides
Make it an OSHA requirement then?
If you don't want your taxpayer & insurance dollars paying for the medical bills associated with the tens of thousands of injuries that non-sawstop saws incur every year, support regulations to make sawstop mandatory. Also do the same thing if you value your fingers at more than $3,000 apiece.
That’s correct
well they revoked a womans right to chose, potable water rights .. why not saw saftey laws .. lets kill people so they can complain, sorry canpain ( not a SP)
Don't forget taking away child workers lunch breaks
your right, how could i forget lol thankyou !
This is a bipartisan action and they're doing it because sawstop still owns the patents on its technology. Their argument is that the bill would effectively give sawstop a monopoly on table saws for the next several years, and could lead to people using makeshift table saws made from circular saws to save money.
Jesus just the thought of rigging a circular saw into a table saw gives me chills.
There would probably be more injuries after the rule because the high cost of saws will have people coming up with more dangerous solutions when they can't afford a table saw.
right to choose what, push sticks? I wish to have the right to choose push sticks. I'd even allow them to put disclaimers on regular saws. This saw may cut you ways you can't imagine, and it may throw things at you if you defeat safety devices. You are an adult, you need to make adult choices. Please note that while you are allowed to legally buy this saw and we encourage you to use push sticks and all safety devices for this saw, prevent minors and idiots from using it and never operate it with your hands on or over the table unless they are holding push sticks.... ....you may also in this country go and buy overpriced devices that are expensive, initially and continuously, and that are marketed by people who in our opinion are more interested in their wealth than they are your safety, but you can make a legitimate case that if you refuse to use push sticks, you may be poorer but have more fingers. kthxbai
good. I hope they're successful.
Seat belts in cars were first patented in the late 1800s. The three-point style seatbelt that we know today was developed in the late 1950s; however, there was not a major push to make seatbelts mandatory in cars until the 80s/90s. And even though seat belts are required to some degree in every state now (with New Hampshire being the most lax), lots of people still refuse to wear them. We are talking about a safety device so of course there's going to be the chorus of "we have to save the children" contingent pushing for full adoption of this safety device across the industry because "no cost is too high when we're talking about the lives of our children", but we are still talking about a product that is protected under patent law and mandatory adoption would be creating a monopoly with the cost being passed on to the consumer. If this wasn't a safety thing...let's say that a company developed a quick-change blade mechanism that was infinitely better than what we have now and was protected by patent, then would we support the mandatory adoption of this new mechanism across the industry or would we recognize that adoption would be a monopoly? Table saws are already expensive and this mandatory add-on would make them more expensive. Yes, a safety device might save a finger, but how many of us have been using table saws our entire lives without a single incident? How many of us are actually using the anti-kickback device or the blade guard that our saws already come with? I'm not opposed to safety features. Tools are inherently dangerous. The problem I have with safety devices is the attitude shift of people when safety devices are widespread. When a dangerous machine has a safety device on it, people start thinking that the machine is safe. It's not. It's still a dangerous tool with a spinning metal blade with the ability to cause a lot of damage. How many posts have we seen in this group alone where people are posting about their saw stop having engaged and commenting that this is their third or fourth time it's happened? Dude, seriously? At what point should that person just realize that they are doing stupid things? And while we're at it, this safety device has been developed for one type of tool--the table saw. But what about all the other incredibly dangerous tools. In the hierarchy of tools, I am way more scared of a circular saw or a miter saw than a table saw. I am curious (obviously not curious enough to actually research it, but still...) which common woodworking tool is the cause of the most injuries. I suspect it is not the table saw. If safety really is the reason behind this push and the pushback with the legislation, then why isn't the industry mandate to include similar safety devices on all things with spinning metal blades? This is a case of a product finding a need rather than a need finding a product.
The focus on table saws comes mostly from the frequency of use. On average someone would make far more cuts on a table saw than a jointer. Without any hard evidence I'd bet jointer injuries would probably be higher rate per use than table saws. One of the many things I find frustrating about this rule on table saws is the glaring lack of discussion on other safety features. There are so many safety accessories that replace the need for having your hands near the blade. Featherboards and stock guides are great examples. You no longer have to use your hands to keep pressure down on the workpiece or against the fence. Auto feeders to push the workpiece through. I just get the feeling that the reason for this ruling moving forward is that Sawstop finally bought the right commissioner to get traction.
Table saws are plausibly the most dangerous common tool. Jointers are another high on the list but they are less common. Miter saws aren’t even close. In fact miter saws are basically the safer replacement from the previous generations “most dangerous tool” which is the radial arm saw. But I think one answer to your question is that safety mechanisms that apply to things like miter saws have not been developed. Something like the saw stop mechanism may be workable for miter saws but I kind of doubt it. More likely to apply to jointers but jointers are smaller devices generally so maybe there just isn’t room in practice?
The entire last part of your comment is illustrating my point. If the true concern is making tools safer, then why isn't there a mandatory push to develop similar safety devices for all tools with the potential for inflicting harm? If a jointer is too small to install a safety device and safety is the primary concern, then mandate that they be bigger to accommodate a safety device. Having a slightly larger tool is a small price to pay when safety is the highest concern. If you're refuting my assertions, then you have to admit that safety isn't the highest concern. And safety, despite this issue's trappings, is not what is driving this debate. It's money. I don't support legislation that creates a monopoly. Saw stops are readily available for sale if someone values the safety features enough to pay the premium. And I'm glad they're out there. However, until it becomes affordable, I am just going to continue using my tools as safely as I can without the feature. Moreover, If safety is tantamount, then there is alternative legislation that already exists to strip patent protections from a product in order to make it widely available to the masses for the common good. Why, if safety is the end all be all in this debate, isn't that option being pursued for the saw stop technology?
Stump Nubs has a good video discussion of this on YouTube in terms of the pros and cons of the tech being mandated. Worth a watch
I feel like 731 woodworks did a better job of covering it. He did a lot more research and also showed clips of the actual hearings.
Im cool with that
good. we don't need government regulating our woodworking tools.
The saw they should be concerned about, if any, is the radial arm saw (ras). You have to try real hard to lose an appendage on a table saw. The ras is known to pull work from hand or drive itself over the work and those who are unsuspecting can have their hands pulled into the spinning blade. But really, lawmakers need to take a break with all the new laws they keep coming up with. They're taking a toll on our freedom.
Radial arm saws are phenomenal production tools if you use them correctly. Did some YouTuber make a video about them or something? Because I see a lot of people who’ve never used one afraid of them lately. Used them in shops with dozens of guys never had an issue. 1000x better than a miter saw for certain types of work. Literally any tool is super dangerous if you aren’t trained on it.
Guys is it un-American to keep all your fingers?
Sawstop tech isn't the only safety tool that will help you keep all your fingers.
I want to see the statistics of accidents happening with youngsters trained with freaking saw stops etc. then becoming reliant on that crap with no training on a real table saw, then helping Gramps cut fence planks in the backyard on his old iron belt driven 1945 Craftsman and losing a finger because he was never taught how to really use a f'ing saw. It's like using training wheels until adulthood then being taken off and pushed down a hill. ***Learn to use the tools correctly!!! Then they will still be able to throw "peace signs" in selfies without two hands.
Senator Phil Anglas proposed this bill.
Yay, regulation makes everything better!
There's a **very simple** reason why sawstop is promising to releasing their patent conditionally for the CPSC mandate. Sawstop is a relative smaller company compared to the other table saw companies, they don't have the economy of scale to compete. With many of their patents are expiring, should other companies invest and come out with alternatives saw brake/AIM technologies - Sawstop cannot survive in a market with cheaper \~$300 saws **and** \~$600 saws that have alternative saw brakes/AIM technology. Thus by proposing the mandate, they will only compete in a market with the \~$600 saws priced closer to their own products. It's simply a calculated loss cutting strategy. Otherwise, as many have said, sawstop would've released their patents unconditionally.
I’m not in favor of the rule, but tool companies are doing the same thing everyone is bitching about SawStop doing. Ryobi is clearly directly in the ear of someone in Congress.
Lobbying is the best return on investment a corporation can make without paying for the externality of all the lost fingers. And people still wonder what is wrong with the first past the post electoral system. Plutocracy!
The bulk of the lobbying has been from saw stop. What happens to them if this rule goes into place? 1. Prices for every single one of their competitors goes up. 2. Most of their competitors will seek licensing from sawstop. 3. They will litigate heavily on anything even close to their patents to delay saws coming to market before the rule change is enforced. Meaning less competition on the market for a period of time. They've lobbied non stop to the CPSC because they will get filthy stinking rich.
I like the bill's name: "Preserving Woodworking Traditions and Blocking Government-Mandated Monopolies Act" Might as well just call it MWGA. Making Woodworking Great Again. (By amputating fingers)
There's more than one way to ~~skin a cat~~ not cut off your fingers
Apparently, you haven't heard of push sticks. I don't know anyone yet who used push sticks and cut fingers off. I feel pretty safe using a table saw using a simple rule - when the wood hold is anywhere over the table, a push stick is on the wood. Beats supporting shysters and limiting legal options for people who try to legislate safety into their pockets.