Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Despite Proven Technology, Attempts to Make Table Saws Safer Drag On

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 226 posts

Re: Despite Proven Technology, Attempts to Make Table Saws Safer Drag On

#191

Post by jdavis703 »

oliwarner wrote: post #188
jdavis703 wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cars should be made safer WRT to the people outside the car who might have to deal with the consequences. For example, a car with spikes on the outside should probably be illegal. But as long as the danger is knowingly and exclusively contained to the occupant of a vehicle I see no reason to make it illegal. Motorcycles, for example, lack standard safety features like seatbelts and airbags, and yet we haven't made th…

I guess I asked for it but I didn't really expect somebody to argue against things like airbags and SRS. Hey, what about driver seatbelts? It's a constant surprise to me just how much some people want to forgo very reliable and affordable technology to play contrarian and stick it to the man. The problem is, it's a team of paramedics, police, fire and rescue who have to scrape your broken arse off the road. You don't…

I'm not trying to stick it to the man. When I pass on certain safety features it's for practical reasons. I don't like side view mirrors with blind spot detection -- it'll lull me in to not checking over my shoulder if I ever have to drive a car without that feature (or the feature fails). Same thing with wearing a bike helmet, while it sounds excessively vain I have an afro that gets completely destroyed by a helmet, so I don't wear those. At the end of the day I want to be able to opt-in or opt-out of safety features based on a set of personal calculations.

Re: Despite Proven Technology, Attempts to Make Table Saws Safer Drag On

#192

Post by cr0sh »

taneq wrote: post #7
bluejekyll wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it greed exactly? Wouldn't the saws just cost more? I suppose the R&D on building the components into their current products is something they don't want to do, so maybe that's the greed aspect?

I think the greed mentioned here is that SawStop is lobbying to make it mandatory for saws to use their technology while trying to stop others from bringing similar systems to market, all so that they can price-gouge a captive market. IIRC last time it was discussed here, they were trying to charge ~$100 per saw to license their tech, when the usual margin on a saw was about a quarter of that. If they just accepted a…

> I think the greed mentioned here is that SawStop is lobbying to make it mandatory for saws to use their technology

I don't think they are lobbying for saws to use their technology, but rather for saws to use -a- technology to stop the saw.

They just happen to have a patent on a technology with proven results that it works. The patent probably covers the sensing, the stopping of the blade, and reactive retraction system to move the blade downward quickly.

Another manufacturer would have to come up with alternatives to all or more of these to implement the same safety feature; or license the tech from SawStop.

Manufacturers have done the math, and have come to the conclusion that they want the profits over their customer's safety; maybe they also got input from their customers, and found that most wouldn't pay over a certain amount extra for the feature, and that amount was much lower than what R&D for a new method, or licensing SawStop would cost.

So - what's going on can be looked at as either SawStop being greedy, or they really want some kind of this technology to be put on saws (and other tools could benefit likely) - whether it is their's or something else. You can't fault them, though, for pursuing a lawsuit on patent infringement, if the it is being infringed. That's the point of patents.

It could be argued that this is somewhat about greed, though, because SawStop has been pursuing this with the FTC since they came to market with the tech. But I doubt that they are trying "regulatory capture" here - that would be fairly blatant, and I doubt even the current FTC would abide by that. It could turn out, though, that their tech is (so far) the only way to reliably stop a saw blade from spinning instantly.

Ultimately, we'll know what the truth is when the patent runs out:

If all the table saw manufacturers adopt a similar system, but charge only a little extra (but not the huge difference that SawStop does - which is likely a combination of R&D recovery, plus being a small manufacturer with different margins to recoup) - then they care about their customer's safety.

I'm cynical, though - I guess I've lived too long. I expect they'll either adopt something then charge just as much or more as SawStop does currently, or they'll not do anything (but likely increase their prices anyhow).

Re: Despite Proven Technology, Attempts to Make Table Saws Safer Drag On

#193

Post by cr0sh »

AstralStorm wrote: post #68
WalterBright wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the blade had slowed down substantially before it was set off, the potential for damage would be greatly reduced.

Oh and why not just instead use a clutch to disconnect the drive instead? There is one already I bet. Without motive force the blade stops in your hand without explosions. It has low mass so low momentum. (This won't work for massive blades but neither will exploding them. You will need an active brake.) However the patent is on the dumb detector and is overly wide.

Have you ever used a table saw?

When shut off, the blade doesn't have "low momentum"; if it were clutched, it would still be spinning fast enough to seriously mangle or sever fingers. An active brake won't be fast enough.

Remember, each tooth is flying at an insane amount of speed; you need to be able to stop the saw dead in a fraction of the length of the tooth (within the length of about 3/4" - about the thickness of an adult hand/finger). You don't - you can't - do that with a friction brake, or even some hypothetical friction plus e-braking (regenerative braking).

That spinning mass of steel has a ton of momentum, even disconnected from the motor. The only way to reliably stop is is to quickly jam something non-yielding into the teeth of the saw.

If you can figure out another way, kudos to you! But I would suggest you first learn about what and how a table saw works first, just to know what kind of forces you are dealing with. They are anything but small.

Re: Despite Proven Technology, Attempts to Make Table Saws Safer Drag On

#194

Post by setr »

oliwarner wrote: post #188
jdavis703 wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cars should be made safer WRT to the people outside the car who might have to deal with the consequences. For example, a car with spikes on the outside should probably be illegal. But as long as the danger is knowingly and exclusively contained to the occupant of a vehicle I see no reason to make it illegal. Motorcycles, for example, lack standard safety features like seatbelts and airbags, and yet we haven't made th…

I guess I asked for it but I didn't really expect somebody to argue against things like airbags and SRS. Hey, what about driver seatbelts? It's a constant surprise to me just how much some people want to forgo very reliable and affordable technology to play contrarian and stick it to the man. The problem is, it's a team of paramedics, police, fire and rescue who have to scrape your broken arse off the road. You don't…

Its not about eliminating the technology; its about choosing its presence. These safety features are not free to have, and are not necessarily worth their cost, in every situation.

But by enforcing it at the federal level you remove that choice from consumers everywhere, with at best a limited understanding of the environment in which the rule is being applied.

It is not nonsensical that I might want a $400 death trap versus a $5k properly regulated and safety-confirmed vehicle if I immediately need a car, and I don't have 5k to spend. What regulations do is fuck over anyone who wants the $400 death trap (valid reasons), by only allowing the $5k (and better) to exist. The guys who can afford the regulated machine are better off, the guys who can't are worse off.

Why might I be fine with a death trap? Because its that or I lose my job, and I'm willing to take on that risk. And I'm assuming I can better gauge the meaning of that risk for myself than the governments can (whereas they have a better understanding at a macro level)

Its not about safety, its about autonomy, and the belief that the government is just able to make poor decisions as you are, but their mistakes are far longer lasting, and destructive.

Re: Despite Proven Technology, Attempts to Make Table Saws Safer Drag On

#195

Post by luckydude »

analog31 wrote: post #158
dpcx wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. There will always be things out of our control in woodworking. Just like seatbelts won't save you in all circumstances. And there are still some people that drive without wearing seatbelts. It really comes down to personal preference (even though driving without a seatbelt on is illegal in many states and countries).

Indeed, and there are cases where I want to be protected from my own inattention, when the stakes are high enough.

So my argument is wrong but you want to be protected from inattention????

You need to be fully awake when running tools, same goes for driving. They are both defensive activities.

Maybe people are beating on me because I didn't say "for me...." but whatever. I stand behind my reasoning, it works for me. And I think the sawstop is just silly. Tablesaws, used properly, are just fine. If you are losing fingers can I introduce you to this magic development called push sticks?

My tablesaw rules are simple:

    - use wood or plastic push sticks to move the material
    - don't stand behind the work (sawstop still has this problem)
    - don't reach behind the blade until it is stopped
    - don't use the fence as a stop for cutoff work (unless it's a unifence and you pulled it back)
as taught to me decades ago by my high school shop instructor.

A lathe will screw you good, so will a bandsaw (ever freehand work on a bandsaw? Sketchy as heck but useful). A chopsaw can jump the work and come right over your thumb. Shapers, oh, my, the ways that shapers can eat you.

If you need what sawstop offers then there is no way I'd let you in my shop. If you like it in your shop, have the big fun, anyone who depended on that is just an accident waiting to happen on the next piece of equipment.

What's next? Chainsaw-stop?

Re: Despite Proven Technology, Attempts to Make Table Saws Safer Drag On

#196

Post by luckydude »

anthonybsd wrote: post #145
luckydude wrote: post #95

My wife, when we were dating, bought me a Unisaw, one of the so-called dangerous saws. (She's also the woman who would say "I'm going out to get some milk, do you need more clamps? Woodworker joke, sorry :) I have no intention of getting a sawstop saw. Why? Because my shop is full of dangerous tools. My 1930's drillpress ripped some of my hair out, my 1940's metal lathe can take your arm off, my bandsaw is way more d…

You sound exactly like my uncle who is opposed to all modern car safety measures (seatbelts, ABS breaks, lane departure, blind spot radar, etc.) on the grounds that he doesn't want to get complacent while driving.

Nah, I like all that stuff. It all helps make driving safer.

The sawstop is sort of like making left hand turns safer but nothing else. That's weird to me, all the other stuff is still dangerous but this one thing is safer. That doesn't seem to be a win to me. Maybe it is to you, for me, I think it would make me less careful in the cases where I don't have protection.

Re: Despite Proven Technology, Attempts to Make Table Saws Safer Drag On

#197

Post by luckydude »

oliwarner wrote: post #186
luckydude wrote: post #95

My wife, when we were dating, bought me a Unisaw, one of the so-called dangerous saws. (She's also the woman who would say "I'm going out to get some milk, do you need more clamps? Woodworker joke, sorry :) I have no intention of getting a sawstop saw. Why? Because my shop is full of dangerous tools. My 1930's drillpress ripped some of my hair out, my 1940's metal lathe can take your arm off, my bandsaw is way more d…

Curious you consider your bandsaw more dangerous. There's a lot less momentum, only one vector for injury and you generally have a lot more control over your stock. My table saw can fire a 2×4 across a room. So I don't agree with your assessment but your kit is obviously different to mine. I don't disagree with your wider point about respect, but even seasoned pros make genuine mistakes. A lapse in concentration or m…

I sometimes freehand stuff through my minimax bandsaw. Sometimes that's the only way to get the curve I want. I'm not very good at it, the master of that stuff is Sam Maloof, he's light years ahead of me.

The thing that made freehanding remotely possible was getting a carbide tipped blade. The normal blades have set to each tooth, the carbide tipped blade has no set, the tips are slightly wider than the blade. What that does is make the blade way less "grabby". I tried freehanding with the old blades and it grabbed stuff out of my hands like crazy, just (short) matter of time before something would go wrong there.

The carbide tip blade has almost zero unpredictable grab.

All this probably makes me sound better than I am. I'm an ok woodworker. Some examples (from ~20 years ago) are here: http://www.mcvoy.com/lm/wood/ - the bench is a pretty decent chunk of work. Other than the section over by the vice the top is flat and square to about 1/1000th of an inch. Hand flattened with planes.

The "sounds better" point that I'm trying to make is about the whole freehand thing. I'm not Sam Maloof good, not remotely close. I just need to freehand once in a while and the minimax plus the carbide tipped blade made that possible.

Re: Despite Proven Technology, Attempts to Make Table Saws Safer Drag On

#198

Post by [deleted] »

luckydude wrote: post #196
anthonybsd wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You sound exactly like my uncle who is opposed to all modern car safety measures (seatbelts, ABS breaks, lane departure, blind spot radar, etc.) on the grounds that he doesn't want to get complacent while driving.

Nah, I like all that stuff. It all helps make driving safer. The sawstop is sort of like making left hand turns safer but nothing else. That's weird to me, all the other stuff is still dangerous but this one thing is safer. That doesn't seem to be a win to me. Maybe it is to you, for me, I think it would make me less careful in the cases where I don't have protection.

[deleted]

Re: Despite Proven Technology, Attempts to Make Table Saws Safer Drag On

#199

Post by luckydude »

cptskippy wrote: post #114
luckydude wrote: post #95

My wife, when we were dating, bought me a Unisaw, one of the so-called dangerous saws. (She's also the woman who would say "I'm going out to get some milk, do you need more clamps? Woodworker joke, sorry :) I have no intention of getting a sawstop saw. Why? Because my shop is full of dangerous tools. My 1930's drillpress ripped some of my hair out, my 1940's metal lathe can take your arm off, my bandsaw is way more d…

I find the complacency argument to be flat. The Sawstop technology doesn't prevent injury, you still get nicked by the blade, it just dramatically reduces the severity of injury incurred. Additionally when the mechanism trips the break and blade are spend and must be replaced. So the motivation to be safe around the saw isn't negated, it's just driven by different factors. Instead of motivation coming from the fear o…

You make good points. I think I screwed up by not saying "for me ...."

For me, I don't want a tool to be "safe" unless all my tools are safe. Working in my shop there are so many places where something can go wrong. I don't just do woodworking, I've got a metal lathe, I do a ton of mechanic stuff so things like forget to put a jackstand under the tractor and the floorjack gives out, I run chainsaws, a chipper, tractors, an excavator, there are just a zillion ways things can go wrong. So I feel like it is my job to make sure that nothing goes wrong. I'm not a fan of one or two or twenty things that save me, I've got 200 ways where something is going to screw me.

Your situation is very likely different. I'm rural, on 15 acres, all of this stuff is to support living here. I can't afford to get lazy or complacent, I'd be dead real quick.

Re: Despite Proven Technology, Attempts to Make Table Saws Safer Drag On

#200

Post by cptskippy »

luckydude wrote: post #199
cptskippy wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find the complacency argument to be flat. The Sawstop technology doesn't prevent injury, you still get nicked by the blade, it just dramatically reduces the severity of injury incurred. Additionally when the mechanism trips the break and blade are spend and must be replaced. So the motivation to be safe around the saw isn't negated, it's just driven by different factors. Instead of motivation coming from the fear o…

You make good points. I think I screwed up by not saying "for me ...." For me, I don't want a tool to be "safe" unless all my tools are safe. Working in my shop there are so many places where something can go wrong. I don't just do woodworking, I've got a metal lathe, I do a ton of mechanic stuff so things like forget to put a jackstand under the tractor and the floorjack gives out, I run chainsaws, a chipper, tracto…

There's no need to justify yourself. Mindfulness is a learned skill and removing the necessity to practice it can be a bad thing. Just today I was remarking to someone how I felt automatic headlights and other assistive technologies were allowing people to be less mindful and more inconsiderate of their surroundings and other people.

I totally get where you're coming from and agree with you to an extent and I don't disabled the safeties on my guns or tools. I personally wouldn't spring for a stopsaw because the price is several orders of magnitude more than I'd spend on a saw however if given one I'd welcome it gladly and find comfort in knowing that I or a family member wouldn't accidentally be losing any limbs to it.

Post reply on HN