SawStop, stops on contact with skin is coming to Europe soon!

[deema]

Now then - perhaps you should moderate yourself!

Jacob has a point albeit expressed in his rather definite fashion. Understanding the dangers of a tablesaw and being educated to avoid them is a necessary thing, really. It may not be sufficient, hence guards, riving knives et al but having safety devices is NOT a full substitute for understanding within the user of potential dangers.

I'll mention it again - look up "risk compensation".

As the saying goes, a man who doesn’t make a mistake is a man that does nothing at all.

 

[JSW]

Everybody makes mistakes, the trick is to minimise the amount of damage a mistake could make.
Push sticks might be a good place to start

 

[Eshmiel]

I think it’s a bit sad of anyone who would sneer at another fellow woodworker due to their choice of table saw or brand of mitre saw regardless of what safety features it has or doesent have . @Eshmiel not all drivers suddenly driver like crazed zombies and start mowing down pedestrians at will. Far more dangerous are the hundreds of thousands of drivers that use their phone whilst driving, or the high number of drivers that now seem to ignore red lights , no entry signs etc . Nobody is forcing you to buy a saw stop or any other safety device- smoke alarm , c/o alarm ,intruder alarm but how many of us have these devices..???

Do you see criticism of a saw tech as somehow sneering at those who buy one? This is not the case and only suggests that the notion that "I am what I own" is valid. This will please the sellers, of course, but its is never true.

Did I say ".... all drivers...."? No, just some drivers. Risk compensation is a very well documented effect of all safety tech. It doesn't apply to everyone who uses it but it can be very seductive to the notion that, "This makes me safe so I can take as many risks as I like". Not everyone is susceptible but an awful lot are, including me in past times. Nor is it the only cause of taking far too great a risk when using any tech. There are numerous other causes too. Nor are such safety devices useless, as they are successfully used within their limits by many to actually reduce risks.

**********
In this day and age its not uncommon to witness a fanboy mentality in operation (part of the "I am what I own" syndrome). Criticism of a device is taken as an insult by owners. This is silly.

 

[Eshmiel]

But you cannot ignore the costs of these alternatives.
A technology that is simply too expensive for ordinary users really isn't an alternative. It could, possibly, become one, but only if a manufacturer steps up and takes the commercial risk to try and develop it.

Felder don't make mass market benchtop tablesaws so their PCS system is not an option unless someone steps up and licenses it from them, and finds a way to transplant tech from a $40,000 saw to a $2,000 saw and still have a profit margin left.

And the following quote about the Altendorf system is from sawstop's opponents in their home market :

This overhead camera position system is not suitable for small transportable benchtop table saws, and the additional cost of the technology is reported to be over $15,000.

All fair points but they're addressing an argument I'm not trying to make. The argument I'm trying to make is that there can be better-designed safety devices (perhaps the Bosch example is one) that don't have a large cost in operation and don't react to false positives to create those costs when they shouldn't. The Altendorf may be an expensive example of an alternative but the principle could surely be built in to far less expensive devices achieving the same operational effects.

I've nothing more to say about the risk compensation effect. If you won't accept the notion despite the immense of evidence out there for it, .....

 

[Eshmiel]

a good friend of mine works for a local but well established coach company. Their coaches often transport kids to and from various venues and other schools related events. They also take 1,000s of people to holiday destinations etc etc . When the driver gets in his seat he has to effectively perform a breathalyser . If alcohol is detected the coach can not start , the manager is automatically notified and the police are called and the driver is duly arrested. If the same technology was available for cars , lorries and other public transport and drugs or alcohol would prevent the engine from starting how many deaths could be prevented. Would you pay a premium price for such tech . Now the majority of us have enough self control and the sense to know this is dangerous and we just don’t do it but clearly many people do . If your son, daughters, nieces and nephews were to borrow your car would they adhere to the same ethics and the driver refrain from drugs or alcohol. The other point regarding sawstop is as said if the tech is 20 years old ? How many court cases have their been where the tech has failed and the operator has suffered a catastrophic injury or death because the system failed . If the answer is 0 or the system was disabled and unable to operate then we can at least say it’s reliable and it does indeed work . Now wether you are a complete moron , have had part of your brain removed or you are simply safeguarding yourself against an unforeseen accident ( seizure, fit , stroke , heart attack, brain bleed or plain old stupidity because you allowed yourself to be distracted ) then where is the actual problem. If you don’t want one then why deter others from owning one.

Personally I'm very much for safety devices that test and monitor those operating a machine to check if they're doing so safely. I'd also test humans who want to operate various machines, particularly cars and other motorised vehicles, for a whole set of, let's call them, inclinations - those that tend to cause "accidents". Prevention is better than cure.

Some safety devices are not preventative of dangerous behaviours but rather preventative of the consequences of such behaviours. Seat belts and air bags in cars are like that, as is the Sawstop mechanism. They don't prevent dangerous behaviours by a human but rather reduce the consequences of such behaviour. In some, they actually increase dangerous behaviours. That risk compensation effect.

Its a subtle difference between safety devices that prevent risk taking rather than reducing risk consequences.

Those devices that reduce risk consequences are also those that tend to induce the risk compensation effect. "I'm now safe so I can take more risks". This would be fine if the risks taken produce only reduced consequences for the risk taker. With cars and similar the risk consequences actually rise for those outside the car, as a risk-hungry driver ofttimes turns his vehicle into a projectile.

Sawstop is a consequence-reducer rather than a risk-reducer but one that doesn't pass any consequences of greater risk-taking by the user to others. In that sense it can be seen as a very positive safety device. The additional risk, though, seems to be one of inconvenience and cost when the protection mechanism operates. A small price to pay compared to a finger or hand loss, especially in the USA where one may also be driven to penury by such an event. But still an ongoing cost, especially if it fires with false positives.

So why not consider if there are other ways possible that will reduce the ongoing costs and the rather large inconvenience of having to rebuild the safety mechanism, replace the blade it damaged and hope the large braking forces involved haven't damaged the arbour or the motor? Are such methods impossible; or is it more a matter of a jealous patent owner shutting down any and all alternatives?

 

[Bingy man]

Personally I'm very much for safety devices that test and monitor those operating a machine to check if they're doing so safely. I'd also test humans who want to operate various machines, particularly cars and other motorised vehicles, for a whole set of, let's call them, inclinations - those that tend to cause "accidents". Prevention is better than cure.

Some safety devices are not preventative of dangerous behaviours but rather preventative of the consequences of such behaviours. Seat belts and air bags in cars are like that, as is the Sawstop mechanism. They don't prevent dangerous behaviours by a human but rather reduce the consequences of such behaviour. In some, they actually increase dangerous behaviours. That risk compensation effect.

Its a subtle difference between safety devices that prevent risk taking rather than reducing risk consequences.

Those devices that reduce risk consequences are also those that tend to induce the risk compensation effect. "I'm now safe so I can take more risks". This would be fine if the risks taken produce only reduced consequences for the risk taker. With cars and similar the risk consequences actually rise for those outside the car, as a risk-hungry driver ofttimes turns his vehicle into a projectile.

Sawstop is a consequence-reducer rather than a risk-reducer but one that doesn't pass any consequences of greater risk-taking by the user to others. In that sense it can be seen as a very positive safety device. The additional risk, though, seems to be one of inconvenience and cost when the protection mechanism operates. A small price to pay compared to a finger or hand loss, especially in the USA where one may also be driven to penury by such an event. But still an ongoing cost, especially if it fires with false positives.

So why not consider if there are other ways possible that will reduce the ongoing costs and the rather large inconvenience of having to rebuild the safety mechanism, replace the blade it damaged and hope the large braking forces involved haven't damaged the arbour or the motor? Are such methods impossible; or is it more a matter of a jealous patent owner shutting down any and all alternatives?

Thanks for taking the time to further explain your point, I’ll probably have to read it again to fully absorb what your saying ( just got in after a long day at the coal face ) but in essence your saying the risk taker will enjoy a false sense of security due to the over confidence in the saw stop tech , so will likely find another way of hurting themselves in their working m o . I been with such a guy today- last year he almost cut his hand of using a mitre saw . Today he was cutting out a channel in a breeze block wall and left all the rubble on the floor . Half an hour later he tripped over a chunk of said wall and hit the deck banging his head in the process- a lost cause I think . But my point is for the already safety conscious and those who adapt safe working practices and dynamic risk assessments as a matter of course and the saw stop is an added advantage in case of a sudden medical condition or other unexpected event . The way I see it is if I was to purchase a sawstop I’d have a replacement cartridge and blade in the event of an accidental activation of the device . The way I work I’d probably never need it so it becomes a normal saw but it has that j I c factor - ( just in case ) ….

 

[Ed Weber]

But you cannot ignore the costs of these alternatives.
A technology that is simply too expensive for ordinary users really isn't an alternative. It could, possibly, become one, but only if a manufacturer steps up and takes the commercial risk to try and develop it.

Felder don't make mass market benchtop tablesaws so their PCS system is not an option unless someone steps up and licenses it from them, and finds a way to transplant tech from a $40,000 saw to a $2,000 saw and still have a profit margin left.

And the following quote about the Altendorf system is from sawstop's opponents in their home market :

This overhead camera position system is not suitable for small transportable benchtop table saws, and the additional cost of the technology is reported to be over $15,000.

The point was the non destructive part and the down time.
Yes the other systems are expensive and do not currently lend themselves to small saws.
They do however, let you trigger the safety system, re-set it and resume working immediately. Nothing to replace other than your underwear.

 

[Eshmiel]

The point was the non destructive part and the down time.
Yes the other systems are expensive and do not currently lend themselves to small saws.
They do however, let you trigger the safety system, re-set it and resume working immediately. Nothing to replace other than your underwear.

One thing i liked about the Altendorf design was that it contained a user-trainer aspect to tell a user when their hands are safe, approaching danger and actually in danger - the green, amber and red lights on the blade guard. Assuming the user understands the meaning of these lights and takes notice of them, they'll soon be avoiding the hand positions that invoke amber and red.

Such a system without any blade drop at all might be advantageous in other tablesaws. It would still need a spend on the cameras and associated software but that's probably trivial compared to the blade-dropping stuff. It wouldn't prevent 100% of table saw bites to hands but it probably would reduce them significantly.

*******
I've never really understood the function of the Sawstop blade brake aspect. If it can drop the blade below the surface fast enough to avoid cutting a finger that touches it, why does the blade need to be violently stopped once below the table? Or have I misunderstood the detail of the Sawstop function?

 

[Inspector]

I've never really understood the function of the Sawstop blade brake aspect. If it can drop the blade below the surface fast enough to avoid cutting a finger that touches it, why does the blade need to be violently stopped once below the table? Or have I misunderstood the detail of the Sawstop function?

When the brake system detects flesh or a similar reason to trigger. Electricity is sent through a fuse wire. The fuse wire holds back a strong spring. The melted fuse wire lets the spring go, which jambs the aluminium block into the spinning blade. The blade stopping throws the blade and carriage downward below the table. Its much like running full tilt into a low hanging rope or cloths line. All of this happens in a couple microseconds. You remove the cartridge and blade and replace it with new. That takes a few, 5 minutes, then you wind down the carriage to the bottom and back up. Now you are reset to continue working with the saw if you like. The polished rods that the carriage is attached to are stout and don't suffer any harm. There are springs on the bottom of the rods that cushion the drop when activated. It is very fast acting, reported to be a bit faster than the defunct Bosch Reaxx.

Go to the US SawStop website and read the manual and look at the parts diagram. It's all in there.

Pete

 

[Jake]

All the tricks can't substitute for push sticks, riving knives and standing to the side. Maybe it adds a little if you get complacent or have a dumb or distracted moment, but those are your primary defences.

 

[Inspector]

All the tricks can't substitute for push sticks, riving knives and standing to the side. Maybe it adds a little if you get complacent or have a dumb or distracted moment, but those are your primary defences.

No argument from me on those points.

I've had my SawStop for over 2 decades and I always use push sticks, feather boards when appropriate, the blade guard with splitter and anti kickback pawls when the cut allows and the riving knife when the guard doesn't fit. Having the extra safety feature hasn't made me a sloppy worker. I am happy to have it should I make a mistake for whatever reason. You have a choice as to whether you want a brake equipped saw or not.

Pete

 

[Mike Fletcher]

I wonder how many occasions of kickback occur compared to occasions of people cutting their finger off? If you don't know how to use a table saw (and adhere to all the general safety practices) then you shouldn't own a saw. One hand width from the blade, and before you make a cut image the cut and where will your fingers / hands be if they slip off the item you are cutting. When making a rip cut, place one or two finger over the rip fence so it you slip off the work piece your fingers will travel along the fence and not into the blade. Nuf said!

 

[Sideways]

Says a man who doesn't appreciate what can go wrong on a table saw and is at risk of losing fingers....

 

[deema]

When making a rip cut, place one or two finger over the rip fence

Well, great advice! Have you ever used a table saw? One of the daftest comments I’ve read in a long time. If you have a table saw, I think you need to follow your own advice and either get proper training or simply sell it!

 

[JSW]

I think Mike needs to expand on that procedure (benefit of the doubt) But it reads to me as having the potential to mangle the entire hand, not just sever a digit or two

 

[Eshmiel]

When the brake system detects flesh or a similar reason to trigger. Electricity is sent through a fuse wire. The fuse wire holds back a strong spring. The melted fuse wire lets the spring go, which jambs the aluminium block into the spinning blade. The blade stopping throws the blade and carriage downward below the table. Its much like running full tilt into a low hanging rope or cloths line. All of this happens in a couple microseconds. You remove the cartridge and blade and replace it with new. That takes a few, 5 minutes, then you wind down the carriage to the bottom and back up. Now you are reset to continue working with the saw if you like. The polished rods that the carriage is attached to are stout and don't suffer any harm. There are springs on the bottom of the rods that cushion the drop when activated. It is very fast acting, reported to be a bit faster than the defunct Bosch Reaxx.

Go to the US SawStop website and read the manual and look at the parts diagram. It's all in there.

Pete

Thanks for that explanation. So, essentially the angular momentum of the blade and motor is transformed into a near-linear motion of the assemblage of the blade and its driving gubbins down into a brake pad.

I confess to be too lazy to download and read the SS manual but I'll amend that attitude. On the other hand, a parts diagram is not necessarily a complete explanation of a process. Still, you're right and I should look.

 

[isaac3d2]

Technological methods of improving safety are great, but they are not a replacement for basic safety procedures. Anyone here who doesn't use a seat belt when they drive? Anyone remember the furore kicked up by some when they became compulsory?
Accidents do happen, even to the careful and safety conscious. So any improvement in design which makes equipment safer is a good thing. However... and it's a big however... Do you think that the Indonesian woodworker using 50 year old equipment with almost no safety features values his fingers any less than the rich American working in a half acre air controlled workshop packed with all the latest equipment? (Other nationalities are available.) So, cost plays a large role in this. I'd be happy to have a saw with saw stop or some other such safety feature, but I can't afford it. So, I just have to adopt such working practices that will minimise the risks involved. I don't knock the technology or those that use it, if you can afford it.... have fun and stay safe! If you can't afford it... have fun and stay safe!