Comment by robodan
8 months ago
That $50 number seems incredibly optimistic. Just the rebuild cartridge is selling for $99 right now: https://www.sawstop.com/product/standard-brake-cartridge-tsb...
And the saw frame has to be much stronger to handle the force of stopping that blade. Throwing $50 of new parts on an existing frame just means you throw the whole saw away after it triggers.
Every time this triggers, you need a new cartridge and blade ($40+) and time to swap them in. If I was sure this was saving a finger (as the dramatic stories in the press state), then I wouldn't think twice. But it probably just wet wood or something else conductive causing a false trigger. Show me the false rate data please.
Can confirm, I've tripped a sawstop twice. Both times were because of the material, not flesh.
Not to say it isn't good technology, just that - anecdotally - it's more often a $150 mistake than a finger saving feature.
What was the material? Wet wood or staples/nails?
I believe you can temporarily turn off the feature if you’re cutting questionable material.
> That $50 number seems incredibly optimistic. Just the rebuild cartridge is selling for $99 right now...
It's a niche product with a single manufacturer right now.
I'm pretty sure saw stop will send you a new cartridge in the case of any false triggers. you just need to send them the old cartridge so they can analyze it and try to avoid similar false trips.
"That $50 number seems incredibly optimistic."
It's not.
"Just the rebuild cartridge is selling for $99 right now: https://www.sawstop.com/product/standard-brake-cartridge-tsb..."
The BOM on this cartridge is not $99 or even close :) Sawstop has said this themselves.
"And the saw frame has to be much stronger to handle the force of stopping that blade. Throwing $50 of new parts on an existing frame just means you throw the whole saw away after it triggers."
First, you are assuming sawstop mechanism. Most alternative mechanisms are closer to https://www.altendorfgroup.com/en-us/machines/altendorf-hand...
or
https://www.felder-group.com/en-us/pcs
or similar.
None of them required significant saw frame changes, and none of them require blade replacement. All have been tested repeatedly to respond and prevent injuries in the saem time (or even faster) than sawsotop.
The saw frames can already handle stopping the blade, even in job site saws (and definitely in any cast iron trunnion table saw). Please give any data that suggests it can't?
Again, i'm also telling you what the manufacturers said. Go read the discovery yourself, don't argue with me about what their own data said.
"But it probably just wet wood or something else conductive causing a false trigger."
This is wrong.
"Show me the false rate data please."
I cited it in another post, and honestly, i'm not going to spend my time trying to convince you your particular set of opinions is wrong. There are lots of people with lots of them
Why don't you do the opposite - this data is easy to find and there is a ton of it - discovery in table saw design defect lawsuits, tons of submissions and hearings in the CPSC, etc. Why don't you read a bunch of it, preferrably prior to forming and asserting strong opinions.
That's a good way to become better informed.
This thread already has plenty of misinfo in it (job site saws are a small fraction of the market, for example, despite people thinking it's the majority), it doesn't need more.
> what the manufacturers said You expect me to believe that? Really now. And the BOM is not the only cost, but +$50 on the BOM is probably +$100 retail.
What will the manufactures try to extract is the better question? Answer: As much as they can.
The only other saw with similar technology (Bosch) to hit the US market cost 50% more than the similar SawStop product. They had to pull it due to patent issues (despite attempting a different approach), so we don't have good market data on how well it sold.
This just reeks of regulation forcing everything to be more expensive. I'd rather just see the patent go away and see what the market really does. I really can't image this technology being added to low end saws for less than $150 retail and then you have the per activation costs. It really kills the low end market, when a minimal saw is $500.
So, basically, your opinion is both more right and more valuable than the manufacturers own emails, R&D costs, BOM's, and retail costs produced in discovery.
Why? Because otherwise you might have to admit that you actually have zero data to back the opinion you offer in the last sentence.
As for Bosch, they have admitted they priced the Reaxx very high on purpose hoping to capture a premium user and avoid regulation. They knew they were going to get sued off the market. In fact, they were later granted patent rights for free and once that happened, suddenly, well, you know, we don't wanna. Because it was (as discovered later) literally intended to stave off regulation through game playing, not do something real. Of course, you would know this if you would bother to read any of the actual data i pointed you at
I'm remarkably aware of what happened here - i attended the CPSC hearings and also have read all the lawsuit data.
But please, continue to just not produce any real data to back up your view because then you might actually have to change it.
I'm not going to respond further unless we are going to have a real conversation here that doesn't consist of me producing data and facts and you just saying "yeah well i like my view better".
That is what really "reeks" here.
1 reply →