New table saw.
- Thread starter garywayne
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
ByronBlack
Established Member
Wow!
First of all, wonderful looking saw. Secondly, thats some seriously good advertising, must have cost a fortune. Thirdly, I feel sorry for that first guy in the video, his hand is a real mess
Looks to be a great idea, and with the hot-dog example it seems your only going to get a small cut instead of losing your digits. My grandad would have loved one of these - he lost 2 fingers in a wood mill accident a few decades ago.
Where can I buy one!
First of all, wonderful looking saw. Secondly, thats some seriously good advertising, must have cost a fortune. Thirdly, I feel sorry for that first guy in the video, his hand is a real mess
Looks to be a great idea, and with the hot-dog example it seems your only going to get a small cut instead of losing your digits. My grandad would have loved one of these - he lost 2 fingers in a wood mill accident a few decades ago.
Where can I buy one!
Tool Inventor Faces Buzz Saw of Opposition: Cindy Skrzycki
Oct. 10 (Bloomberg) -- In 1999, Stephen Gass, a patent lawyer and woodworking hobbyist, invented a device to make power saws safer. It was designed to prevent, or at least minimize, the gruesome injuries that result when someone's flesh hits the blade of a table saw spinning at 4,000 revolutions per minute.
Home hobbyists and commercial workers suffer an estimated 55,000 injuries a year -- including thousands of amputations. Education and an existing saw safety guard didn't work well.
Gass called his invention SawStop and was so convinced of its value that he quit his job at a law firm, raised capital, and with two partners, started his own company in Wilsonville, Oregon. He demonstrated the technology, which can stop a saw blade in 3/1000 of a second, to anyone who would watch.
Now, seven years later, Gass says he was unprepared for the buzz saw of opposition he ran into from companies such as Black & Decker Corp., Robert Bosch Tool Corp. and Ryobi Technologies Inc. "Our thought was the manufacturers would license it,'' he said. "We thought it was inevitable.''
Instead, not a single manufacturer has signed a contract with him. An Underwriters Laboratories Inc. subcommittee, with some of the saw manufacturers on the panel, voted in early 2003 not to approve his invention.
Other Hazard?
John Drengenberg, manager of consumer affairs for Northbrook, Illinois-based UL, said the independent testing organization thought there were too many unanswered questions. "The blade stops in microseconds, but do we create some other hazard?'' he said. "Does the blade fall apart, how easy is it to install a new one, will it work on metal? We don't mandate something because it is nice.''
Gass then changed direction, turning to the Washington regulatory establishment, in the form of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, to try to win acceptance for SawStop. He petitioned the agency in April 2003, asking it to require the industry to come up with a detection system that would stop a saw blade and result in a cut to a user no deeper than 1/8th of an inch.
The CPSC reviewed the petition, yet took no immediate action. So Gass concentrated on filing some 50 patents related to the technology.
The industry, anticipating that the CPSC might become interested in issuing a standard, formed a joint venture later in 2003 to come up with improvements of its own. This spring, the Power Tool Institute, its trade group, told the regulators it would likely have better guarding mechanisms ready by 2007, with the blessing of Underwriters Laboratories.
Balking at Royalty
The Cleveland-based institute also said its efforts to examine sensing technology were being hindered by the "web of patent applications Mr. Gass has filed.''
The industry made it clear that its members weren't prepared to pay up to an 8 percent royalty on the wholesale price of each saw, Gass's asking price.
They estimated it would cost at least $70 million to implement the technology proposed in Gass's petition and that consumers might not be willing to pay for it. They suggested the Oregon inventor was using a safety issue to profiteer.
"He wants to force his device on the industry at an unreasonable price,'' said Art Herold, a Washington attorney for the institute. Herold said it would be improper for the agency to mandate a standard because "it would become a promoter and silent partner'' in Gass's technology.
Gass Undaunted
Gass was undeterred. He began making and selling SawStop saws himself, selling them for about $4,000 each. (The industry sells lines that range from $100 to about $3,000.) Gass said he got kudos from high school officials who bought saws and were grateful they could send kids home "with their thumbs.''
SawStop received some negative reviews in the trade press, yet Gass also won awards such as the Popular Mechanics 2006 Breakthrough Award for safety earlier this month.
He also unexpectedly found an influential lobbyist. Last year, James Fuller, who had been chief of staff to CPSC Chairman Harold Stratton, heard about Gass's invention from a colleague at Public Strategies, an Austin, Texas-based public relations firm he had joined.
Fuller offered his services, free of charge. He was impressed by the technology for a simple reason: It might have stopped his brother from losing four fingers in a power-saw accident.
No Incentive for Industry
Fuller is a Republican, not inclined to push regulation. But he recalled thinking his old agency should take a closer look. "You sometimes have to step in to foster these innovations because the industry doesn't have the incentive to do it,'' he said.
Fuller got an audience for Gass with his former boss on May 30. The inventor showed Stratton and other CPSC officials how the safety device worked by using a hot dog as a stand-in for a finger. When the hot dog hit the saw he had brought into the agency offices, it received not much more than a nick.
A month later, the CPSC staff recommended the petition be granted. On July 11, the commission voted, 2-1, to start the process of making a new rule, a job that can take years.
Fuller and Gass said they felt vindicated, although the rejoicing ended four days later when Stratton resigned from the agency. One of the remaining commissioners, Nancy Nord, wanted to defer action on the petition and look instead at voluntary efforts being made by the industry.
Stalled on Rulemaking
Nord is now acting chairwoman of the commission. Fuller arranged an audience with her on Sept. 6, but Gass said it was a hard sell.
Herold of the Power Tool Institute said the result the CPSC is looking for may already have been accomplished because the industry has a new awareness of the need to improve the product.
Julie Vallese, CPSC spokeswoman, said the saw-safety standard idea isn't dead, but that the agency's "decision-making procedures'' don't allow the rulemaking to go forward with what amounts to a deadlocked commission.
Gass is keeping busy. He is developing less-expensive models of his saws and is involved on the legal front. He has testified as an expert witness in one lawsuit against a manufacturer over injuries and is consulting with plaintiffs' lawyers in other cases.
(Cindy Skrzycki is a regulatory columnist for Bloomberg News.)
Ray
Oct. 10 (Bloomberg) -- In 1999, Stephen Gass, a patent lawyer and woodworking hobbyist, invented a device to make power saws safer. It was designed to prevent, or at least minimize, the gruesome injuries that result when someone's flesh hits the blade of a table saw spinning at 4,000 revolutions per minute.
Home hobbyists and commercial workers suffer an estimated 55,000 injuries a year -- including thousands of amputations. Education and an existing saw safety guard didn't work well.
Gass called his invention SawStop and was so convinced of its value that he quit his job at a law firm, raised capital, and with two partners, started his own company in Wilsonville, Oregon. He demonstrated the technology, which can stop a saw blade in 3/1000 of a second, to anyone who would watch.
Now, seven years later, Gass says he was unprepared for the buzz saw of opposition he ran into from companies such as Black & Decker Corp., Robert Bosch Tool Corp. and Ryobi Technologies Inc. "Our thought was the manufacturers would license it,'' he said. "We thought it was inevitable.''
Instead, not a single manufacturer has signed a contract with him. An Underwriters Laboratories Inc. subcommittee, with some of the saw manufacturers on the panel, voted in early 2003 not to approve his invention.
Other Hazard?
John Drengenberg, manager of consumer affairs for Northbrook, Illinois-based UL, said the independent testing organization thought there were too many unanswered questions. "The blade stops in microseconds, but do we create some other hazard?'' he said. "Does the blade fall apart, how easy is it to install a new one, will it work on metal? We don't mandate something because it is nice.''
Gass then changed direction, turning to the Washington regulatory establishment, in the form of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, to try to win acceptance for SawStop. He petitioned the agency in April 2003, asking it to require the industry to come up with a detection system that would stop a saw blade and result in a cut to a user no deeper than 1/8th of an inch.
The CPSC reviewed the petition, yet took no immediate action. So Gass concentrated on filing some 50 patents related to the technology.
The industry, anticipating that the CPSC might become interested in issuing a standard, formed a joint venture later in 2003 to come up with improvements of its own. This spring, the Power Tool Institute, its trade group, told the regulators it would likely have better guarding mechanisms ready by 2007, with the blessing of Underwriters Laboratories.
Balking at Royalty
The Cleveland-based institute also said its efforts to examine sensing technology were being hindered by the "web of patent applications Mr. Gass has filed.''
The industry made it clear that its members weren't prepared to pay up to an 8 percent royalty on the wholesale price of each saw, Gass's asking price.
They estimated it would cost at least $70 million to implement the technology proposed in Gass's petition and that consumers might not be willing to pay for it. They suggested the Oregon inventor was using a safety issue to profiteer.
"He wants to force his device on the industry at an unreasonable price,'' said Art Herold, a Washington attorney for the institute. Herold said it would be improper for the agency to mandate a standard because "it would become a promoter and silent partner'' in Gass's technology.
Gass Undaunted
Gass was undeterred. He began making and selling SawStop saws himself, selling them for about $4,000 each. (The industry sells lines that range from $100 to about $3,000.) Gass said he got kudos from high school officials who bought saws and were grateful they could send kids home "with their thumbs.''
SawStop received some negative reviews in the trade press, yet Gass also won awards such as the Popular Mechanics 2006 Breakthrough Award for safety earlier this month.
He also unexpectedly found an influential lobbyist. Last year, James Fuller, who had been chief of staff to CPSC Chairman Harold Stratton, heard about Gass's invention from a colleague at Public Strategies, an Austin, Texas-based public relations firm he had joined.
Fuller offered his services, free of charge. He was impressed by the technology for a simple reason: It might have stopped his brother from losing four fingers in a power-saw accident.
No Incentive for Industry
Fuller is a Republican, not inclined to push regulation. But he recalled thinking his old agency should take a closer look. "You sometimes have to step in to foster these innovations because the industry doesn't have the incentive to do it,'' he said.
Fuller got an audience for Gass with his former boss on May 30. The inventor showed Stratton and other CPSC officials how the safety device worked by using a hot dog as a stand-in for a finger. When the hot dog hit the saw he had brought into the agency offices, it received not much more than a nick.
A month later, the CPSC staff recommended the petition be granted. On July 11, the commission voted, 2-1, to start the process of making a new rule, a job that can take years.
Fuller and Gass said they felt vindicated, although the rejoicing ended four days later when Stratton resigned from the agency. One of the remaining commissioners, Nancy Nord, wanted to defer action on the petition and look instead at voluntary efforts being made by the industry.
Stalled on Rulemaking
Nord is now acting chairwoman of the commission. Fuller arranged an audience with her on Sept. 6, but Gass said it was a hard sell.
Herold of the Power Tool Institute said the result the CPSC is looking for may already have been accomplished because the industry has a new awareness of the need to improve the product.
Julie Vallese, CPSC spokeswoman, said the saw-safety standard idea isn't dead, but that the agency's "decision-making procedures'' don't allow the rulemaking to go forward with what amounts to a deadlocked commission.
Gass is keeping busy. He is developing less-expensive models of his saws and is involved on the legal front. He has testified as an expert witness in one lawsuit against a manufacturer over injuries and is consulting with plaintiffs' lawyers in other cases.
(Cindy Skrzycki is a regulatory columnist for Bloomberg News.)
Ray
Lord Nibbo
Established Member
garywayne":1ovc2t8s said:
It looks a great saw, I bet it costs though. A great video, really brings it home, every one should watch it at least once a week!!! :?
ByronBlack
Established Member
Argee - thanks for adding that, fascinating reading. I can't but help think that the american safety agency are being swayed by the large manufacturers in terms of considering there extra guarding rather than a more fundamental shift in safety.
If the product does what it says and is that safe, then I don't see why the bigger manufacturers wouldn't pay for his technology, it would be cheaper in the long run for the consumer and health insurance policies, and what a great selling point for your saw.
If I was choosing between 2 saws, one had the stop technology, and the other didn't. I know which I would go for.
If the product does what it says and is that safe, then I don't see why the bigger manufacturers wouldn't pay for his technology, it would be cheaper in the long run for the consumer and health insurance policies, and what a great selling point for your saw.
If I was choosing between 2 saws, one had the stop technology, and the other didn't. I know which I would go for.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Interesting stuff Ray
I have looked into this device from an engineering point of view a while back and it is very impressive. Quite high tech and clever use of existing technologies.
Seems that Gass has dollar signs in front of his eyes though - 8% royalty and $4000 for a saw with one fitted????
I reckon the processing and safety hardware would cost under a couple of hundred dollars to add to machines being mass produced. Of course there is the Intellectual Property to consider and Gass's obvious greed :wink:
I have looked into this device from an engineering point of view a while back and it is very impressive. Quite high tech and clever use of existing technologies.
Seems that Gass has dollar signs in front of his eyes though - 8% royalty and $4000 for a saw with one fitted????
I reckon the processing and safety hardware would cost under a couple of hundred dollars to add to machines being mass produced. Of course there is the Intellectual Property to consider and Gass's obvious greed :wink:
ByronBlack
Established Member
Tony, the way I see it Gass was the one who has developed this product, funded it and spent years fighting the establishment to get a foot in. I dont think demanding 8% is that outrageous.
IT companies do this all the time, and more. Hence why products like MS Windows and Office cost so much (and are shoody goods) because they are paying many other companies for their technologies.
I don't see why saw manufacturers should get rich on the safety, I would rather that money go to the guy who spent all the time, effort and money in develping such a product
Even if the cost was passed on, I would be happy to pay 8% more for such a product. What price your fingers?
IT companies do this all the time, and more. Hence why products like MS Windows and Office cost so much (and are shoody goods) because they are paying many other companies for their technologies.
I don't see why saw manufacturers should get rich on the safety, I would rather that money go to the guy who spent all the time, effort and money in develping such a product
Even if the cost was passed on, I would be happy to pay 8% more for such a product. What price your fingers?
With the exception of the emergency stop mechanism there's nothing in the SawStop that wasn't on a Wadkin AGS mkII circa 1982 - and the Biesmeyer-style fence on the SawStop is actually inferior to that on the Wadkin because it is the less safe long through fence style as opposed to the short-long adjustable type. What I can't see in the spec. is whether or not the saw has a run-down brake. What is generally not appreciated is the high percentage of lacerations, impact injuries and amputations caused after the saw has been turned off but before the blade has stopped spinning. Other than that, yes, SawStop has produced a saw which seems reasonable, but I still feel that there are two ways to prevent injury - learn how to use a table saw properly with pushsticks for rip cuts, use the guards, riving knife, short fence and chip limiter tooling, etc. that are standard on modern on modern European saws or the SawStop way - add electronics and don't worry about your fingers (sic). When all said and done if you adopt practices which keep your fingers 300 to 400 mm away from the blade and always use a blade guard you are going to reduce the chance of amputation by a considerable factor. It's the electronics bit in SawStop which concerns me, though, as our workshops aren't normally the cleanest places in the world and from experience delicate electronics don't live forever. Does this mean that the SawStop has a limited lifespan like a fridge or a cooker?
So yes, SawStop is a good idea, but shouldn't people adopt basic safe working practices first?
Scrit
So yes, SawStop is a good idea, but shouldn't people adopt basic safe working practices first?
Scrit
ByronBlack
Established Member
I believe that safe working practices and something similar to sawstop aren't mutually exclusive they should be practiced together, and the sawstop technology is far the rare moment when accidents happen.
You can follow and observe all the safety proceadures in the world, but accidents by there nature aren't predictable and can happen in any circumstance. I think the sawstop is invaluable in protecting you from that potential accident.
You can follow and observe all the safety proceadures in the world, but accidents by there nature aren't predictable and can happen in any circumstance. I think the sawstop is invaluable in protecting you from that potential accident.
I'm not saying that they're mutually exclusive, but my experience of shops in the USA (amateur and pro) is that they routinely remove the guard and splitter because they are so poorly designed (riving knives have been all but unknown on the US-made saws until very recently) - that and the continuing use of stacked saw dado sets to do rebating (a job performed safer and better on a spindle moulder) combined with grossly inadequate rip fence designs such as the Biesmeyer and the insistance on using push sticks (when they are used at all) which place your hand at the side of or over a blade have led to a combination of dangerous practices which unfortunately more than a few unenlightened individuals regard as normal and acceptable. In that respect the SawStop is a sticking plaster over a gaping wound - too little, too late. SawStop is also unable to prevent other injuries, such blindings, fractures, cuts, abrasions and even the periodic "spearing" off operators (by ejected slivers) when a major kickback occurs. So it's far from perfect.
If you follow good practice you're already 98% of where you need to be to avoid that bad accident on a table saw.
Scrit
If you follow good practice you're already 98% of where you need to be to avoid that bad accident on a table saw.
Scrit
Freetochat
Established Member
I would have one question - how do you know the safety mechanism is working?
This was discussed a while ago on another group, and it was said rebuild cost after a stop was quite high. The stop was also found to fire in non-emergency situations. Safe working practices I would have thought must be the first item to overcome. Again on a mainly American focused group, some of the practices used and machine modifications advocated are just dangerous. Scrits scary video is not an isolated case.
This was discussed a while ago on another group, and it was said rebuild cost after a stop was quite high. The stop was also found to fire in non-emergency situations. Safe working practices I would have thought must be the first item to overcome. Again on a mainly American focused group, some of the practices used and machine modifications advocated are just dangerous. Scrits scary video is not an isolated case.
NeilO
Established Member
I have to agree with Scrit, safe working practices, AND learning to use your table saw CORRECTLY would eliminate 99% of the potential dangers associated with table saws..
the Sawstop, although in theory a good idea , i feel would lead to complacency within the industry/home knowing you have a "failsafe" , but what happens if you find yourself not using your Sawstop table saw, what springs to mind is.........
"Ouch, and how the F**k do I pick my fingers off the floor now????"
the Sawstop, although in theory a good idea , i feel would lead to complacency within the industry/home knowing you have a "failsafe" , but what happens if you find yourself not using your Sawstop table saw, what springs to mind is.........
"Ouch, and how the F**k do I pick my fingers off the floor now????"
As a statistical aside I went and looked-up the HSE figures for injuries in UK manufacturing industry. SawStop quotes 60,000 table saw accidents per annum in the USA. I don't have the accidents for the UK broken down that way, but for industry as a whole across all manufacturing activities in 2004/2005 the UK suffered 814 injury amputations and just one fatality (figures here) for a population about 15 to 20% the size of that in the USA. Without a proper breakdown I am unable to say whether or not our accident record is better, but at face value there certainly seems to be less of a problem here, although if this site is to be believed we need to legislate for the dangers of slippers (37,000 injuries) and more worryingly Blu-Tack (59 injuries)
Scrit
Scrit
garywayne
Established Member
I totally agree that too many fail safes leads one into a false sense of security. eg, Volvo drivers,(any bikers or motorcyclist will know what I'm talking about). I always treat any machinery like a pet Rottweiler. :twisted: Nice and sedate, but can turn at any moment.
Stay safe kiddies, and keep an eye on the moving parts, not your pinkies. :twisted: :lol: :twisted:
Stay safe kiddies, and keep an eye on the moving parts, not your pinkies. :twisted: :lol: :twisted:
ByronBlack
Established Member
You make some good and valid points scrit - and your views carry a certain deal of weight as you've worked in the industry for a while. But from my point of view as a hobbyist (perhaps future pro) I like the Sawstop because of that tiny chance I forget something, or I slip, or a rogue eagle flies into my workshop and distracts me long enough to lose a finger, then if the worst happens I don't lose my digits - that is my main point.
It goes without saying that we should all observe and practice safety precautions with any tool - even the humble chisel (I nearly took the tip of my thumb off during a course).
The other accidents that you mention of course will happen on the SawStop as well as others, and hopefully if products like the SawStop get manufacturers thinking more about safety, then it can only be a positive step.
Its because of the inherint dangers that I've chosed not to have a table-saw in my workshop. I feel I can do all the projects I need with my Festool and other machinery, which I feel safer and more comfortable using.
As an aside, I read in one of the recent magazines, than tablesaws are more responsible for injuries than spindle moulders.
It goes without saying that we should all observe and practice safety precautions with any tool - even the humble chisel (I nearly took the tip of my thumb off during a course).
The other accidents that you mention of course will happen on the SawStop as well as others, and hopefully if products like the SawStop get manufacturers thinking more about safety, then it can only be a positive step.
Its because of the inherint dangers that I've chosed not to have a table-saw in my workshop. I feel I can do all the projects I need with my Festool and other machinery, which I feel safer and more comfortable using.
As an aside, I read in one of the recent magazines, than tablesaws are more responsible for injuries than spindle moulders.
wrightclan
Established Member
Scrit":70ff9ayg said:
Please don't get me started about statistics. :roll: I'm sorry, but you're comparing apples and oranges. Firstly, I have no way of knowing from your 60,000 injury statistic; but I suspect that it includes all table saw injuries, no matter how minor and no matter how caused (i.e. possibly many not even caused by the blade.) Whereas the UK statistic is talking only about amputation.
Secondly, I suspect that it includes all users, not just industrial. And in the U.S. , exponentially more people use a table saw at least occasionally, than do people in the UK.
Your points about safe use of the table saw, I generally agree with; but statistics can be a dangerous thing if you don't think about the context from which the figures are taken.
Brad
BrianD
Established Member
Hi there,
Interesting discussion!
From Scrit’s info:
Population UK 60m people / USA 300m
Accidents UK 814 /USA 60 000 (alleged)
As a proportionate percentage the UK would have had 12000 accidents to be at the same accident rate however we have 1/12 of that at 814.
I think this says enough to support the Euro standards of guarding and best practices as more “advanced” against the current standards practiced by our contemporaries in the USA. Very worrying, perhaps that is actually why the US commission is conducting an appropriate investigation – to raise US standards.
While the SawStop is no doubt a good idea in concept there are a worrying number of questions such as reliability, replacement cost, availability, competition, etc. that have not been answered. If this is definitely a good idea then surely an altruistic aspect would have come forward. The perception is just $$$$ at the moment. I do not suggest that this is to be dismissed but this surely cannot be the only way forward for all stakeholders?
One wonders.
Interesting discussion!
From Scrit’s info:
Population UK 60m people / USA 300m
Accidents UK 814 /USA 60 000 (alleged)
As a proportionate percentage the UK would have had 12000 accidents to be at the same accident rate however we have 1/12 of that at 814.
I think this says enough to support the Euro standards of guarding and best practices as more “advanced” against the current standards practiced by our contemporaries in the USA. Very worrying, perhaps that is actually why the US commission is conducting an appropriate investigation – to raise US standards.
While the SawStop is no doubt a good idea in concept there are a worrying number of questions such as reliability, replacement cost, availability, competition, etc. that have not been answered. If this is definitely a good idea then surely an altruistic aspect would have come forward. The perception is just $$$$ at the moment. I do not suggest that this is to be dismissed but this surely cannot be the only way forward for all stakeholders?
One wonders.
wrightclan
Established Member
BrianD":ts9ba5xd said:
Again. the 814 is only industrial, and only amputation. The 60,000 is all users (in a population that uses tablesaws much more frequently) and all types of injuries. They are not even remotely comparable statistics. There are more reasons why they are not comparable. I just wanted to point out the two most glaring (to me ) reasons why they are not comparable.
Brad
- Joined
- 7 Aug 2003
- Messages
- 7,589
- Reaction score
- 1,008
SawStop had been around for 4 or 5 years now, although production only started late last year. Here's something I wrote from an old thread:
"There was a bit more to it than that. When all the major manufacturers rejected the proposal the Sawstop people went to congress to try and get a bill passed that would make it mandatory that all TSs sold would have to have the technology fitted by law and Sawstop would have royalty agreements in place. This failed and caused a lot of disquiet amongst the manufacturers and the general machinery market.
So Sawstop went to Taiwan and built their own machines (there's also a contractors TS and no doubt other things are planned). After a few quality control problems they do seem to have carved out a niche in the higher end of the market. Similar marketing approach to Volvo some years back headlining the safety apects and producing the Hotdog video.
Putting aside the safety element by all accounts the machine is a well built TS. There have been a few reports of random firing but the company seems to have looked after owners when this has happened.
Personally I can't see many manufacturers (although Delta is rumoured to have looked at or designed something similar) either adopting the technology or designing something similar. Just too expensive for the general market.
I guess it's human nature to worry about the cost of a replacement cartridge and a new blade although a finger or limb saved puts things into perpective"
I don't think this particular technology will ever be made mandatory in the States. There has just been too much agitation caused by Gass's marketing and legislative approach. I think more basic safety measures will gradually be introduced onto the market following in the footsteps of Powermatic and their PM 2000 model (proper riving knife etc). The power tool maker's lobby group will make sure of that.
"There was a bit more to it than that. When all the major manufacturers rejected the proposal the Sawstop people went to congress to try and get a bill passed that would make it mandatory that all TSs sold would have to have the technology fitted by law and Sawstop would have royalty agreements in place. This failed and caused a lot of disquiet amongst the manufacturers and the general machinery market.
So Sawstop went to Taiwan and built their own machines (there's also a contractors TS and no doubt other things are planned). After a few quality control problems they do seem to have carved out a niche in the higher end of the market. Similar marketing approach to Volvo some years back headlining the safety apects and producing the Hotdog video.
Putting aside the safety element by all accounts the machine is a well built TS. There have been a few reports of random firing but the company seems to have looked after owners when this has happened.
Personally I can't see many manufacturers (although Delta is rumoured to have looked at or designed something similar) either adopting the technology or designing something similar. Just too expensive for the general market.
I guess it's human nature to worry about the cost of a replacement cartridge and a new blade although a finger or limb saved puts things into perpective"
I don't think this particular technology will ever be made mandatory in the States. There has just been too much agitation caused by Gass's marketing and legislative approach. I think more basic safety measures will gradually be introduced onto the market following in the footsteps of Powermatic and their PM 2000 model (proper riving knife etc). The power tool maker's lobby group will make sure of that.
