Yesterday, my Android phone, via Google Cards, alerted me to some new SawStop and table saw safety regulations news, via NPR.
The NPR article included some very shocking details – or at least things I found to be shocking.
First, there’s word about what SawStop is working on – a $400 saw. Shown above is their $1300 jobsite saw.
Gass says SawStop is about to come out with a $400 saw with his injury prevention system. The cheapest table saws sell for a bit under $200.
I asked SawStop if they had any information or images about this new $400 saw, but they weren’t able to discuss it.
A $400 SawStop table saw with active injury mitigation safety tech? That would be pretty amazing. Would you buy one?
The Power Tool Institute continues to fight for brands and users who oppose the regulations:
Susan Young with the industry group the Power Tool Institute claimed at the hearing that some of the commission’s research in this area is flawed. She said the proposed rule needs even more study and “lacks essential data from critical studies currently being conducted and continuing throughout 2017.”
I’m happy to eat my recent criticisms about the PTI not doing enough during the recent open comment period. They are active and ongoing in their opposition to the proposed regulations, and just aren’t as public about it as in the past.
CPSC concerns about forced licensing:
CPSC Acting Chairman Ann Marie Buerkle said she was also concerned that the rule might force companies to license technology from SawStop, which she said might create a monopoly.
It’s good to know that someone from the CPSC has this concern on their minds, and is seemingly against it.
Other commissioners said the rule wouldn’t create some kind of unfair monopoly. They said that’s not the CSPC’s concern anyway — which companies win or lose because of a safety rule.
Sally Greenberg, the executive director of the National Consumers League, agrees. “That isn’t their job. Their job is to get safer products to the marketplace,” she says.
It is very important to end users, which customers win or lose because of a safety rule, because price increases will affect everyone.
US House of Representatives budget bill rider (PDF) – it still needs to pass in Senate – , for the fiscal year ending September 30th, 2018:
SEC. 502. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be used to finalize any rule by the Consumer Product Safety Commission relating to blade-contact injuries on table saws.
I believe we can thank the PTI for this one.
Read More(via NPR)
So… a $400 SawStop saw…
I definitely like the idea of a cheaper version with that technology. $400 seems reasonable. I’m still holding my breath for a Milwaukee M18 powered table saw… but if it comes in to existence, something tells me it will be more than $400. 🙂
DeWalt FlexVolt Model# DCS7485T1 $499 with one battery, Model# DCS7485B $379 as a bare tool
I notice that this guy lied. It is 5 years later and there is no $400 saw stop. Cheapest is $1400.
Give me this $400 saw and everyone will get one
The NPR story said SawStop was working on a $400 saw. Maybe they’re still working on it, or maybe they weren’t successful.
For $400, I’d drop the money down right now. I’ve wanted one, but the very rare use of a table saw makes it really hard to drop down $1400 for their base model.
That’s the exact reason I have the Ridgid job site table saw. I couldn’t justify the $1000 price difference for my occasional (and not money making) use. But if they came out with a sub-$500 saw I’d sell mine and get one no doubt.
Your quote looks exactly like dozens of other anti consumer centrist verbiage that the Grand Old Party has allowed/encouraged to be inserted in broader bills this past half year. Hard to believe they’ll all stand and even harder to believe many are even legal. But here we are in the age of national dumbing down…
“SEC. 502. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be used to finalize any rule by the Consumer Product Safety Commission relating to blade-contact injuries on table saws.”
Why would this language be rational otherwise?
Blaming a specific political party is simply pointless and shows that you have no idea of how government and government agencies operate.
The topic here is that SawStop controls the patent for it’s product and ruthlessly defends said patent against others that might have something similar. Another topic is that certain government agencies might mandate the use of SawStop in equipment that is to be sold to the general public. That mandate would mean that ANY tablesaw on the market today would have to include SawStop at the price that SawStop wants. It would also mean that any other similar technology would be prohibited, thus creating a monopoly for SawStop. Is that the only way to go?
Sorry to be difficult but to both your first contention and your last you are basically incorrect.
But hey. It’s a tool blog not a legislative or legal one.
Oops. Blame the iPhone.
“anti consumer centrist verbiage” should read “anti consumer centric verbiage”!
I don’t understand how limiting the CPSC on enforcing rules that will raise prices is anti-consumer? The consumer benefits if prices are low AND/OR proprietary tech is not MANDATED
Read the PDF Stuart attached/linked and it should be obvious.
Anti consumer in the sense of “no need” for airbags in cars as an example.
The link to NPR specifically.
How does requiring active injury mitigation require other companies to license SawStop’s tech? They could develop their own.
Also, how does the consumer benefit from lower prices if they lose their fingers or worse? I’m sure every single person who has lost an appendage to a saw that COULD have had such technology wishes they had bought one with it.
People always pull the “it’ll kill business” card, but it almost never pans out that way. If you need a saw, you need a saw. The price will come down quickly and if SawStop can make a $400 saw with the technology, there’s no reason to believe that a larger manufacturer can’t do the same or better.
Because SawStop has very strong patent protections.
The Bosch Reaxx has a completely different design, but was nonetheless found to be infringing upon some of SawStop’s patents.
It would seem that Gass’s patent claims – tie up the use of flesh sensing technology. Maybe they even cover the notion of stopping a blade from causing injury after flesh sensing. So Bosch’s different/better back end cartridge did not matter. Their saw was, therefore, seen to infringe and sale of their saw barred.
If, as I suspect the Sawstop patents are broadly written, they likely tie up the market until they expire.
It’s not all that surprising since Gass is a patent attorney. He knew exactly what he needed to do from the very beginning to make sure that the technology was locked down to his company.
yeah, I was hoping this was pointed out, as most discussions about the ‘big table saw mess’ have many strings leaving out the bigger story.
But as the article points out; this is the fist many of us have seen in a while that lawmakers are at least aware of the gravy train Gass is pushing to implement…and clearly their answer to that reoccurring query is a much more affordable option…
Sawstop’s intentions were shown throughout the Bosch Reaxx (w/e it was called?) situation. A competitor internally developed the tech, and they were sued through almost intellectual property like channels (the ‘idea’ of flesh detection/injury prevention)…and won. You can’t buy that saw in the US right now, and it was more affordable than ANY currently available Sawstop saw. What does that say about Sawstop’s overall message?
Gass, and Sawstop, have this pretty nailed down legally as far as the equipment goes. It’s a side of the conversation that shouldn’t be, but often is, left out.
Bosch was stopped because they infringed on Gass’s patents. If it had been the other way around Bosch would have vigorously defended their patents. I am not shedding any tears over any loss of revenues on the part of the other table saw manufacturers. They could have licensed the technology and chosen to produce some of their saws using it. That would have given us choice. Maybe if Bosch had done this – we might have had the option of their second-generation design REAXX saw being available in the US.
It is the consumer that now seems to be caught in the middle. There is now the possibility looming that we will need to buy from Sawstop/Festool if want a new table saw.
You can’t buy that saw in the US right now, and it was more affordable than ANY currently available Sawstop saw. What does that say about Sawstop’s overall message?
No, it wasn’t more affordable. In fact, it was a bit more expensive. It is cheaper to operate per triggering of the safety feature, significantly so when blade loss is considered.
I concur that had the table have turned the other way Bosch would have done the same thing to protect their patents. The whole patent system is fairly broken however. I believe that in a true open and free market patent suppose to protect the inventor to gain a foot hold in the market to reap the reward for their invention. It shouldn’t prevent other people from coming up with alternative design. However how it usually workout is whichever side with the better lawyer win. Take this particular case for example, since some of Saw Stop patent is fairly broad, it does create an unfair restriction for other company trying to come up with an alternative. Now Saw Stop isn’t the only who hold such broad patent. As far as broad patent go I have seen worse. I don’t fault Saw Stop for applying for such broad patent. I just want to point out that the whole system is broken. I also wanted to point out that Saw Stop isn’t that innocent little guy that some people seem to think.
Now to deal with such broad patent, other company can try to invalidate whole or part of it. Such cases are brutal and usually get dragged out. Regardless of whichever side that ended up winning, it’s a brutal fight and the cost will eventually get passed on to the consumers. In short, nobody but the lawyer win in those cases…
“The Bosch Reaxx has a completely different design”
Only regarding the emergency brake. There are two parts to active-protection saws like this, contact-sensing and retraction/braking. The flesh-sensing part of the Reaxx was essentially the same as on the SawStop, which is why it was found to infringe, not the brake. Bosch thought they could get away with it but rightfully had their hand slapped.
Heck, if SawStop came out with an $700-800 version equivalent in capability to the Ridgid R4512, I’d buy one right now. I assume their $400 version will be a bare bones compact bench saw?
My first thought on the $400 saw is that they will take the path of inkjet printers. The cheap saw takes a safety/blade combo unit that expires after a year(or fires its safety) and costs half or more of the cost of the saw. That said the units themselves seem reasonable cheap(except the aluminum stop block) and the electronics can’t be that expensive.
My ex-compatriots have just bought a Sawstop jobsite saw. I think their take is they want to try it out – and not have to scramble should OSHA weigh in. I’m told that business is booming – so the $1300 purchase was not a stretch. We also had a work culture of trying new tools out that had the potential to improve safety, productivity or quality of work.
I think that if they release something in the $400 range – they would buy it to try out as well. Right now they are in a quandary about their Bosch and Dewalt jobsite saws.
I worry about what a 400 dollar saw stop would act and work like. vs my 500 dollar Dewalt. Which is very good at the job – and very safe if you use it the way it’s intended.
Meanwhile where are the anti-cut systems for all other saws I put my hands on? How’s that development going? But again I like the idea of the saw stop minus a few things – and I will say it is probably that extra 20% safer than most other modern table saws sure.
But it’s not worth it to me. In a production capacity – someone that is a cabinet maker etc etc – different requirements on insurance and the like – different math. I don’t however want to see a monopoly created for a safety feature – since that wasn’t done with things like Airbags (commercially introduced first by GM) or tempered auto glass (commercially introduced first by Tucker and PPG) . and I’m sure there are a quite a few others. So then why for table saws.
Regards GM introducing airbags. They battled against airbags!!! Just like they refused to do two sided (reversible) keys for a decade after the rest of the industry. (I also recall they were against seat belts much earlier though I’m not positive).
Mercedes was the leader in the airbag battle. GM only wanted ABS. Much cheaper to implement. And much less effective.
That’s typical of GM’s historic and systemic cultural reason for their bankruptcy and the subsequent reason the Obama Administration had to bail them out: to save jobs and an American icon. The GOP actively opposed any such bailout. And here we are.
That is true GM and FOrd were against airbags in the 80’s but they both tested them before Mercedes. Reasoning I heard years ago – back then it was looked at as being airbags in place of shoulder belts. and testing showed shoulder belts were more effective in ALL accidents. This was before side curtain was a thing. So they fought to do away with airbags but retain shoulder belts for ALL cars. but at anyrate. My point was safety equipment requirements should never lead to a monopoly.
If they want to mandate saw stop across all table saws – then dissolve the patent or allow alternate patents for free.
If they want to mandate saw stop across all table saws – then dissolve the patent or allow alternate patents for free.
In other words, screw the inventors.
“Screw the inventor” would accomplish exactly what? No really. I’m curious what you mean.
Because, of course, without inventors there would be no inventions or innovation.
I think Biker Dad was quoting and commenting on what Nathan had said. Translating Nathan’s thought: “then dissolve the patent” into what it would mean: i.e. “screw the inventors”. I guess in some Utopian vision (or delusion) of the world – clever people would be incentivized to invent by their altruist natures. In such a fantasy world the profit motive would have no raison d ‘etre. in our real world, I think most people would like to think that they would profit monetarily if they invented something useful. In good measure, it is that notion that spurs on inventors – and as you point out “without inventors there would be no inventions.”
You can legislate safety onto everything. This should not be mandated. People have used table saws used for years with no hint of an issue. The table saw is not dangerous unless improperly used and I could see careless use being more prevalent when using a saw like this. What happens if the safety system fails? It’s interesting you make comparisons to airbag usage given the deaths caused directly by Takata airbags.
Where does this stop? Will circular saws require a similar safety device? Band Saws? Reciprocating saws? Drills?
We are always on a slippery slope when it comes to mandating something like a purported safety feature versus allowing personal freedom of choice.
What may be compelling in this case, is that table saws have been involved (I didn’t say responsible) in way more tool-related accidents than any other tool. The fact that the Sawstop or Reaxx technology probably could have prevented many of these accidents is also worth considering. But so is your question about what happens if the AIM system fails – and is there a failure mode that can cause harm.
I’d plunk down $400 for a SawStop pretty readily. Like some others have said, I’m curious to see what corners they might cut to get the price that low. The DW745 from DeWalt is excellent and retails new for $300, so I feel like another hundred bucks could accommodate the additional safety tech and still be an excellent saw without short-changing on quality.
I traded up from a DW745 to the SawStop JSS after I mangled the tips of 3 fingers (luckily they completely healed) because the table on the 745 is just too small to safely support a decent-sized crosscut sled so I couldn’t see where the saw was under the sled and I misjudged where the invisibly spinning blade was. The only thing I miss from the DeWalt is the vernier fence adjustment. Other than that the JSS is better in every way, and I can finally use a dado stack. Of course the SS cost me $1300 CDN whereas I got the DW745 on sale for $340, so there is that.
Saw stop saws suck…”you can’t fix stupid” stop making everything dummy proof. !!! Get the govt out of your life. It’s bad enough “Simpson” metal hardware for everything , lobbied for more fasteners on houses built. Have ever seen the amount of nails per sq inch on a H2.5 ? The frame is actually weaker after you apply the fastener. …people get hurt by careless use of power tools, you can’t fix that….
So stop using nails, pre-drill and drive screws. Problem solved.
People get hurt by careless use of motor vehicles, so screw seat belts and air bags.
Is there any information if wether this $400 table saw is a collaboration with Festool given the recent acquisition? It be interesting to see if it incorporates any compatibility with the Festool Ecosystem i.e. tracks, attachments, dust mitigation system compatibilities etc.
There’s no information at all.
I don’t think any Festool system compatible table saw would ever have a price anywhere near that low.
If they come out with a festool version it will probably be at least double the price
I don’t think I said it was the “Festool version”, only the collaboration into the Festool Ecosystem. If there were compatibilities like say the saw blade to the ones made by Festool or other such tie ins, I could see this as a base line entry into to that environment. It would also be a tie in for those already invested in Festool to look into incorporating this tool as well. It still doesn’t mean there wouldn’t be a possible Festool version. Just nice to see a meeting of minds and collaborative effort between the two companies.
If it has at least a 24″ cutting capacity and is somewhat decent otherwise. If its just $150 saw with the safety features, then theres no point.
The DW745 does 24″ wide cuts and is priced about the same as this new SS would be so as long as it’s as good as the DeWalt in other ways the SS would have the edge.
Seatbelts were implemented for money not your safety, just another way of the government getting money out of our sorry asses, just like they lowered the speed limit in NYC from 30mph to 25mph for our safety, no it’s just they can give out more tickets, this saw safety thing just another way of efin the consumers
Given SawStop history this is nothing but a strategic remark to prove that it can be done at a cheaper price. They could very well be working on one for $800 but decided to eat up the cost for now to push their agenda. Again given their company shady history and their strong financial tie with the proposed mandate I highly suggest to take this strategic remark with a grain of salts.
Again I am happy to be proven wrong, let wait 5-10 years after they have come out with the $400 saw. Let see if it’s a serious contender to other saw on the market. Let see if it’s a sustainable product for the company. Then we can make a decision. Before that it’s a terrible idea for anyone to made a decision based on a remark. Yes I am talking about the CPSC commissioners that are already making a comparison to a hypothetical product like the one mentioned in the article. “CPSC commissioners in favor of the rule point out that the $200 price difference is dwarfed by the financial cost…”
You put forth interesting and plausible hypotheses. If its not better than a $129 Ryobi – other than having the AIM technology – that might tell us something about the cost of adding AIM. But as anyone who’s manufactured anything knows, how you price an item is not necessarily perfectly related to its cost. Your thought that they may eat some first-time costs to force the market might indeed be right. But as you say, I guess we’ll have to wait and see if and when the $400 saw materializes.
BTW, I don’t see Sawstop’s behavior as being any more shady than some of the other table saw manufactures who might well have colluded to keep Mr. Gass’s invention from ever coming to market.
You are right, the other saw manufactures are no angel to be sure. As far as colluded part, we don’t know what happened in the back room but Gass doesn’t seem like the pushover type. He also seem think very highly of himself and his invention, an opinion that I certain don’t share. So I would infer that he came into the negotiation room trying to corner the other guy rather than trying to workout a deal and it backfire. His invention is a decent one but still need further refinement. Clearly, by his act of trying to force the consumer hand he seem to think that his invention was ready for mass adoption. I still don’t think it is now. Then I certainly don’t fault the other saw manufacture for not being able to workout a deal with him. He certainly have a pretty solid patent. One that’s likely too broad. I think both side know that if the technology become fruitful (and it did) then it would set up the precedent for our broken court system. The real problem that I see here is our broken court system that seem to reward frivolous lawsuit. Gass just happen to be one that also skillful in riding that wave. I don’t fault either side for doing so, again I would fault our broken court system for that.
In short, it look to me that Gass is nothing more but a salt water alligator that saw blood in the water and went for it. While the other saw manufactures being the shark hold up their teeth and say “oh no you don’t.” Both are predator that can take care of themselves… As long as the consumers are left alone I have no qualm with it.
You may be right in that his terms were possibly so onerous as to make the deal for any and all those he approached wince. I just always thought it odd that not one took him up on his licensing offer. In my concept of a free and open market with real competitors, I would have thought that someone would have seen a possible competitive advantage.
Now I think the same batch of “competitors” may be laying back, hoping for a CSPC ruling that will force them into licensing the technology. They may see it as a way to get out from under some future accident lawsuits and in the bargain make more money from markup on higher-priced saws. As I said once before, for those of us who make a living (as I once did) from running a business using table saws, insurance premiums and OSHA will likely decide the matter.
This entire scenario reminds me of all the trouble Tim Leatherman had trying to interest all the knife and hand tool makers he approached with his original “Leatherman” tool idea.
Every single one of them turned him down. They didn’t want to bother.
So he literally cobbled together his first tool order run in his garage.
And for many years after his company’s founding he went after many of them for simply stealing his idea. And he, I believe, was literally 100% successful in that legal endeavor. Now, of course, between patent expirations and alternative methods of reaching the same usefulness Leatherman no longer is as litigious.
So to me the “nanny state” malarkey, the freedumb to do self home surgery argument and complaining about a patent developer trying to peddle his design arguments are all pretty specious. And so similar to Leatherman’s experience.
“given their company shady history”
SawStop does not have a shady history. They invented something none of the incumbent saw makers thought was worth licensing for their own products, so after a decade of banging their heads against the wall they started making their own saws. When these started eating into the competition’s share of the market the other companies realized they had missed an opportunity and tried to figure out ways around the patents. Bosch tried to pull a fast one by coming up with an alternate method for blade retraction/braking and then claiming their saw didn’t infringe, but they stole the other part of the system, flesh-detection, from SawStop. Luckily they didn’t get away with it, at least in the USA. It is the companies that tried to deprive SawStop of the income from their invention who actually have a shady history.
I think a lot of people consider Sawstop “shady” because in 2008 Gass went to the CPSC to try and force manufactures to use his technology.
doug in GA
When comparing price, I would consider “the when it goes off” factor. Somebody on the site cuts a wet PT 2X and sets it off. Your out a blade, a cartridge, and the time to get back up and running.
Choices are my preference, not mandates. (choices, even the choice to be stupid, is freedom.)
I own the more expensive saw stop saw. If the quality of a $1300 saw is anything to go by then the $400 saw will be awful.
Everything on the saw seems an after thought. The bevel adjustment is fast but highly inaccurate. The bevel mech also has a lot of play so don’t expect accurate cuts.
The fence lock seems like a great idea until dust gets involved and the button lock soon becomes an annoyance.
The turn dial in the top of the fence also gets clogged with dust too and can only be turned with a tool.
The blade height adjustment is quick but inaccurate and blade depth changes as the saw is running. The handle has also broken for the second time now from just light hits from material.
Sometimes the saw will not even activate and I will have to wait a few seconds before it resets its self before I can cut.
Also most of the time the safety system in the saw is turn off due to worries about damp material, saw not running when switch it on,.
Overall it’s just a poorly thought out saw and the others I know who own this saw also turnnif the safety system due to the environment they work. You shouldn’t have to baby a $1300 jobsite saw.
Just for reference I work outside a lot on damp material so turning off the safety feature is a must. In a dry shop situation I’m sure the safety tech can be left on but who’s using a jobsite saw inside!
“The bevel adjustment is fast but highly inaccurate”
Ummm… there are separate coarse and a fine adjustment knobs. I find it easier to set an exact angle on the SawStop JSS than any other saw I’ve ever used. I didn’t realize the fine adjustment existed for the first few months I had the saw, so maybe you don’t either.
“Also most of the time the safety system in the saw is turn off due to worries about damp material”
In the three years I’ve had my SS I’ve never done a bypass cut. If you regularly cut aluminum or soaking wet lumber this isn’t the saw for you.
“blade depth changes as the saw is running”
Again, never seen this happen, even once.
“who’s using a jobsite saw inside”
Tens of thousands of weekend warriors, for one, who don’t have a permanent space for a cabinet saw or even a hard to move contractor’s saw.
Clearly the JSS doesn’t meet your needs, but I have been extremely happy with mine, and build quality is one of the reasons I love it.
Thanks for the great article. I’ve been wanting to get a sawstop for some time now but like most others just can’t see dropping $1600 on a saw for just my own personal enjoyment. But if they could even drop the price to less than a grand I’d be extremely happy. $400 and I’m elated. Only concern I have is if the job site saw is currently going for around $1600, what will the $400 saw be like.
The CPSC might not be the one that forces the change it might be workers comp insurance that forces the change via higher rates on jobsites without a saw with safety mitigation.
Exactly. I’ve heard that its already happened with schools.
Meanwhile it probably will not happen for individuals and homeowners with their medical insurance.
The high schools in my county and the surrounding ones have wood shops and carpentry classes. None of them use Saw Stop saws.
Where’s the actual footage of someone sticking their hand in the blade to see if the flesh detection even works? Does any exist? I don’t mean a promotional video from the company talking about it. How the hell does anyone know if it even works if there’s nothing to show to why they’re mandating. What kind of flesh did they use to test with? Are they just assuming that this flesh detection works cuz they put a piece of chicken in the blade and it stopped? Its obvious that sawstop is trying to create a monopoly because who else has invested the time and money in this flesh detection? Bosch tried to, but they got sued for it because sawstop patented every detail of the technology. Now that its mandatory, everyone is going to have to go through sawstop I mean festool to produce a saw. I don’t care how well business is booming, $1400 is a hell of a lot of money for a mobile table saw & now all of a sudden it costs $400. Other than the size, what’s the reason for the $1000 price drop? I think it’s because they know they’ve got the entire market in their pockets now so making an affordable saw is a taunt to every one else that makes affordable tools. Who owns sawstop? Festool. Who’s the most expensive brand? Festool. Who would never make an affordable table saw? Festool. But Now that everyone else is going to have to pay them to use their technology just to produce & sell a table saw, festool actually made something affordable even though it doesn’t have their brand name on it. I wouldn’t be surprised if we see less & less table saws on the market until the patents expire.
The UL has done a good job of simulating a flesh finger.
Users have had “finger save” activations where they reported blade contact and safety cartridge activations.
Besides, you don’t need to “stick a hand in the blade” to see if flesh detection works. That’s like saying that rocket engines can only be tested in space. Or that you can only test air bag sensors by crashing cars.
“Where’s the actual footage of someone sticking their hand in the blade to see if the flesh detection even works? Does any exist?”
How else do they test airbag sensors before installing it in the vehicles sold to the public? What do you think crash test dummies are for? They have to crash test vehicles several times to make sure airbags deploy correctly before qc gives it the okay. They are tested in a real situation environment. Like I said they probably used a piece of chicken to test it. But like others have said, its impossible to fix the lack of common sense that people seem to have when they cut off their fingers when using a table saw. I really hope that this mandate works. We’ll just have to wait and see.
But there’s also testing of components and subsystems in simulated environments. With airbags, they won’t total a car every time they want to tweak something a little differently.
This strikes me as more of the tyranny of good intentions. This is for your own good so you will buy it or buy nothing at all.
The difference between Saw Stop and seat belts is seat belts protect us from the mistakes and careless of others, Saw Stop doesn’t.
I’m not sure why this is some conspiracy by the GOP. To date, I have seen nothing by either party for or against this technology. The CPSC seems to be wary of mandating the technology and I have never heard the CPSC charged with being a mouth piece for the GOP.
I will never knowingly buy a product from anti-competitive crony capitalists like SawStop.
“I will never knowingly buy a product from anti-competitive crony capitalists like SawStop.”
Anti-competitive? The inventor spent a decade trying to license his invention to the incumbent saw makers with no takers, then when he started making his own and taking away some of their market share they started looking for ways to benefit while still not paying royalties. Bosch thought they could pull a fast one by coming up with their own blade brake/rectractor but stealing the SS flesh-detection tech, but the courts rightfully slapped that down. You don’t know what you are talking about.
I currently have an old saw w/o a riving knife. I want to get a saw with one that’s at least as accurate as what I have. I’m not going to spend $200-$400 just to get it. I just don’t use it enough in my basement.
I will spend $400-$500 to get one with a blade stop. Even if it’s the same quality as the current $200 saws.
My scene shop has a saw stop. I’ve witnessed it save a coworkers hand. Blind dado kickback, his hand into blade, he had a light scratch no blood amazing! Most times the blade is not ruined when it goes off by hitting a conductive surface. It’s a no brainer, these saws save fingers! Not using one is ludicrous. I personally don’t care about the back story who makes money on it etc, they work and the finger that is saved could be yours!
I know three people who have lost fingers to tablesaws, all experienced and careful woodworkers. I almost joined those numbers myself (my chewed fingers all healed perfectly), which is why I own a SawStop today.