The US Consumer Product Safety Commission just held another hearing regarding table saw safety tech.
Grab some popcorn – I watched the full recording and there are some impactful statements and sentiments.
I have made efforts to include relevant statements, but following is not a complete transcript.
Advertisement
Most of the questions were asked by two Commissioners, Peter Feldman and Richard Trumka Jr. Feldman is against the rulemaking, Trumka is for it.
Feldman, in the context of SawStop’s refusal to license their tech to Grizzly:
“Mr. Howard [SawStop/TTS CEO], I don’t know how to view this type of response as anything other than a refusal to license your technology on any terms, let alone FRAND [fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory] terms.”
“Just to make sure I am allowing a full opportunity to provide the appropriate context, my question is this: is SawStop and TTS willing to engage with CPSC technical staff and stakeholders to develop a license, on FRAND terms before the final adoption of a rule in this matter, in order to allow the Commission to fully understand the effects and costs as accurately as possible?”
Matt Howard, CEO of SawStop and TTS North America:
“…I reject out of hand, within the context of our testimony today, any requirement to go through SawStop to achieve AIM implementation. We are not a gate-keeper. We are expressly working to not be a gate-keeper.”
Advertisement
Feldman:
“You have made no commitments beyond the ‘840 patent, and with respect to the expiring IP, your company has taken a fairly active litigation approach to extend those patents.”
SawStop:
“…Bosch has actually been able to sell that [Reaxx table saw] product in the United States since 2018. So, [this is] another example of where we are not an obstacle.”
Feldman:
“I am hearing no licensing commitments, or otherwise with respect to anything beyond the ‘840 patents. You provided quite a lengthy list of other patents that are related to your technology and -“
SawStop:
“…I am excited about having those conversations. But these conversations … are complex, and they can’t be captured in a sound bite that’s convenient for this venue.”
Feldman:
“But again, no commitment to share any sort of licensing information before, so that we can have the benefit of incorporating that quantitatively into our cost benefit analysis as we’re required to do?”
SawStop:
“That topic is moot.” [No transcript provided, audio breaks up; this statement is not clear or confirmed.]
Feldman:
“Again, I find SawStop’s unwillingness to develop and share any of these commitments at this point deeply troubling. Your response is consistent with the decades-long refusal to license.
I’m not sure how today’s testimony changes anything.
I understand that you’re running a business, and rather than seeking to compete fairly, I see what you’re doing is engaging in rent-seeking behavior, pure and simple.”
ToolGuyd Note: from Wikipedia, “Rent-seeking is the act of growing one’s existing wealth by manipulating the social or political environment without creating new wealth.”
Trumka then asked questions, with some suggesting he misinterprets SawStop’s pledge to conditionally release a specific patent to the public.
See Also: SawStop Tries to Save Face with Patent Promise
Trumka addressed the PTI representative:
“You said didn’t have the technology to compete, now you do. You said it would take time and money to create it, now it won’t.”
In ToolGuyd’s opinion, this is patently inaccurate. SawStop’s promise, to make a single patent available for use if a CPSC ruling goes into effect, isn’t a magic wand that automatically creates competitive implementations.
Trumka:
“Will you at least commit to advising them [PTI member brands] to drop their opposition to this rule, now that the technology to comply is freely available?”
Trumka displayed and discussed images of injured woodworkers, and after a bit of back and forth with the PTI rep:
“Why do you want this to keep happening to people?”
PTI Executive Manager Susan Orenga:
“Again, I am here to talk about the concerns we have with the SNPR as written, and the challenge we see, and the accident data that has been presented has not been analyzed in the correct fashion, and that the most of the accidents are not happening on benchtop table saws.”
Trumka brings up some background data about the firm Orenga belongs to, and then asks:
“… so the playbook is well-worn, you’re hired to do a job, part of that job is to oppose safety rules. Why should we trust you?”
Trumka:
“The Power Tool Institute and its member companies created a joint venture to create your own safety technology for table saws in 2003.
You formed that joint venture over 20 years ago. In that time, how much money has been invested in it?”
PTI:
“I can’t speak to that.”
Trumka:
You can’t, or do you not know, or you are not allowed to?
PTI:
“I can’t speak to that. It’s a private joint venture made up of members of the PTI – certain members of the PTI.”
Trumka, in a new round of questions:
“When I asked your company members about whether they had this technology, they said ‘we can’t answer you, you have this confidentiality agreement,’ and I found that odd.”
…
“So it’s a handful of power tool manufacturers who would be subject to this regulation, and the shell trade association they set up for themselves.
So your companies are stopping themselves from answering my question.
Here’s why I have a problem with that in this specific instance.
On the one hand, you argued that you [PTI] oppose the proposed rule because you don’t have access to the technology. Today, SawStop said they’ve give you the technology* to comply.”
(In ToolGuyd’s opinion, this is a gross misinterpretation of what SawStop said. SawStop’s pledge essentially means they won’t sue competing unlicensed brands for infringement upon one specific unexpired patent.)
Trumka:
“And you still don’t commit to supporting the rule.
Further, when I ask your members if they already had the technology, they say ‘sorry, can’t tell you, we’ve all agreed to block ourselves from answering with NDAs.’
And it begs the question of what you’re blocking. These companies already had the technology, that would allow them to comply with proposed rule. True or false?”
PTI:
“False. And I’ll believe that the technology within the JV [joint venture] could meet this SNPR as stated with the SawStop patent issue. I understand that, a half hour ago we were told that some of those patent issues may be resolved, but not all of them.”
Trumka:
“So you answered false – so release them from their confidentiality agreements, let them answer my letters, so that you can give us the evidence we need to evaluate that claim.”
PTI:
“We have licensing agreements for anyone who would like to license our patents, so I think if there is a manufacturer that is interested in licensing the patents, they are free to contact us, and we can provide them with that licensing agreement.”
(ToolGuyd’s take on this: WHAT?!)
Trumka:
“Well the patents aren’t what I’m talking about, because that doesn’t tell the full story, and it’s an interesting twist you tried to do there.
But, each of your companies – they also refused to answer my question, but the rest of what they told me conveyed more than what they may have realized.
First, it’s confirmed that one of your joint members, Bosch, already has a license to use the SawStop technology.
And second, we do know the joint venture holds patents, and we know the joint venture members pay a fee to maintain those patents every year.
Third, and what I found most interesting, is we now have confirmation the joint venture has developed other proprietary non-patented technologies. In other words, you have technology you haven’t made public, and we learned that from the Stanley response and the Bosch response.
When you make arguments that imply you don’t have access to technology that would allow you to comply with the proposed rule, and you shield all efforts to determine whether you do or you don’t, I have no idea how we can possibly give weight to your argument, certainly not when you developed proprietary technology that you won’t tell us about.
Let’s for a moment indulge the other possible reality, the one you’re trying to suggest could exist, where you’ve been on notice for 20 years and you haven’t been able to fund a solution.
I’ve also got trouble believing that one. You’re certainly not short on money you could have used to either license technology or develop your own. I’ll just look at one company as an example here.
In May of 2022, Stanley Black & Decker announced $2 billion in stock buybacks. Their CEO said the buybacks demonstrate the company’s commitment to deliver shareholder value through disciplined capital allocation.
Do you know what disciplined capital allocation means?”
…
“As far as I understand it, it means they took money that could have been used for product safety, and they gave it to wealthy investors.”
…
“Your member companies, the power tool manufacturers are making money, and I’m not seeing the evidence they’re investing it in making these tools safer.”
Trumka to a representative for the National Association of Manufacturers:
“Will your organization drop your opposition to this rule now that SawStop has announced it will make the patent freely available to you and all your members?”
Alex Monié, Senior Director of Tax Policy for the National Association of Manufacturers:
“As previously stated at the October hearing, I think there are over 140 patents in this specific technology. I think this is a great gesture, that we’re hearing today, but it is new information and one we’ll have to thoroughly review.”
Trumka to a representative for the National Consumer League:
“In 2010, we’ve got this industry voluntary standard. You’ve talked about the data afterwards. How effective was it in preventing injuries?”
National Consumer League:
“As far as I can tell, totally ineffective at preventing injuries, they have remained the same.”
…
“The voluntary standard is not working.”
Trumka:
“So we’re here, 2 decades later, industry hasn’t solved this problem, they’re still telling us they can’t.
Does that make any sense? Should we buy that?”
Alexander Hoehn-Saric, US CPSC Chair:
“The testimony has been instructive, and I am sure it’s going to be helpful as staff develops a final rulemaking package and the commission deliberates on this matter.”
Additional Comments by Commissioner Trumka
From his comments on social media and the hearing, Trumka (@Trumkacpsc) seems to believe that the technology to prevent severe lacerations and amputation-type injuries have been around and that “most manufacturers don’t use it.”
But they can’t. SawStop refused to license patents to competitors, sued Bosch, and has expressed they will litigate to protect their patents.
Trumka, referring to SawStops’ pledge to conditionally release a single patent, said that it’s “a level of selflessness” he doesn’t “remember ever seeing from a company.”
SawStop sued the US patent and trademark office over patent term adjustments. But they’re selfless?!
Meanwhile, Commissioner Feldman said this during the hearing to SawStop:
“I understand that you’re running a business, and rather than seeking to compete fairly, I see what you’re doing is engaging in rent-seeking behavior, pure and simple.”
So Feldman, who is against the rulemaking at this time, thinks SawStop is “engaging in rent-seeking behavior,” while Trumka, who is for it, thinks that corporate profits are the only thing standing in the way of other power tool manufacturers.
ToolGuyd Questions
Here’s my question:
SawStops’ founder said, in 2017, that the company was about to come out with a $400 table saw. That never happened.
SawStop’s least expensive table saw launched in late-2022 and costs $899 plus freight.
You can buy a name-brand table saw for as low as $149 at Home Depot, and $129 at Lowe’s. Professional portable table saws are priced at around $300, with some costing more and others less.
How will the CPSC rulemaking impact the sub-$500 benchtop table saw market?
Feldman was the only Commissioner to oppose publishing the Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNPR) in October. Chair Hoehn-Saric and Commissioners Trumka and Boyle voted to approve the SNRP for a safety standard for table saws.
Feldman and Trumka both had excellent questions for SawStop and the Power Tool Institute, whose members brands include Dewalt, Ryobi, Bosch, Milwaukee, Skil, and others.
If the PTI has developed viable safety tech under their joint venture, to where their manager commented about how they were open to licensing their patents and tech, why haven’t they provided details to the CPSC so as to allow for cost and impact analysis?
I emailed Bosch Tool today:
It has been made public that Bosch is licensing IP from SawStop.
In comments yesterday, SawStop CEO Matt Howard said that Bosch has been permitted to sell the Reaxx table saw in the USA since 2018.
Why has the Reaxx saw remained off the market if there are no IP/patent obstacles preventing it from being available and sold today?
I have not yet heard back and will follow up with Bosch’s response.
I also wrote to a PTI PR rep:
The PTI has argued that a CPSC ruling might result in small table saw manufacturers going out of business, resulting in unemployment.
Can the PTI provide examples of small manufacturers in the table saw industry?
I have not yet heard back and will follow up with PTI’s response.
Video of the February 28, 2024 Hearing
And, if you’re wondering where the top image came from, that’s from a stickied video on the US CPSC YouTube homepage. Seriously, it’s from their We’re Safety Now Haven’t We music album.
Comment Policy
Discussions about SawStop or table saw safety rulemaking often leads to an immense number of trolling and soapboxing, mostly from new readers or commentors I’ve never heard from before. Such will not be permitted here. Be civil towards each other, and leave hidden agendas at the door.
Mike McFalls
This is the first time I learned Bosch could’ve had the Reaxx saw in the US. That’s in interesting develop but I doubt straight answer will ever come out on why they haven’t sold it in the US.
None of this changes my opinion on the CSPC and their ‘agenda’ nor the behavior is Sawstop for over a decade. No matter how you slice it they Suda competitor to prevent them from bringing the technology to market and at the same time if they truly were about consumer safety as they have claimed so publicly, then they would’ve done what Volvo did with seatbelts.
And to be clear, I fully support sawstop protecting their patents. I really don’t have a problem with the fact that they sued Bosch other than the fact that they are NOW trying to say that all they care about is the consumer safety aspect. In the end Sawstop, Dr Glass, thought they could create a technology and simply make money off of licensing the patents for that technology. When they failed and were forced to bring their product to market, then they turned around and became litigious to protect the cost involved with a product market. That all makes sense to me, but don’t lie and treat us like idiots and state the goal is safety.
If I were on the CPC board, I would’ve asked stop how many injuries should be attributed to their failure to freely license this technology over the past 20 years. That wouldn’t be an entirely fair question, but at the same time, neither is the dishonesty.
Stuart
Good question.
That’s assuming that brands would have developed safety tech in the absence of IP obstacles. If I recall, I believe I read that they didn’t want to license the tech out of a belief it would increase their liability for saw blade injuries. I also remember seeing arguments that SawStop’s licensing terms were unfair and too costly.
Bob+Hinden
I was also surprised to learn that Bosch had access to this technology but hasn’t used it in a product in the US. Glad you reached out to them, looking forward to hearing what they say.
My take from your transcript, is that the US Consumer Product Safety Commission isn’t going to do require this technology in table saws unless it’s clear that other companies can productize it without royalties to SawStop. How broad the requirement will be is anyones guess.
Stuart
Feldman was the lone dissenter in a 3-to-1 vote to publish the proposed rulemaking last Fall.
I think there’s a strong chance the CPSC will proceed.
Feldman’s goal, in my opinion, is to highlight obstacles that could sway his fellow Commissioners into waiting for more information and answers.
Trumka seems to see SawStop’s pledge to release a single patent as being unprecedentedly selfless, and he seems to believe it’s like a magic wand that gives other brands instant access to SawStop tech.
All I took away from the hearing is that there are many unanswered questions.
I’ve also started to worry that some of the CPSC comments and statements show signs of political ambition.
Behind the Commissioners are staff members tasked with putting everything into context and perspective. Hopefully they’re up for the challenge.
Mike McFalls
The force and blind obsession I observe in Trumka‘s comments throughout all of this would make me think he has been maimed or someone close to him has been in a table saw accident. Absent that- I would like to see his travel and expense logs and :cough cough: bank accounts.
To reiterate- I have no objection to the tech and if it’s available at a competitive price I’d buy it. I have no objection to IP protection. It’s the fake concern and abuse of an overzealous govt agency in order to accomplish this that’s deplorable to me.
Stuart
Here are statements from Feldman and Trumka in October: https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/Comm-Mtg-Min-TableSaws-SupplementalNPR-Decisional.pdf
Trumka’s statement starts with:
Mike McFalls
Sound to me like he didn’t utilize the safety mechanisms available such as the blade guards.
Alex
Does Trumka realize that Sawstop doesn’t stop kickback? Because it’s not going to stop pieces of wood from shooting across the room, especially if you remove the blade guard or if you set the blade height too high.
MFC
I only use push sticks and other blocks as my hands to guide pieces through the table saw. My fingers never get within 12″ of the blade. It’s not a matter of if, but when. I don’t understand why people still use their hands to push stock through the tablesaw. Use your hands to get the board started and to feed it, but then at the end you grab the push sticks and finish it off. I can apply the right leverage to the edge and back of the board. I also turn off the saw with each pass unless it’s a bunch of repetitive pieces right next to me.
Also, why don’t people wear leather gloves if they’re going to use their hands? When I was young and ignorant I flipped a circular saw upside down to guide a piece of wood through it and of course my hand got sucked in when the wood shot out. The cheap leather glove saved my fingers and stopped the blade immediately. If you are going to use your hands then get a pair of welding gloves to guide your stock through. The thick leather will at least help in case your hand gets sucked in.
The place gloves would be a bad idea is with some industrial crushing machine that can’t be stopped by a few layers of leather. At that point better to lose a finger than have your whole hand sucked in and crushed.
Stuart
@MFC, gloves are extremely frowned upon and often prohibited when working with most types of powered equipment.
MoogleMan3
If he was having that many close calls with the table saw I’m fairly certain that the issue lies with the operator, not the tablesaw.
In my 20 years of woodworking and using a table saw almost daily, I’ve only had a single kickback incident, back when I first got into the hobby. I was using the miter gauge on a narrow piece with the fence as a stop. And of course, cutoff gets jammed between fence and blade, shoots back and nails me in the gut.
I bought kelly mehler’s tablesaw book and video after that, educated myself on the safety and dangers of the tool, and have been fine ever since.
Jack D
It sounds like irresponsible user error to me. Table saws, like many power tools, are most dangerous when we as users get careless. Push sticks, proper fence calibration, blade height adjustment, even proper foot placement are all critical ingredients in safe use, and that’s just for starters.
He’s basically saying, “I’m too stupid to learn, and too lazy to try learning any safety rules, so everyone else must be, as well… let’s mandate it!”
I’m glad to see these things discussed, but not glad to see government involved.
MM
@MoogleMan3 @ JackD
Agreed, this sounds like user error of the worst kind. I’ve been working around table saws for more than 30 years and I’ve had one kickback incident: It was caused when a contractor, unbeknown to me, used the saw without permission after I had stopped work for the day and damaged the blade cutting wood with screws in it. I went to work the next day, not knowing the blade was Fubared and nearly caught a 2 foot by 4 foot shelf in the gut when I made my first cut. Fortunately I was not hit as I was taught to stand to the side of the work as much as possible just in case something like that were to happen.
But “too many” close calls? Just what exactly is this guy doing?? And like Alex pointed out, a SawStop does nothing to prevent injuries from kickback. I’m also curious about why they prefer a router table instead? Those are every bit as dangerous as a table saw in my opinion and kickback is perhaps an even bigger risk than with a table saw.
Potato
Power tool injuries are really, really horrific to witness. The old overreaching overzealous government tirade is just tiring at this point.
S
The REAXX statement is interesting to me.
Granted, I never followed the product, litigation, or sales of it by anything less than a chinesese telephone from others, but I never once got the impression that bosch was capable of selling the tech after the court case finalized.
I always understood the litigation was a nail in the coffin to Bosch’s use of the idea.
The PTI statements are somewhat confusing, part of me wonders if either the spokesperson really is that ignorant of the goings on within the organization, or alternately, PTI is worried about admitting they’re working on the idea, and fearful of further legal action from sawstop because of Bosch’s past experience.
I do appreciate they touched ever so briefly on the fact that sawstop has agreed to release ONE patent relating to the technology, despite an estimated 140 patents related to the tech.
That makes for a very active land mine zone, and part of me is further irritated by sawstop appearing to extend an olive branch, but only once their lawyers have scoped in the mortars on the position…
I agree though, i think the largest fear in this tech from the consumer perspective is going to be cost.
It will definitely be interesting how that effects the used saw market, though the cynic in me see’s more consolidated injuries with used and aging saws as they age and wear, which would offset any universal benefit to the implementation of the technology for a number of years. I’d argue, even if all brands had a product ready and waiting to be released by 2025, while also pulling every other non-compliant saw from the market(unrealistic in every way), I don’t think we’ll see a significant decrease in injuries for at least 10 years until most of the used market has time to burn through existing stock, and consumer expectations of pricing and features has time to adjust.
I’m not opposed to a step in the right direction to decreasing injuries, but this is always going to be a walk rather than a run to the finish line, especially with the legal hurdles sawstop appears to be not-so-subtly throwing into the entire ordeal.
Stuart
I started reporting on this topic 12 YEARS ago.
I think there’s a 50% chance a decision will be made in the next 12 months, and a 50% chance it’ll take far longer.
eddie sky
I hope so. Because the only people to get screwed are the woodworkers that need a new tablesaw or starting out. And the companies that go out of business due to costs to Sawstop licensing.
Don’t forget the domino effect: home insurance companies doing a money grab. Just like swimming pools (rate increase, mandatory second fencing), and dogs (most dog owners have breeds the home insurers will up your premium), I suspect if insurance agent visits or there is a claim, “oh, I see you do woodworking. You have a tablesaw? Is it with blade safety features?” because they will put a checkbox on your form and if you lie… you are screwed.
DRT42
I totally agree. People starting out will be screwed. Basically, there will be far fewer woodworkers in the future.
William Adams
There really needs to be a calculation in such safety equipment requirements where there is some mapping of the added expense to the people who have to buy such things and how many hours of additional work that requires and the possibility of injury during said timeframe:
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/cfoi.pdf
If the saws are so expensive that workers have to work so many additional hours that there is an equal number of injuries on the job as the safety technology would prevent, what is the point?
Birdog357
This whole episode illustrates the problem with modern government. Leaving aside Sawstop’s antics(which I find contemptible) you have a bunch of nannystate bureaucrats forcing private business to behave a certain way. And the people like me that have a limited budget will suffer because now we have to pay for safety tech because stupid people get hurt.
Mike McFalls
I don’t disagree with you, but what it also highlights is the absolute ineffectiveness. 20 years to get something adopted.
They should be ashamed of themselves and they hold responsibility for some of the injuries that haven’t been prevented
Alex
Agree. Why not let the consumer decide? Is it because SawStop’s market research has shown that consumer demand has peaked, and they’ve figured the only way to sustain sales would be to force other manufacturers to raise their prices by integrating Sawstop’s technology? Why else would Sawstop demand the government mandate this technology?
Stuart
This was all set in motion years ago.
ishan
It’s probably cheaper to the entire system if this technology was mandatory. While not exactly alike, I am happy I have to pay more for seatbelts in my car.
ishan
(and pay extra for backup cameras)
Ben
This series has of quotes stands out to me.
“As far as I can tell, totally ineffective at preventing injuries, they have remained the same.”
…
“The voluntary standard is not working.”
Now why are the voluntary standards not working? Why hasn’t the number of serious table saw hand injuries gone down in the past decade?
The issue is that the industry has failed to convince users to actually use the included blade guards. The Hammer group has a PDF about European sliding table saw where the author estimates that only around 5% of table saw users in the United States use the blade guard.
The blade guard that came with my table saw is complete cheap garbage that I find to be a huge hassle to use. The guard is so poorly made I don’t believe it was even intended to be used.
If the the government goal is to reduce serious table saw hand injuries to me there is two different mandated solutions. The first solution is to mandate the inclusion of AIM technology in table saws that is being discussed here. The other solution is mandate fixed non removable blade guards. Both solutions have significant down side including making the saws more complex and more expensive for the AIM technology or eliminating DADO, non through cuts, and a number of jointer cuts for the fixed blade guards.
William Adams
There wouldn’t be a business model for Sawstop & co. if the trial juries were made up of shop teachers.
DRT42
So true !
blocky
That’s a wild statement. Is he running the table saw backwards?!
blocky
^This was in response to Trumka quote from October. I lost wifi connection while commenting, and it landed here instead.
TomD
Could the statement about Bosch be something along the lines of a patent that expired in 2018?
MFC
When you write these articles Stuart, are you concerned about libel? I’m sure you’ve researched what’s allowed and not allowed quite a bit, but I’m always concerned about it.
Stuart
Is it a concern? Absolutely.
How does one ensure to the best of their ability that a statement is true? Fact-checking.
If the accuracy of a statement is in question, qualifiers are needed.
So, I try to stick to facts and defensible opinions.
“This is what happened, here’s what I think” divides fact and opinion. “Here’s what I think, and why” shows lines of reasoning.
Know the laws and stick to the truth.
There’s a LOT of nonsense on social media and garbage reporting. Avoiding or reducing risk and good reporting go hand-in-hand. I didn’t rely on what other people are saying about this topic, I thoroughly researched primary source materials.
It’s my responsibility to be truthful and accurate, and I also strive to be fair.
I have asked questions to Bosch and PTI, and will also be seeking an interview with SawStop. I’m thinking of asking Dewalt for an interview as well.
I would love to interview the Commissioners, but I’m fairly certain that wouldn’t be allowed.
MFC
Yeah, it’s just hard to not give an opinion on certain things and opinions could be misconstrued as libelous.
Eliot Truelove
There are certainly a few twists here that are surprising, namely the fact that Sawstop claims Bosch was allowed to sell Reaxx from 2018 onwards and that PTI has (what some on the commission claim) fully working AIM technology that they refuse to release.
Is this a case of PTI working top secretly on an AIM Table Saw lest Sawstop find out, or is this PTI tech actually the older Reaxx tech that Bosch claims would take tons of money and R&D to redevelop? From my understanding, last I read, was that Bosch worked alongside other companies to produce Reaxx, but to because they came to market first, they bore the brunt of Sawstops ire.
While I secretly wish there was some clandestine cabal of table saw manufacturers conspiring against the righteous Doctor Gass to make him look bad (sarcasm if you can’t tell), and that some on the commission think they are withholding already developed tech and pocketing money that could be used into making functioning models, I know reality is often more pragmatic.
Even if Bosch was technically allowed to sell Reaxx from 2018 on, it took the wind out of their “sales”, because by their own admission in their letter to the commission the sales of that model were crazy low even before litigation happened.
Unless it is mandated, it’s just not worth it, literally.
While some may claim this is corporate greed, it will have to take a true cultural shift in safety in America to make it worth it to these companies.
I for one would love a Reaxx style table saw that drops the blade AND with a disc brake style blade brake in addition to the electric brake that stops the blade almost instantly, even when raised and not tripped, but the stop button has been pushed.
There is many times where i would love to stop a rip cut at a certain point without worrying about holding the piece back from additional tearout while waiting for the blade to come to a stop.
I was doing that very thing just today in fact. I was repurposing and reinstalling some original tongue and groove wood vertical slats with a profile before the tongue, having a boiled linseed oil finish. I was ripping and notching pieces to go up and around doors and closets. I crosscut to the mark with a miter saw, then ripped to that cut. Instant bladestop would have really came in handy.
I’m just saying, if Brake pads can stop 1000s of pounds of vehicle, they can stop a spinning blade, and on this case we deliberately want the brakes to lock up, unlike in a car with ABS.
Given the various color paints that blade manufacturers have on their blades that streak table saw cuts, I don’t think a bit of brake dust would hurt anything.
Frank D
I never thought about different brakes on a saw blade or table saw. I guess the issue with something grabbing a blade to slow it down rapidly or full stop it, is that some motor is direct driving that blade and the drive would need to be disengaged somehow … to avoid breaking the saw.
MM
Disengaging the drive motor is simple. At the same time the electronic circuit detects flesh (or if someone hits the stop button) and it triggers the brake it simultaneously cuts power to the motor, or better yet uses the motor like an electronic brake.
TomD
Some of the modern tools come to a stop surprisingly fast – faster than I believe they could without some form of a braking mechanism.
Troy H.
First off:
The PTI has argued that a CPSC ruling might result in small table saw manufacturers going out of business, resulting in unemployment.
Can the PTI provide examples of small manufacturers in the table saw industry?
This is a really good question for them. I feel like you’re not going to get a direct answer though.
It feels like both industry sides are being shady. SawStop pretending like releasing one patent for free use fixes everything and PTI possibly having safety tech that they haven’t released for some reason and just generally pretending to be dedicated to safety to an extent that they definitely aren’t…
If they actually want this to happen in any reasonable amount of time, it feels like the government is going to have to force some kind of reasonable licensing fee to be paid to SawStop for some period of time that would indemnify other manufactures from being sued by SawStop. I just don’t see SawStop giving up their patents willingly.
PETE
IF EVERYONE WOULD JUST PAY US MONEY THEY CAN BE SAFE!!!
also…. MAKE IT A LAW THAT PEOPLE HAVE NO CHOICE TO BE SAFE! ….(and pay us money)
Charles
I’ll keep my now deceased (not due to the table saw) father’s Delta cabinet with extension table and unifence until I can’t stand up to use it any more, and SawStop can suck it.
patent trolls and patent holders playing economic lawfare to line their pockets have a special place in hell.
and yes, it already bit me – I failed to follow proper use procedure and it bit the tip of my left index finger. I have no fear of that saw and have used it for hundreds of hours since. like firearms, follow the rules and it’s not a problem. don’t follow the rules and the risks will jump up and bite you eventually.
Ken
The revelation that Bosch has been licensing IP from SawStop and has been allowed to sell the Reaxx in the US since 2018 is shocking.
The real reason that Bosch stopped selling the Reaxx might be because users mostly hated it for a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with the flesh detection feature. Read the reviews – they are pretty brutal. That may have left Bosch in a position where they needed to pour more R&D money into improving the saw, but were then “threatened” by SawStop claiming in 2017 that they were going to bring a $400 model to market. How could the $1500 Reaxx compete with that?
To me, it looks like SawStop didn’t need to follow through on their “threat” of a $400 table saw to have the intended effect of keeping compeition off the market.
Stuart
I think that SawStop *would* have launched a $400 saw if they *could* have.
If this is accurate, the fact they didn’t could suggest that other brands also cannot.
Harrison
I wouldn’t be so sure that they can’t, it’s really not that complicated. I just don’t think it fits their brand or business model.
To hit sub $400 USA, all they would have to do is contract manufacture a bottom-tier $150 consumer table saw, with plenty of MSRP left over to cover the AIM module. Think Ryobi grade. Maybe they could even bump the quality up to a Rigid/Kobalt level depending on the true cost of the AIM.
But why? Saw Stop has always been a premium brand. They sell to businesses, institutions and a few dedicated individuals. TTS, Festool, etc have always been about selling high quality, niche machinery & products. Despite what some say, Saw Stop machines complete on their own merits as pleasant and productive table saws, regardless of the AIM tech.
Saw Stop doesn’t sell a sub $400 table saw for the same reason Festool doesn’t sell $99 Christmas drill kits- It’s a distribution headache that dilutes the brand. Totally different market segments and customer base.
Nate
There’s been incredible change in many brands pricing since 2017, when a 14 inch band saw from Laguna or Nikon was under $1000: they are now $1500 or more.
The SawStop benchtop job site saw was introduced in 2022 (if I recall) for $800. You can find a bottom barrel 10 inch saw from Ryobi, Craftsman Harbor Freight, or Skil for somewhere between $100ish and $300. Those are bottom barrel with inaccurate fences, often have 8 inch blades, etc. They have a place for someone who really wants a table saw, but they aren’t great.
DeWalt’s saws are highly regarded and start at $400ish for an 8 inch saw and go up to about $550 with stand.
It seems like $550 or so is the current price for a high quality 10″ compact jobsite saw from most vendors (Metabo HPT, DeWalt, Makita, Bosch, Milwaukee). Thinking back to 2018, they were in the $350 -$400 range.
The SawStop compact saw competes feature for feature with most compact saws in this range, but doesn’t have compatibility for a dado stack. The Metabo HPT and Makita saws have a lot of features that compete with SawStop’s $1600 jobsite saw.
As an admitted fan of Saw stop quality, service, and technology (but not one of their patent practices), I think there’s some truth to rent-seeking behavior. However, I still think they are priced reasonably when considering features and tech.
In short, I think we are seeing more price increases on tools perceived to be “class-leading”, whether that’s high quality band saw, table saws or impact drivers. Smart companies are following this trend.
In my mind, the role of the CPSC and other regulatory bodies is to create rules that maximize pubic safety outcomes that overcome roadblocks the marketplace creates. I frankly think none of the players in this are blameless. It’s time for regulators to get Sawstop play fair, and make the other companies figure out how to introduce safety technology.
Stuart
The SawStop CTS saw launched at $899, not $800.
Dewalt’s benchtop saw regularly retails for $300, not $400. Back in 2018, it sold for as little as $269, and $299 with a folding stand.
The compact table saw doesn’t come with a rolling stand and more closely competes with benchtop saws in the sub-$400 market. Consumer entries in this category are priced as low as $129 from major power tool brands.
Price increases aren’t only on “class-leading” or premium products, rising costs and inflation have affected all kinds of tools, machinery, and equipment.
Scott F
How does this sort of rule manifest in product marketability – would it be some new specification/certification that the product must meet to be offered for sale (like a specific UL spec or similar from another organization)? How are these requirements actually enforced, specifically on the Internet?
Who defines the requirements and engagement parameters/time to stop/maximum allowable flesh damage/etc? Or will there be a broad requirement that saws must have “active injury mitigation”, with the interpretation left more vague? This is probably answered in the web pages I’m yet to read on all of this.
Will we end up with XuNoHao brand saws on the market for the desired $400 price point (or $29.95 on Temu), with questionable technology powering AIM once the patents are unprotected? The users of *those* saws are likely the less experienced/more likely to need well functioning protection. Though the question to PTI has me thinking there may not be many cheapo table saws out there.
I, personally, do not care to see the regulation passed. Respect your tools, understand safe practices, and know the dangers that come with use. Table saw injuries do not seem like a big enough issue to warrant all of this, if not for a company who’s goal is to prevent them and make money. I find all of the history behind SS laudable, only having familiarized with it from mentions here over the last few years. I do not have much/any respect for Gass, but cannot question his ability to manipulate and capitalize (i.e. I think he is fitting of the title ‘businessman’). Whether these moves yield higher profit than doing the right thing many years ago – who knows, probably not – but what an effort. History repeats itself, and given everything we’re seeing here, this rouse is no different. Time to grab some popcorn.
S
“Will we end up with XuNoHao brand saws on the market for the desired $400 price point (or $29.95 on Temu), with questionable technology powering AIM once the patents are unprotected? The users of *those* saws are likely the less experienced/more likely to need well functioning protection. Though the question to PTI has me thinking there may not be many cheapo table saws out there.”
To that point, I don’t know if saw stop holds any patents in other countries, but USA patents specifically only apply to products sold within the USA.
there’s absolutely nothing stopping Chinese manufacturers from copying and building identical saws at a significantly cheaper price point. They could also easily ship them into the US right now.
The major issue with that is if there’s a brand or trademark for a specific brand on record, all incoming shipments can be randomly checked at customs to verify they comply with US laws, patents, and trademarks. A great example of this is the sparkfun/fluke volt meter mistake:
https://www.sparkfun.com/news/1428
This was a repeated order, that they had placed multiple times before, but were selected for a random inspection this time around.
Many Chinese products– for instance, LED automotive bulbs that plug into halogen sockets, are federally illegal for use within the states.
But most Chinese retailers get around this by the ‘needle in the haystack’ method of drop-shipping individual orders to customers(a single bulk shipment to a central warehouse is easier to flag, and inspect), and/or falsifying customs documents pertaining to what is contained within the shipment.
My point is, the lack of saw stop sales is it’s own boon. If this tech is as great as the one cpsc person implies it is, market forces should have already forced us towards that goal. And Chinese factories would already be implementing, copying, and shipping options that undercut all the brand names, as well as generally doing shady international trade things that they’re well known to do…
But we’re in ultimately the same position we were in 12 years ago. Saw stop owns the tech patents in the USA, and has made a name for themselves, but it can be argued that while it was a success, it was never a mind blowing can’t-make-em-fast-enough success for them.
only one collaboration has even made an attempt at a competitor, which should have done very well given the established brand forces and marketing dollars behind the brands. But it hasn’t surpassed ‘yeah, it exists, it’s ok’ status.
Given all that, I’m inclined to say that while the tech has benefits, the cost doesn’t compare to just simply using a saw appropriately.
One comment suggested tool makers start making blade guards that are worth keeping on the saw.
Another, commented about imagining a system that safely stops a blade for more situations other than only life or death.
I personally think there’s a better market opportunity in either of those ideas than there is in saw stops tech– required or not..
I think what’s lacking the most is innovation within the table saw market. For the most part, they’re largely unchanged for the last 40 years…
Stuart
I wrote about the Fluke and Sparkfun issue at the time.
https://14cyiuhvcgv.com/fluke-sparkfun-multimeter-trademark-infringement/%3C/a%3E%3C/p%3E
Yellow and grey is Fluke trade dress for digital multimeters, and the import meters looked too much like that.
Fluke was NOT aware of the US Customers seizure and offered to donate Fluke equipment, free of charge, one-time-only, to Sparkfun to sell on their site or donate.
Kyle
Stuart, thank you for the continued coverage on this. Your reporting on these meetings and exactly what is being said (as well as anyone could) is valuable journalism. New information is coming forward that changes the face of the debate, and you are giving it a platform. It’s not entirely surprising that manufacturers haven’t been entirely forthcoming with their intellectual property and capabilities – especially for what isn’t patent protected – but there there have been a few bombshells. The process exists for a reason. SawStop and other manufacturers/associations are all seeking to sway things in their favor, but if CPSC commissioners are making serious misrepresentations in a public hearing (doesn’t matter if they were disingenuous or simply obtuse) that’s news.
Stuart
Thank you, I appreciate it!
This has the potential to reshape the table saw market, and so every facet is worth investigating and covering.
I’m sure multiple channels will cover the news if/when the CPSC makes a decision. To me, and hopefully to many readers, the *why* is interesting and important.
The CPSC Commissioners’ jobs are to rule on safety issues. It’s not good that one Commissioner seems to have significantly misinterpreted SawStops’ claims, but I expect their staff to remedy this. Their comments were made at a live hearing and then the following day. If the same is said a month later, then I’ll be worried.
Mike McFalls
One thing I haven’t seen mentioned throughout the entirety of this debate is the fact that on the saw stop you can turn off the safety break, rendering it useless. How is this any different than someone simply removing the blade guard as is done today? So, even if the CPSC mandates the inclusion of technology, they are going to have to permit the functionality to be disabled for situations where you are cutting wet wood (as one example). So in the end, what exactly will they have accomplished other than driving up with the cost of the saw to consumers
Bob
That is not correct. The SawStop bypass mode needs to be engaged every time the saw is started. It can not be left in the bypass mode. It has to be reenabled every time the saw is started.
See page 56 in the manual:
https://www.sawstop.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Owners-Manual_Feb-2024.pdf
MFC
I couldn’t reply up top, but yes, I know gloves are frowned upon, but it seems to be nonsensical advice based on some freak accidents that I’ve never seen in my 15 years as a carpenter/GC (my logic isn’t only based on my experience). If you have an OEM table-saw insert, then it is probably close enough to the blade to prevent a glove from being sucked down inside, but a zero clearance insert would be even better. Now, there’s nowhere to be pulled into.
Just from the few dozen or so injuries I’ve seen, what’s the number one way people get a tablesaw injury? From stock binding and then gripping the back of the blade and shooting out which causes the hand to brush past the blade. Thick leather gloves would prevent those types of bad injuries.
Where gloves don’t make sense would be with a planer where there’s a large opening to grab a glove, a drill press, which spins slow enough and with enough torque to turn your fingers into noodles when it grabs your glove. But watch a video from TKOR and them trying to demonstrate why gloves are a bad idea at the tablesaw and they demonstrate the opposite:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyyAzGt785c
The glove does protect and they can’t get it to grab. Still, I think it’s a bad idea to use gloves. Keep your hands away period. But I’d put a zero clearance insert in and use welding gloves before I just went bare handed at it.
Stuart
Read through some OSHA accident reports, and you’ll find that a lot of safety guidelines, if adhered to, could have prevented real-world accidents.
I was shocked to read how many circular saw injuries workers suffer to their legs. Legs? Yup.
MFC
I agree that safety rules should be adhered to. There’s a reason why they exist. People have been studying these things for a long time. It’s why I don’t put my hands near a table-saw blade. My point is that certain ideas, without context, can be the driving force for people to make decisions. So-and-so said such-and-such and therefore it must be true in every circumstance. If I hadn’t been wearing gloves as a teen I would have lost the tips of a couple fingers (at best).
Now, again, I’m not a proponent of people wearing gloves around a table-saw, but I am a proponent of people thinking for themselves and, given their circumstances, doing the best they can to prevent injuries. Rules apply to 95% of circumstances, but, as with guys cutting their legs with circular saws, people can always figure out a new way to hurt themselves. Maybe they can’t stand properly for a certain cut due to where they are positioned. So, get some chainsaw chaps. Wear a helmet. Tape a piece of steel to your arm, haha. Whatever you can to protect yourself given your situation because jobsite conditions aren’t always the same.
And actually, when I was 14, the goalie of my soccer team was out for the whole season because he cut his leg with a circular saw. Apparently he was building a tree house with his dad, they had the blade guard propped open, and he made a cut while sitting down, then set the still spinning blade down on his leg absentmindedly. Yeah, a lot of problems with that scenario, and they literally came back to bite him.
So, I’d say, use the blade guard and riving knife, it’s there for a reason. Use push sticks. But if you can’t do all of that because of some issue, then use some common sense and protect yourself the best you can. Again, wearing gloves with a sawstop would be a no-no, but a standard tablesaw that had a close insert, I believe it could help with 95% of possible injuries. Just better hope you don’t wind up being one of the 5% that get reported to OSHA.