3 ms·

This is actually totally false. Sawstop dropped blade below table. Bosch also dropped blade below table. So the invention was very fast acting sensing and then

This is actually totally false. Sawstop dropped blade below table. Bosch also dropped blade below table. So the invention was very fast acting sensing and then dropping blade. Sawstop added brake. Sawstop ALSO did a brake. The brake made a pretty reasonable difference in terms of damage. Plenty of youtube videos exposing this saw. "SawStop uses a different mechanism to drop the blade, but also employs an aluminum brake. In our testing on both top and front strikes, the blade stopped with less damage to my hand than Bosch’s Reaxx." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3JsUGwt_Mg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3JsUGwt_Mg

frosted-flakes 5y ago
What is false? Did not Sawstop sue Bosch for patent infringement?
- whoknowswhat11 5y ago
  "Bosch came out with a superior design that doesn't use a brake at all, but were barred from selling it in the US because it infringed SawStop's patents." The design was not superior and the infringement was not based on a brake or lack of one. The infringement was because of copy of the skin contact sensing / blade drop technology as what were called underlying elements. I think the case may still be ongoing though? This one went a long while.
  - frosted-flakes 5y ago
    I never said that the infringement was related to the brake. I thought I was pretty clear that the patents were about skin-sensing technology. And "not superior" is subjective. If the SawStop tech has enough false triggers and destroys as many blades as it apparently does based on what I've read (probably depends on material being cut), the increased cost almost certainly isn't worth it unless you're a high school shop class.
    - foerbert 5y ago
      I don't think that was clear. You mentioned the Bosch system had a patent issue and immediately mentioned it didn't even use a break. While it's possible to read that as the Bosch system being superior because it lacks a break, the main topic was the patent issue, so it's more natural to read it as being related to that. Meanwhile there wasn't even a mention of the sensing technology.
      - frosted-flakes 5y ago
        I literally said "flesh detection technology" in my original comment.

frosted-flakes 5y ago

What is false? Did not Sawstop sue Bosch for patent infringement?

whoknowswhat11 5y ago
"Bosch came out with a superior design that doesn't use a brake at all, but were barred from selling it in the US because it infringed SawStop's patents." The design was not superior and the infringement was not based on a brake or lack of one. The infringement was because of copy of the skin contact sensing / blade drop technology as what were called underlying elements. I think the case may still be ongoing though? This one went a long while.
- frosted-flakes 5y ago
  I never said that the infringement was related to the brake. I thought I was pretty clear that the patents were about skin-sensing technology. And "not superior" is subjective. If the SawStop tech has enough false triggers and destroys as many blades as it apparently does based on what I've read (probably depends on material being cut), the increased cost almost certainly isn't worth it unless you're a high school shop class.
  - foerbert 5y ago
    I don't think that was clear. You mentioned the Bosch system had a patent issue and immediately mentioned it didn't even use a break. While it's possible to read that as the Bosch system being superior because it lacks a break, the main topic was the patent issue, so it's more natural to read it as being related to that. Meanwhile there wasn't even a mention of the sensing technology.
    - frosted-flakes 5y ago
      I literally said "flesh detection technology" in my original comment.