From the manual:

8.6 Working without the kickback stopfunction
WARNING
Risk of injury
If the kickback stop function is deactivated, the saw blade is not stopped when it unin­tentionally lifts.
► Only deactivate the kickback stop function if you are working without a rail and your workpiece is so uneven that the kickback stop function would unintentionally be trig­gered several times.
Deactivate the kickback stop function
► Press the kickback stop function OFF but­ton.
► Press and hold the on/off switch within ten seconds.
The kickback stop function remains deactivated until the on/off switch is next released.
The kickback stop function can only be de­activated before the saw is switched on.

Personally, do not like the trade-off and happy I got the pre-this version.

But we live in a Youtube world and with Maffel fanboys dissing Festool all over the place they simply hand to react. The same thing as with the thinner blades ref. deflection etc. etc.

Is their enough Mafell users for there to be a fanboy base? 

If that is the case, Mafell can return fire with thicker blades and dual riving knifes, plus lasers (always need lasers) 

I think the question comes down to what is the goal.  Is it to make things safe when the bad thing has happened (stop the blade when the saw pops), is it to stop the bad thing from happening to start with (riving knife stopping binding).

In either case, the rules should define the goal, not the method.

My general concern is trying to work a problem using electronics/software verses a physical item.  Not to say that the electronics/software solution isn't a better way for some things.  Pretty sure they can't do a software update that will physically keep the saw cut from closing.

But we live in a Youtube world and with Maffel fanboys dissing Festool all over the place they simply hand to react. The same thing as with the thinner blades ref. deflection etc. etc.

Does Youtube censor Maffel-critics then? It's hard to tell.... lots of Stalinization going on at Youtube... stuff disappeared...

Festool could do with some more explanation of their own cool features. Eg show that the Systainer inlay has dedicated space for the accessories in the inlay. If you ever thought a Festool inlay was bad... my oh my, you haven't seen Bosch inlays. 

Regarding the TPC 18 drill, does anyone know whether the black housing surrounding the gearbox is plastic?

I've got access to all those standards and have had a quick look through. I was quite surprised to see that 62841-2-5-2014 "particular requirements for hand-held circular saws" doesn't actually mandate an anti-kickback device at all. The standard does go into some detail about the safe operation of such a saw which I recognise as the instructions that manufacturers include in their safety booklets.

Annex BB indicates that for saws without a riving knife, there are additional compliance check to ensure that the blade will retract or be fully guarded within 0.3s after the device has been dropped twice as follows:

a) oriented with the lower guard being at bottom, so that the saw will strike the concrete
floor with the base plate parallel to the floor;
b) oriented so that the saw will strike the concrete floor in a hand carrying position.

Noting that the version of the standard above indicates that this is carried out with a 2mm (!) thick steel disc fitted.

It's actually pretty precise on how the saw needs to be build if it doesn't have a riving knife. I was - by now - able to take a look at it - partly at least.

Main take away is, if no riving knife is present, saw needs to be designed in a way that if it jumps out of the cut either a pendulum cover swings over the blade rapidly, or in case of a plung saw, the action is smooth, fast and strong enough for the blade being retracted immediately. (Yeah, I know ...) And in this case, the German DIN got weakened through this harmonizing process.

CE is always a self-declaration of the manufacturer, that he has abided by all rules/standards applicable.

Kind regards,
Oliver

Hmm, my subscription does have some limitations but the earliest related standard I can see is EN 50144-2-5 (1996) "Particular requirements for circular saws and circular knives". At face value, the 1996 document doesn't look that much different from the 2014 one.

EN 50144-2-5 (1996) seems to have superseded IID 400.2E S2:1988 which I guess must be in the era of the original DIN?! Probably have a few copies kicking around in the Wendlingen museum .

Do you by chance have access to outdated versions as well? Would be interesting to know what the original DIN said before it was harmonized and became an EN.

Kind regards,
Oliver

TPC 18 - Angle attachment... ;-)