The Bosch Reaxx table saw was a jobsite-style saw with rolling stand, and it featured flesh detection and active injury mitigation technologies.
Its blade brake was new and innovative, with a 2-charge cartridge that rapidly dropped the blade below the table surface.
You cannot buy this table saw today. In this post, we’re going to examine why.
Advertisement
The Reaxx was only available for a short time; it was pulled from the market following a successful infringement lawsuit from SawStop.
Here’s a timeline of events:
2015: Bosch announces Reaxx table saw
2015: SawStop sues Bosch over Reaxx table saw, alleging it infringes on their patented inventions
2016: Bosch launches the Reaxx table saw
2017: Court rules in favor of SawStop, Bosch Reaxx is pulled from market
Advertisement
2017: TTS (Festool parent company) acquires SawStop
Since then, it has been widely believed that SawStop’s infringement lawsuit single-handedly defeated the only competing table saw with flesh detection and injury avoidance tech in the USA.
We recently learned that this isn’t the whole truth.
Bosch, in a November 2023 letter to the US Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), said:
Bosch Power Tools and TTS [SawStop] reached an amicable solution on Aug. 8, 2018, that allows Bosch Power Tools to sell REAXX jobsite table saws in the United States.
Source: Bosch Response to the October 18 Letter (PDF)
Bosch is allowed to sell Reaxx table saws in the US. This contradicts popular beliefs and assumptions.
SawStop’s CEO also brought this up in a recent hearing:
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.
These are clear confirmations that Bosch could be selling the Reaxx table saw in the US today.
So why aren’t they?
I found insights in Bosch’s February 2024 comments to the CPSC (PDF).
Bosch says (with paragraph breaks for easier readability):
Although Bosch Power Tools designed and commercialized the REAXX table saw in 2016, due to the patent litigation discussed below, among other things, it has been over 7 years since Bosch Power Tools has produced a table saw with AIM technology.
If the CPSC were to move forward with mandating AIM technology on table saws in the U.S., which Bosch does not believe is necessary or warranted, Bosch Power Tools calculates that it would take up to 6 years to redesign the original Bosch REAXX table saw and make it available in the United States market.
This time would be needed to meet the latest UL 62841-3-1standard,1 and develop updated AIM electronics and mechanical components.
Since the original Bosch REAXX design was completed, there have been changes including numerous environmental factors, such as more powerful cellular signals, which can affect operation of the AIM system.
To ready the next generation of the REAXX table saw for commercial release, many of the components of the Bosch Power Tools AIM system will need to be redesigned or entirely redeveloped.
Back in 2016, I was testing the Bosch Reaxx table saw, and was made aware of the potential for wireless signals to interfere with the flesh detection sensors.
One of Bosch’s official usage guidelines was:
Set the phone to “airplane mode” while operating the saw
At the time (2016), I asked Bosch for more information. They said:
Here’s some additional information about cell phone interaction with the Bosch REAXX Jobsite Table Saw. Cell phones could be one of the ways the Active Response Technology system is experiencing interference during the sensing process.
To avoid interference, our suggestion is to not have a phone in the pocket of the user or on the saw, or to put the phone on airplane mode while operating the saw. We’ve also found that some electrical outlets the saw is plugged into can send unusual voltage spikes that could activate the system; moving to another outlet will typically mitigate the issue. These are infrequent occurrences. Consult the Bosch REAXX owner’s manual for complete tool information.
Bosch’s comment about having to redevelop the Reaxx table saw for the modern US market seems valid.
Bosch has an entire business centered around sensor tech (Bosch Sensortec). Even if they can’t develop their own flesh detection sensors, they have multiple consumer product development teams, such as in the home appliance industry, that must be familiar with flesh-contact sensors.
Also in Bosch’s comments to the CPSC, they said:
Bosch Power Tools also relied on specialists from Bosch’s other divisions, including engineers from the automotive divisions to resolve technical challenges beyond the capabilities of the power tool division.
I’m sure that flesh detection is a problem they could sort out, it’s just a matter of time and money.
I reached out to Bosch last week, asking:
Why has the Reaxx saw remained off the market if there are no IP/patent obstacles preventing it from being available and sold today?
They replied:
It was a decision by Bosch based on numerous technical and business factors. Bosch Power Tools designed and commercialized the REAXX table saw in 2016. Due to the patent litigation among other things, it has been over 7 years since Bosch Power Tools has produced a table saw with AIM technology.
Since the original Bosch REAXX design was completed, there have been changes including numerous environmental factors, such as more powerful cellular signals, which can affect operation of the AIM system. Also, the voluntary table saw safety standard has changed from UL 987 standard to the UL 62841-3-1 standard.
I followed up with:
Are the claims accurate, that Bosch has been licensing IP from SawStop since 2018, removing the threat of litigation from being an obstacle to a present-day Bosch table saw with AIM tech?
They said:
yes, SawStop and Bosch entered into a settlement and license agreement in 2018
This was followed by a repeat of their original answer.
We know why the Bosch Reaxx isn’t available today. Bosch’s comments to the CPSC and answers to my own questions both indicate that their flesh detection sensor tech would need to be redeveloped for modern “environmental factors,” mainly more powerful cellular signals.
Here’s my takeaway from all of this, and please chime in if you disagree:
Bosch could have relaunched the Reaxx table saw in 2018, following their settlement with SawStop, but decided not to.
It is possible that Bosch made the same assessment in 2018, that the saw’s safety tech is too susceptible to cellular interference to be relaunched as-is.
SawStop has been blamed for suing the Bosch Reaxx table saw off the market.
Bosch confirmed that the threat of litigation is not an obstacle to Reaxx AIM tech development.
It seems to me that either Bosch is not working on redeveloping AIM tech, or they are and Reaxx 2.0 is not completed yet.
Whichever proves to be true, it seems clear that, with a licensing agreement in place and other obstacles in the way, SawStop is not the reason why you cannot buy a Bosch Reaxx table saw today.
MichaelT
The saga (dare I say, drama?) continues.
I find this whole discussion very frustrating; posturing and politicking in the tool industry? I had hoped that at least one arena in life was free of that distraction and it was much easier to feel that way when it appeared there was a single actor in this fray. This latest clearly shows that’s not the case. It’s almost as if Bosch were grateful for the excuse of patent challenges to hide the shortcomings of their solution…
Thank you Stuart, for the continued coverage of this topic.
S
Alternatively, sales could have also been so poor, they were happy to put the entire concept behind them.
ishan
I wish the same as you. But I guess it’s human nature to posture and potlick.
CA in NJ
Maybe Bosch is missing out on some niche markets like the rural crowd who can only dream about interfering cell signals or the paranoid crowd who have their woodshop in a faraday cage…
Ken
I’ll repeat what I said in the other thread: I wonder how SawStop’s “threat” of bringing a $400 table saw to market may have impacted Bosch’s decision to develop (or not) Reaxx 2.0. The first-gen Reaxx cost $1,500.
It’s been 6 years since the Reaxx 1.0 was pulled from the market. That is a very long time to spend developing new and improved 2nd gen version of already-developed tech, especially for a huge company like Bosch.
Jared
I was thinking something similar. E.g. maybe it’s not strictly the litigation that prevents the Reaxx saw from coming back now, but surely it would still be here if that law suit hadn’t happened.
Interesting that Bosch is licensing the IP though – and didn’t just give up on the endeavor after the law suit. That MIGHT suggest they had at least some prospect of a reintroduction, but we don’t know the terms. It could be, for example, that the IP fees are based on sales – so having an agreement might not cost Bosch if they don’t actually build any saws.
Mike
It’s all about cost benefit here. If they didn’t see a large enough market for the product the r and d costs probably didn’t make sense. Especially with the influx of cheap job site saws flooding the market around 2018 it’s hard to justify a $1500 saw.
TomD
This is where I think the crux of the issue lies. They would have had sales data for awhile (Stuart apparently used one, and they still exist out there) AND known what it would cost, AND the issues involved.
I suspect that the problem was it was not cheap enough AND had this cell phone issue, so they made the decision to leave it off the market (and apparently got SawStop to not mention it had been licensed).
If it was $500 and had some issues, people might have been forgiving. But at $1500 it better not have any issues. What did the “cell phone infetterence” do? If it could accidentally trigger the safety, that would be annoying enough – but if it could cause it to NOT trigger when it needs to, that’s potentially MORE dangerous than your normal finger-eating saw, because you expect it to work and so you act less safe.
My guess is by 2018 they realized that the cost to make it work well was not worth the small market (and SawStop sells $40m a year, and that’s probably the entirety of the safety saw at $1500 market).
Tool Junkie
My understanding of the $1,500 price tag was that it was “inflated” to cover the cost of R&D & Bosch ‘knew’ that they would be sued. I read that it was actually a ‘common practice’, to introduce a higher priced initial offering to try to make up for known expenses that are foreseen. After the dust settled, they could likely have sold the saw for under$1k. Sawstop has a similar saw for jobsite use that is under $1k, even with their more expensive brake cartridge (I think the Reaxx ones were like $100/2.
David Brock
Anyone know of how many saws they sold before pulling it off the market and did they buy them back?
Jared
I saw Reaxx saws on clearance at Rona when this happened, so at least in Canada it seems highly dubious that Bosch was buying them back.
Koko The Talking Ape
“Bosch could have relaunched the Reaxx table saw in 2018, following their settlement with SawStop, but decided not to.”
It seems that way, except that Bosch says, “Bosch Power Tools calculates that it would take up to 6 years to redesign the original Bosch REAXX table saw and make it available in the United States market. This time would be needed to meet the latest UL 62841-3-1 standard 1 and develop updated AIM electronics and mechanical components.” They go on to talk about the changed electronic environment, including stronger cell signals.
So the cell phone signals could’ve been one reason why they didn’t relaunch.
But another possible reason is that “UL 62841-3-1 standard 1” required more or different changes.
So what is “UL 62841-3-1 standard 1”? Surprisingly, it’s difficult to get the actual text of the standard, but we know it was published in 2016, and revised in 2022. So it’s possible the new standard would’ve required a redesign in 2016.
However, we also know the SCOPE of the standard, which is just for TRANSPORTABLE table saws, not stationary.
https://www.shopulstandards.com/ProductDetail.aspx?productId=UL62841-3-1
(click on “Scope”)
So even if UL62841-3-1 contained some difficult restrictions, it wouldn’t apply to stationary tablesaws.
To my knowledge, Bosch doesn’t make stationary tablesaws. Is that why they abandoned AIM?
And could makers of stationary saws, like Delta, Shopmatic, etc. have made similar deals with SawStop?
If anybody knows any free way to get the actual text of UL62841-3-1, I’d be interested.
Stuart
Not a lot of people asked questions at the time, as it was fair to assume SawStop’s successful lawsuit permanently blocked the Reaxx table saw from being sold.
It has only been through public responses to the CPSC regarding table saw safety tech rulemaking that we now know that Bosch and SawStop engaged in a licensing agreement following the lawsuit.
Regarding evolving UL guidelines, changes were made to benchtop saws in 2020. Looking at my notes, “recent IEC regulations” required an increased table-to-blade size ratios, which is why benchtop saw makers moved from 10″ to 8-1/4″ blade sizes.
Dewalt’s then-new table saw also received a power-loss reset switch, which prevents accidental restarts following power disruption.
A magnetic power-loss reset switch wouldn’t involve extensive redesign of a table saw.
It’s unclear if or how other brands’ jobsite table saws with rolling stands were redesigned in recent years.
Bosch’s Reaxx was heavily built upon an existing model table saw. Couldn’t a redesign leverage the table saw design they launched in late 2023? https://14cyiuhvcgv.com/bosch-table-saw-gts15-10/%3C/a%3E%3C/p%3E
There could be other factors, including wireless/cell signals. We don’t have the information to know for certain.
My point is that, shortly after the Reaxx launched and was pulled from the market, SawStop was no longer an obstacle blocking its availability.
blocky
It’s technically correct to say that Sawstop was no longer an obstacle from 2018 onward; however, in the context of a moving playing field, there was no reason for them to continue to defend that position, having already blocked the initial play at great financial and strategic cost to Bosch.
‘Shortly after’ is a relative evaluation. As we know, it takes a while to ramp up a production line, and it’s costly to shut it down completely and then start it up again, even if all the components were in-house. It’s not like Bosch simply ‘paused’ production. It sounds like for a year or more, Reaxx was completely shelved, by which point any production resource would have been reallocated.
I find this very interesting and appreciate your reporting as more details surface.
Stuart
In my opinion, it does look like Bosch exited the market. Initially, this was compulsory, due to SawStop’s successful infringement suit, but then it appears to have been voluntarily. At the least, it seems that the decision resulted from internal factors.
I wouldn’t blame them, as I feel that the Reaxx was a flawed product.
There is a huge list of “don’t knows” that we are unlikely to get answers to.
Bosch has apparently been permitted to relaunch the Reaxx – or potentially a successor table saw – since 2018.
The CPSC rulemaking process also involves a lot of finger-pointing. (If there’s a pun in there, it wasn’t intended.) In my readings, I came across a number of inconsistencies that don’t make sense, and it’s important to sort these things out.
If the CPSC rulemaking does go into effect, it’s going to be sensationalized. My goal is to straighten out the facts.
I’m still working to fact-check the PTI claims as well.
Bob
I’d wonder what Sawstop and Bosch actually agreed to. Was it a license (if so, what’s the extent) or just some sort of agreement for Sawstop to waive infringement claims against the Reaxx saw (but not different allegedly infringing products)?
Since the Reaxx tech is different than Sawstop’s, I’d guess the waiver. If a license, it’d be relevant to know what’s covered.
Stuart
From SawStop’s November 17, 2023 response to a Commissioner’s letter:
“SawStop have licensed intellectual property to… and to Robert Bosch GmbH and Robert Bosch Tool Corporation.”
“The license to Robert Bosch GmbH and Robert Bosch Tool Corporation was an amicable settlement of the ITC and Oregon actions.”
https://downloads.regulations.gov/CPSC-2011-0074-1363/content.pdf
They describe the arrangement as a license, as opposed to a settlement.
The terms remain confidential.
ToolGuyDan
Pretty sure this observation is in poor taste, but wouldn’t a pun about missing fingers be, at most, innineded?
Koko The Talking Ape
“My point is that, shortly after the Reaxx launched and was pulled from the market, SawStop was no longer an obstacle blocking its availability.”
Yes, that’s clear from your post. I was trying to figure out what the real obstacle was.
“Regarding evolving UL guidelines, changes were made to benchtop saws in 2020. Looking at my notes, “recent IEC regulations” required an increased table-to-blade size ratios, which is why benchtop saw makers moved from 10″ to 8-1/4″ blade sizes.”
That’s interesting. Do you have a section or rule number for those regulations? Bosch referred specifically to UL62841-3-1. Changing table or blade size wouldn’t seem be much of an obstacle.
Stuart
I don’t; UL guidelines are typically behind a very expensive paywall. They’ve helped clarify matters in the past, and I can see if they can do that here.
We know what Bosch is saying regarding relaunching the Reaxx today. We don’t know whether UL guidelines were a factor in 2018.
Bosch’s statements were also designed to be persuasive, and might not paint a complete picture.
Bosch recently redesigned their benchtop saw and rolling stand benchtop saw. Launching the Reaxx systems on the larger platform would likely require development.
Perhaps Bosch would seek an all-new table saw platform for a modern table saw with AIM, translating to more development costs on top of what would be needed for revamped sensor tech.
Maybe they ran the numbers and realized an updated model would eventually have to sell at higher prices and would likely see low sales volume.
We simply don’t know, and the questions we have are unlikely to be answered.
I can try to dig deeper, but these aren’t areas Bosch – or any brand – can be expected to be forthcoming about.
Bob
Thanks for following up on this!
Regarding the cell phone interference issue. That seems odd to me. It’s not like they don’t have cell phones in Europe. Cell phone interference used to be a thing when we were using analog cell phone, but since the switch to digital cell phones, much less so.
So the conclusion is, apparently that it wasn’t a patent issue with SawStop that kept them from selling this product in the US, it was a product reliability issue. Cell phones and power voltage spikes were the issue.
Stuart
To be fair, smartphone usage has changed in the past 8 years, as did cellular signals as 5G started to roll out.
Judging the validity of Bosch’s claims would require specialized knowledge about wireless frequencies and signal strength.
There were interference concerns and issues at the time, and I don’t doubt that any issues would be exacerbated today.
eddie sky
4G was dominant with phones in that time frame.
I think the issue was, its a bad design to use something that can be triggered with interference like a cellphone.
When you have weak tower reception, your phone will increase its power to transmit.
Today, we have more powerful wifi-6 and wifi-7 APs/Routers for the home/shop, and bluetooth range almost doubled since 4.0 release (2015/2016), along with headphones/earbugs that have noise cancelling and ability to talk/listen to music while working.
That and more towers around…might be more costly for R&D, and design changes for a REAXX saw upgrade.
Honestly, I blame Gass and greed. We all have standard of seatbelts, and can opt to not wear (with consequences). But we don’t have choice to disable airbags, except for children in passenger seat.
Takata airbags killed more drivers (so far 30) than table saws. (you can play with the metrics to show injuries instead of deaths. But I’m sure more are injured on trampolines, scooters, e-bikes, jogging, walking in a crosswalk…)
Kyle
It’s worth remembering that just because Bosch has licensed enough IP from SawStop to remove remove barriers to selling their Reaxx design (which sounds like it’s no longer viable and was maybe a bit shaky even when first released), that doesn’t mean they have a license to the IP needed to make AIM that works the same way as SawStop. Having rights to use a design that doesn’t actually work is sort of beside the point when discussing whether other manufacturers can actually comply with a AIM requirement. Bosch seems to be saying that if it’s possible to make an AIM system that both works reliably and does not require additional IP from SawStop, it could take several years of R&D to figure it out. From an outside layman’s perspective, it still seems like any AIM regulation would need to be accompanied by SawStop licensing out more IP, and refusing to disclose or even engage on what terms they would be willing to license that IP until *after* the requirement to implement the technology is passed doesn’t seem fair.
Stuart
I have not seen any evidence or even the suggestion that Bosch requires additional IP beyond the terms of their licensing agreement with SawStop.
ToolGuyDan
I can’t find it now, but I specifically remember one of your stories featuring a quote from someone—Grizzly, perhaps?—saying that, even if all parents were licensed for 1¢ tomorrow, it’d still take years to bring a saw to market because of the software it’d be necessary to develop and to debug, and how closely tied that software must necessarily be to the hardware.
As an engineer myself, I can tell you that something as simple as a “debounce” algorithm (removing electrical arc-trigged false activations from a microswitch as the switch enters or exits a closed state) can consume *weeks* of time. Licensing a patent is great, sure, or even licensing the whole suite of software, but unless that license also somehow includes the know-how to tailor the software to a particular combination of saw body, sensor, power supply, etc., then it’s just one small piece of the puzzle. And because this is injury mitigation, if any corners were cut and the engineers weren’t *completely* satisfied with what went out the door, that correspondence gets aired the moment someone manages to injure themselves with your saw, and you’re suddenly liable for damages that might far exceed the total sales revenue for the saw, let alone the profit.
I still think AIM should be required. But the folks pushing back have a point, too.
Jeff
Bosch may not have been able to make an economic case for a new REAXX model, especially with SawStop creating FUD with the promise of a $400 saw.
If a new model would have required some redesign cost to comply with new UL requirements plus a per unit license fee to SawStop it would have pushed them to a point of being 3x or even 4x the cost of non-AIM job site saws.
Hon Cho
It’s just not clear to me that the market for saws incorporating Sawstop-like safety technology is large enough without government mandates requiring such technology to entice other saw companies into the market. We may get the mandate whether we want it or not and then the saw manufacturers of the world will figure out how to profitably comply or exit the market. This would make a good business school case study on the intersection of intellectual property, market entry and government mandates.
s
it’s also not clear to me on how much of a reduction in injuries the AIM tech actually provides.
so far, it seems the CPSC argument has mostly been focused on the likelihood of reducing injuries, but no statistics have been provided thus far for any environment–ie, a wood working shop/school with year-over-year table saw use injuries contrasting the injury count before/after introducing a saw stop saw, or at least offering a statistic to how often the stop mechanism is triggered per year.
that would either stand to further the claim of improved safety, or work against it if there lacks a measurable difference from year-over-year injuries.
John
Also, these technologies are about direct blade contact. They do nothing about kickbacks which is a big component of table saw injuries.
But I’ve certainly heard enough first hand accounts of people triggering the sawstop mechanism that it absolutely saves digits and lives and does so quite often, even besides kickbacks which it does not address.
blocky
When I was researching saws for purchase 6 months ago, I looked up some related stats. Sawstop claims 6000 fingers saved since 2004, or 300 per year (probably higher numbers in recent years with more saws in service). Elsewhere I’ve seen 40000 documented table saw accidents occur in the US each year with 4000 fingers lost.
Perhaps this gives us loose indication of types of accidents and sawstop market share over that period of time. About 90% of injuries are not lose-a-finger injuries — a few could be much more catostrophic cut injuries, but most are likely, kickback, throwing material, sawdust or splinters-in-the-eye type injuries.
Within my budget, I was looking at the smallest Sawstop vs a larger and better-appointed standard saw. I decided that features like a built-in-stand, stronger fence, and wider table were more likely to reduce injury for my own use, since I often break down full sheets solo.
Stuart
The CPSC – or at least its staff – has reviewed a great deal of data.
Data isn’t the issue here, but interpretations and conclusions.
The lone dissenting Commissioner seems to recognize more cost analysis is required, but he didn’t seem to get anywhere during the hearing.
The hearing was very lopsided. One Commissioner seemed to be anti-SawStop, and the other seemed to be anti-Power Tool Institute. They both asked good questions, but I don’t think they’re asking all of the questions they need to be.
John
I suspect if Bosch HAD to bring the REAXX up to date, they would. And it would not take them more than a couple years at the outside.
I believe sawstop killed the REAXX with their lawsuit by destroying its momentum. Bosch missed their chance to go to market with the investment they’d made so it got shelved.
But if the regulatory environment changed the calculus would change and they’d figure it out.
Mike
I briefly looked for info on how the AIM system works but found limited info.
The basic descriptions say a small current runs through the blade, which is altered when a finger, etc. is cut, triggering a small charge to rapidly drop the blade below the table before major injury occurs. This sounds similar to sawstop except SS destructively stops the blade.
I don’t understand where all the cell phone interference comes in to the actual blade dropping system. I can’t imagine cell phones affecting a circuit running through the blade. I did read about a wireless interface that allows tracking the number of activations, etc., from your phone.
I would be surprised if the voltage drop signal from a blade strike is routed wirelessly to the pyrotechnic dropping device… this would just be slower and less reliable than direct wired method.
I looked up a parts diagram and my best guess is there is a wire attached to the blade arbor area and a wire attached to the pyrotechnic actuator and both are connected to a computer. Not sure why wireless signals would affect the hard wired actuation system?
David Z
What you might be missing is that you took the “obvious” solution, which may not have been available to them. If they were avoiding the SawStop design, some avenues of design may have been closed to them initially. That may have opened up design choices that were more susceptible to RF interference.
It does seem odd, though, that their automotive engineers wouldn’t have deep knowledge of hardening the system against this. Unless, again, there were issues with the SS design impeding them in more ways.
Dave
So Bosch took the cautious approach instead of getting lawsuits on the tech not operating as designed and pulled the product. Makes perfect business sense to me since the technology was not as robust as sawstops.
Harrison
Great reporting Stuart. This is the content that sets Toolguyd apart.
Badger12345
Thanks Stuart for the insightful report.
What I have not seen in the comments thus far is the potential risk vs reward that manufacturers like Bosch may have made. A key issue is the amount of potential product liability when a saw fails to stop the blade as intended and someone is injured. How much in product liability costs (e.g. legal, compensation, punitive) might a manufacturer face? A saw is not like a smartphone that gets replaced every 2-3 years. A family may own a saw for a generation or more. I am not confident the electronics in them will remain reliable over many years despite the self diagnostic features.
Stuart
I think that’s a big part of why these systems cost so much to develop.
I if recall correctly, one of the CPSC Commissioners remarked about how it’s unbelievable power tool brands can’t design their own AIM tech whereas Gass was able to develop a prototype in his garage. Or something to that effect.
A prototype is proof of concept. A product with safety tech like this has to be what, 99.999% repeatable? False positives can be risky, but a situation where flesh contact resulted in grievous injury would be disastrous.
Jack D
That’s the first time I’ve seen this brought up in this discussion, and it’s a whammy. Possibly way more important than the other topics. So, my grandson loses a finger because AIM fails 20 years after I bought the saw? Interesting…
Must we then legislate saw seizure after 15 years, just to be safe? My mind is spinning with terrible possibilities…
ToolGuyDan
Brakes on cars will fail if not serviced for 20 years. If you’re buying a two-decade-old product with electronics in it, it’s expected that:
a) You’re prepared to do some maintenance, and
b) The tech was designed to, to the maximum degree possible, “fail safe”.
Nobody’s coming to “take yer sawz”, perhaps excepting the case of commercial woodshops, which would likely need to have the latest tech and/or service agreements anyway just to keep their insurance bill at a reasonable level.
Greg
I haven’t seen anyone commont in this regard, but doesn’t this completely negate all of the complaints that Sawstop won’t license the tech for a reasonable cost? bosch licensed it (and continues to license it?) and it apparently wasn’t cost prohibitive even after they decided to kill the reaxx.
Stuart
No. We don’t know the terms of the licensing, and it also doesn’t seem to have been voluntary. It seems the license is part of the lawsuit settlement.
rob walker
It is within the realm of possibility that once Sawstop licensed the technology to Bosch, Bosch did not want to pay the per unit fee to Sawstop. The Reaxx cost $1,500 already. So Bosch would either of had to eat the licensing fee (say, $250 per unit) or raise the price of the saw (which would make it non competitive with the Sawstop products).
By entering into the licensing agreement, the litigation for patent infringement ceased, so that was their win.
A
Not sure if it’s still possible but you used to be able to purchase a Reaxx in Canada, I ordered one around a year ago through my local bosch dealer. It was still for sale in Canada, it was just not “out in the open” for sale, but it was still for sale. It’s a very nice saw, a hell of a lot better than the old 4100 or the contractor sawstop.
Greg
Has Bosch done anything for consumers that bought a $1500 saw that is basically useless if your cell phone or an electrical surge trips it?
J. Newell
My take on your extremely thorough and helpful investigations and reporting:
Any technology that was so vulnerable to interference from cellphones in 2016 that the manufacturer had to warn users to put their phones in airplane mode was not commercially viable in 2016 or 2018 and is not viable today. I’m not surprised at their estimates about the time and cost of developing a new technology. The prior tech was not really salable in 2016 and certainly isn’t today.
Mike
But many people own this saw and continue to use it, and it is apparently still being sold in Europe and other markets. You can read many reviews of it by owners online.
For those North American buyers who purchased it, Bosch must still be providing them maintenance. Even if the warranty is expired, they would still have to be providing replacement cartridges and repairs when needed.
Ken
The patent history is interesting, intriguing and yet a mystery. I for one would have been interested in a newer improved version of the reaxx.
I purchased the reaxx in 2016 and continue to use the table saw today. The AIM technology has worked flawlessly for me. The AIM has not falsely triggered due to my cell phone in my pocket 4 and 5G or cares which receptacle it is plugged into. Negating the AIM, there are some mechanical design features I would like to see improved upon.
Bosch has the resources and expertise to release a new model in short order. I suspect the lawsuit resolution may include paying a royalty for each unit sold in the US.
SawStop would want something in return for granting accessibility to the market.
Phil
I know this is an old thread, but I thought I’d add my experience as an actual Reaxx owner. 16 false fires. I had more money in cartridges than the initial saw cost. The saw went to Bosch once for repairs for the false fires but continued the same behavior upon it’s return.
Cartridges started at around $55 dollars replacement, became almost impossible to find for 2 years post Covid and the last one I bought was $121. currently prices are at $135This cartridge succumbed to false fires within 2 weeks. The saw ceased to exist after the last false fire (read as: cathartic sledgehammering). It had been a particularly hard week and I regret the “decommissioning” as the saw itself was pretty solid. I should have investigated disconnecting/bypassing the computer part and using as a regular saw.
Nothing was ever offered from Bosch as far as replacement or compensation.
As someone who needs a good mobile table saw, I have had both Sawstop versions. Both have fences that lack. The larger one flexes at the exit end by a good 3/16″ and the teeth on the compact versions fence mechanism are horribly sloppy causing the fence to lose parallel up to 3/16″ again.
As a 30 year professional trim contractor, $1500 was not an unthinkable number when bringing on newer younger carpenters.