I bought the Ryobi BT3000, predecessor to the TS in question in 5/92
and it has done most of what has been asked of it. It was designed as
a BENCHTOP saw made with light materials for field use instead of the
primary saw in a cabinet saw. It is NOT direct drive but utilizes two
belts driven with a universal motor that requires hearing protection
as warned in the owners manual. I've ripped 2" white oak with the
BT3000 several times. Can't compare the efficiency with a cabinet saw
as I haven't used one. Beats a hand saw! A construction job foreman
posted several years ago he had to buy three BT3000s each year for
each of his three crews as they wouldn't work with anything else.
Brings to mind the Packard Motor Car Co slogan "Ask the man that owns
one"!

On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 15:36:06 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski"
wrote:

wrote in message

Not one of you are familiar with the saw but are more than willing to
trash it.

You don't need hours of experience using cheap tools to know they are
sub-par compared to quality tools. If the $139 saw was so good, they would
not be selling $2000 saws that do the "same" thing, right?

Visual inspection reveals many differences, such as table top size, table
quality (stamped steel or cast aluminum versus machined cast iron), the
power of the motor of a direct drive system versus one or three belts for
smoother quieter operation. Did I mention power? If you are cutting 1/4"
plywood, you don't need much, but just rip that 12/4 oak and see the
difference.

Ryobi makes low quality tools. They serve a purpose in the scheme of
things, but please, don't stick up and say they are very good. They are
not. It may be suitable for the once or twice a year making a shelf for the
garage, but there is a reason you don't see their stuff in serious shops and
job sites.

Make a few cuts on the $139 Ryobi, then do the same operations on a Delta
contractor saw with a Biesemeyer fence.