Iglu Cold Systems is standing by claims that it has developed a refrigerated servery counter superior to a range from Williams that it considers the market leader.

At Hotelympia earlier this year, Iglu set up an electricity metre on its stand to measure the energy consumption of its new TRF/3V model and a Williams Onyx CPC3, which appeared to show its own product as 40% more efficient.

Williams stated last week said it was surprised the test was conducted at such a busy event where conditions were “hardly conducive to accuracy” and said the trial was “obviously far from independent”.

Story continues below

But today, Iglu Cold Systems’ CEO, Giacomo Ruzza, defended the exercise and argued that the results were valid.

“A 40% saving is still a 40% saving, whether at Hotelympia or in a controlled environment, and regardless of whatever gas is used,” he said. “We ran the challenge in a public place and allowed anybody to look at both counters, inside and out, including the many people from Williams who came to our stand.”

Ruzza also provided more details on the testing procedure, pointing out that Iglu had an electronic probe constantly showing that the temperatures inside the counters really were the same as shown on the displays.

“We wanted, for our own curiosity, to use that environment as a test, so we placed the lids on and off at exactly the same times, and the actual result of this, admittedly, very basic test, was that Iglu consumed 46% less energy during [the show], in particular 25.75kw vs. 48.10kw.”

Ruzza acknowledged that Williams was right to say that such products were currently excluded from energy labelling and therefore no EN performance testing protocols were applicable.

But this, he argues, also means there is no way to adhere to any agreed performance measure.

“However this does not mean that our clients should not be made aware of the energy savings. We developed a counter that almost halves energy consumption in the environment conditions that the thousands of visitors of Hotelympia could witness, which we agree are not the typical restaurant conditions, but we still believe is a quite relevant result.

“Of course, we would be willing to conduct a proper test in a laboratory, using correct test protocols already used by major restaurant chains against other products in the market place. We performed the test against the Williams product simply because they are perceived to be market leaders in this segment.”

Ruzza said that having set out to design a product as an alternative to the current best unit on the market, it was satisfied with what it has produced.

He said: “Williams is right to try and focus the attention to the only point where, thanks to testing procedure technicalities, they can have something to argue about: energy consumption.

“We would like to state there are other facts that make our new TRF a superior product to the Williams CPC, these being our product is made in AISI 304 18/10 S/S inside-out while theirs is in AISI 430; we offer 13% more capacity in a 3-door model; that all our doors and even drawers are fully GN 1/1, while theirs are not all GN 1/1; that our thermostat allows for intelligent defrosting and is protected, while theirs is a standard electronic thermostat with time-based defrosting, and un-protected.”

Tags : catering equipmentEnergy efficiencykitchensProductsRefrigerationTest
Andrew Seymour

The author Andrew Seymour

Leave a Response

Protected with IP Blacklist CloudIP Blacklist Cloud