 |
|
| Cooking Equipment (rec.food.equipment) Discussion of food-related equipment. Includes items used in food preparation and storage, including major and minor appliances, gadgets and utensils, infrastructure, and food- and recipe-related software. |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|||
|
|||
Viking range quality
I considering getting a Viking dual fuel 48" range for the houe were
building. I've read old posts of Viking's quality is not good. I'm wondering if the quality of their products has gone up since the late 90's, early 2000's. If the quality is not up there what would you get instead? Thanks! |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article >,
Dave Smith > wrote: wrote: > >> I considering getting a Viking dual fuel 48" range for the houe were >> building. I've read old posts of Viking's quality is not good. I'm >> wondering if the quality of their products has gone up since the late >> 90's, early 2000's. If the quality is not up there what would you get >> instead? >> > >I had a Viking range. I had a hard time baking things in it. I was >advised to use better baking pans because it was "high efficiency". >Results were better but not great. A few years ago I got a Maytag. Things >that turned out badly in the Viking were excellent in the Maytag, and the >only difference was the range. This is, sad to say, probably a testament to your cooking ability - or lack thereof. I don't mean that to offend you. However, just as with copper pans, one has to be a skilled cook in order to cook with a lot of heat. Many people buy copper for the looks and/or because they see that top chefs prefer it, but it isn't easy to cook with. It requires skill. It's more so true when using the burners, but it is true of ovens as well. I cooked in a large commercial kitchen and it's not quite so simple as throwing something in and setting a timer like many people are used to. You can do fabulous things with that equipment that you could never do with the Maytag, but if you aren't searing ahi, broiling meats, or baking soufflees regularly then there is no benefit and in fact a real danger of burning food. Dimitri |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"D. Gerasimatos" > wrote in message > > This is, sad to say, probably a testament to your cooking ability - or > lack thereof. I don't mean that to offend you. However, just as with > copper pans, one has to be a skilled cook in order to cook with a lot > of heat. Many people buy copper for the looks and/or because they see that > top chefs prefer it, but it isn't easy to cook with. It requires skill. > It's more so true when using the burners, but it is true of ovens as well. > Could you explain this a bit more. What I gathered was she mixed up a batter or whatever, put it in the oven, but the results were not as good If you set the oven at say, 350, it should reach 350 and give the same results in any oven at 350. Same pan and recipe at 350 in one oven should be identical to the same pan and recipe at 350 in another oven. Differences are poor heat distribution, wide temperature swings. I fail to see why the individual would be at fault here. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"D. Gerasimatos" wrote:
> > > > >I had a Viking range. I had a hard time baking things in it. I was > >advised to use better baking pans because it was "high efficiency". > >Results were better but not great. A few years ago I got a Maytag. Things > >that turned out badly in the Viking were excellent in the Maytag, and the > >only difference was the range. > > This is, sad to say, probably a testament to your cooking ability - or > lack thereof. I don't mean that to offend you. However, just as with > copper pans, one has to be a skilled cook in order to cook with a lot > of heat. Many people buy copper for the looks and/or because they see that > top chefs prefer it, but it isn't easy to cook with. It requires skill. > It's more so true when using the burners, but it is true of ovens as well. > > I cooked in a large commercial kitchen and it's not quite so simple as throwing > something in and setting a timer like many people are used to. You can do > fabulous things with that equipment that you could never do with the Maytag, > but if you aren't searing ahi, broiling meats, or baking soufflees regularly > then there is no benefit and in fact a real danger of burning food. I am not talking about specialized commercial ovens. I am talking about regular private use home oven for domestic use. I used the same recipes and the same cooking pans for years. I use those old pans in the replacement range and have good luck. It was that one unit where things would never cook properly. Cookies that used to turn out every time would melt, spread and burn on the bottom. Roasts would never be cooked properly despite having used the same temperature and time combinations in numerous ovens. It was this one unit that screwed up just about everything we ever tried to cook in it. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 21:47:23 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski"
> wrote: > >"D. Gerasimatos" > wrote in message >> >> This is, sad to say, probably a testament to your cooking ability - or >> lack thereof. I don't mean that to offend you. However, just as with >> copper pans, one has to be a skilled cook in order to cook with a lot >> of heat. Many people buy copper for the looks and/or because they see that >> top chefs prefer it, but it isn't easy to cook with. It requires skill. >> It's more so true when using the burners, but it is true of ovens as well. >> > >Could you explain this a bit more. What I gathered was she mixed up a batter >or whatever, put it in the oven, but the results were not as good If you set >the oven at say, 350, it should reach 350 and give the same results in any >oven at 350. Same pan and recipe at 350 in one oven should be identical to >the same pan and recipe at 350 in another oven. Differences are poor heat >distribution, wide temperature swings. I fail to see why the individual >would be at fault here. > Hi Edwin, Please forgive me... I just posted the very same thought but did it before I read your post. I guess I should read more of the thread before I start a-clickin'. All the best, -- Kenneth If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS." |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> "D. Gerasimatos" > wrote in message > > > > This is, sad to say, probably a testament to your cooking ability - or > > lack thereof. I don't mean that to offend you. However, just as with > > copper pans, one has to be a skilled cook in order to cook with a lot > > of heat. Many people buy copper for the looks and/or because they see that > > top chefs prefer it, but it isn't easy to cook with. It requires skill. > > It's more so true when using the burners, but it is true of ovens as well. > > > > Could you explain this a bit more. What I gathered was she mixed up a batter > or whatever, put it in the oven, but the results were not as good If you set > the oven at say, 350, it should reach 350 and give the same results in any > oven at 350. Same pan and recipe at 350 in one oven should be identical to > the same pan and recipe at 350 in another oven. Differences are poor heat > distribution, wide temperature swings. I fail to see why the individual > would be at fault here. I'm a she?? :-) But you are right. I was cooking the same things, using the same recipes that I had used with other ovens, and same temperature setting. That oven was totally unreliable. The same recipes in the Maytag which replaced that piece of crap turned out well. We had problems with everything we cooked in that oven. Roasts were either overcooked or undercooked, but we never had problems like that before or since that unit. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Doug Kanter wrote:
> "Kenneth" > wrote in message > ... > >>On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 18:54:16 +0000 (UTC), (D. Gerasimatos) wrote: >> >> >>>This is, sad to say, probably a testament to your cooking ability - or >>>lack thereof. I don't mean that to offend you. However, just as with >>>copper pans, one has to be a skilled cook in order to cook with a lot >>>of heat. >> >>Howdy, >> >>I am confused by your comment above... >> >>Should not two ovens each set to, say, 375F, each stay at >>about that temperature? >> >>I certainly can understand the issue of two range tops >>producing (radically) different amounts of heat, but ovens >>would seem to be a different matter. >> >>So, perhaps you can amplify: >> >>What would it mean for one oven at 375F to have more heat >>than another at the same temperature? >> >>Thanks, >>-- >>Kenneth > > > Some ovens have less height. So, "cooking with rack in the center" can have > lots of different meanings. Or, maybe the Viking range has a convection fan. > The OP said something about "high efficiency", whatever that means in an > oven. > All I know is that almost all of our baked goods came out better when we replaced a 1940s vintage wall oven with a 2004 model. The new oven is huge by comparison and holds 350 +/- 12 degrees. The old oven was _all_ over the map. Matthew -- Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game You can't win You can't break even You can't get out of the game |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 19:08:10 -0400, "Matthew L. Martin"
> wrote: >Doug Kanter wrote: >> "Kenneth" > wrote in message >> ... >> >>>On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 18:54:16 +0000 (UTC), (D. Gerasimatos) wrote: >>> >>> >>>>This is, sad to say, probably a testament to your cooking ability - or >>>>lack thereof. I don't mean that to offend you. However, just as with >>>>copper pans, one has to be a skilled cook in order to cook with a lot >>>>of heat. >>> >>>Howdy, >>> >>>I am confused by your comment above... >>> >>>Should not two ovens each set to, say, 375F, each stay at >>>about that temperature? >>> >>>I certainly can understand the issue of two range tops >>>producing (radically) different amounts of heat, but ovens >>>would seem to be a different matter. >>> >>>So, perhaps you can amplify: >>> >>>What would it mean for one oven at 375F to have more heat >>>than another at the same temperature? >>> >>>Thanks, >>>-- >>>Kenneth >> >> >> Some ovens have less height. So, "cooking with rack in the center" can have >> lots of different meanings. Or, maybe the Viking range has a convection fan. >> The OP said something about "high efficiency", whatever that means in an >> oven. >> > >All I know is that almost all of our baked goods came out better when we >replaced a 1940s vintage wall oven with a 2004 model. The new oven is >huge by comparison and holds 350 +/- 12 degrees. The old oven was _all_ >over the map. > >Matthew Howdy, I'll try again... I was responding to the notion that some ovens have "a lot of heat." That makes little sense to me. Do ovens differ? Of course they do and often in the way that you describe, that is some fluctuate wildly in temperature. But I doubt that many would understand that to be an issue of some having "a lot of heat" while others have less. All the best, -- Kenneth If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS." |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Doug Kanter wrote: > "Kenneth" > wrote in message > ... > > On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 18:54:16 +0000 (UTC), > > (D. Gerasimatos) wrote: > > > >>This is, sad to say, probably a testament to your cooking ability - or > >>lack thereof. I don't mean that to offend you. However, just as with > >>copper pans, one has to be a skilled cook in order to cook with a lot > >>of heat. > > > > Howdy, > > > > I am confused by your comment above... > > > > Should not two ovens each set to, say, 375F, each stay at > > about that temperature? > > > > I certainly can understand the issue of two range tops > > producing (radically) different amounts of heat, but ovens > > would seem to be a different matter. > > > > So, perhaps you can amplify: > > > > What would it mean for one oven at 375F to have more heat > > than another at the same temperature? > > > > Thanks, > > -- > > Kenneth > > Some ovens have less height. So, "cooking with rack in the center" can ha= ve > lots of different meanings. Oven height makes not a whit of difference. Or, maybe the Viking range has a convection fan. Still no difference... convection ovens mainly permit one to load up an oven while compensating for loss of natural convection. > The OP said something about "high efficiency", whatever that means in an > oven. Like "Super Deluxe"... means "hyperpbole". An oven set at 375=BAF is the same 375=BAF regardless which oven... so long as that's the actual temperature inside the oven. Whenever an oven's performance is suspect the very first thing to do is monitor the oven temperature with an oven thermomneter... could easily be a faulty thermostat or the thermostat simply needs adjustment. Most all oven thermostats are easily adjustable. If that doesn't solve the problem the next thing to check is the oven door gasket, especially with older ovens... draughty ovens simply don't perform well, plus they waste energy... change the gasket. Btw, never place anything on an open oven door, it is not a shelf. Besides the danger factor from tipping, the hinge mechanism will spring and the door will no longer close properly, even with a new gasket. Even if it's a wall oven that can't tip, once the hinge mechanism springs the only remedy is an entire new mechanism, ofen a new door as well, can be a ridiculously costly affair... you'll never place anything on your open oven door again. Also, the biggest killer of oven thermostats is excessive use of the auto-clean cycle. Sheldon |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"D. Gerasimatos" > wrote in message ... > In article >, > Dave Smith > wrote: wrote: >> >>> I considering getting a Viking dual fuel 48" range for the houe were >>> building. I've read old posts of Viking's quality is not good. I'm >>> wondering if the quality of their products has gone up since the late >>> 90's, early 2000's. If the quality is not up there what would you get >>> instead? >>> >> >>I had a Viking range. I had a hard time baking things in it. I was >>advised to use better baking pans because it was "high efficiency". >>Results were better but not great. A few years ago I got a Maytag. Things >>that turned out badly in the Viking were excellent in the Maytag, and the >>only difference was the range. > > > This is, sad to say, probably a testament to your cooking ability - or > lack thereof. I don't mean that to offend you. However, just as with > copper pans, one has to be a skilled cook in order to cook with a lot > of heat. Many people buy copper for the looks and/or because they see that > top chefs prefer it, but it isn't easy to cook with. It requires skill. > It's more so true when using the burners, but it is true of ovens as well. > > > I cooked in a large commercial kitchen and it's not quite so simple as > throwing > something in and setting a timer like many people are used to. You can do > fabulous things with that equipment that you could never do with the > Maytag, > but if you aren't searing ahi, broiling meats, or baking soufflees > regularly > then there is no benefit and in fact a real danger of burning food. > Dimitri While I'm reading this, I'm thinking about a Corvette I once drove. I had only driven ordinary cars. When I put on the brakes and came to stop at the curb, I almost hit the telephone pole and scared my passenger quite badly. Just too darned powerful for the uninitiated. While I think I would love a high-powered stove, I don't kid myself that I can cook like Mario. (I'm not saying that the poster isn't a Mario, tho, but we can't all be that good.) Dee Dee |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dee Randall wrote: > "D. Gerasimatos" > wrote in message > ... > > In article >, > > Dave Smith > wrote: > wrote: > >> > >>> I considering getting a Viking dual fuel 48" range for the houe were > >>> building. I've read old posts of Viking's quality is not good. I'm > >>> wondering if the quality of their products has gone up since the late > >>> 90's, early 2000's. If the quality is not up there what would you get > >>> instead? > >>> > >> > >>I had a Viking range. I had a hard time baking things in it. I was > >>advised to use better baking pans because it was "high efficiency". > >>Results were better but not great. A few years ago I got a Maytag. Things > >>that turned out badly in the Viking were excellent in the Maytag, and the > >>only difference was the range. > > > > > > This is, sad to say, probably a testament to your cooking ability - or > > lack thereof. I don't mean that to offend you. However, just as with > > copper pans, one has to be a skilled cook in order to cook with a lot > > of heat. Many people buy copper for the looks and/or because they see that > > top chefs prefer it, but it isn't easy to cook with. It requires skill. > > It's more so true when using the burners, but it is true of ovens as well. > > > > > > I cooked in a large commercial kitchen and it's not quite so simple as > > throwing > > something in and setting a timer like many people are used to. You can do > > fabulous things with that equipment that you could never do with the > > Maytag, > > but if you aren't searing ahi, broiling meats, or baking soufflees > > regularly > > then there is no benefit and in fact a real danger of burning food. > > > Dimitri > > While I'm reading this, I'm thinking about a Corvette I once drove. I had > only driven ordinary cars. When I put on the brakes and came to stop at the > curb, I almost hit the telephone pole and scared my passenger quite badly. > Just too darned powerful for the uninitiated. While I think I would love a > high-powered stove, I don't kid myself that I can cook like Mario. (I'm not > saying that the poster isn't a Mario, tho, but we can't all be that good.) > Dee Dee Commercial _STYLE_ stoves ain't nothing, they're ordinary (sheep in Wolf's clothing), only cost a whole lot more for nothing... they're all show and no go. Hey, iffn you got more bucks than brain cells go for it. Sheldon |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Dave Smith" > wrote in message .. > > I'm a she?? :-) Wow, I blew that one. I'll have to get back to you with a good exuse. It won't take me long to concoct something reasonably believable. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Kenneth wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 19:08:10 -0400, "Matthew L. Martin" > > wrote: > > >>Doug Kanter wrote: >> >>>"Kenneth" > wrote in message ... >>> >>> >>>>On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 18:54:16 +0000 (UTC), (D. Gerasimatos) wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>This is, sad to say, probably a testament to your cooking ability - or >>>>>lack thereof. I don't mean that to offend you. However, just as with >>>>>copper pans, one has to be a skilled cook in order to cook with a lot >>>>>of heat. >>>> >>>>Howdy, >>>> >>>>I am confused by your comment above... >>>> >>>>Should not two ovens each set to, say, 375F, each stay at >>>>about that temperature? >>>> >>>>I certainly can understand the issue of two range tops >>>>producing (radically) different amounts of heat, but ovens >>>>would seem to be a different matter. >>>> >>>>So, perhaps you can amplify: >>>> >>>>What would it mean for one oven at 375F to have more heat >>>>than another at the same temperature? >>>> >>>>Thanks, >>>>-- >>>>Kenneth >>> >>> >>>Some ovens have less height. So, "cooking with rack in the center" can have >>>lots of different meanings. Or, maybe the Viking range has a convection fan. >>>The OP said something about "high efficiency", whatever that means in an >>>oven. >>> >> >>All I know is that almost all of our baked goods came out better when we >>replaced a 1940s vintage wall oven with a 2004 model. The new oven is >>huge by comparison and holds 350 +/- 12 degrees. The old oven was _all_ >>over the map. >> >>Matthew > > > Howdy, > > I'll try again... > > I was responding to the notion that some ovens have "a lot > of heat." > > That makes little sense to me. > > Do ovens differ? Of course they do and often in the way that > you describe, that is some fluctuate wildly in temperature. > > But I doubt that many would understand that to be an issue > of some having "a lot of heat" while others have less. > > All the best, I thoroughly understand the difference. Please read my sig. There is no way that the same recipe, prepared in the same pans and baked "the same way" can turn out badly in one oven and well in another and have the difference blamed on the cook instead of the cooker. If "having more heat" is an advantage, then the results from such an oven should be better. Care to explain why the results came out the way they did? Matthew -- Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game You can't win You can't break even You can't get out of the game |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Edwin Pawlowski > wrote:
> Could you explain this a bit more. What I gathered was she > mixed up a batter or whatever, put it in the oven, but the > results were not as good If you set the oven at say, 350, > it should reach 350 and give the same results in any oven at > 350. Same pan and recipe at 350 in one oven should be identical > to the same pan and recipe at 350 in another oven. No, because the different ovens might have different humidities, and they might have different degrees of air flow (convection). If the Viking cooks faster than the Maytag at the same temperature, then it probably has lower humidity, more convection, or both. It's not correct to say it has "more heat". Steve |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Sheldon wrote:
> > Dee Randall wrote: > > "D. Gerasimatos" > wrote in message > > ... > > > In article >, > > > Dave Smith > wrote: > > wrote: > > >> > > >>> I considering getting a Viking dual fuel 48" range for the houe were > > >>> building. I've read old posts of Viking's quality is not good. I'm > > >>> wondering if the quality of their products has gone up since the late > > >>> 90's, early 2000's. If the quality is not up there what would you get > > >>> instead? > > >>> > > >> > > >>I had a Viking range. I had a hard time baking things in it. I was > > >>advised to use better baking pans because it was "high efficiency". > > >>Results were better but not great. A few years ago I got a Maytag. Things > > >>that turned out badly in the Viking were excellent in the Maytag, and the > > >>only difference was the range. > > > > > > > > > This is, sad to say, probably a testament to your cooking ability - or > > > lack thereof. I don't mean that to offend you. However, just as with > > > copper pans, one has to be a skilled cook in order to cook with a lot > > > of heat. Many people buy copper for the looks and/or because they see that > > > top chefs prefer it, but it isn't easy to cook with. It requires skill. > > > It's more so true when using the burners, but it is true of ovens as well. > > > > > > > > > I cooked in a large commercial kitchen and it's not quite so simple as > > > throwing > > > something in and setting a timer like many people are used to. You can do > > > fabulous things with that equipment that you could never do with the > > > Maytag, > > > but if you aren't searing ahi, broiling meats, or baking soufflees > > > regularly > > > then there is no benefit and in fact a real danger of burning food. > > > > > Dimitri > > > > While I'm reading this, I'm thinking about a Corvette I once drove. I had > > only driven ordinary cars. When I put on the brakes and came to stop at the > > curb, I almost hit the telephone pole and scared my passenger quite badly. > > Just too darned powerful for the uninitiated. While I think I would love a > > high-powered stove, I don't kid myself that I can cook like Mario. (I'm not > > saying that the poster isn't a Mario, tho, but we can't all be that good.) > > Dee Dee > > Commercial _STYLE_ stoves ain't nothing, they're ordinary (sheep in > Wolf's clothing), only cost a whole lot more for nothing... they're all > show and no go. Hey, iffn you got more bucks than brain cells go for > it. > > Sheldon Exactly! A true commercial stove will outlast you and your grandchildren, cause the gas company to install a larger line to your house, have your kitchen 140 degrees in no time and set fire to any nearby walls and cabinets. A commercial style stove will last perhaps 10 years, take a normal gas feed, leave your kitchen relatively cool and only set fire to your wallet. Pete C. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article .com>,
Sheldon > wrote: > >Commercial _STYLE_ stoves ain't nothing, they're ordinary (sheep in >Wolf's clothing), only cost a whole lot more for nothing... they're all >show and no go. Hey, iffn you got more bucks than brain cells go for >it. Well, while a commercial-style range is definitely ordinary compared to a true commercial range they put out a whole lot more BTUs than an ordinary range. 'Cost a lot more for nothing' isn't true at all. Dimitri |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
D. Gerasimatos wrote: > In article .com>, > Sheldon > wrote: > > > >Commercial _STYLE_ stoves ain't nothing, they're ordinary (sheep in > >Wolf's clothing), only cost a whole lot more for nothing... they're all > >show and no go. Hey, iffn you got more bucks than brain cells go for > >it. > > > Well, while a commercial-style range is definitely ordinary compared to > a true commercial range they put out a whole lot more BTUs than an > ordinary range. 'Cost a lot more for nothing' isn't true at all. Actually they don't put out much more BTUs (if any) than top of the line national brands, and the top of the line national brands have more sophisticated/reliable controls... also far better customer service. I don't want to spend double just so my stove *looks* like a commercial stove... even within brands you can pay three times as much and get no more than appearance... my GE Profile puts out 15,000 BTUs, most commercial style brands don't do any better. The GE Profile costs 1/3 of the GE Monogram and is a far superiour product. http://products.geappliances.com/ProdContent/Dispatcher http://www.monogram.com/selectionguide Sheldon |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Dan Abel" > wrote in message ... > In article >, > (D. Gerasimatos) wrote: > >> In article .com>, >> Sheldon > wrote: >> > >> >Commercial _STYLE_ stoves ain't nothing, they're ordinary (sheep in >> >Wolf's clothing), only cost a whole lot more for nothing... they're all >> >show and no go. Hey, iffn you got more bucks than brain cells go for >> >it. >> >> >> Well, while a commercial-style range is definitely ordinary compared to >> a true commercial range they put out a whole lot more BTUs than an >> ordinary range. 'Cost a lot more for nothing' isn't true at all. > > > Please define "whole lot more BTUs". A quick Google shows that the > Viking dual fuel we are discussing puts out 15,000 max. My cheapo > Hotpoint puts out 12,000. Sheldon's GE profile puts out 15,000. > > When I was looking for a stove, I looked at Consumer Reports. They put > the commercial style stoves down at the bottom, based on ease of > cleaning, convenience and features. They recommended them if you don't > care about price, and want the look. They are also very sturdy, in case > you use them for blacksmithing. Yeah, I like that 'blacksmithing' look. Anyhow, I've learned a lot from this discussion. Thanks. Dee Dee |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dan Abel wrote:
> > In article >, > (D. Gerasimatos) wrote: > > > In article .com>, > > Sheldon > wrote: > > > > > >Commercial _STYLE_ stoves ain't nothing, they're ordinary (sheep in > > >Wolf's clothing), only cost a whole lot more for nothing... they're all > > >show and no go. Hey, iffn you got more bucks than brain cells go for > > >it. > > > > > > Well, while a commercial-style range is definitely ordinary compared to > > a true commercial range they put out a whole lot more BTUs than an > > ordinary range. 'Cost a lot more for nothing' isn't true at all. > > Please define "whole lot more BTUs". A quick Google shows that the > Viking dual fuel we are discussing puts out 15,000 max. My cheapo > Hotpoint puts out 12,000. Sheldon's GE profile puts out 15,000. > > When I was looking for a stove, I looked at Consumer Reports. They put > the commercial style stoves down at the bottom, based on ease of > cleaning, convenience and features. They recommended them if you don't > care about price, and want the look. They are also very sturdy, in case > you use them for blacksmithing. While I certainly agree that the commercial style stoves are overpriced fluff, please do not ever believe anything you read in CR, they are one of the most biased, baseless publications around. Take the time to research the product in question yourself and you'll be far better off. Pete C. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article >,
"Pete C." > wrote: > Dan Abel wrote: > > > > In article >, > > (D. Gerasimatos) wrote: > > > > > In article .com>, > > > Sheldon > wrote: > > > > > > > >Commercial _STYLE_ stoves ain't nothing, they're ordinary (sheep in > > > >Wolf's clothing), only cost a whole lot more for nothing... they're all > > > >show and no go. Hey, iffn you got more bucks than brain cells go for > > > >it. > > > > > > > > > Well, while a commercial-style range is definitely ordinary compared to > > > a true commercial range they put out a whole lot more BTUs than an > > > ordinary range. 'Cost a lot more for nothing' isn't true at all. > > > > Please define "whole lot more BTUs". A quick Google shows that the > > Viking dual fuel we are discussing puts out 15,000 max. My cheapo > > Hotpoint puts out 12,000. Sheldon's GE profile puts out 15,000. > > > > When I was looking for a stove, I looked at Consumer Reports. They put > > the commercial style stoves down at the bottom, based on ease of > > cleaning, convenience and features. They recommended them if you don't > > care about price, and want the look. They are also very sturdy, in case > > you use them for blacksmithing. > > While I certainly agree that the commercial style stoves are overpriced > fluff, please do not ever believe anything you read in CR, they are one > of the most biased, baseless publications around. Take the time to > research the product in question yourself and you'll be far better off. Although CR does definitely have an agenda, one thing I like about them is that they are usually pretty straightforward and open about what their agenda is. If you don't agree with their particular agenda in an article, you can usually still pick through the article and find useful information. As far as doing your own research, where do you go? There's a whole lot of places that are not only biased, but hide their bias. And I have neither the money nor the time to buy 10-20 stoves and try them all out. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dan Abel wrote: > In article >, > "Pete C." > wrote: > > > Dan Abel wrote: > > > > > > In article >, > > > (D. Gerasimatos) wrote: > > > > > > > In article .com>, > > > > Sheldon > wrote: > > > > > > > > > >Commercial _STYLE_ stoves ain't nothing, they're ordinary (sheep in > > > > >Wolf's clothing), only cost a whole lot more for nothing... they're all > > > > >show and no go. Hey, iffn you got more bucks than brain cells go for > > > > >it. > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, while a commercial-style range is definitely ordinary compared to > > > > a true commercial range they put out a whole lot more BTUs than an > > > > ordinary range. 'Cost a lot more for nothing' isn't true at all. > > > > > > Please define "whole lot more BTUs". A quick Google shows that the > > > Viking dual fuel we are discussing puts out 15,000 max. My cheapo > > > Hotpoint puts out 12,000. Sheldon's GE profile puts out 15,000. > > > > > > When I was looking for a stove, I looked at Consumer Reports. They put > > > the commercial style stoves down at the bottom, based on ease of > > > cleaning, convenience and features. They recommended them if you don't > > > care about price, and want the look. They are also very sturdy, in case > > > you use them for blacksmithing. > > > > While I certainly agree that the commercial style stoves are overpriced > > fluff, please do not ever believe anything you read in CR, they are one > > of the most biased, baseless publications around. Take the time to > > research the product in question yourself and you'll be far better off. > > > Although CR does definitely have an agenda, one thing I like about them > is that they are usually pretty straightforward and open about what > their agenda is. If you don't agree with their particular agenda in an > article, you can usually still pick through the article and find useful > information. > > As far as doing your own research, where do you go? There's a whole lot > of places that are not only biased, but hide their bias. And I have > neither the money nor the time to buy 10-20 stoves and try them all out. epinions.com is a good place to peruse unbiased reviews (from actual consumers) of myriad products... as unbiased as a human being is... everyone holds bias. I wouldn't necessarily take the reviews of one or three people as gospel but when there's say twenty reviews one can come away with a fairly accurate opinion of the average normal person. Sheldon |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dan Abel wrote:
> > In article >, > (D. Gerasimatos) wrote: > > Well, while a commercial-style range is definitely ordinary compared to > > a true commercial range they put out a whole lot more BTUs than an > > ordinary range. 'Cost a lot more for nothing' isn't true at all. > > Please define "whole lot more BTUs". A quick Google shows that the > Viking dual fuel we are discussing puts out 15,000 max. My cheapo > Hotpoint puts out 12,000. Sheldon's GE profile puts out 15,000. One of the distinguishing areas is that on most "commercial-style" ranges the burners are all identical and capable of high power. The cheapos may have ONE high power burner, but the rest are all little guys. For the casual cook this may be ok. For someone who really uses it, the flexibility to move pots or pans anywhere and not have to 'manage' things is really great. > When I was looking for a stove, I looked at Consumer Reports. They put > the commercial style stoves down at the bottom, based on ease of > cleaning, convenience and features. They recommended them if you don't > care about price, and want the look. They are also very sturdy, in case > you use them for blacksmithing. CR has always been a laugh when it comes to higher-end products. They are often finicky - sharper tools usually are - but worth it to those who can appreciate them. Walt |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Walter Spector" > wrote in message > > CR has always been a laugh when it comes to higher-end products. What makes you say that? They'd rate the Honda Civic better than a Lamborghini because it has longer intervals between tuneups. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote in message . .. > > "Walter Spector" > wrote in message >> >> CR has always been a laugh when it comes to higher-end products. > > > What makes you say that? They'd rate the Honda Civic better than a > Lamborghini because it has longer intervals between tuneups. Why not? By any rational standard the Honda Civic is superior to a Lamborghini. The Lamborghini excels in driving very fast and looking good. It isn't reliable, comfortable and probably doesn't start when it is cold out. There is no place to put the groceries or a car seat. Consumer Reports is correct. The honda is an excellent car. The Lamborghini is a very desirable toy for those with too much money. del cecchi |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Del Cecchi" > wrote in message >> What makes you say that? They'd rate the Honda Civic better than a >> Lamborghini because it has longer intervals between tuneups. > Why not? By any rational standard the Honda Civic is superior to a > Lamborghini. The Lamborghini excels in driving very fast and looking > good. But you don't buy a Lambo for practical reasons. CR thinks we should all drive Honda or similar autos. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote in message . .. > > "Del Cecchi" > wrote in message > >>> What makes you say that? They'd rate the Honda Civic better than a >>> Lamborghini because it has longer intervals between tuneups. >> Why not? By any rational standard the Honda Civic is superior to a >> Lamborghini. The Lamborghini excels in driving very fast and looking >> good. > > But you don't buy a Lambo for practical reasons. CR thinks we should all > drive Honda or similar autos. People that buy CR mag buy it for the practicality/value info. If you're into a Lambo then you'll be buying a gearhead type mag. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
FDR wrote:
> > "Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote in message > . .. > > > > "Del Cecchi" > wrote in message > > > >>> What makes you say that? They'd rate the Honda Civic better than a > >>> Lamborghini because it has longer intervals between tuneups. > >> Why not? By any rational standard the Honda Civic is superior to a > >> Lamborghini. The Lamborghini excels in driving very fast and looking > >> good. > > > > But you don't buy a Lambo for practical reasons. CR thinks we should all > > drive Honda or similar autos. > > People that buy CR mag buy it for the practicality/value info. If you're > into a Lambo then you'll be buying a gearhead type mag. CR does not contain (valid) practicality/value info. Their "findings" are distorted, biased and not in any way based on valid scientific testing or analysis. Pete C. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Pete C." > wrote in message ... > FDR wrote: >> >> "Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote in message >> . .. >> > >> > "Del Cecchi" > wrote in message >> > >> >>> What makes you say that? They'd rate the Honda Civic better than a >> >>> Lamborghini because it has longer intervals between tuneups. >> >> Why not? By any rational standard the Honda Civic is superior to a >> >> Lamborghini. The Lamborghini excels in driving very fast and looking >> >> good. >> > >> > But you don't buy a Lambo for practical reasons. CR thinks we should >> > all >> > drive Honda or similar autos. >> >> People that buy CR mag buy it for the practicality/value info. If you're >> into a Lambo then you'll be buying a gearhead type mag. > > CR does not contain (valid) practicality/value info. Their "findings" > are distorted, biased and not in any way based on valid scientific > testing or analysis. > > Pete C. Hey, I read them and don't agree with them many times, but what do you exactly think they should do that would meet your standard of testing? AS for cars, like many reviews they are opinions. Firm ride, small back seats, cheap plastic knobs aren't something you need to do a scientific analysis of. Reliability ratings are another thing entirely, since it's up to the consumer to provide feedback on problems. To do any scientific analysis would require that they gather x number of cars, drive them y number of miles, and i z number of conditions. Highly impractical. Motorweek tests one car over 15000 miles but that's nowhere scientific either. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
FDR wrote:
> > "Pete C." > wrote in message > ... > > FDR wrote: > >> > >> "Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote in message > >> . .. > >> > > >> > "Del Cecchi" > wrote in message > >> > > >> >>> What makes you say that? They'd rate the Honda Civic better than a > >> >>> Lamborghini because it has longer intervals between tuneups. > >> >> Why not? By any rational standard the Honda Civic is superior to a > >> >> Lamborghini. The Lamborghini excels in driving very fast and looking > >> >> good. > >> > > >> > But you don't buy a Lambo for practical reasons. CR thinks we should > >> > all > >> > drive Honda or similar autos. > >> > >> People that buy CR mag buy it for the practicality/value info. If you're > >> into a Lambo then you'll be buying a gearhead type mag. > > > > CR does not contain (valid) practicality/value info. Their "findings" > > are distorted, biased and not in any way based on valid scientific > > testing or analysis. > > > > Pete C. > > Hey, I read them and don't agree with them many times, but what do you > exactly think they should do that would meet your standard of testing? AS > for cars, like many reviews they are opinions. I've read enough of them to decide that they provide little or no information that is of value to me. > Firm ride, small back seats, > cheap plastic knobs aren't something you need to do a scientific analysis > of. Actually all three can indeed have more valid analysis done. Firm ride relative to what exactly? An average car would be mush compared to a high end sport model, but that same car would be firm compared to some "luxury" mush model. Small back seats for whom? A pro football player? An average teenager? Cheap plastic knobs? What defines a cheap plastic knob vs. a non-cheap plastic knob? Last time I looked I saw virtually no non-plastic knobs on any car regardless of price (in the "sane" range, I didn't look at "exotics"). > Reliability ratings are another thing entirely, since it's up to the > consumer to provide feedback on problems. The best source for reliability information is warranty claim data. Outside of warranty period it's very difficult to get good data on a large enough sample to be valid. > To do any scientific analysis > would require that they gather x number of cars, drive them y number of > miles, and i z number of conditions. Highly impractical. Motorweek tests > one car over 15000 miles but that's nowhere scientific either. They don't need to test each one themselves, a formal reporting arrangement with consumers would work. They would need to track each vehicle from purchase to either a loss/sale/end of test period. Pete C. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Pete C. wrote: > > > Cheap plastic knobs? What defines a cheap plastic knob vs. a non-cheap > plastic knob? Last time I looked I saw virtually no non-plastic knobs on > any car regardless of price (in the "sane" range, I didn't look at > "exotics"). Then you haven't been to California. There most of the high end cars are driven by exotic females with plastic knobs. Sheldon |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Pete C." > wrote in message ... > FDR wrote: >> >> "Pete C." > wrote in message >> ... >> > FDR wrote: >> >> >> >> "Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote in message >> >> . .. >> >> > >> >> > "Del Cecchi" > wrote in message >> >> > >> >> >>> What makes you say that? They'd rate the Honda Civic better than >> >> >>> a >> >> >>> Lamborghini because it has longer intervals between tuneups. >> >> >> Why not? By any rational standard the Honda Civic is superior to a >> >> >> Lamborghini. The Lamborghini excels in driving very fast and >> >> >> looking >> >> >> good. >> >> > >> >> > But you don't buy a Lambo for practical reasons. CR thinks we should >> >> > all >> >> > drive Honda or similar autos. >> >> >> >> People that buy CR mag buy it for the practicality/value info. If >> >> you're >> >> into a Lambo then you'll be buying a gearhead type mag. >> > >> > CR does not contain (valid) practicality/value info. Their "findings" >> > are distorted, biased and not in any way based on valid scientific >> > testing or analysis. >> > >> > Pete C. >> >> Hey, I read them and don't agree with them many times, but what do you >> exactly think they should do that would meet your standard of testing? >> AS >> for cars, like many reviews they are opinions. > > I've read enough of them to decide that they provide little or no > information that is of value to me. > >> Firm ride, small back seats, >> cheap plastic knobs aren't something you need to do a scientific analysis >> of. > > Actually all three can indeed have more valid analysis done. > > Firm ride relative to what exactly? An average car would be mush > compared to a high end sport model, but that same car would be firm > compared to some "luxury" mush model. I think firm is quite self explanatory. > > Small back seats for whom? A pro football player? An average teenager? It's usually followed by the saying only a child could sit in the rear with any comfort, ala the Camaro. > > Cheap plastic knobs? What defines a cheap plastic knob vs. a non-cheap > plastic knob? Last time I looked I saw virtually no non-plastic knobs on > any car regardless of price (in the "sane" range, I didn't look at > "exotics"). You surely can tell the difference in feel between a luxury plastic knob and something on a cheap car. I think you're being particularly picky about these points that I would find self-evident. > >> Reliability ratings are another thing entirely, since it's up to the >> consumer to provide feedback on problems. > > The best source for reliability information is warranty claim data. > Outside of warranty period it's very difficult to get good data on a > large enough sample to be valid. Do all or most car companies bother to provide this information to a magazine? > >> To do any scientific analysis >> would require that they gather x number of cars, drive them y number of >> miles, and i z number of conditions. Highly impractical. Motorweek >> tests >> one car over 15000 miles but that's nowhere scientific either. > > They don't need to test each one themselves, a formal reporting > arrangement with consumers would work. They would need to track each > vehicle from purchase to either a loss/sale/end of test period. Isn't that what they basically do now? Send surveys out and create a database. > > Pete C. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Sheldon wrote:
> > Pete C. wrote: > > > > > > Cheap plastic knobs? What defines a cheap plastic knob vs. a non-cheap > > plastic knob? Last time I looked I saw virtually no non-plastic knobs on > > any car regardless of price (in the "sane" range, I didn't look at > > "exotics"). > > Then you haven't been to California. There most of the high end cars > are driven by exotic females with plastic knobs. > > Sheldon I was just in CA two weeks ago. I wasn't impressed. Pete C. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
FDR wrote:
> > "Pete C." > wrote in message > ... > > FDR wrote: > >> > >> "Pete C." > wrote in message > >> ... > >> > FDR wrote: > >> >> > >> >> "Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote in message > >> >> . .. > >> >> > > >> >> > "Del Cecchi" > wrote in message > >> >> > > >> >> >>> What makes you say that? They'd rate the Honda Civic better than > >> >> >>> a > >> >> >>> Lamborghini because it has longer intervals between tuneups. > >> >> >> Why not? By any rational standard the Honda Civic is superior to a > >> >> >> Lamborghini. The Lamborghini excels in driving very fast and > >> >> >> looking > >> >> >> good. > >> >> > > >> >> > But you don't buy a Lambo for practical reasons. CR thinks we should > >> >> > all > >> >> > drive Honda or similar autos. > >> >> > >> >> People that buy CR mag buy it for the practicality/value info. If > >> >> you're > >> >> into a Lambo then you'll be buying a gearhead type mag. > >> > > >> > CR does not contain (valid) practicality/value info. Their "findings" > >> > are distorted, biased and not in any way based on valid scientific > >> > testing or analysis. > >> > > >> > Pete C. > >> > >> Hey, I read them and don't agree with them many times, but what do you > >> exactly think they should do that would meet your standard of testing? > >> AS > >> for cars, like many reviews they are opinions. > > > > I've read enough of them to decide that they provide little or no > > information that is of value to me. > > > >> Firm ride, small back seats, > >> cheap plastic knobs aren't something you need to do a scientific analysis > >> of. > > > > Actually all three can indeed have more valid analysis done. > > > > Firm ride relative to what exactly? An average car would be mush > > compared to a high end sport model, but that same car would be firm > > compared to some "luxury" mush model. > > I think firm is quite self explanatory. I think it can be tested more objectively. > > > > > Small back seats for whom? A pro football player? An average teenager? > > It's usually followed by the saying only a child could sit in the rear with > any comfort, ala the Camaro. For cars like that, the back seat is most suitable for small rodents. > > > > > Cheap plastic knobs? What defines a cheap plastic knob vs. a non-cheap > > plastic knob? Last time I looked I saw virtually no non-plastic knobs on > > any car regardless of price (in the "sane" range, I didn't look at > > "exotics"). > > You surely can tell the difference in feel between a luxury plastic knob and > something on a cheap car. I think you're being particularly picky about > these points that I would find self-evident. What might this difference in feel be? ABS feels like ABS whether in a Hyundai or a Mercedes. > > > > >> Reliability ratings are another thing entirely, since it's up to the > >> consumer to provide feedback on problems. > > > > The best source for reliability information is warranty claim data. > > Outside of warranty period it's very difficult to get good data on a > > large enough sample to be valid. > > Do all or most car companies bother to provide this information to a > magazine? Not to an magazine with the reputation of CM, however the Powers stuff is largely based on this data. > > > > >> To do any scientific analysis > >> would require that they gather x number of cars, drive them y number of > >> miles, and i z number of conditions. Highly impractical. Motorweek > >> tests > >> one car over 15000 miles but that's nowhere scientific either. > > > > They don't need to test each one themselves, a formal reporting > > arrangement with consumers would work. They would need to track each > > vehicle from purchase to either a loss/sale/end of test period. > > Isn't that what they basically do now? Send surveys out and create a > database. A survey not the same as formal tracking from purchase to loss/sale/end, tracking based on the submission of invoice copies, not just comments. Pete C. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote in message . .. > > "Del Cecchi" > wrote in message > >>> What makes you say that? They'd rate the Honda Civic better than a >>> Lamborghini because it has longer intervals between tuneups. >> Why not? By any rational standard the Honda Civic is superior to a >> Lamborghini. The Lamborghini excels in driving very fast and looking >> good. > > But you don't buy a Lambo for practical reasons. CR thinks we should > all drive Honda or similar autos. > Calling a Lambo and a Honda both "automobiles" is stretching the definition. A deuce and a half would make a terrible choice as a family car, but it makes a hell of a vehicle for delivering relief supplies in a flood. Consumer reports uses criteria that relate to average person and their use. So cars that foul plugs or don't start in the winter or can't carry the groceries are down rated relative to those that can, whether or not they have real walnut on the dash or can go 200 mph. I hear the same complaints from the computer geeks every time CR tests computers, and from the audiophiles when they test speakers. del |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tony P. wrote: > In article .com>, > says... > > > > Pete C. wrote: > > > > > > > > > Cheap plastic knobs? What defines a cheap plastic knob vs. a non-cheap > > > plastic knob? Last time I looked I saw virtually no non-plastic knobs on > > > any car regardless of price (in the "sane" range, I didn't look at > > > "exotics"). > > > > Then you haven't been to California. There most of the high end cars > > are driven by exotic females with plastic knobs. > > > > Sheldon > > The thing about plastics is that they'll outgas within a decade or so > leaving a chalky surface. Ewwwww. Massaging daily with coco lopez keeps knobs young. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Questions regarding Viking Range | General Cooking | |||
| Viking range quality | General Cooking | |||
| Wolf Vs Viking Range | Cooking Equipment | |||
| Viking Range Or Thermadoor | Cooking Equipment | |||
| Viking Range Or Thermadoor? | General Cooking | |||
Linear Mode
