Test Results

Cooler Test

September 29, 2011

This test was performed on the following coolers:

  • Frigid Rigid 60 qt using Standard Foam
  • Frigid Rigid 63qt using New Iceland Foam
  • 65 qt Rotomold Yeti
  • 72 qt 5 Day Coleman

This test took place in Fort Myers, Florida beginning September 19, 2011.
The average daily temperature ranged from Highs of 91 to Lows of 75.
The surface temperatures measured on the lids of the coolers reached 110 to 120 degrees on the hottest days.
All coolers were placed on tables in the sun.
60 pounds of ice were placed in each cooler. Each day we drained all the water from each cooler, weighed and recorded that measurement.
This process was repeated each day for 10 days or until the cooler was empty.

Results

  • The 72 qt 5 Day Coleman lost the most water weight at a rate of 11 to 16 pounds per day. By the end of day 4 nearly all the ice was melted. On day 5 the remaining water was removed and the cooler was empty.
  • 65 qt Rotomold Yeti lost 7 to 11 pounds of water each day. By the end of Day 6 nearly all the ice was melted. The last of the water was drained on Day 7.
  • Frigid Rigid w/ Standard Foam lost between 5 and 10 pounds of water each day. On Day 8 most of the ice was melted. On Day 9 the remaining water was drained.
  • Frigid Rigid w/ New Iceland Foam lost between 3 and 9 pounds of water per day. On Day 9 most of the ice had melted. On Day 10 the last of the water was drained.

Conclusion

Frigid Rigid with new Iceland Foam outperformed the Standard foam by 15%.
Frigid Rigid with new Iceland Foam outperformed the 5 Day Coleman by 100%!!!
Frigid Rigid with new Iceland Foam outperformed the Rotomold Yeti by 66%!!!


FRIGID RIGID 2008 TEST RESULTS

Performance Test Results
December 4, 2008

Overview

The purpose of this test is to determine if the Frigid Rigid cooler can maintain product temperature of 33.5*F +/- 0.5 degree for 5 days. A 155 quart Frigid Rigid cooler was used for this test. This test was done at an independent testing laboratory.

Test Procedures

An aluminum liner was inserted into the cooler leaving a two inch space between the liner and the interior wall of the cooler and 40 pounds of ice was placed into the two inch space. Digital temperature sensing probes were place in six locations in the cooler to test monitor the inside air temperatures as the lid was opened 6-10 times per hour simulating normal use of the liquid storage container. The temperatures were recorded within 30-45 seconds after the lid was closed. The temperature probes were placed in the following locations inside the cooler: Left Top, Left Bottom, Center Top, Center Bottom, Right Top, and Right Bottom. Additional temperature sensors were placed in each product simulator. Six product simulators were placed in the cooler 5” from the bottom and distributed evenly across the cooler. The distribution of the temperature probes allowed the technicians to sample both the Air Temperature (A) and Product Simulator Temperature. (P) inside the Frigid Rigid cooler. The cooler was placed in an environmentally controlled testing laboratory that maintained a constant temperature of 95 degrees Fahrenheit (35 C) and a relative humidity of 85%. The temperatures measured in Celsius were monitored during the test are recorded on the chart below.

Start of the Test

The starting temperature of the product simulators was 15C and went down to .56C within 2 hours. The air temperature at the start of the test was 15C and within one hour was down to .56C.

Conclusion

The original purpose of this test was to see if the Frigid Rigid cooler could maintain the product simulators at the desired temperature (33.5*F +/_0.5 degree) for 5 days during normal open and closing of the lid. The test technician was amazed to find that the Frigid Rigid cooler could not only maintain the product simulator temperature at the desired temperature for the required 5 days but met the required temperature parameters for 8 days. The test was discontinued after 8 days. It is the opinion of the laboratory technicians that the Frigid Rigid cooler could have preformed satisfactorily for several more days because there was still ice in the cooler when the test was discontinued. Both the air and product simulator temperatures were maintained in the desired range after the initial temperature pull down at the start of the test. Both the product simulator and air recovery time were almost instantaneous. The product simulator temperature never changed during the entire test. The Frigid Rigid cooler far exceeded all expectations.


FRIGID RIGID VS. COLEMAN

Performance Test Results
October 14, 2005

Description

The purpose of this report is to compare the efficiency of a Frigid Rigid ice chest against a Coleman ice chest. The three ice chests selected were:

  1. The Frigid Rigid 55 quart cooler
  2. Coleman 58 quart cooler
  3. Coleman 58 quart cooler

All of the coolers were maintained in the same environmental conditions prior to and throughout the duration of the test. On the first day of the experiment, each of the coolers was filled with four ten-pound bags of cube ice purchased at a local convenience store. The coolers were kept outside in the sun for the duration of the test.

Starting on the second day, the ice chests were drained and the water was weighed each day. This method allows us to verify the efficiency of each unit by determining the amount of ice that melted each day. In other words, the more water in a given time, the less efficient the unit is. The results of this test are detailed in the chart below.

MELTING RATE IN POUNDS

DATE HI/LO TEMP (F) FRIGID RIGID H2O WT. COLEMAN H2O WT. COLEMAN H2O WT.
10/16/05 87/71 Loaded 40lbs. ice each
10/17/05 88/69 8.531 lbs 10.875 lbs 10.844 lbs
10/18/05 87/65 5.344 lbs 6.344 lbs 6.406 lbs
10/19/05 88/73 6.25 lbs 7.09 lbs 7.13 lbs
10/20/05 89/73 5.75 lbs 6.66 lbs 6.66 lbs
TOTAL 25.875 lbs 30.969 lbs 31.04 lbs

Conclusion

When Frigid Rigid is tested against two Coleman coolers, we found that Frigid Rigid was 19.7% more efficient than the first Coleman cooler and 20% more efficient than the second Coleman cooler in the same environmental conditions.


FRIGID RIGID VS. ICEY-TEK VS. IGLOO

Performance Test Results
June 3, 2005

Description

The purpose of this report is to compare the efficiency of a Frigid Rigid cooler against an Icey-Tek and an Igloo cooler. The three ice chests selected were:

Frigid Rigid Ice Chests

  1. The Icey-Tek 70 Quart Cooler
  2. The Frigid Rigid 65 quart cooler
  3. The Igloo 72 Quart Marine Cooler

All of the coolers were maintained in the same environmental conditions prior to and throughout the duration of the test. On the first day of the experiment, each of the coolers was filled with 60 pounds of cube ice purchased at a local convenience store. The coolers were kept outside in the sun for about 9-10 hours each day and in a secured warehouse in the evening.

Once each day, the ice chests were drained and the water was weighed. This method allows us to verify the efficiency of each unit by determining the amount of ice that melted each day. In other words, the more water in a given time, the less efficient the unit is. Additionally, each cooler was opened for a few seconds to see how much ice remained. The four-day results of this test are detailed in the chart below.

DATE HI/LO TEMP (F) FRIGID RIGID H2O WT. ICEY-TEK H2O WT. IGLOO H2O WT.
5/24/05 87/73 Loaded 60lbs. ice each (2pm)
5/25/05 88/73 5.59 lbs 12.75 lbs 11.65 lbs
5/26/05 87/70 6.72 lbs 13.05 lbs 13.72 lbs
5/27/05 88/70 6.34 lbs 12.84 lbs 11.16 lbs
5/28/05 88/72 6.10 lbs 11.20 lbs 11.70 lbs
TOTAL 24.75 lbs 49.48 lbs 48.23 lbs

Conclusion

When Frigid Rigid is tested against two leading competitors, Icey-Tek and Igloo, we found that Frigid Rigid was more than 200% more efficient in the same environmental conditions.

Additional Observations

In this test, the melting data was gathered from May 24 through May 28, 2005. Enough data was available after five days to determine the efficiency of each ice chest in the test. The ice chests were monitored after May 28 to see how long it would take for all of the ice to melt. By May 28 (total of 4 days) all of the ice had melted in the Igloo and Icey-Tek ice chests. The Frigid Rigid continued to maintain ice until June 3 (total of 10 days). This observation further confirms the accuracy of this test.


FRIGID RIGID VS COLEMAN AND YETI

Performance Test Results
May 18, 2002

Description

The purpose of this test was to see which of three coolers had the highest efficiency under the same conditions. The three ice chests that were tested were:

  1. 45 quart Frigid Rigid that was produced on 5/3/02.
  2. Leading Competitor #1 56 quart with cup holders purchased on 5/4/02 at a national retailer.
  3. Leading Competitor #2 model B-45 that was purchased on 5/3/02 from a specialty marine retailer.

Seven-pound bags of ice cubes were purchased from a local convenience store. The cubes were poured out of the bags into each ice chest. Six seven-pound bags were put into each ice chests for a total of 42 pounds of ice in each one. The ice chests were transported back to the testing location.

All three ice chests were put on the same rolling table, as shown above. During the day, they were put in a parking lot in the direct sunlight. In the evening they were put inside a warehouse.

Temperatures during the test ranged from 96 degrees during the hottest part of the day to 74 degrees at night. The test was started on 5/7/02 and concluded on 5/10/02.

During the tests, the ice chests were opened once a day to take photographs to document the ice loss, see photos below. Also, each day the water was drained from the ice chest and weighed, which documented the amount of ice that had melted. The date and times of the weighting are shown in the chart below:
Frigid Rigid Ice Chests

MELTING RATE IN POUNDS

DATE TIME FRIGID RIGID LEADING COMPETITOR #1 LEADING COMPETITOR #2
5/07/02 1640 222.6 311.9 553.9
5/08/02 0700 1504.7 2145.7 2795.2
5/08/02 1620 1038.7 1615.4 2516.7
5/09/02 0745 1757.7 2537 2922.1
5/09/02 1845 1430.3 2023.1 2824.7
5/10/02 0700 1370.7 1883.9 2136.1
TOTAL 7,324.7 10,517 13,748.7

Conclusion:

In identical conditions, the Frigid Rigid outperformed Leading Competitor #1 by 44% AND outperformed Leading Competitor #2 by 88%.

 

Download this brochure!