On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 22:41:22 +0000, Peter Parry
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 18:43:49 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 17:52:44 +0000, Peter Parry
wrote:

When the performance is mediocre and both the purchase
cost and running cost astronomic there is no sense in buying one
unless it is for other intangible reasons.

You are describing the performance as mediochre based on your
experiences of an old model

No I am not, they are all mediocre.

Only by your definition.


Some users may have found their
mediocrity to be acceptable and that their style statement or social
cachet is more important; it doesn't alter the fact that they are not
very good all round cookers.

Based only on your definition.



I completely disagree, based on my criteria and experience of
a more recent product.

More recent? The damn thing was last updated about twenty years ago.
It still uses the same mechanical thermostat control it did in 1970.

So what? It works perfectly effectively.



Running costs are not astronomic. I already gave you the figures that
I get, and do not regard those as astronomic.

You might not, even on your figures others might feel differently.
However you have singularly failed to explain why your figures are so
much at variance with the manufacturers ones. The "well they are
nice people and don't want to upset people" excuse really is pretty
lame.


As I have repeatedly said; I can only explain my measurements.

Aga quote "typical" figures. They don't say how they arrived at them.




I could gather firewood for free and cook on
that, and argue that anything where I have to pay for the energy is
astronomic. It's a relative term.

If you want to cook using pound notes as fuel that's entirely up to
you. Don't expect to be believed when you claim its really
economical though.

I really don't care. For the umpteenth time, I know what I have
measured and I know the costings that I get that result from it.



Yours appears to be the only Aga in the world to achieve this though.
Every other Aga manages more like 1000W standing load and this
increases up to 5,000W when cooking.

How many modern gas models have you measured at 1000W?

I haven't - I've used the figures issued by the manufacturer who told
me they were derived from many test measurements on many ovens and
accurate in respect of all models including the "modern" gas one.

Given that situation, it would be rather difficult fo ryou to assert
that mine is the only one that achieves those figures.

True, if I was to believe that all the manufacturers data is wrong
and your single example is the only one that is right.

All that I have said is what I measured. I have no idea how the
manufacturer arrived at their "typical" figures, and neither have you.



"The running costs of these cookers is about £400-500 per annum" (Aga
salesman).

From the figures Aga quote a 4 oven gas Aga uses 527kw/hr a week or
27.4 Megawatt/hrs per year. At present gas prices that is an annual
bill of GBP 540 - GBP 600 per year depending upon supplier.

If you read *all* of the data sheet you would see that the word
"typical" is used. They don't say what "typical" means or how they
measure it.

Are you seriously suggesting that they would deliberately chose an
atypical pattern of use to worsen their stated figures?

I have no idea what they do to make their "typical" measurements and I
don't really care.

Don't you
think there is at least a slight possibility that the manufacturer
knows a bit more about the subject than you do?

I'm sure they do, but it isn't relevant and doesn't negate the figures
that I measured.


Quite possibly the
way you do (or don't) use your cooker achieves better results, if so
isn't it more likely that it is your usage that is unusual?

Cooking between 1 and 3 meals per day from basic ingredients does not
strike me as unusual.


--

..andy