Frigid Rigid Home Page Frigid Rigid Ice Chests Frigid Rigid Freezers Custom Frigid Rigids Frigid Rigid Coffin/Storage Box Frigid Rigid Truck Box Accessories for Frigid Rigid products
Dealer Inquries Pricing for Frigid Rigid products Dealers of Frigid Rigid products Frequently asked questions by Frigid Rigid customers Performance of Frigid Rigid products Testimonials by Frigid Rigid customers How to contact Frigid Rigid
Toll-Free phone number for Frigid Rigid Local phone number for Frigid Rigid Fax number for Frigid Rigid
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.		 Icey-Tek
H2O Wt. 		Igloo
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.
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:
Cooler used in test comparison w/ Frigid Rigid
  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.
MELTING RATE IN POUNDS
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.
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. An Leading Competitor #1 56 quart with cup holders purchased on 5/4/02 at a national retailer.
  2. A 45 quart Frigid Rigid that was produced on 5/3/02.
  3. An Leading Competitor #2 model B-45 that was purchased on 5/3/02 from a specialty marine retailer.
 Ice chests used in Frigid Rigid Comparison Test
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:
MELTING RATE IN GRAMS
Date Time Frigid Rigid Leading Competitor #1 Leading Competitor #2
5/7/02 1640 222.6 311.9 553.9
5/8/02 0700 1504.7 2145.7 2795.2
5/8/02 1620 1038.7 1615.4 2516.7
5/9/02 0745 1757.7 2537.0 2922.1
5/9/02 1845 1430.3 2023.1 2824.7
5/10/02 0700 1370.7 1883.9 2136.1
Total 7,324.7 10,517.0 13,748.7

Conclusion: In identical conditions, the Frigid Rigid outperformed Leading Competitor #1 by 44% AND outperformed Leading Competitor #2 by 88%.
Stage 1 of Testing
Stage 2 of Testing
Stage 3 of Testing
Stage 4 of Testing

Download this brochure!