Sitram Cookware

[David A. Goldfarb]

Aluminum oxidizes very rapidly upon exposure to air and the oxide forms a very tough coating, which is why aluminum doesn't rust and break down like iron.

We grew up with a few pieces of Leyse Toroware aluminum, which was standard restaurant equipment, in the house, and I don't think there's any downside to using it infrequently or advantage to using it more. It bows and pits with time and use, whether it's used a lot in a restaurant or once or twice a day at home.

[paulraphael]

My 20 qt stockpot gets used no more than once a month. Bare aluminum. No issues with oxidation, save for the ones it would have if used daily.

[Richard Kilgore]

Steven - I may be mistaken, but I thought aluminum works well if you use a piece regularly, but not so well if it's one you use infrequently - due to oxidation. Great for a restaurant, but not necessarily for home cooking.

←

I don't know enough to disagree with this, even though I think I do disagree. I'll have to do a little more research and, more importantly, pick up a cheap aluminum pan and play with it, after which I'll start a topic on cooking with aluminum cookware.

←

I'll look forward to seeing whatever you come up with, because I don't know. We used all aluminum in a restaurant I had many years ago, but I have a vague memory of a discussion of this a few years ago here in the forums and think that's where I got the idea about infrequent use.

[Fat Guy]

I've gone ahead and started an aluminum-cookware topic.

[Chris Amirault]

FWIW, I got an 11-piece Sitram Profiserie set from Bridge a while back about which I posted here and then later in response to a Cook's Illustrated review here. I also have a 28 cm Catering fry pan shown here. For all this I spent under $200 and have items I use every day.

I generally agree that package deals are a bad idea. I have no other "kitchen sets"; all cookware I have is single-brand (25-years-old Leyse aluminum for popcorn, Lodge cast iron skillet that's about as old, SLT 18/8 stainless roaster, Calphalon nonstick fry pan, etc.). But that Sitram package had everything I needed (plus a steamer I didn't), and until I win the lottery or find rich friends, I'm unlikely to be able to front $300 for anything that's the next step up (i.e., Demeyere or Mauviel copper).

If anyone has questions about the Sitram stuff, I'll happily try to answer them. But, as several have pointed out, Sam's eGCI course is the place to start.

[kjente2]

Now, what should I buy instead?

←

Take a look at Cuisinox Elite. It's triply. The handles are comforatble. It's dishwasher approved. It has rounded edges, great for pouring from. Great lids. I've had all clad for 25 years. I've purchased 2 new pots from Cuisinox. If I was replacing it all, thats what I would replace with. http://www.cuisinox.com/categories.php?category_id=2

You can find Gourmet Standard at some outlets and it's very nice cookware, as well. (they filed bankruptcy or at the very least had serious financial problems).

[JoNorvelleWalker]

Of possible joy to Sitram lovers, in searching around tonight I found several vendors of Cybernox on amazon, all from Japan.  I bought my Cybernox frying pan in the waning years of the last millennium, back when people had printed catalogs, and it is in a possible tie for my most used pan.  (Last night okra, tonight a burger.)

 

I feared Cybernox was long gone for love or money, maybe even sex, but Cybernox seems to exist in Japan!  I don't know if someone found a treasure trove of Cybernox or if Sitram still markets Cybernox in the land of the rising sun.  But people are selling it on amazon.

 

The Cybernox non-stick surface is NSF and good for over 1800 deg F, and I can attest to many years of faithful service, including being neglected on a searing hot burner more than once.  There is a very thick aluminum bonded layer, and Cybernox goes in the dishwasher.

[pbear]

That is, indeed, an interesting development.  For the convenience of others, here's the current Amazon listing.  I also had a few pieces, back in the Y2K days.  I got mine from Dvorson's, which at the time told me they had exclusive distribution rights in the U.S.  Which, I think, may be part of why the product never got any legs.  They're nice folks, but weren't in a position to give the sort of distribution needed to fulfill Sitram's rosy projections in 1999 that Cybernox would be the next big thing.

 

Incidentally, I did some digging six months ago when you mentioned Cybernox in the fish searing thread.  What I found wasn't germane to that thread, so I didn't share, but I will now.  Apparently the surface uses quasicrystals, which have the property of being both smooth and very hard.  Here's a technical article briefly discussing Cybernox from a materials science point of view.  Perhaps most importantly, based on that article, I was able to track down the patent (cross-registered from France), which had priority from 1988, meaning it expired in 2008 (under both American and French law, patents have a twenty year term).  When I learned this, i.e., six months ago, I wondered why no one has given the technology another go, given the current consumer interest in alternatives to PTFE/Teflon.  Perhaps the Japanese have decided to take the plunge, while licensing the trademark  for marketing reasons and/or to get access to know-how not disclosed in the patent.  But, to be clear, that's only speculation on my part.

 

As for the pans, I respectfully disagree as to their nonstickness.  I'd call them "low stick," better than stainless steel but not nearly as good as PTFE or well-seasoned cast iron or carbon steel.  Comparable to non-PTFE ceramic, but durable where the former is not.  Also, I didn't find the pans comfortable.  FWIW, if one does an eGullet archive search for Cybernox, about nine threads come up (including this one) with reviews going both ways.  A Google search discloses a similar multiplicity of views.  Which is to say, I think Cybernox is something folks might want to explore, but as with any novel technology, it would be best (as the stuff ain't cheap) to start with one pan to see how well it works for the tester.

Edited July 27, 2015 by pbear (log)

[JoNorvelleWalker]

Can't say I recall the particular fish in question but I employed my Cybernox again tonight.  I've always wanted more pieces of it.  The amazon listings specifically say "Sitram", so I would think this was not a knockoff.

 

I think I've been abducted by aliens.

[pbear]

Oh, I don't think they're a knock-off.  A licensing deal seems more likely, though, than a factory clearance halfway around the planet ten years after the product ceased distribution.  But, yeah, part of my point is that anyone can use the surface at this point, although they wouldn't be able to use the Cybernox trademark without Sitram's consent.  The same thing happened, of course, with Teflon.

[JoNorvelleWalker]

I just ordered a new Sitram stockpot.  I was surprised that the equivalent Bourgeat stock pot is much cheaper, since some say Bourgeat is even better quality.  But the Sitram pot apparently is heavier gauge, at least it weighs more, and it came down to aesthetics.  The Bourgeat pot is ugly.

 

Anyhow I have two Sitram pans I am most happy with and Bourgeat would be an unknown.

 

Still I have to wonder how come Bourgeat is so much less expensive?  And as for Cybernox, I don't think it is a licensing deal.  I am pretty sure any Cybernox sellers are speculators.  I'm glad I got my Cybernox when I did.