> but have zero insulation anywhere and NOT be designed to be installed next to anything except solid metal.
This seems odd, it seems intuitive that it would reduce running costs to have some insulation? To lower energy costs by not having the oven work harder to maintain a given temperature.
Is the ability to shed heat a priority? That is, being able to cook item A at 250 C and then cook item B at 150 C in rapid succession.
In the restaurant kitchens I've been to (small sample size), it was HOT. We're talking AC running on full blast, and it's still very sauna-like.
I understand that the lack of insulation might be the cause of this, at least partially. But since it's already typically very hot in the kitchen, I can see why makers won't add external insulation: the unit passively losing heat might not be a real issue in production.
(Re: ability to shed heat: I know confectioners need high level of precision in temps, the rest of the industry likely doesn't have this as a hard requirement.)
Because insulation doesn’t mean anything if you’re running full-blast all shift. It doesn’t remove heat, it holds it in, so there’s no real “point”.
Even a home oven will eventually get quite hot on the sides if you cook all day.