New Hot Tub

[canadianbrat41]

I live in Canada and i'm leaning towards the Artic spa they tell me it stands up during the winter.

Does anyone own either of these spa's i'd love some feed back plz

I've done alot of research and every company says theres stands up to bitter cold winters.

Its a big investment so I want to be 100%sure before I purchase.

Im looking for more of an open spa so we can seat many,alot of jets and a tub which is deep.

Another concern is we have large deck 4ft from the ground and was wondering if we need to add extra supports for the spa to sit on with my luck im worried it might fall through. [/size]

[Hot H2o]

I live in Canada and i'm leaning towards the Artic spa they tell me it stands up during the winter.

Does anyone own either of these spa's i'd love some feed back plz

I've done alot of research and every company says theres stands up to bitter cold winters.

Its a big investment so I want to be 100%sure before I purchase.

Im looking for more of an open spa so we can seat many,alot of jets and a tub which is deep.

Another concern is we have large deck 4ft from the ground and was wondering if we need to add extra supports for the spa to sit on with my luck im worried it might fall through. [/size]

Check to see if you have a Dimension One or Hot Spring dealer close to you before you buy. If you do, look at them first. If not, Artic will do. Also, the other two are fully foamed so the weight is evenly distributed so a regular deck should do fine.

[wesj53]

I live in Canada and i'm leaning towards the Artic spa they tell me it stands up during the winter.

Does anyone own either of these spa's i'd love some feed back plz

I've done alot of research and every company says theres stands up to bitter cold winters.

Its a big investment so I want to be 100%sure before I purchase.

Im looking for more of an open spa so we can seat many,alot of jets and a tub which is deep.

Another concern is we have large deck 4ft from the ground and was wondering if we need to add extra supports for the spa to sit on with my luck im worried it might fall through. [/size]

Ok, now this post answers my question I asked of you in another thread. You are asking a question which can (and may) open up Pandora's box as to which insulation system is superior, especially in colder weather climates. I don't have the time to discuss the subject fully so I will simply refer you to other threads about FF vs TP. I would strongly suggest though that you educated yourself on the matter before buying. If you want my opinions, Arctic makes the best TP system in the business. Actually they call their method, Heatlock, which differs from other TP's in that they do not foam the underside of their shell, thus allowing all of the heat in the compartment below to help heat the water. FF units of course cut off their motor heat from the shell, but they will argue that their underside foam helps to stop the heat loss in the first place. This subject can be argued till the cows come home. I personally thought the Arctic system was better in that regard (and there is one study that shows it to be a bit more cost effective), but also liked the fact that if you develop a leak, you don't have to tear out foam to find the leak and then replace it all after the repair. The Arctic is wide open and easier to repair if something goes wrong. Also, I believe that if you were to have a power outage, the Arctic would have a better chance of surviving freeze-ups of equipment what with their pumps being in a heated chamber.

In regard to some of your other issues, you'll just have to wet test and decide for yourself what's best for you and your family. This "open" concept is kicked around a lot here and I'm not sure everyone is on the same page as to what that exactly means, but that matter is subjective so it's moot to discuss it here.

I will say that Arctic are not the cheapest units in the market. We could have bought a comparable (in terms of size and # jets) for about $2k less, but we would not have received a lot of the extra features that Arctic includes like the Forever Floor, the torsion reflex hoses, the 5" thick, fully baffled top (where most of your heat will try to escape), the beautiful wood cabinets, brand new Italian pumps which are much less subject to damage from worn seals, titanium coated heaters, the therapy and aromatherapy air systems, etc. You can read about all this on their website so good luck and happy shopping!

[canadianbrat41]

Ok, now this post answers my question I asked of you in another thread. You are asking a question which can (and may) open up Pandora's box as to which insulation system is superior, especially in colder weather climates. I don't have the time to discuss the subject fully so I will simply refer you to other threads about FF vs TP. I would strongly suggest though that you educated yourself on the matter before buying. If you want my opinions, Arctic makes the best TP system in the business. Actually they call their method, Heatlock, which differs from other TP's in that they do not foam the underside of their shell, thus allowing all of the heat in the compartment below to help heat the water. FF units of course cut off their motor heat from the shell, but they will argue that their underside foam helps to stop the heat loss in the first place. This subject can be argued till the cows come home. I personally thought the Arctic system was better in that regard (and there is one study that shows it to be a bit more cost effective), but also liked the fact that if you develop a leak, you don't have to tear out foam to find the leak and then replace it all after the repair. The Arctic is wide open and easier to repair if something goes wrong. Also, I believe that if you were to have a power outage, the Arctic would have a better chance of surviving freeze-ups of equipment what with their pumps being in a heated chamber.

In regard to some of your other issues, you'll just have to wet test and decide for yourself what's best for you and your family. This "open" concept is kicked around a lot here and I'm not sure everyone is on the same page as to what that exactly means, but that matter is subjective so it's moot to discuss it here.

I will say that Arctic are not the cheapest units in the market. We could have bought a comparable (in terms of size and # jets) for about $2k less, but we would not have received a lot of the extra features that Arctic includes like the Forever Floor, the torsion reflex hoses, the 5" thick, fully baffled top (where most of your heat will try to escape), the beautiful wood cabinets, brand new Italian pumps which are much less subject to damage from worn seals, titanium coated heaters, the therapy and aromatherapy air systems, etc. You can read about all this on their website so good luck and happy shopping!

Thanks you've ben helpful

Check to see if you have a Dimension One or Hot Spring dealer close to you before you buy. If you do, look at them first. If not, Artic will do. Also, the other two are fully foamed so the weight is evenly distributed so a regular deck should do fine.

Thanks I looked online and I don't see any dealers in the Edmonton AB area thanks

[Altazi]

Another concern is we have large deck 4ft from the ground and was wondering if we need to add extra supports for the spa to sit on with my luck im worried it might fall through. [/size]

You are correct to be concerned. As an example, the Arctic Spas Tundra has a 540 gallon water capacity; that equates to almost 4500 lbs of water - not including the weight of the spa (which I couldn't find on their website). The spa must weigh upwards of 800lbs dry, so you are looking at about 5300lbs for a filled spa. Sure, the weight is spread out over the area of the base, about 58.8 square feet, giving you just over 90lbs per square foot, but that's still 2.65 TONS of spa & water sitting on your deck - not incuding the chips & beer!

You might need to "beef-up" your deck support to handle the vertical loading, and you might need to add cross-bracing for shear loading. I would have someone knowledgeable about deck construction take a look at what you have - it would be cheap insurance. Perhaps the dealer could recommend someone for you.

Regards,

Altazi

[cloose]

Thanks you've ben helpful

Thanks I looked online and I don't see any dealers in the Edmonton AB area thanks

Hot Spring dealer

Total Pool & Spa Care Ltd.

14573 - 118 Ave

Edmonton AB

780-453-5708

Hot Tub dealers in Edmonton:

http://www.yellowpages.ca/search/?stype=si...amp;x=0&y=0

[wesj53]

Check to see if you have a Dimension One or Hot Spring dealer close to you before you buy. If you do, look at them first. If not, Artic will do. Also, the other two are fully foamed so the weight is evenly distributed so a regular deck should do fine.

I've been on this site for about 2 months and I'm still waiting for this poster to utter something resembling intelligent life. Artic (sp?) will do? Well thank you almightly D1 salesperson for blessing another brand!! And how do you know for certain his deck will be able to support the weight of any of the tubs these mfgs produce. Are you a deck expert also?

[Brulan1]

I've been on this site for about 2 months and I'm still waiting for this poster to utter something resembling intelligent life. Artic (sp?) will do? Well thank you almightly D1 salesperson for blessing another brand!! And how do you know for certain his deck will be able to support the weight of any of the tubs these mfgs produce. Are you a deck expert also?

I would choose an artic over a hotsprings anyday. I think the artic is alot more compfortable and priced right. Excellent TP system and very economical. The shell has superior strength relative to Hot Springs. The only bad thing about Artic is the wood sides and I def. wouldn't choose the metal ones. Good luck on your quest. GO ARTIC!

[cloose]

I would choose an artic over a hotsprings anyday. I think the artic is alot more compfortable and priced right. Excellent TP system and very economical. The shell has superior strength relative to Hot Springs. The only bad thing about Artic is the wood sides and I def. wouldn't choose the metal ones. Good luck on your quest. GO ARTIC!

What makes you say this? (shell strength)

[Roger]

I would choose an artic over a hotsprings anyday. I think the artic is alot more compfortable and priced right. Excellent TP system and very economical. The shell has superior strength relative to Hot Springs. The only bad thing about Artic is the wood sides and I def. wouldn't choose the metal ones. Good luck on your quest. GO ARTIC!

Lets take this one part at a time.....more comfortable for you, which means absolutly nothing to anyone else as comfort is a very personal thing. Priced right for an Arctic but overpriced in my opinion, but comparable to other top brands. Excelent TP system, very good Brulan ya got one right. And the best TP system out there except for the vents. Economical......yep as economical as several other name brands and according to there own ARC study a Hot Spring with a 100 dollar cover upgrade will be more economical. The Shell, I have never seen a shell failure in any brand before the tub has reached it's life expectancy. The HS shell will last for 20-25 years and will outlast the tub, the Arctic may also do the same thing, but we will need another 10-15 years to find this out. I love Arctics wood cabinet.

Can of worms, can of worms

[Pathfinder]

Since your In Edmonton stop by and see brent at Edmonton Beachcomber check out their new second location as well there are more Beachcombers in the Edmonton area than any other spa because they are better than an Arctic 400+ tubs in a year is pretty good in my book.

[wesj53]

Lets take this one part at a time.....more comfortable for you, which means absolutly nothing to anyone else as comfort is a very personal thing. Priced right for an Arctic but overpriced in my opinion, but comparable to other top brands. Excelent TP system, very good Brulan ya got one right. And the best TP system out there except for the vents. Economical......yep as economical as several other name brands and according to there own ARC study a Hot Spring with a 100 dollar cover upgrade will be more economical. The Shell, I have never seen a shell failure in any brand before the tub has reached it's life expectancy. The HS shell will last for 20-25 years and will outlast the tub, the Arctic may also do the same thing, but we will need another 10-15 years to find this out. I love Arctics wood cabinet.

Can of worms, can of worms

Good morning Roger and TGIF! I agree with you in that the comfort and layout is totally subjective; to each his own. Arctic overpriced? There I would have some debate with you. When we finally purchased our Tundra, the final price was actually $500 less than the HS Grandee but had 22 more water jets, a blower with 14 more air jets and jets for every part of the body. (Yes, the HS had the MotoMassage and Soothing Seven). In addition, Arctic has the Forever Floor, the 5" top (Grandee had a 3"), aromatherapy, 3 pumps vs. Grandee 2; Northern Lights (5 lights computer controlled vs. Grandee 1 LED), and real cedar cabinet vs. fake plastic; and peak ozone system. In comparison to top models of other brands, the Tundra price was about $2000 more but again there was not a true side by side comparison of the features previously mentioned vs the competition.

In terms of economy, where in the study did it say that with a cover upgrade the HS would be less expensive to operate? Either you're reading something into the study or I missed it. Regardless, it was my personal preference to opt for the "open compartment" style of production for ease of repair and longer possible periods of freeze prevention in case of power outages. The open method, IMO, along with the air blower, also allows me to cool down the water much more easily in the summer.

In terms of the shell, Arctic is the ONLY brand I know of that does NOT foam the underside which means their shell must stand up to the rigors of use without any foam to help support it. To my understanding, their acrylic shell is reinforced with pure (no fillers) fiberglass which likens it to the strength of a fiberglas boat. It must be very strong because they give customers a LIFETIME guarantee (with no hidden language to limit it)

[pkud]

I figured this could be posted on this site as well.

Just a little clarification on the Arctic Spa Thermal Study:

(1) This study was done on each spa independently. In other words not at the same time, hence each product was being tested in fluctuating conditions including differences in ambient temperature and spa water temp of each model tested.

- The power consumption charts which are available to the public infact show that the HotSpring spa outperformed any of the other spas tested based upon kilowatt usage. Everyone knows how our energy bill is formulated....Kilowatt usage!

(2) The figures that Arctic Spas used to determine the outcome of the study is completely altered by the fact that the data used was created by dividing the total power consumed by the volume of water in each spa.

- This calculation works in Arctic Spas favor because the spas tested did not all have the same water capacity. Two of the Arctic spas tested both have larger volumes of water then the HS spa tested. Obviously, when dividing the total power consumed by a larger # the result will falsly improve the Arctic figures. When a similarly sized Arctic spa was tested compared to the same size HotSpring model, even with their erroneous calculations, the HS spa consumed significantly less energy.

(3) In this study The HotSpring Spa is labled with an asterisk in all the power consumption charts. This shows that the spa does not have Auto-filtering, or that the filtering must be started manually. Infact, HotSpring spas have a 24hr circ pump for filtering with no need to manually start any filtering cycles.

- The Alberta Research Counsil activated the HotSpring main jet pump in addition to the 24 hr circ pump for filtering cycles for a period of time equal to the Arctic Spa. All the other spas tested were done so while they were filtering on low speed, while the HS model was tested while pumps were on high speed. It would be understandable how skewed the figures could be! Or not.

Even after the HotSpring Vanguard was tested unfairly with the pumps on high speed, it still consumed 40% less energy then the comparable sized Arctic Coyote model without the skewed figures. Even when adding in the false calculations, the Vanguard still consumed 20% less energy!

Back to top

[flibotte]

canadianbrat41

I would ignore the post about fully foamed tub not needing a stronger deck. It's total crap.

"Also, the other two are fully foamed so the weight is evenly distributed so a regular deck should do fine."

[Roger]

I figured this could be posted on this site as well.

Just a little clarification on the Arctic Spa Thermal Study:

(1) This study was done on each spa independently. In other words not at the same time, hence each product was being tested in fluctuating conditions including differences in ambient temperature and spa water temp of each model tested.

- The power consumption charts which are available to the public infact show that the HotSpring spa outperformed any of the other spas tested based upon kilowatt usage. Everyone knows how our energy bill is formulated....Kilowatt usage!

(2) The figures that Arctic Spas used to determine the outcome of the study is completely altered by the fact that the data used was created by dividing the total power consumed by the volume of water in each spa.

- This calculation works in Arctic Spas favor because the spas tested did not all have the same water capacity. Two of the Arctic spas tested both have larger volumes of water then the HS spa tested. Obviously, when dividing the total power consumed by a larger # the result will falsly improve the Arctic figures. When a similarly sized Arctic spa was tested compared to the same size HotSpring model, even with their erroneous calculations, the HS spa consumed significantly less energy.

(3) In this study The HotSpring Spa is labled with an asterisk in all the power consumption charts. This shows that the spa does not have Auto-filtering, or that the filtering must be started manually. Infact, HotSpring spas have a 24hr circ pump for filtering with no need to manually start any filtering cycles.

- The Alberta Research Counsil activated the HotSpring main jet pump in addition to the 24 hr circ pump for filtering cycles for a period of time equal to the Arctic Spa. All the other spas tested were done so while they were filtering on low speed, while the HS model was tested while pumps were on high speed. It would be understandable how skewed the figures could be! Or not.

Even after the HotSpring Vanguard was tested unfairly with the pumps on high speed, it still consumed 40% less energy then the comparable sized Arctic Coyote model without the skewed figures. Even when adding in the false calculations, the Vanguard still consumed 20% less energy!

Back to top

I would also like to mention again that 80 percent of the heat loss on any spa is from the top, if you put a 40 percent more insulating cover on it it will use less energy. Pretty simple. A 100 dollar cover upgrade on any brand will greatly improve the results on your power bill. To put that 40 percent into one brand and not another being tested and then claiming superiority is simple marketing 101!! And also in the real world wind plays a big part in energy usage, especialy in the open cabinet style of insulation but also in the other style, to not include this factor in any "study" is also marketing 101.

To use ease of repair for justification is plain brainwashing as has been stated over and over 95-99 percent of all leaks are in the equipment area. A quality spa simply does not leak in the lines and covering them with foam insulation improves on this tremendously.

And I reitorate on the shell. Who cares if it's the thickest or strongest as long as it does the job and on any brand including the bargain basement brands, shells that suffer catastopic failure are simple non exsitent. And if it outlasts the tub it has served it's purpose.

If you would justify your purchase because of comfort and style I would agree with you but to justify your purchase because of untruths I simply will have to dissagree.

I would also ignore the post regarding one spa distibuting weight better than another, they are all very heavy and you should never put one on a deck that hasn't been designed for it.

[Tom]

I figured this could be posted on this site as well.

LOL And I guess I have to rebut it here, too!

Thanks to pkud for an excellent critique. His comments are accurate and many of his conclusions are correct. But not all...

First off, readers need to be aware that this study was NOT conducted by Arctic Spas. It was done by an independent test laboratory, the Alberta Research Council. All spas used in the study--including ours--were purchased at random from retail locations by the ARC, so they got "off the floor" models. Contrary to what some commentators have suggested, we did not "load" our spas with a special cover or any other changes.

Quote:

(1a) This study was done on each spa independently. In other words not at the same time, hence each product was being tested in fluctuating conditions including differences in ambient temperature and spa water temp of each model tested.

That is neither here nor there; serial testing in a single controlled environment is a common method, and it is probable that few commercial test labs are large enough to handle eight spas at a time.

Although its freezer room is a controlled environment, the ARC notes on page 1 that "There are several differences in the spas that complicate the evaluation. Some of these differences are variation in the spa volume; different heating and filtering systems and their modes of operation; and small variations in the air temperatures during the tests." In his comments, pkud has picked up on each of these differences.

The ARC considered these variations minor and not of significance. Unless you're a scientist -- Atazi might chip in -- I suggest that any further debate on this point is a Dead Horse.

Quote:

(1b) The power consumption charts which are available to the public in fact show that the HotSpring spa outperformed any of the other spas tested based upon kilowatt usage.

Well, not quite. The Vanguard did very well at room temperature (20 degrees C, 68F). In the freezer at -13C (10F), the picture changes slightly, with both large Kodiaks using almost the same kWh as the smaller Vanguard. See #2 below.

Quote:

(2) The figures that Arctic Spas the Alberta Research Council used to determine the outcome of the study are completely altered by the fact that the data used was created by dividing the total power consumed by the volume of water in each spa.

Yes, pkud is absolutely right on this one. It obviously takes more energy to heat a larger volume of water than a small one, so you can't just look at the kWh. In order to equitably compare a large and a small spa, you need to look at how much energy it takes to heat a standard volume of water. The ARC took the specific power, Watts per Cubic Meter, which is the right hand column in the charts on page 7 of the study. In this column, in the freezer test, the two Arctic Kodiaks rank 1st and 2nd, with the Vanguard coming 3rd.

The need for a specific measure is recognized by the California Energy Commission which based their proposed Title 20 on the formula E=5(V^2/3) where V is the volume in US gallons and E is the acceptable energy usage (in Watts).

Quote:

(3) In this study The HotSpring Spa is labled with an asterisk in all the power consumption charts. This shows that the spa does not have Auto-filtering, or that the filtering must be started manually. Infact, HotSpring spas have a 24hr circ pump for filtering with no need to manually start any filtering cycles. All the other spas tested were done so while they were filtering on low speed, while the HS model was tested while pumps were on high speed.

I can find no indication of the pump speed setting in the study, so must assume from pkud's comment that the Vanguard does not have a low speed setting. I suspect that this means that the Vanguard was manually turned on to match the other units, which would indeed make the HotSprings look even better were this not the case.

Quote:

(4)The HotSpring Vanguard <snip> consumed 40% less energy then the comparable sized Arctic Coyote model.

True; in one test it was 44% less. The Coyote is not constructed to the high specs of the Arctic line.

Have a good weekend, pkud and everyone!

Tom

Arctic Spas

[SmilinBare]

Just for the record. The natural cedar-sided enclosure was one of the reasons that I bought an Arctic tub!

The only bad thing about Artic is the wood sides and I def. wouldn't choose the metal ones.