Jump to content

Oc Spa Magestic M850l $4999.99


jtravel

Recommended Posts

This has already been covered recently go to this topic at the bottom of the forum

http://www.poolspaforum.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=18746

That Topic was for a totally different Spa. The links to that Spa on Costco are dead.

This Spa has more jets,better & warranty cover with lifter.

costs more as well.

Can I get a better Spa than this from a Spa dealer for the same money?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has already been covered recently go to this topic at the bottom of the forum

http://www.poolspaforum.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=18746

That Topic was for a totally different Spa. The links to that Spa on Costco are dead.

This Spa has more jets,better & warranty cover with lifter.

costs more as well.

Can I get a better Spa than this from a Spa dealer for the same money?

Is it priced well? Sure, but its a Cal which has always had its detractors so you can certainly get a better spa IMO. If $$ is higher on the list of wants than quality then go for it; this is at least better that the very low quality spas they'd been selling from Infinity and Living Waters but its hardly a steal on a great spa. Its kind of seems like a compromise by Costco IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it priced well? Sure, but its a Cal which has always had its detractors so you can certainly get a better spa IMO. If $$ is higher on the list of wants than quality then go for it; this is at least better that the very low quality spas they'd been selling from Infinity and Living Waters but its hardly a steal on a great spa. Its kind of seems like a compromise by Costco IMO.

What in your opinion would make a great Spa and where is this one lacking?

I look at the Specs and it seems good other than the full Foam insulation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it priced well? Sure, but its a Cal which has always had its detractors so you can certainly get a better spa IMO. If $$ is higher on the list of wants than quality then go for it; this is at least better that the very low quality spas they'd been selling from Infinity and Living Waters but its hardly a steal on a great spa. Its kind of seems like a compromise by Costco IMO.

What in your opinion would make a great Spa and where is this one lacking?

I look at the Specs and it seems good other than the full Foam insulation.

1) I've not seen one in person which is why I've made no comment about this particular spa, only that I've never been a fan of Cal so I'm skeptical for that reason alone but even Cal should be a step up from the Living Waters-Infinity-Keys... spas Costco sold in the past.

2) I've never met a person in the spa industry who works on/with spas directly that would look at the spec sheet of a spa and comment that "it seems good" based on what they read (other than some spa marketing people). Spec sheets are VERY limiting for evaluating a spa's quality and value IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recently heard a horror story from a customer who bought one of these OC spas and witnessed their energy bill go up over $100 a month. Needless to say, they returned the spa to Costco.

I read that as well - a post within someone elses thread where their bill only went up $10-$20 per month. Makes me wonder about the claimed $100 increase.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recently heard a horror story from a customer who bought one of these OC spas and witnessed their energy bill go up over $100 a month. Needless to say, they returned the spa to Costco.

I read that as well - a post within someone elses thread where their bill only went up $10-$20 per month. Makes me wonder about the claimed $100 increase.

Or it more likely would make you wonder about the 10-20 dollar increase considering the history of these tubs sold at that store.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or it more likely would make you wonder about the 10-20 dollar increase considering the history of these tubs sold at that store.

How much someone electric bill went up is a poor method to measure overall efficency unless you know their usage pattern.

Leave the cover off for extended periods of time running jets in the winter and the electric usage is going to climb. someone else may leave it covered all the time and use it once a week if even that and have a low increased electric usage.

I can't seem to find the history of problems associated with OC Spa's by Cal Spa sold thru Costco.

The problems I have read about are the older Spa's from Manufactures that went out of business and no longer sold by Costco.

OC spas have Full Foam insulation and that seems to be the norm from most Spa manufactures

Until you get to the top of the line premium spa's with well insulated thermally sealed cabinets that take advantage of the waste heat from the Spa motors.

What I’m slowly coming to the conclusion is most Spas’ on the market from big box stores and Spa dealers from most manufactures are poorly designed and cheaply manufactured to drive profits.

You have to get up in the $9,000 range before you can find a well engineered quality Spa that will last many years and be maintainable. Higher price alone does not guarantee this however so its buyer beware when buying from a dealer as well as a big box store.

This is part of the reason Spa sales are way down and manufactures and dealers are going out of business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Costco online Currently has the OC Magestic M850L By Cal Spa for $4999.99

I keep reading here that Costco sells poorly built low end Spa's

I would like to hear from all the all experts and Costco bashers alike.

whats wrong with this Spa?

http://calspas.net/images/swf/oc-hot-tubs-m850l-specs.html

I actually sell a similiar cal spa to this in Ohio. One of the things worst about it is its lack of pressure. My model rates at 8bhp but feels like 1hp. Alot of pressure and theraputic value come from being able to introduce Air into the jet lines. Air definately increases performance of a hottub and that Cal OC doesn't have that feature. It only moves water..quite poorly.

Cal Spa though has come along way for quality since a former Sundance/Jacuzzi executive now runs there daily operations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>> "How much someone electric bill went up is a poor method to measure overall efficency unless you know their usage pattern.

Leave the cover off for extended periods of time running jets in the winter and the electric usage is going to climb. someone else may leave it covered all the time and use it once a week if even that and have a low increased electric usage."

Bingo. You're right on the money (pun intended).

>> "OC spas have Full Foam insulation and that seems to be the norm from most Spa manufactures

Until you get to the top of the line premium spa's with well insulated thermally sealed cabinets that take advantage of the waste heat from the Spa motors."

Don't know if full foam is really the norm or not. In any case, some expensive spas touted as "premium" (D1, Hotspring & Sundance come to mind) are foam. Personally, I see it as a poor overall solution - a serviceability disaster and not the best thermal design.

>> "What I’m slowly coming to the conclusion is most Spas’ on the market from big box stores and Spa dealers from most manufactures are poorly designed and cheaply manufactured to drive profits.

You have to get up in the $9,000 range before you can find a well engineered quality Spa that will last many years and be maintainable. Higher price alone does not guarantee this however so its buyer beware when buying from a dealer as well as a big box store."

Right again. Price is not a measure of quality, it's a measure of marketing. As in all cases, caveat emptor. There is no substitute for research, rejection of nonsense/stupid claims, common sense and really understanding the value offerend by a specific item and/or manufacturer.

It's tough to buy these things. The upper end of spas ($10k) costs about 2/3 the price of a Toyota Corolla! This is just nuts. But on top of that, you're right in that NONE of the spas on the market will blow you away with engineering excellence.

Check out Arctic. I like their engineering best of the bunch, but they are way expensive.

What the world needs is a stainless shell (like a Diamond in-ground), bucket seating (like your typical plastic spa) thermal pane design (like an Arctic), decent number of jets (don't believe the nonsense, it is nice to have a reasonable number of jets), and a separate pump for each position (like Artesian). Oh, and good SOUND insulation. That spa would be worth $10k... unfortunately the stainless shell alone would likely cost more than that!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or it more likely would make you wonder about the 10-20 dollar increase considering the history of these tubs sold at that store.

OC spas have Full Foam insulation and that seems to be the norm from most Spa manufactures

Until you get to the top of the line premium spa's with well insulated thermally sealed cabinets that take advantage of the waste heat from the Spa motors.

I'm actually wondering about that. Older Cals were kind of "partially" foamed and I'd like to see the inside of one of these to see if they went back to that method to save some $$ (they were NOT well insulated).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or it more likely would make you wonder about the 10-20 dollar increase considering the history of these tubs sold at that store.

OC spas have Full Foam insulation and that seems to be the norm from most Spa manufactures

Until you get to the top of the line premium spa's with well insulated thermally sealed cabinets that take advantage of the waste heat from the Spa motors.

I'm actually wondering about that. Older Cals were kind of "partially" foamed and I'd like to see the inside of one of these to see if they went back to that method to save some $$ (they were NOT well insulated).

ST, by partially foamed so you mean that the cabinet only was filled part way 'round or that the foam was sprayed on a few inches thick but not fully filling the cabinet?

I'm not a foam fan, but if it's the latter, then that wouldn't be too good thermally and would still buy you the serviceability problems. Yuck - worst of all worlds.

Do you know what the shell material is on the Calspa?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Costco online Currently has the OC Magestic M850L By Cal Spa for $4999.99

I keep reading here that Costco sells poorly built low end Spa's

I would like to hear from all the all experts and Costco bashers alike.

whats wrong with this Spa?

http://calspas.net/images/swf/oc-hot-tubs-m850l-specs.html

I actually sell a similiar cal spa to this in Ohio. One of the things worst about it is its lack of pressure. My model rates at 8bhp but feels like 1hp. Alot of pressure and theraputic value come from being able to introduce Air into the jet lines. Air definately increases performance of a hottub and that Cal OC doesn't have that feature. It only moves water..quite poorly.

Cal Spa though has come along way for quality since a former Sundance/Jacuzzi executive now runs there daily operations.

He runs sales and marketing, not daily operations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>> "How much someone electric bill went up is a poor method to measure overall efficency unless you know their usage pattern.

Leave the cover off for extended periods of time running jets in the winter and the electric usage is going to climb. someone else may leave it covered all the time and use it once a week if even that and have a low increased electric usage."

Bingo. You're right on the money (pun intended).

>> "OC spas have Full Foam insulation and that seems to be the norm from most Spa manufactures

Until you get to the top of the line premium spa's with well insulated thermally sealed cabinets that take advantage of the waste heat from the Spa motors."

Don't know if full foam is really the norm or not. In any case, some expensive spas touted as "premium" (D1, Hotspring & Sundance come to mind) are foam. Personally, I see it as a poor overall solution - a serviceability disaster and not the best thermal design.

>> "What I’m slowly coming to the conclusion is most Spas’ on the market from big box stores and Spa dealers from most manufactures are poorly designed and cheaply manufactured to drive profits.

You have to get up in the $9,000 range before you can find a well engineered quality Spa that will last many years and be maintainable. Higher price alone does not guarantee this however so its buyer beware when buying from a dealer as well as a big box store."

Right again. Price is not a measure of quality, it's a measure of marketing. As in all cases, caveat emptor. There is no substitute for research, rejection of nonsense/stupid claims, common sense and really understanding the value offerend by a specific item and/or manufacturer.

It's tough to buy these things. The upper end of spas ($10k) costs about 2/3 the price of a Toyota Corolla! This is just nuts. But on top of that, you're right in that NONE of the spas on the market will blow you away with engineering excellence.

Check out Arctic. I like their engineering best of the bunch, but they are way expensive.

What the world needs is a stainless shell (like a Diamond in-ground), bucket seating (like your typical plastic spa) thermal pane design (like an Arctic), decent number of jets (don't believe the nonsense, it is nice to have a reasonable number of jets), and a separate pump for each position (like Artesian). Oh, and good SOUND insulation. That spa would be worth $10k... unfortunately the stainless shell alone would likely cost more than that!

Sounds to me like you have it figured out. Maybe you should start making spas!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I bought the previous version of this Spa from Costco this time last year....

This model:

http://hottuboc.com/hot_tub_specifications.aspx

Feels like it was a better deal then as it was:

$3999 (I later got $700 back when they reduced it to $3299)

It looks identical except last years had speakers, an ozonator, artificial siding, air switches, 5 year labor warranty as well as all parts.

Mine is completely full foam out to where the pannelling is - if you open up the sides there is no "unfilled" space.

I have carefully tracked electric use as my utility company has online tracking tools. Our first three months where we used it nearly every day was $10-$20 in electric increase. Now days we use it about once a week and in the depths of Seattle winter (Dec was 17f at times) my bill went up about $25-30 tops. Last month (Feb) was back to the $15-20 range. I have the temp set to 101 with a 2 x 2 hour filter cycle. Circ pump runs 24/7. In Dec due to it being so cold (for Seattle!) I upped the filter/heat time to 2 x 4 hours daily.

I've been super happy with it. OC sent a guy to replace an air rocker when it failed and even called me back to check on progress etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What the world needs is a stainless shell (like a Diamond in-ground), bucket seating (like your typical plastic spa) thermal pane design (like an Arctic), decent number of jets (don't believe the nonsense, it is nice to have a reasonable number of jets), and a separate pump for each position (like Artesian). Oh, and good SOUND insulation. That spa would be worth $10k... unfortunately the stainless shell alone would likely cost more than that!

Consider this Hot water, IMO thermal insulation desinged like Arctics is a great start but misses on one important point, a constant heat source for the air space. And considering that only 4 hours of filtration is required for normal use that leaves 20 hours or about 80% of the day that the heat source is non exsistant. So the perfect insulation skeem IMO utilizes both types, foam sprayed on, thick in most places, (to hold as much heat in as possible during non run times), and thinner in select places to utilize waste heat generated by the pump motor during the filter cycles. And a perimeter insulation to force the waste heat to the "sweet" or thinner sprayed on foam. And with this a venting system needs to be supplied that is error proofed so the owner is not seasonaly adjusting. To much heat can cause premature motor and componant failure.

And trust me when I tell you that foam repairs with a partialy foamed shell are not that difficult and alot easier than when the cabinet is completely full. They are more difficult than when there is no foam sprayed on but you comprimise that perimeter foam everytime you access a leak on the shell. What I have found is a repair in the plumbing that's not in the equipment area is so rare that when I do one in foam while it takes longer the bill is not that much more because if it takes 2 hours to repair when theres no foam to remove it only takes 2.5 or 3 when there is foam to remove.

Whether theres more repairs in non foamed plumbing, I have not seen it or recorded it so can't comment on it. But with 99.9 percent of my repairs in the equipment area no matter what the insulation method it sure seems like any effort to record the frequency rate in either kind of insulation skeem would be a waste of time. And recording the frequency in the seals of a particular brand of pump or coupling or valve would be more valuable information. As a less expensive brand starts to age the plumbing, fittings and jets start to deteriorate and then eventualy leak but they are very seldom repaired as they are no longer cost effective to repair at 6-8 years old. And yet in the higher end tubs the same thing happens but happens far further down the road and again becomes no longer cost effective to repair at 15-20 years of age. Which does lead one to believe that 2-4 grand tubs that last as long as one 8 grand tub may very well be as good a value, but not better. And this is all assuming you can get 8 years out of a value tub and then again 16 out of a higher end tub.

In the past I have not had a warm and fuzzy feeling with the Calspa made products that I have repaired. But I have noticed some engineering improvements in the plumbing design in the last couple years. And allot less proprietary parts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>> "Consider this Hot water, IMO thermal insulation desinged like Arctics is a great start but misses on one important point, a constant heat source for the air space. And considering that only 4 hours of filtration is required for normal use that leaves 20 hours or about 80% of the day that the heat source is non exsistant."

Well, thanks for your comment. Fact is, with a well designed thermal pane like Arctic there is a constant heat source - about 400 gallons of hot water (my namesake!) on the other side of a relatively thin (i.e., thermally conductive) piece of plastic. With the cabinet insulation and the cover on, this does a very good job of keeping the air in the cabinet at pretty close to the temp of the water. If the air is the same/nearly the same temp as the water... there is no/almost no flow of heat from the water to the cabinet air, except for the little bit that makes it past the cabinet insulation. Heat transfer from the cabinet air through the cabinet insulation is very small in a well designed and implemented system like Arctic, which is well-sealed. The elegance of the design derives from the fact that air has a much lower heat capacity than water. In other words, the air heats up easily and it doesn't take much energy to accomplish it.

I don't think it's a good plan to put any insulation on the shell. An important engineering parameter in this type of design is the ratio of thermal resistance from the cabinet-air-to-water/cabinet-air-to outside air. The idea is to drive this ratio to a small a value as possible. I understand from past discussions that you have no use for engineering or engineers, so I won't try to convince you... but suffice it to say that from an engineering perspective, it is almost always going to be better to maximize thermal conductivity of the shell (between cabinet air and water), i.e., no added insulation there - and use the best possible insulation between the cabinet air and the outside world.

Yes, it's true that you don't have the pumps running all that much. The idea is that the waste heat from the motors can heat the water, improving efficiency. This typically happens when the spa is in use with the cover off, and maybe the air injection in use. The water temp might be down a degree or two and heat loss from the surface of the spa is very, very significant. So the Arctic scheme uses the pump waste heat to supplement the heater during the period of largest heat loss. Not a bad plan. Spa closed up with pumps off? As mentioned earlier, the water will keep the cabinet air temp pretty close to the water temp.

Arctic's advantage over full foam probably evaporates (pun intended) if you're soaking without the pumps on. It will still insulate well, but the heat loss out the cabinet is small compared to the heat loss from the surface of the water. And of course, the black body temp of the night sky is damn cold... your water at 40 C is radiating to the night sky and that can be a non-negligible loss, too. In other words, when the cover's off, the cabinet insulation scheme is a relatively small effect compared to the massive energy leak out the surface of the water..

As for the venting, I agree that this needs to be a concern, but it's probably not a huge concern. With pumps off, the air temp can't go above 104 F, which is 40 C. This isn't much of a problem for motors, and a bit high but likely not a problem for the low power digital deviced in the controller. With pumps on, you MIGHT need an active system - such as a vent that opens (cheap bimetal thermostat comes to mind) or possibly even a fan (to be avoided as fans are themselves notoriously unreliable) but again I think this will be driven by the control electronics, not the pump motors. This is a hunch, as I haven't looked at cabinet air internal temps with both pumps running on a hot day.

Whether you buy all this or not is up to you.... but Arctic has exceptionally good test results in a University sponsored test, especially in colder ambient temps when you really NEED great heat retention performance, , and they have pretty much implemented the theory as I've described. At least with an Arctic, it seems that someone with some thermal engineering background actually thought about the problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, thanks for your comment. Fact is, with a well designed thermal pane like Arctic there is a constant heat source - about 400 gallons of hot water (my namesake!) on the other side of a relatively thin (i.e., thermally conductive) piece of plastic. With the cabinet insulation and the cover on, this does a very good job of keeping the air in the cabinet at pretty close to the temp of the water. If the air is the same/nearly the same temp as the water... there is no/almost no flow of heat from the water to the cabinet air, except for the little bit that makes it past the cabinet insulation. Heat transfer from the cabinet air through the cabinet insulation is very small in a well designed and implemented system like Arctic, which is well-sealed. The elegance of the design derives from the fact that air has a much lower heat capacity than water. In other words, the air heats up easily and it doesn't take much energy to accomplish it.

If the r-factor on the cabinet walls is less than the R-factor on the sides of a FF tub the Arctic design will loose heat quicker through the side walls. All of the heat inside the vessel will be forced to the thinnest foam spot on the side walls. None will be kept in the vessel because....well its not insulated.

I don't think it's a good plan to put any insulation on the shell. An important engineering parameter in this type of design is the ratio of thermal resistance from the cabinet-air-to-water/cabinet-air-to outside air. The idea is to drive this ratio to a small a value as possible. I understand from past discussions that you have no use for engineering or engineers, so I won't try to convince you... but suffice it to say that from an engineering perspective, it is almost always going to be better to maximize thermal conductivity of the shell (between cabinet air and water), i.e., no added insulation there - and use the best possible insulation between the cabinet air and the outside world.

You are correct an important part of insulation is air but your using to much air in the Arctic design to create insulation. The only air on Arctics design thats doing any insulating is the air bubbles in the foam that's on the side walls, not the air inside the cabinet. It is simply allowing the warmth from the vessel to get to the side walls and the side walls are stopping any transfer to outside. In the case of the cabinet air space in the Arctic design air is what it normaly is, the worst insulator in the world.

Yes, it's true that you don't have the pumps running all that much. The idea is that the waste heat from the motors can heat the water, improving efficiency. This typically happens when the spa is in use with the cover off, and maybe the air injection in use. The water temp might be down a degree or two and heat loss from the surface of the spa is very, very significant. So the Arctic scheme uses the pump waste heat to supplement the heater during the period of largest heat loss. Not a bad plan. Spa closed up with pumps off? As mentioned earlier, the water will keep the cabinet air temp pretty close to the water temp.

When your loosing heat at the rate any tub looses it off the top during use, a 120 degree motor in the cabinet is not going to HEAT any water in the vessel. that is sales spin plain and simple. Warm air is not going to come out of the cabinet and be injected into the water becuse a 190CFM fan will evacuate the cabinet of any warm air in about 1 second or maybe 2. Youve drank the koolaid for sure. which suprises me, you seem kinda smart like one of dem dare engines ears guys. The water will keep the cabinet air temp the same as the water temp when the pump is running and the cover is on...4 hours a day. Leaving 20 hours a day that the cabinet air will be transfering heat to the thinnest part of the insulation on the side walls, and any vents or air gaps. A heater heats water not a pump motor. It may create an r-factor but not heat water, but it has to be running to do that.

Arctic's advantage over full foam probably evaporates (pun intended) if you're soaking without the pumps on. It will still insulate well, but the heat loss out the cabinet is small compared to the heat loss from the surface of the water. And of course, the black body temp of the night sky is damn cold... your water at 40 C is radiating to the night sky and that can be a non-negligible loss, too. In other words, when the cover's off, the cabinet insulation scheme is a relatively small effect compared to the massive energy leak out the surface of the water..

As for the venting, I agree that this needs to be a concern, but it's probably not a huge concern. With pumps off, the air temp can't go above 104 F, which is 40 C. This isn't much of a problem for motors, and a bit high but likely not a problem for the low power digital deviced in the controller. With pumps on, you MIGHT need an active system - such as a vent that opens (cheap bimetal thermostat comes to mind) or possibly even a fan (to be avoided as fans are themselves notoriously unreliable) but again I think this will be driven by the control electronics, not the pump motors. This is a hunch, as I haven't looked at cabinet air internal temps with both pumps running on a hot day.

Whether you buy all this or not is up to you.... but Arctic has exceptionally good test results in a University sponsored test, especially in colder ambient temps when you really NEED great heat retention performance, , and they have pretty much implemented the theory as I've described. At least with an Arctic, it seems that someone with some thermal engineering background actually thought about the problem.

You forgot to mention another dissadvantage, the design seems to operate louder from my experience. And whether I buy it or not from you does not matter I looked at, evaluated and built or owned all three types of insulation skeems and took measurments and have the data to support my thoughts. I did not use Arctics exact model because I didn't own an Arctic (to expensive to tear apart and modify) But I did spray foam on the inside cabinet of a tub with no foam on the shell to about the same thickness as Arctic. I did own a FF tub (Hot Springs) and I did purchase a partial foamed tub, modify the foam, create an R21 cabinet insulation to go with the foam on the shell and monitor energy usage with a meter on all three. And I could give you the exact KWH usage per gallon of water for each type of insulation at what outside ambient. But when your mind is made up like yours it would be kinda a waste of time. I do like Arctics method as Thermal Pane goes, but I feel it's not right either, and really offers nothing over FF. There are just as many engineers designing for the manufacturers of the full foam tubs as there are at Arctic and if one was truely better than the other as far as leaking, sound, repairs or effieciency it seems like they would all be doing it or not selling any tubs. Either that or those engineers are to stupid to see it.

I'm not sure where you got that I don't like engineers but I enjoy playing off of it. I have a tremendous amount of respect for the engineers who respect what I do in the field and I work with plenty of those. But the ones who can't see a field perspective even when it's in there face because there plans never lie, are quiet comical.

What test results are you talking about? The one Arctic payed for or was it another independent one that I don't know about? Because the only one I saw (ARC) the results had the Hot Springs (FF) with 2 inches less cover doing better. And if the covers would of been equal.....well never mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can believe what you want. I don't want to debate engineering with you, it would take far longer than even I am willing to spend. Suffice it to say that engineering design is all about subtlety and making the best compromise in terms of overall performance. Engineering happens to be my profession, I'm comfortable with my assessment, and I conclude that Arctic is the best-engineered overall thermal management scheme I've seen.

You are 100% right, I do not like FF, I will NEVER like FF. In my view, FF is about the stupidest (carefully chosen word) design one could conceive. I design stuff for a living, and 99.99% of it has to be serviceable. There is NO WAY anyone will ever convince me that FF makes any sense, even if you swear up and down that most repairs don't involve the foam and all the other arguments. And especially becasue there's a better alternative. Convince someone else. I think FF doesn't just suck, it's a LAUGHABLE design. With all the ranting and raving about quality, I would thing that it would be noted that quality begins even before the design starts, by establishing product requirements that address all the issues... of which serviceability is very, very high on the list.

If you conclude something different, so be it. I have no interest in convincing you of anything. In my view, Arctic has a great thermal design. I don't own one, but if they had a dealer in my area I would be inclined to vote with my wallet.

I do agree that sound insulation is better in FF tubs Except for the sound of the mumbling and griping as one digs through the foam to find a leak....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What test results are you talking about? The one Arctic payed for or was it another independent one that I don't know about?

looking around for background info I ran across this on another on site:

The first independent test in 1994 that evaluated the rise in temperature the spa water received from two jet pumps in a real* Coleman Spa that was tested. There was a temperature rise of 14 degrees, on high speed, just from the pumps over an 8 hour period. These were 1.5 HP pumps by the way; very small horsepower by today's standards. On low speed, with just the filter pump, the rise was 4 degrees over 8 hours.

In 1996 another test was performed by the Universities of Arizona and Colorado here is a synopsis of the results with my notes in brackets “{}”

"a fully insulated spa {full foam} makes no attempt to recover and use waste heat." (Tong and Rogers 1996). "...the performance of an insulating system which makes use of a thermal barrier {Thermally Sealed}, generated by waste heat rejected from the motors and pumps, in an enclosed air cavity around the tub is superior to a system which simply insulates the tub directly."

In a recent test done in Alberta Canada, the Thermally Closed Arctic spa came in very high compared to some popular spas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What test results are you talking about? The one Arctic payed for or was it another independent one that I don't know about?

looking around for background info I ran across this on another on site:

The first independent test in 1994 that evaluated the rise in temperature the spa water received from two jet pumps in a real* Coleman Spa that was tested. There was a temperature rise of 14 degrees, on high speed, just from the pumps over an 8 hour period. These were 1.5 HP pumps by the way; very small horsepower by today's standards. On low speed, with just the filter pump, the rise was 4 degrees over 8 hours.

In 1996 another test was performed by the Universities of Arizona and Colorado here is a synopsis of the results with my notes in brackets “{}”

"a fully insulated spa {full foam} makes no attempt to recover and use waste heat." (Tong and Rogers 1996). "...the performance of an insulating system which makes use of a thermal barrier {Thermally Sealed}, generated by waste heat rejected from the motors and pumps, in an enclosed air cavity around the tub is superior to a system which simply insulates the tub directly."

In a recent test done in Alberta Canada, the Thermally Closed Arctic spa came in very high compared to some popular spas.

OK so lets break this down a bit. If a thermaly closed design raises the temp 4 degrees in 8 hours and the pump filters for 4 hours that means it will raise the temp 2 degrees during filtration...correct? So the other 20 hours when the pump is not running at all, how much does it drop and how much will the heater run to recover that drop? Is any of this information in the report or is this another sales pitch for the advantages of a thermaly closed design. Data with several holes to steer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...