Jump to content

Spa Newbie


Guest fmotz

Recommended Posts

I am looking into a new spa and have compiled alot of questions about the different brands. I am here in Sacramento California and very rarely does it get below 30 -40 degrees. I am curious, full foam or partial foam?

Also, the brands I have seen that I like are, Master, Coast, Cal Spas, Elite. Are any of these good? I like the idea of a steel frame. I have looked at D-1 and Sundance but to be hones dont like any of their layouts. I was considering buying one of these at the fair but decided that the showroom may be a better route.

Approximately, how much should it cost to get the wiring done with the GFCI box? (running approx 50-60 ft from the electrical box) Standard new home with small backyard.

Well, I guess thats all for right now. :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am looking into a new spa and have compiled alot of questions about the different brands. I am here in Sacramento California and very rarely does it get below 30 -40 degrees. I am curious, full foam or partial foam?

Also, the brands I have seen that I like are, Master, Coast, Cal Spas, Elite. Are any of these good? I like the idea of a steel frame. I have looked at D-1 and Sundance but to be hones dont like any of their layouts. I was considering buying one of these at the fair but decided that the showroom may be a better route.

Approximately, how much should it cost to get the wiring done with the GFCI box? (running approx 50-60 ft from the electrical box) Standard new home with small backyard.

Well, I guess thats all for right now. :blink:

Your questions are great! They may have been overlooked since your comment is showing on the last page. Sorry it's taken a while for someone to respond. The question of full foam vs not has been answered on page one of the topics. You will see the topic in capital letters. You may want to check there for further information regarding that specifically.

I agree with you about the showroom being a better route to get a spa. You will find someone to give you more individual attention and not be distracted form all the fair stuff. There are a lot of good manufacturers out there. The most important thing is to make sure you are comfortable not only with the way the spa works and how it feels but with the company that represents them as well.

As far as costs go for electrical... it really varies depending on where you live. I am unfamiliar with labor costs in your area but I do know that it can be costly to do a run that far. You can save money by digging trenches yourself but I would not want to! :wacko: Best of luck to you!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would put full or partial foam at the bottom of the list when it comes to chosing. Virtually any good brand of tub will cost you about the same to run where you live. Things that add to the operating expense are: Blowers, Huge pumps and poorly-fit or thin covers. You may decide you like a blower, and are willing to pay a few more bucks per month for the pleasure. Or you may not .. but how will you know? Glad you asked -

If you haven't already done so, you should schedule a wet test in the various brands you are looking at. Take your time when doing the wet test - many spas have amazing adjustability and it can take some time to try all the diifferent combinayions of jet nozzles, air controls, diverter valves and so forth.

Shy about getting in a tub in a store? Ask about making an appointment after hours. If that still doesn't work, then at the very least spend some time with your hands and arms in the tubs, trying various jets and settings. Numbers on a brochure do not give you all the info you need to shop for something like this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Listen to Chas. Although he is a dealer, he usually provides good basic advice outside his brand. Wet test several models. Find one that fits you and provides you therapy for your problem areas. If you have no problems areas, focus on fit, and float, ie are the seating positions comfortable and can you stay in them, and then do the jets feel good/hit you in the right places. Put sales pitches towards the bottom of your criteria. I also wouldn't focus on whether it's a metal frame or pressure treated wood frame. Both work.

You may pay a bit more from a local dealer than say Costco or Sams, but a decent local dealer will not only provide you warranty service, but will help you with water chemistry problems (a biggie) and any other issues that may surface. Plus anecdotally, the quality is going to be a step up. Don't even try to decipher method of insulation nonsense. Generally, a quality spa from a local dealer is going to perform similarly regarding operating costs to competitive local offerings thus rendering the point moot.

I think electrical costs are area and condition dependent. It also matters whether it's a company job or a side job. For me, side job by electrician including parts was $450. But my electric is coming through the unfinished area of my basement, and does not involve trenching. Similar job by company "discounted" electrician was $650 - $700.

Disclaimer: I am a consumer, not a dealer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Full foam vs not" is an important question that I wouldn't completely ignore. The cost of operation is different by as few dollars per month and you'll see tons of opinions about which one is better and costs less. But that's just it... they are opinions. Very few companies can provide the results of the legitimate testing required to back up the theories. Find out these different ways and decide for yourself according to your environment and level of commitment to your spas longevity. I think all ways have their valid reason for insulating the way they do. I'd take the time to hear what all sides (full foam, partial spray-in, thermally sealed, reflective thermal barrier...Etc.) have to say about it. If the insulation factor is important to you, look at your new spa as something you'd have for 10 plus years and know clearly what will be required of you to care for it after warranties have expired. Make sure that it doesn't lose it's insulation qualities over time when put to the test of using it in your home or if it becomes wet when living in a high humidity area. Talk to people that own them... and don't take a salesmans (oops, persons!) word for it. Some forms of insulation actually attract cute little critters into your private stomping grounds. Unless you think rodents are great outdoor pets, I'd check out how the spa is protected from them (since they love undisturbed warm cozy spots in the winter). There are many different types of insulation because of many different climates and even more technical theories on what the best design is. Good luck on that one!

I like the idea of steel framing also. Yes, steel and wood both work... but one lasts longer than the other for sure. You may want to find out if the spas structure is relying on the frame and if so, what gage the steel is. I personally am not that technically minded but I'm learning too! Plus, I believe I heard (somewhere in the back of my mind) that pressure treated wood may have some traces of stryctnine (sp?) in it and playgrounds are no longer made with it because of the potential risks of it leaching into the ground and possible health concerns associated with that. If you want wood framing, and it's pressure treated I would find out and do a little research on that as well. Cedar framing (if you choose wood) is nice because it has the most tannins (natural insect repellant). Any opinions on this?

(consumer/salesperson-not selfishly promoting my product.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thermally Sealed which is the only engineered type of insulation that has proven itself over and over. Then there is a hodegpodge of spas that are foamed on the shell with not any engineering.....

Avoid Acrylic with ABS substrate, because it will crack out in time and there is a known percentage of failures with this composite.

:)

;) Hey there Jim!

Just out of curiosity, what documentation shows this form of insulation to be proven over and over? Is this an opinion or can common spa shopper find this somewhere that is not directed to a salesperson?

I would like to think there is some engineering that goes into any spa being made! Scary to think otherwise! :o

Stating that ABS substrate has a known percentage of failure is interesting. What is that percentage? I'd love to see something come into the market that never EVER fails but I'm sure ALL forms have some kind of percentage of mistakes. Is there really "the absolutely perfect flawless spa that never has a problem" in existance? If so, with all the concerns people have, why would anyone buy anything else... ever?!? And yet there are many great companies out there doing their best to make the best and provide the best care. Some are better than others as in all things. We're all human right? I think it's how those mistakes (should be very few with a well built spa) are handled that is really important.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Under warranty it usually lasts from 5 to 7 years, and has about 3% failure in which the spas crack out and leak.

What a moronic statement. The warranties on the shells from the major manufacturers are typically 7-10 years. Jim states that the shells only last 5-7 years so under his stats you'd expect catestrophic failure rates but Mr. Wizard then says they have a 3% failure rate. He might want to get his random/made up on the spot statictics straight before he posts them LOL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Amanda; The ABS substrate is a dissimilar materials manufacturing and as the spa ages it has a 100% failure rate. Under warranty it usually lasts from 5 to 7 years, and has about 3% failure in which the spas crack out and leak. The Acrylic has a much different characteristic as the spas age. The acrylic become harder as it looses its flexibility. The ABS substrate does not because it is sealed from the environment. It expands and contracts at a higher rate than the acrylic does. That is why nearly all of the Acylic with ABS spas have so many surface cracks in time.

This is shocking to me to read! I'm aware of a company using a structure like this, that has a 20 year non-prorated warranty on it's shell! (pro-rated, meaning after 5-7 years only PART of the cost of the shell repair is covered. And non-prorated, meaning 100% of the labor and repair costs are covered for the life of the warranty) 20 years is a loooong time... leave the spa in your will! Technically, your right... over a long enough period of time, I guess everything has 100% failure rate. Exept for Twinkies- I think their half-life is about 250 years! :o But when a company offers to build a whole new tub if it fails... (with the stats you provided @ 3% failure) a company would go out of business faster than a one armed monkey reaching for a banana falls out of a tree! :rolleyes: And yet, this company has been in business for 29 plus years. I am Going to have to disagree with you on that point. But you are right about the delamination problem being eliminated using this process as the two different materials are bonded very well. Most shell problems I've heard of are from delamination, bubbling, blistering... leading to cracks.

There are many different opinions on this subject and it is up to the smart consumer to read the fine print to really be protected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thermally closed design was originally developed by Coleman engineers and it was, as far as I know the first time the insulation on hot tubs was actually researched, examined and tested. The use of the sealed cabinet with a warm air barrier has been indepenedently tested by three separate outside the industry institutions. The first was in 1994 and was paid for by Coleman. The second was done by the Universities of Colorado and Arizona as a research project, and is called the "Tong and Rogers" report.

The third is the Alberta Research Council and it clearly shows the significant differences in the designs as far as energy consumption. :)

One "independent study" done by Coleman, guess it wasn't so Independent

One done by the university of, wait a minute I didn't see any conclusive answers in this one either???

One "independent study" payed for by Arctic, with no clear leader and an unfair 60 percent advantage on the cover. Plus a bunch of other holes in the data reported and a bunch of data not reported???

Now which study would you like us to use? The "Independent" one?

I guess we could go to "Jim's" web site and just say, ahh what the heck this guy knows it all after all he wrote all these "articles" and he's a real smart guy, so he must be right. And you know how smart those "engineers" are in them thar Co. Mountains. You are an engineer right Jim?

Very unique sales pitch Jimbo. Trying to mask it as anything but.........not working.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I installed and serviced hot tubs for a few years. From my expierience Dimension One tubs were the best. I would occasionally have to replace a heater, control panel, flow switch ect... but not nearly as much as the other brands...

Definetly look for a tub that has a low wattage circulation pump like D1...Rather than running a 4HP pump just to filter and heat your tub when your not in it...I think D1 has a lifetime warranty on the shell and 5-7 years on misc. parts and labor...they are a little more expensive initially. But you get what you pay for DONT GO TO HOME DEPOT FOR A HOT TUB....

I Serviced at least 15 of the major brands and I was the one hearing all the complaints..D1 by far had the fewest

No I dont work for D1 I am just and Electrician out here in PA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One "independent study" payed for by Arctic, with no clear leader and an unfair 60 percent advantage on the cover. Plus a bunch of other holes in the data reported and a bunch of data not reported???

Please elaborate on the "bunch of other holes" and the "bunch of data not reported". I sincerely am interested in hearing more.

I read the test as a spa against spa test. Arctic comes with a thicker cover standard. There's no unfair advantage to it. That is the cover they choose to provide with every spa. If it gives them an advantage, so be it.

I viewed the report as very independent. If it was not, they would not have allowed their lower Coyote line to come in or be reported towards the bottom. Again, please elaborate on the "bunches" of other stuff. Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please elaborate on the "bunch of other holes" and the "bunch of data not reported". I sincerely am interested in hearing more.

Lets not do this again Rex...it gets tiring. You are allowed your opinion of the test and it's legitimacy.

I read the test as a spa against spa test. Arctic comes with a thicker cover standard. There's no unfair advantage to it. That is the cover they choose to provide with every spa. If it gives them an advantage, so be it.

80 percent of the heat loss is from the top on all tubs and to give one brand a 60 percent advantage in this area and then to claim superiority over other brands because of these test results and not stating it in the test, crocked!! Plain and simple. Nothing more than a sales slight of hand, yes! All brands have upgraded covers available. And in Northern Minnesota it is standered on almost all brands to get an upgrade cover. I can explain it to you again why I feel it is unfair but apperantly the two of us will never agree so what's the point?

One question, what would the test results have showed if all the covers were equal on top where 80 percent of the heat loss is? Remember I am not a fan of Hot Springs. Where would the brand that came out on top in the test be then? Speculate for me.

I viewed the report as very independent. If it was not, they would not have allowed their lower Coyote line to come in or be reported towards the bottom. Again, please elaborate on the "bunches" of other stuff. Thank you.

Again Rex you are allowed to view these "independent" test results however you feel will help you to make your decision. I on the other hand feel they are nothing more than a sales pitch with some shaded results that have skewed the whole thing to favor the manufacurer that is "paying" for it's independency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The entire Artic test IS flawed......... unless you're installing a spa indoors.

The most important parameter left out of the test was wind. Air infiltration is the #1 issue needing to be addresses with any outdoor "structure". And, the problem become worse over time as the "structure" shrinks and expands due to climate conditions, naturally cracks and settles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The entire Artic test IS flawed......... unless you're installing a spa indoors.

The most important parameter left out of the test was wind. Air infiltration is the #1 issue needing to be addresses with any outdoor "structure". And, the problem become worse over time as the "structure" shrinks and expands due to climate conditions, naturally cracks and settles.

It may or may not be flawed. Every walk-in freezer I've been in has had periods of signficant airflow. You don't maintain that temperature without blowing cold air into it. I have no knowledge if it was a walk-in freezer, but considering the size of the product tested, I must assume that it was. Since you are running a product that produces a significant amount of heat in a freezer, even though they are well insulated, that freezer is going to have to run to maintain temperature and create airflow. Does it simulate wind? Perhaps or perhaps not. But to imply it's put in a vacuum without air circulation is without merit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets not do this again Rex...it gets tiring. You are allowed your opinion of the test and it's legitimacy

Let me translate that for you. I don't have anything tangible regarding those "bunches of data" so I can't post it.

80 percent of the heat loss is from the top on all tubs and to give one brand a 60 percent advantage in this area and then to claim superiority over other brands because of these test results and not stating it in the test, crocked!! Plain and simple. Nothing more than a sales slight of hand, yes! All brands have upgraded covers available. And in Northern Minnesota it is standered on almost all brands to get an upgrade cover. I can explain it to you again why I feel it is unfair but apperantly the two of us will never agree so what's the point?

One question, what would the test results have showed if all the covers were equal on top where 80 percent of the heat loss is? Remember I am not a fan of Hot Springs. Where would the brand that came out on top in the test be then? Speculate for me.

As the Arctic debate raged on other forums, there were those who questioned that the extra foam would even add any significant useful R value to the cover. Personally, I am not an insulation engineer, so I can't answer if one extra inch or inch and a half would bring everyone else up to or exceed Arctic's level. ( I could guess it would not). The test told me there are good and not so good methods to both. Sundance is full foam and it trailed HS by a significant margin as did Cal. Arctic's own Coyote trailed Arctic.

As for the test, Alberta, a Canadian company asked Arctic, a Canadian company for Hot Tubs to test for what appeared to be an energy research project. ARC is "down the block" from Arctic and my guess is they went to them for advice on who to test. Notice they tested some decent names. HS, Sundance, Beachcomber etc. Alberta bought the tubs with their own money, probably in Canada. If it's so routine to sell upgraded covers (at an additional cost), I would certainly think dealers in Canada would push the same if MN dealers do. It's every bit as cold in Canada as MN. Again, it was an energy research test that happened to reveal differences among spas, not FF/TP.

Again Rex you are allowed to view these "independent" test results however you feel will help you to make your decision. I on the other hand feel they are nothing more than a sales pitch with some shaded results that have skewed the whole thing to favor the manufacurer that is "paying" for it's independency.

I think the problem you have is it can be an effective sales pitch and is so because there is tangible data with it. I'm not a dealer so in some regards, I could care less. As a consumer I find the whole industry dynamic quite interesting. The same argument you make for why the test is unfair also makes another sales point for Arctic and that is they supply a better cover standard. Trust me it's not why I chose Arctic. An average consumer is going to find it much easier to point to numbers <5" - 4" taper> vs others, or read the ARC report, than listen to a competing sales person whine about why the test is unfair. That is the resentment I read into some of the anti-Arctic posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is my question. There has never, not ever been an outside test, in which more than one brand was tested fairly, in which a full foam spa was the "winner". Not ever, and it will never happen when you are testing a thermally sealed spa against a partially insulated full foam spa.

Full foam spas are partially insulated, because the equipment is not insulted and most of the heat given off by the equipment is lost, completely wasted.

Once again there are more "new" spas that are thermally insulated and less and less of the full foam spas. It is just a cheap way to hold up a flimsy shell and that is all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Full foam spas are partially insulated, because the equipment is not insulted and most of the heat given off by the equipment is lost, completely wasted.

Once again there are more "new" spas that are thermally insulated and less and less of the full foam spas.

This isn't a common type of insulation is it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the problem you have is it can be an effective sales pitch and is so because there is tangible data with it.

I only see this tangleble data in it sorry. That if you put a 2 inch thicker cover on an Arctic spa indoors it will out perform a Hot Spring Spa by .09 cents a weekor whatever the dollar figure was.

I'm not a dealer so in some regards, I could care less. As a consumer I find the whole industry dynamic quite interesting. The same argument you make for why the test is unfair also makes another sales point for Arctic and that is they supply a better cover standard.

Again here in Northern Minnesota heavier covers are standerd on most brands.

Trust me it's not why I chose Arctic. An average consumer is going to find it much easier to point to numbers <5" - 4" taper> vs others, or read the ARC report, than listen to a competing sales person whine about why the test is unfair. That is the resentment I read into some of the anti-Arctic posts.

I am a consumer like yourself and I could care less I do not like Arctic because of there less than truthfull sales approach. (I am in purchasing) and very few sales pitches sway me.They put themselfs in a class by themselfs when truely they are nothing more than slightly below some top performers IMO.

Again if you want tangible data as to why I feel the test is full of holes you will have to find it yourself by looking. I can not show you as you have been blinded by the sales pitch light. You bought an Arctic based on the results of said test and your lenghty investigation, the last thing you want to do is admit that maybe you were blinded by the sales pitch and the tub is truely nothing more than as good as a bunch of others for more money. And noisier than most.

Here is my question. There has never, not ever been an outside test, in which more than one brand was tested fairly, in which a full foam spa was the "winner". Not ever, and it will never happen when you are testing a thermally sealed spa against a partially insulated full foam spa.

I'm not sure where the question is but YES JIM YOU ARE RIGHT.

There has never been a legitimate independent study.

Took a long time to get this out. I like the new sales pitch Jim "partialy insulated full foam" Cool because the pipes are not insulated in the equipment area on a couple brands you have grouped a whole bunch of brands to include everybody but yours. To make it sound like your Thermopane brand is the only fully insulated even though theres air infiltration in yours also. But you do run a 48 frame motor for 24/7 to make up for the lack of insulation. Or do all your tubs have this 48 frame circulation motor? Or is it just a few models? If it's not all models how is the warm air barrier created during the 20 hours a day filtration is not needed? Just wonderin?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You bought an Arctic based on the results of said test and your lenghty investigation, the last thing you want to do is admit that maybe you were blinded by the sales pitch and the tub is truely nothing more than as good as a bunch of others for more money. And noisier than most.

Actually, I wet tested about 8 other models/brands before deciding that Arctic fit the best and was the most comfortable. In fact, I had made it a personal mission to find something at least the equivalent and could not. Arcitc by far had the best feel to its therapy seat vs all others, in my opinion. Aside from HS Motomassage, which I did not care for, most company's solution for a therapy seat is cluster of directional jets, sometimes with a few spinners tossed in. With a seat full of 5" rotating jets, the Arctic seat actually works the muscles over a very large area instead of needling you. That is what sold me. So the conclusion I drew after wet testing against the competition was that for me, it was better.

I didn't find their pricing out of line with HS, Sundance or Master and none of those performed as well in the wet test. In fact, the second best wet test I had was Jacuzzi which was priced somewhat lower than Arctic. But in the end, we bought the best wet test. The lengthy investigation allowed me in good faith to purchase from a company about which I knew very little.

I, as a consumer, am the ultimate skeptic/cynic and ignore sales pitches probably more so than most. I really could care less about the test or its results from a purchasing perspective. To me it's like cars within 0.1 second in a 0-60 test and one claiming superiority. But they do get to make that claim and I still maintain from what I've seen in this industry, that is what drive people nuts.

By the way, you and I are not all that uncommon. I did work in procurement for about 5 years, but in the chemical industry (several years ago.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to say that I think you guys got off track of the original question.

But anyway, Now I have to put my 2 cents in sorry.

You were talking about heat loss with certain covers..If your that worried about it get a better cover...The real issue should not be, not as much how well the tub is insulated, but how effeciently it heats and filters....I can tell you a D1 tub uses a approx 90-150 watt pump to heat and filter..Compared to 3000-7000 watts for a 2-5 hp motor...Do the math........Also consider that most other tubs bring in cool air for the "bubbles"..rapidly cooling down the tub..Most salesmen will try to "spin" that as purpose built to cool you down...In my opinion its not to relaxing to get in a nice warm tub and have cool air bubbling on me.....D1 takes the air from the insulated motor compartment so it is preheated. It does not take 5 degrees of temp out of the water that you have to take 4 hrs at 3000- 7000 watts + 3000 watts(heater) to heat back up...............

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, I wet tested about 8 other models/brands before deciding that Arctic fit the best and was the most comfortable. In fact, I had made it a personal mission to find something at least the equivalent and could not. Arcitc by far had the best feel to its therapy seat vs all others, in my opinion. Aside from HS Motomassage, which I did not care for, most company's solution for a therapy seat is cluster of directional jets, sometimes with a few spinners tossed in. With a seat full of 5" rotating jets, the Arctic seat actually works the muscles over a very large area instead of needling you. That is what sold me. So the conclusion I drew after wet testing against the competition was that for me, it was better.

I didn't find their pricing out of line with HS, Sundance or Master and none of those performed as well in the wet test. In fact, the second best wet test I had was Jacuzzi which was priced somewhat lower than Arctic. But in the end, we bought the best wet test. The lengthy investigation allowed me in good faith to purchase from a company about which I knew very little.

I, as a consumer, am the ultimate skeptic/cynic and ignore sales pitches probably more so than most. I really could care less about the test or its results from a purchasing perspective. To me it's like cars within 0.1 second in a 0-60 test and one claiming superiority. But they do get to make that claim and I still maintain from what I've seen in this industry, that is what drive people nuts.

By the way, you and I are not all that uncommon. I did work in procurement for about 5 years, but in the chemical industry (several years ago.)

I was in Loveland when the independant study was done. It was done by a dealer. and the numbers changes by the time the factory posted the results. If I can recall its still on their web site.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to say that I think you guys got off track of the original question.

But anyway, Now I have to put my 2 cents in sorry.

You were talking about heat loss with certain covers..If your that worried about it get a better cover...The real issue should not be, not as much how well the tub is insulated, but how effeciently it heats and filters....I can tell you a D1 tub uses a approx 90-150 watt pump to heat and filter..Compared to 3000-7000 watts for a 2-5 hp motor...Do the math........Also consider that most other tubs bring in cool air for the "bubbles"..rapidly cooling down the tub..Most salesmen will try to "spin" that as purpose built to cool you down...In my opinion its not to relaxing to get in a nice warm tub and have cool air bubbling on me.....D1 takes the air from the insulated motor compartment so it is preheated. It does not take 5 degrees of temp out of the water that you have to take 4 hrs at 3000- 7000 watts + 3000 watts(heater) to heat back up...............

Unfortunately it is not simple math. There are many thermodynamic principles taking place that favors the spas like Arctic. In my testing on blowers in thermally closed spas, the blower will not draw in cold air if you control the air currents inside the cabinet and only run the blower while the jet pumps are running.

The opposite is actually true. We were more concerned about the blower not moving enough air to keep the intake air below 130 degrees and the under pressure temperatuer of the air in the blower channel under 160 degrees F. With both pumps running and the blower at 60 CFM the water temperature did not drop at all, and only after 29 minutes did we record a degree drop at 65 degrees ambient. The air entering the blower was over 120 degrees F, all the time and at the air controls (turbo air) about 145 degrees under pressure. This spa had twin 4 HP WW executives.

In spas that capture and use all of the energy of the equipment it is much different. These saps are called thermally sealed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps I was trying to keep it too simple. I am sure D1 is not the only tub that is comfortable and is thermaly effecient. Although MOST of the brands I worked on had major cooling when running the blower..I only serviced and repaired about 15 different brands and never got close to the Artic...It sounds like a good tub does it have a seperate circulation pump(low wattage?) my point there is you can leave the cover off and still cost less to run than a tub turning a 4hp motor to to heat it self (more math)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was in Loveland when the independant study was done. It was done by a dealer. and the numbers changes by the time the factory posted the results. If I can recall its still on their web site.

There are two different tests. The Alberta Research Council test to which I refer and the "Cost Comparison Summary" to which you refer. Of the two, the CCS to me is suspect. It doens't even name the competing spa although another forum member told me it was a Sundance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me rephrase:

In all the independent testing done by outside testing companies, not part of the spa industry, the Thermally Closed design came out the winner in energy savings.

All of these tests were done with the full foam spas compared to the thermal closed design.

They were funded by spa companies, but the testing agency, was not part of the spa industry.

These are the only ones in which the full foam was compared to the thermal sealed.

I am still looking for my copy of the synopsis of the first test and who the company was. It is probably in my files down in the basement. It was in 1994.

The test they did were heat transfer and insulation on this type of spa. It shows charts of the energy going into the spa water from the jet pumps. There was a 14 degree rise over eight hours as I recall with twin 1.5 HP water pumps. This was with a Coleman spa.

The second test was done by the universities of Colorado and Arizona, called the Tong and Rogers Report.

Here is an excerpt from the report. "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, 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."

The third test and report was the Alberta Research Council in Canada, and most of you have read that. The Arctic spa came in with the best results.

I don't sell any of those brands, so this is strictly about an insulation system. :D

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...