Costco Platinum Ii 4 Years And Still Happy

[Brent Hamm]

Why on earth would 'we' care to do that?

It's so funny..i have no idea what brand of hot tub you have. And if i did, would i go and research it to see if it has a bad history? WTF? OF course not.

[soakerguy]

I have a Costco Platinum II 2010 model owner and my spa still chugs away and is great! I am on my fourth year and it has been flawless. I guess in a small way I am just a statistic?

[hot_water]

I say we get some statistics by going back in the posts on this board and find satisfied customers of Costco tubs and unsatisfied ones.

Roger, I think you should do that. You clearly need something to do.

Of course, it wouldn't qualify as an unbiased statistical study and therefore would be a total waste of time. But knock yourself out.

BTW, I actually called Costco CS, several months ago, out of curiosity, and asked about the statistics on returns. We always hear from you industry guys that the return rate is huge, but we really don't KNOW that, do we?? So I was wondering if that was really true. The Cust Service rep said (unfortunately) that she didn't have that info and even if she did, Costco policy wouldn't allow it to be disclosed. So now I'm wondering how you all know that the return rate is so large?? I'm not saying it ISN'T... I really don't know. Just wondering how you know it IS?

Oh, and John.... you mentioned Customers having to change their electrical when they change their tub because of CODE issues? What specifically are you talking about? I looked in NEC 2002 and I don't see anything different with respect to spa requirements, then to now. And it's not clear at all that even if there were changes to the code, say at the local level, you would have to change the electrical installation at all... unless you had to rewire to accommodate a larger current draw... in which case you are updating anyway. Or is this like the comment on the generic parts, just intended to create fear, uncertainty and doubt?

This is why some of us don't take your "trust us, we're in the industry" comments at face value.

I'm done with this thread. Have at it, guys.

[n1oty]

I say we get some statistics by going back in the posts on this board and find satisfied customers of Costco tubs and unsatisfied ones.

Roger, I think you should do that. You clearly need something to do.

Of course, it wouldn't qualify as an unbiased statistical study and therefore would be a total waste of time. But knock yourself out.

BTW, I actually called Costco CS, several months ago, out of curiosity, and asked about the statistics on returns. We always hear from you industry guys that the return rate is huge, but we really don't KNOW that, do we?? So I was wondering if that was really true. The Cust Service rep said (unfortunately) that she didn't have that info and even if she did, Costco policy wouldn't allow it to be disclosed. So now I'm wondering how you all know that the return rate is so large?? I'm not saying it ISN'T... I really don't know. Just wondering how you know it IS?

Oh, and John.... you mentioned Customers having to change their electrical when they change their tub because of CODE issues? What specifically are you talking about? I looked in NEC 2002 and I don't see anything different with respect to spa requirements, then to now. And it's not clear at all that even if there were changes to the code, say at the local level, you would have to change the electrical installation at all... unless you had to rewire to accommodate a larger current draw... in which case you are updating anyway. Or is this like the comment on the generic parts, just intended to create fear, uncertainty and doubt?

This is why some of us don't take your "trust us, we're in the industry" comments at face value.

I'm done with this thread. Have at it, guys.

If you repair an existing tub, you are not required to update your electrical service. If you completely remove a hard wired tub and replace it with another tub, you are required to comply with the NEC and state codes in effect at that time, as this is a completely new installation. In many states, such as mine, the NEC and state code have been incorporated into state law by regulation.

I can say that there have been a number of important updates since the 2002 NEC with regards to hot tubs. Most pro's consider the updates to grounding and bonding to be the most comprehensive. The 2005 and 2008 versions of the NEC completely revisited grounding and bonding. I don't know how you missed it, unless you overlooked Article 250.

I'm sorry if I have somehow made you believe that I am on a FUD campaign or that I would ever be disingenuous when stating my beliefs. On the contrary, I have had times when I have disagreed (respectfully) with other pro's and have stated so. Most recently, I had a minor disagreement with a particular piece of advice given by D1dennis. Fortunately, I know he did not take it personally.

Since you have essentially accused me of being disingenuous, I would at least like to make one small attempt at defending myself. You have made this accusation regarding my comment about generic parts. I invite you to read the FPN that Massachusetts has inserted at Article 680.7 regarding pool duty motors (and includes spa motors). This is available here:

http://www.mass.gov/Eeops/docs/dfs/osfm/cm...ured/527012.pdf

When code authorities have to include an FPN in the code warning about unlisted motors with a variety of code problems, you know that it is NOT an isolated problem. One-off aberrations are not dealt with in this fashion. Or do you also wish to claim that Massachusetts code authorities are also engaging in a FUD campaign?

John

[reeffreak]

If you repair an existing tub, you are not required to update your electrical service. If you completely remove a hard wired tub and replace it with another tub, you are required to comply with the NEC and state codes in effect at that time, as this is a completely new installation. In many states, such as mine, the NEC and state code have been incorporated into state law by regulation.

I can say that there have been a number of important updates since the 2002 NEC with regards to hot tubs. Most pro's consider the updates to grounding and bonding to be the most comprehensive. The 2005 and 2008 versions of the NEC completely revisited grounding and bonding. I don't know how you missed it, unless you overlooked Article 250.

I'm sorry if I have somehow made you believe that I am on a FUD campaign or that I would ever be disingenuous when stating my beliefs. On the contrary, I have had times when I have disagreed (respectfully) with other pro's and have stated so. Most recently, I had a minor disagreement with a particular piece of advice given by D1dennis. Fortunately, I know he did not take it personally.

Since you have essentially accused me of being disingenuous, I would at least like to make one small attempt at defending myself. You have made this accusation regarding my comment about generic parts. I invite you to read the FPN that Massachusetts has inserted at Article 680.7 regarding pool duty motors (and includes spa motors). This is available here:

http://www.mass.gov/Eeops/docs/dfs/osfm/cm...ured/527012.pdf

When code authorities have to include an FPN in the code warning about unlisted motors with a variety of code problems, you know that it is NOT an isolated problem. One-off aberrations are not dealt with in this fashion. Or do you also wish to claim that Massachusetts code authorities are also engaging in a FUD campaign?

John

John- I think there is a distinction between "generic" and "counterfeit" to make here... I think there's a pretty good supply of most parts with the proper listing to make these tubs go- counterfeit is a separate issue. Of course you're not going to get a new shell or frame from a defunct mfg. But controllers / motors / plumbing / etc. seem to be in pretty good supply. Maybe headrests are a problem- I don't know.

Here's a question though: my county adopted the 2008 NEC recently. I thought that in that code, a portable spa requires a bonded walking surface on a 3' perimeter. My research showed that you couldn't drop a tub on an existing slab, unless (1) you could prove that slab was bonded with a 12" rebar grid, or (2) had 1/2" thick rubber walking mats placed as insulators at least 3' out. But our codes dept said no equipotential bonding grid was required for a portable spa. You seem to know NEC, did they get it wrong?

[Roger]

Why on earth would 'we' care to do that?

It's so funny..i have no idea what brand of hot tub you have. And if i did, would i go and research it to see if it has a bad history? WTF? OF course not.

It's pretty obvious you didn't do allot of research. I research the history of every brand of everything I buy.

FYI I don't own a hot tub. I repair them. Last one I owned was a Sundance. Only soaked in it once before I sold it.

[n1oty]

If you repair an existing tub, you are not required to update your electrical service. If you completely remove a hard wired tub and replace it with another tub, you are required to comply with the NEC and state codes in effect at that time, as this is a completely new installation. In many states, such as mine, the NEC and state code have been incorporated into state law by regulation.

I can say that there have been a number of important updates since the 2002 NEC with regards to hot tubs. Most pro's consider the updates to grounding and bonding to be the most comprehensive. The 2005 and 2008 versions of the NEC completely revisited grounding and bonding. I don't know how you missed it, unless you overlooked Article 250.

I'm sorry if I have somehow made you believe that I am on a FUD campaign or that I would ever be disingenuous when stating my beliefs. On the contrary, I have had times when I have disagreed (respectfully) with other pro's and have stated so. Most recently, I had a minor disagreement with a particular piece of advice given by D1dennis. Fortunately, I know he did not take it personally.

Since you have essentially accused me of being disingenuous, I would at least like to make one small attempt at defending myself. You have made this accusation regarding my comment about generic parts. I invite you to read the FPN that Massachusetts has inserted at Article 680.7 regarding pool duty motors (and includes spa motors). This is available here:

http://www.mass.gov/Eeops/docs/dfs/osfm/cm...ured/527012.pdf

When code authorities have to include an FPN in the code warning about unlisted motors with a variety of code problems, you know that it is NOT an isolated problem. One-off aberrations are not dealt with in this fashion. Or do you also wish to claim that Massachusetts code authorities are also engaging in a FUD campaign?

John

John- I think there is a distinction between "generic" and "counterfeit" to make here... I think there's a pretty good supply of most parts with the proper listing to make these tubs go- counterfeit is a separate issue. Of course you're not going to get a new shell or frame from a defunct mfg. But controllers / motors / plumbing / etc. seem to be in pretty good supply. Maybe headrests are a problem- I don't know.

Here's a question though: my county adopted the 2008 NEC recently. I thought that in that code, a portable spa requires a bonded walking surface on a 3' perimeter. My research showed that you couldn't drop a tub on an existing slab, unless (1) you could prove that slab was bonded with a 12" rebar grid, or (2) had 1/2" thick rubber walking mats placed as insulators at least 3' out. But our codes dept said no equipotential bonding grid was required for a portable spa. You seem to know NEC, did they get it wrong?

They may or may not have gotten anything wrong, depending on YOUR location. Most states adopt the NEC, but immediately execute whatever changes they wish. If you look at the Massachusetts changes as an example, there is very little that actually seems to get changed when you consider that the full version of the NEC is over 1100 pages!!! Nevertheless, your jurisdiction may have bonding requirements that differ from what I deal with.

After getting that part out of the way, let's discuss the NEC and bonding. Every jurisdiction that I know requires the rebar in a slab, if so configured, to be bonded to the pool or hot tub equipment. Some jurisdictions will also require a local ground rod to be driven, but the general concensus is that most jurisdictions don't. The only exceptions that I am aware of regarding bonding is if the rebar is encased in a truly non-conductive material or if the hot tub is truly portable and uses cord-and-plug connected equipment. That's NEC now, so be aware that these exceptions may not exist in your state if your AHJ has altered this section of the code. Also, be aware that some folks pour a slab for a hot tub without placing rebar.

Your best course of action is to always consult your AHJ. If he makes a statement that you don't understand or believe conflicts with the actual code, simply ask him to explain where in the code he is referring to. Tell him that you just don't understand the basis for his advice and you simply want to get it right. Unless the inspector is a complete A-hole, he should be more than happy to help you through an understanding of the code for that jurisdiction.

As regards the generic/counterfeit equipment, I was not referring to generic parts. I was very plain in my advice to be careful about a particular supplier that was being advocated for by a non-professional member of this forum. The counterfeit stuff is out there and it is proliferating very, very rapidly. It is marketed squarely at those who are, shall we say, price sensitive.

John

[reeffreak]

They may or may not have gotten anything wrong, depending on YOUR location. Most states adopt the NEC, but immediately execute whatever changes they wish. If you look at the Massachusetts changes as an example, there is very little that actually seems to get changed when you consider that the full version of the NEC is over 1100 pages!!! Nevertheless, your jurisdiction may have bonding requirements that differ from what I deal with.

After getting that part out of the way, let's discuss the NEC and bonding. Every jurisdiction that I know requires the rebar in a slab, if so configured, to be bonded to the pool or hot tub equipment. Some jurisdictions will also require a local ground rod to be driven, but the general concensus is that most jurisdictions don't. The only exceptions that I am aware of regarding bonding is if the rebar is encased in a truly non-conductive material or if the hot tub is truly portable and uses cord-and-plug connected equipment. That's NEC now, so be aware that these exceptions may not exist in your state if your AHJ has altered this section of the code. Also, be aware that some folks pour a slab for a hot tub without placing rebar.

Your best course of action is to always consult your AHJ. If he makes a statement that you don't understand or believe conflicts with the actual code, simply ask him to explain where in the code he is referring to. Tell him that you just don't understand the basis for his advice and you simply want to get it right. Unless the inspector is a complete A-hole, he should be more than happy to help you through an understanding of the code for that jurisdiction.

As regards the generic/counterfeit equipment, I was not referring to generic parts. I was very plain in my advice to be careful about a particular supplier that was being advocated for by a non-professional member of this forum. The counterfeit stuff is out there and it is proliferating very, very rapidly. It is marketed squarely at those who are, shall we say, price sensitive.

John

Our AHJ enforces bonding for pool decks but passes hot tubs on an un-bonded, no-rebar slab. I didn't argue . We're going to hammer out the slab and rebuild a paver patio this fall. While I'm in there I'm going to go ahead and put down a #8 copper grid under the pavers so I'm future proof. Seems like when this part of the code is enforced (and I'm sure it already is in many areas) it's going to make it a lot harder to legally install a spa on an existing patio.

Counterfeit stuff is BAD in the networking world. I've seen cisco knock-offs so good the vendors didn't even know they were selling it. It's completely taken over ebay.

[hot_water]

If you repair an existing tub, you are not required to update your electrical service. If you completely remove a hard wired tub and replace it with another tub, you are required to comply with the NEC and state codes in effect at that time, as this is a completely new installation. In many states, such as mine, the NEC and state code have been incorporated into state law by regulation.

I can say that there have been a number of important updates since the 2002 NEC with regards to hot tubs. Most pro's consider the updates to grounding and bonding to be the most comprehensive. The 2005 and 2008 versions of the NEC completely revisited grounding and bonding. I don't know how you missed it, unless you overlooked Article 250.

I'm sorry if I have somehow made you believe that I am on a FUD campaign or that I would ever be disingenuous when stating my beliefs. On the contrary, I have had times when I have disagreed (respectfully) with other pro's and have stated so. Most recently, I had a minor disagreement with a particular piece of advice given by D1dennis. Fortunately, I know he did not take it personally.

Since you have essentially accused me of being disingenuous, I would at least like to make one small attempt at defending myself. You have made this accusation regarding my comment about generic parts. I invite you to read the FPN that Massachusetts has inserted at Article 680.7 regarding pool duty motors (and includes spa motors). This is available here:

http://www.mass.gov/Eeops/docs/dfs/osfm/cm...ured/527012.pdf

When code authorities have to include an FPN in the code warning about unlisted motors with a variety of code problems, you know that it is NOT an isolated problem. One-off aberrations are not dealt with in this fashion. Or do you also wish to claim that Massachusetts code authorities are also engaging in a FUD campaign?

John

I know I said I was done, but this needs a response.

I didn't accuse you of being disingenuous. That's your word. I did accuse you, with good justification IMO, of a somewhat blatant FUD campaign.

Let's talk about code first. It is not true that a tub replacement is always considered a "new installation". It is up to the local jurisdiction. I agree that it is always prudent for a customer to make a phone call to his planning department and check. You present this as a de-facto universal truth, and it is not.

As for the grounding and bonding, I didn't miss the requirements of article 250, nor did I miss 680, which you didn't mention. I agree with you that, as is the case with the NEC over many, many editions, the "wording by committee" has resulted in room for interpretation, and as you mentioned in one of your posts, the local code has precedence.. Apparently, in your area they require the equipotential grid for portables. This isn't the case in all areas. We operate under CA 2007, which is based on NEC 2005. I won't claim to have talked to every city's planning dept, but I can tell you that - even on totally new installs in my area, they don't - DO NOT - have a requirement for the equipotential grid for portables (and this is not limited to cord and plug). In fact, very close by here I know of a recent install that passed with no EPG and no ground rod at the subpanel. Not a replacement spa, mind you - a totally new install. The install is the exact same thing we did under the previous code, which was based on NEC 2002. So if it's true that "every jurisdiction you know of" requires the rebar to be bonded, well, now you now of one that doesn't... San Jose, CA. We have a few spas here.

I discussed 2008 with a licensed electrician in CT (under NEC 2008) and he said that they put in an EPG for permanent installs - as in concrete and gunite - not portables (and not limited to cord and plug). So again, this indicated that your situation is not universal.

Despite the terrible reputation of inspectors, most of them have latitude on what they will pass, are reasonable and will work with the contractor/homeowner, especially on iffy requirements. If I ran across an inspector that wanted me to rip up my patio, I would suggest some other way to deal with his concern - maybe a #8 buried wire around the perimeter, which is mentioned in the code.... or maybe, since it's just a small area, you could get the inspector to go for a ground rod or two (very easy and cheap). Again, we've all had difficult inspectors, but my experience has been they generaly won't force a major demo/rebuild over something like this. Every electrician (or plumber, or...) has negotiated with an inspector. I sure wouldn't rush to get the jackhammer. If your inspectors are truly making you rip out patios, well, in the first place that's NUTS, in the second place, I would be getting the dealers together to lobby this like mad... because it is costing your industry sales, and, in the case of a portable, of questionable safety value.

My quibble with your posts is that you present information - wehther it's accurate based on your area or not - citing that "it is law" and so forth. Well, that is EXACTLY what a FUD campaign is: you are creating Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. The fact is that one should call the AHJ. Your comments are, IMO squarely aimed at trying to diminish the value of a return/refund policy. Sorry, it's FUD.

Next, the counterfeit pump question. I wasn't addressing this as FUD. Counterfeit parts are a bad thing, but a different topic. I could go off on a tirade about China and Chinese imports, but I'll spare you. By the way, the reference doc you cite doesn't discuss knock-offs, it discussed unlisted motors - which are not necessarily knock offs at all. Moreover, the issues were things like excessive cord length -- not at all the same thing as the point you made about the pump not fitting. The point was that the installer would have to trim the cord to the proper length to comply. Not that the thing wasn't serviceable. Please, next time just extract the 30 words that are relevant to your point rather than bury us in 18 pages of irrelevance.

What I was calling FUD relates to your comments that "some but not all" of the parts inthe hydrospa are generic and available easily. This comment was a follow up to your FUD statement about not being able to get replacement parts from Hydrospa, who is out of business. Fact is, the components are generic, there's no problem getting pumps and heaters and jets. I was able to even able to replace a damaged pillow (haven't ever needed any other parts). Now, as a professional spa person, you certainly know all this, none of it is news. So I have to conclude that the real purpose of your comments is to plant the seed of fear because a Costco product doesn't have dealer support.

Maybe your FUD is presented subconsciously. Ok, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. But it's FUD, nonetheless.

[spatech (the unreal one)]

If you repair an existing tub, you are not required to update your electrical service. If you completely remove a hard wired tub and replace it with another tub, you are required to comply with the NEC and state codes in effect at that time, as this is a completely new installation. In many states, such as mine, the NEC and state code have been incorporated into state law by regulation.

...

When code authorities have to include an FPN in the code warning about unlisted motors with a variety of code problems, you know that it is NOT an isolated problem. One-off aberrations are not dealt with in this fashion. Or do you also wish to claim that Massachusetts code authorities are also engaging in a FUD campaign?

John

I know I said I was done, but this needs a response.

I didn't accuse you of being disingenuous. That's your word. I did accuse you, with good justification IMO, of a somewhat blatant FUD campaign.

...

What I was calling FUD relates to your comments that "some but not all" of the parts inthe hydrospa are generic and available easily. This comment was a follow up to your FUD statement about not being able to get replacement parts from Hydrospa, who is out of business. Fact is, the components are generic, there's no problem getting pumps and heaters and jets. I was able to even able to replace a damaged pillow (haven't ever needed any other parts). Now, as a professional spa person, you certainly know all this, none of it is news. So I have to conclude that the real purpose of your comments is to plant the seed of fear because a Costco product doesn't have dealer support.

Maybe your FUD is presented subconsciously. Ok, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. But it's FUD, nonetheless.

Before you make such a long rant and make conclusions shouldn't you take the time to make sure you're dumping on the right person? I looked back and didn't see John (n1loty) make the claims you were speaking of. It appears that it was Markee who made the claim about part availability due to the manufacturer going the way of the dinosaur.

Next time you ought to go take an ax to a tree or go kick a soccer ball or whatever you do to vent so you can be clear headed before you post to defend your purchase .

[hot_water]

If you repair an existing tub, you are not required to update your electrical service. If you completely remove a hard wired tub and replace it with another tub, you are required to comply with the NEC and state codes in effect at that time, as this is a completely new installation. In many states, such as mine, the NEC and state code have been incorporated into state law by regulation.

...

When code authorities have to include an FPN in the code warning about unlisted motors with a variety of code problems, you know that it is NOT an isolated problem. One-off aberrations are not dealt with in this fashion. Or do you also wish to claim that Massachusetts code authorities are also engaging in a FUD campaign?

John

I know I said I was done, but this needs a response.

I didn't accuse you of being disingenuous. That's your word. I did accuse you, with good justification IMO, of a somewhat blatant FUD campaign.

...

What I was calling FUD relates to your comments that "some but not all" of the parts inthe hydrospa are generic and available easily. This comment was a follow up to your FUD statement about not being able to get replacement parts from Hydrospa, who is out of business. Fact is, the components are generic, there's no problem getting pumps and heaters and jets. I was able to even able to replace a damaged pillow (haven't ever needed any other parts). Now, as a professional spa person, you certainly know all this, none of it is news. So I have to conclude that the real purpose of your comments is to plant the seed of fear because a Costco product doesn't have dealer support.

Maybe your FUD is presented subconsciously. Ok, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. But it's FUD, nonetheless.

Before you make such a long rant and make conclusions shouldn't you take the time to make sure you're dumping on the right person? I looked back and didn't see John (n1loty) make the claims you were speaking of. It appears that it was Markee who made the claim about part availability due to the manufacturer going the way of the dinosaur.

Next time you ought to go take an ax to a tree or go kick a soccer ball or whatever you do to vent so you can be clear headed before you post to defend your purchase .

You are, of course, right about Markee and John. I apologize to John for attributing comments to him that he didn't make. That particular bit of FUD was not credited correctly, that bit belonged to Markee. John limited his comments to knock-off parts, and there is nothing debatable there about his caution that such parts are bad news.

As always, though, you choose to ignore the point and focus on the discussion as "a long rant"..."defending your (my) purchase". The bulk of the "long rant" was a discussion on code interpretation. Is that a rant, defending a purchase? I don't see how. Seems to me that it is a discussion of an important topic, with reasoned alternate view proposed. I could be wrong, but I thought that was what a forum was about. Or is it "rant" because I don't line up with the your position and take everything posted at face value?

Once again, John, I sincerely apologize for the mis-credit of the statement from Markee. It was a mistake that was unfair to you, and I should have re-read the posts before shooting my mouth (keyboard?) off.

I still stand by my comment that there is a lot of FUD -spreading here, even if I accused the wrong guy.

[spatech (the unreal one)]

You are, of course, right about Markee and John. I apologize to John for attributing comments to him that he didn't make. That particular bit of FUD was not credited correctly, that bit belonged to Markee. John limited his comments to knock-off parts, and there is nothing debatable there about his caution that such parts are bad news.

As always, though, you choose to ignore the point and focus on the discussion as "a long rant"..."defending your (my) purchase". The bulk of the "long rant" was a discussion on code interpretation. Is that a rant, defending a purchase? I don't see how. Seems to me that it is a discussion of an important topic, with reasoned alternate view proposed. I could be wrong, but I thought that was what a forum was about. Or is it "rant" because I don't line up with the your position and take everything posted at face value?

Once again, John, I sincerely apologize for the mis-credit of the statement from Markee. It was a mistake that was unfair to you, and I should have re-read the posts before shooting my mouth (keyboard?) off.

I still stand by my comment that there is a lot of FUD -spreading here, even if I accused the wrong guy.

My meaning was to point out the error in your first two and last two paragraphs. I agree that the term "long rant" was not accurate (the rest of your post was an unrealted topical discussion) just as the term "As always" above is an inaccurate depiction of my postings.

[n1oty]

If you repair an existing tub, you are not required to update your electrical service. If you completely remove a hard wired tub and replace it with another tub, you are required to comply with the NEC and state codes in effect at that time, as this is a completely new installation. In many states, such as mine, the NEC and state code have been incorporated into state law by regulation.

...

When code authorities have to include an FPN in the code warning about unlisted motors with a variety of code problems, you know that it is NOT an isolated problem. One-off aberrations are not dealt with in this fashion. Or do you also wish to claim that Massachusetts code authorities are also engaging in a FUD campaign?

John

I know I said I was done, but this needs a response.

I didn't accuse you of being disingenuous. That's your word. I did accuse you, with good justification IMO, of a somewhat blatant FUD campaign.

...

What I was calling FUD relates to your comments that "some but not all" of the parts inthe hydrospa are generic and available easily. This comment was a follow up to your FUD statement about not being able to get replacement parts from Hydrospa, who is out of business. Fact is, the components are generic, there's no problem getting pumps and heaters and jets. I was able to even able to replace a damaged pillow (haven't ever needed any other parts). Now, as a professional spa person, you certainly know all this, none of it is news. So I have to conclude that the real purpose of your comments is to plant the seed of fear because a Costco product doesn't have dealer support.

Maybe your FUD is presented subconsciously. Ok, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. But it's FUD, nonetheless.

Before you make such a long rant and make conclusions shouldn't you take the time to make sure you're dumping on the right person? I looked back and didn't see John (n1loty) make the claims you were speaking of. It appears that it was Markee who made the claim about part availability due to the manufacturer going the way of the dinosaur.

Next time you ought to go take an ax to a tree or go kick a soccer ball or whatever you do to vent so you can be clear headed before you post to defend your purchase .

You are, of course, right about Markee and John. I apologize to John for attributing comments to him that he didn't make. That particular bit of FUD was not credited correctly, that bit belonged to Markee. John limited his comments to knock-off parts, and there is nothing debatable there about his caution that such parts are bad news.

As always, though, you choose to ignore the point and focus on the discussion as "a long rant"..."defending your (my) purchase". The bulk of the "long rant" was a discussion on code interpretation. Is that a rant, defending a purchase? I don't see how. Seems to me that it is a discussion of an important topic, with reasoned alternate view proposed. I could be wrong, but I thought that was what a forum was about. Or is it "rant" because I don't line up with the your position and take everything posted at face value?

Once again, John, I sincerely apologize for the mis-credit of the statement from Markee. It was a mistake that was unfair to you, and I should have re-read the posts before shooting my mouth (keyboard?) off.

I still stand by my comment that there is a lot of FUD -spreading here, even if I accused the wrong guy.

Well, I go out to work on a couple of tubs today, come home a bit early and find this. Well, at least you apologized, as I believe my comments in post #24 of this thread speaks volumes on part of this disagreement. I would also like to say that I feel it is unfair to take me to task for the manner in which I stated that, in some states, electric code has the force of law. You try to make it sound like I am deliberately trying to scare people, when I am only stating solid truth. I acknowledge that there are also states where the code does NOT have the force of law.

I am sorry if you feel put out at my link to the Mass code updates. I realize that it is many pages long, but I included the Article number in question and the Mass changes are listed in numerical order. I anticipated that those with a working knowledge of the arrangement of code articles could scroll to the applicable section within a matter of seconds. I also did not want to risk being accused of withholding anything. The link covers all changes in Mass. No editing on my part.

Finally, I think the point I was trying to make regarding the FPN was lost on you. Please re-read that Mass FPN with an open mind, momentarily disregard some of the specific points about cords/connectors and concentrate on the fact that there are "unlisted" motors in the field. This is important for a couple of reasons. First, all the reputable motor manufacturers selling in this country get their motors tested by UL or ETL, and thus are "listed" or "recognized" and their equipment is "listed" or "labelled". Second, the vast majority of unlisted or unrecognized motors available today are the junkier, foreign motors that may not pass the testing standards. More importantly, any hot tub motor installation must comply with Articles 90.7, 110.1, 110.2 and 110.3. That leaves the AHJ with two choices. He CAN approve unlisted equipment after doing a thorough examination of the device for suitability and safety, but it is now his neck in the ringer if this ultimately proves incorrect. The code plainly states that the AHJ can give approval based on testing by a suitable test lab and that listing or labelling is sufficient evidence of that.

Now, I cannot account for the inspector who may misinterpret code or the inspector who fails to detect an unlisted or unrecognized component. Nevertheless, the code cites above are in the 2005 NEC (which you state is the basic controlling code in your area). I encourage you to take a fresh look.

And to reiterate the point that I was trying to make in my earlier post, if the Massachusetts authorities are seeing enough "unlisted" motors in the field that it rates a mention in an FPN, then we are not talking about a handful of episodes. One-offs and occasional aberrations do NOT warrant an FPN. So, apparently there ARE a lot of motors in the supply channel that are plainly not tested by recognized testing agencies. Again, the AHJ has the authority to approve these motors, but he has extra work to do. Furthermore, I am especially loath to use untested electrical equipment. Any foreign manufacturer who feels they have a good product should have no problem submitting to UL testing.

John

[hot_water]

>> "I would also like to say that I feel it is unfair to take me to task for the manner in which I stated that, in some states, electric code has the force of law. You try to make it sound like I am deliberately trying to scare people, when I am only stating solid truth."

I did not take you to task for stating that the code has force of law. It has force of law here in my area. My problem is that you presented the EPG, bonding of rebar, etc as absolute code requirements that carried force of law and WOULD cause major expense to a user that returns his tub and replaces it. It isn't so, even though it *might* be so in some places. That's what I'm calling you out on.

>> "I am sorry if you feel put out at my link to the Mass code updates. I realize that it is many pages long, but... No editing on my part.

John, you told a story about a counterfeit motor that didn't fit. You spoke of generic parts when you gave the link to the FPN. I found the section on unlisted motors pretty quickly. But the FPN deals with UNLISTED... not GENERIC. That doesn't mean the same thing. There are plenty of generic parts that have UL or ETL. So, the FPN mkes a valid point, and yes I'm sure this happens all the time.... but doesn't have anything to do with generic parts! I did scan the entire document to make sure I didn't miss one paragraph buried somewhere that helped make your point. But no big deal.

>> "Finally, I think the point I was trying to make regarding the FPN was lost on you."

Not really. I said twice already in other posts that I agree counterfeits are bad news. I will add for the record that the same is true for unlisted parts. How dead does that horse need to be before you stop beating it? My point was that your example didn't read on your posted comments - it was quite a different problem. But notwithstanding that, we are not in disagreement on the issues of either counterfeit or unlisted parts. It just doesn't extend generally to generic parts.

I still hold the opinion that your discussion of code requirements requiring users to update their electrical, add the EPG and all, was overblown and, whether intentional or not, creates FUD. Not saying your comments aren't accurate in your area, but they are not generally applicable - you made it sound like they are ("every jurisdiction I know of..."). Out of curiosity, are you interpreting the code or has your AHJ actually caused a patio get jackhammered to allow the rebar to be bonded?

[n1oty]

>> "I am sorry if you feel put out at my link to the Mass code updates. I realize that it is many pages long, but... No editing on my part.

John, you told a story about a counterfeit motor that didn't fit. You spoke of generic parts when you gave the link to the FPN. I found the section on unlisted motors pretty quickly. But the FPN deals with UNLISTED... not GENERIC. That doesn't mean the same thing. There are plenty of generic parts that have UL or ETL. So, the FPN mkes a valid point, and yes I'm sure this happens all the time.... but doesn't have anything to do with generic parts! I did scan the entire document to make sure I didn't miss one paragraph buried somewhere that helped make your point. But no big deal.

________________________________________________________________________________

___________________

I am starting to believe that either you do not have an eye for detail or you are plainly on the FUD mission that you are so quickly accusing others of doing. Please re-read the last paragraph of my comments in post #32 and compare it to the comment you made above.

John

[hot_water]

>> "I am starting to believe that either you do not have an eye for detail or you are plainly on the FUD mission that you are so quickly accusing others of doing. Please re-read the last paragraph of my comments in post #32 and compare it to the comment you made above."

John, of all the comments that could be made, I don't think that anyone that has actually read my posts over the past two years would say that I don't have an eye for detail.

In your post #29, where you cited the FPN in your state, you clearly referenced "generic" parts. You said, "...regarding my comment about generic parts. I invite you to read the FPN that Massachusetts has inserted at Article 680.7 regarding pool duty motors (and includes spa motors). This is available here:..." Now. from those words, I think it's reasonable to suppose that your citation of the FPN actually has something to do with the subject of generic parts, no? But the FPN you cited doesn't address generic parts, it addressed unlisted parts. They aren't the same thing. So your citation was not relevant to the issue you were defending. Which, by the way, you don't need to defend in the first place, since I've never taken a position contrary to yours on the issue of counterfeit parts (which apparently from your later comments, you meant to refer to, even though you mistakenly called them 'generics') or unlisted parts. Had you read my posts with, uh, an eye for detail, you might have picked up on that.

You insinuated in your post #38, in a somewhat offensive and condescending manner, that I was incapable of following the numbers in finding the paragraph you were citing. What I explained to you was that, because what I found by following your numbers was off point, I scanned the rest of the doc - all of it - to be sure I hadn't missed anything that you intended. No eye for detail, eh? All of this sifting through your irrelevant citation occurred at your post #29. Your comment that you are not addressing generics appeared in post #32 - after I had read your citation. I may not have an eye for detail, but perhaps you don't understand that 29 comes before 32? Are you getting the temporal relationship? Or should I type slower?

But let's get get over the nastiness and get back to the substance of the discussion. As I already mentioned, we don't disagree - at all - on the points of counterfeit or unlisted parts. Both are bad news. These aren't the FUD nor are they relevant to this thread, other than as a general caution to anyone buying any parts for any product. I really don't see much value in your continually focusing on this peripheral issue that we agree on. The horse has been dead for some time, no need for the beatings to continue.

Our fundamental disagreement relates to your comments (which I characterize as FUD) that replacing a tub would cause sigificant expense to a homeowner due to code changes. My position is that you could be right in certain jursdictions, but that this is far from a universal truth. If you have some points to make there, those would be relevant.

Now, I've been clear about what I consider FUD in your post. I generally post to dispute industry experts who, in my view, post misleading information. Sometimes I am right. Sometimes good arguments are presented showing that there is reasonable backup for the view that I am disputing. Fine! That is the point of a discussion forum. But since you have now accused me of FUD (!), please be so kind as to explain exactly what Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt I am promoting?

[Hillbilly Hot Tub]

If you do a Google search for Hydro spa what ever model it is you will have no problem finding parts that will fit your current tub. Also call Pinnacle Spas at 1 800 304 9684 and give a try. They are a division of Premium Leisure that sells the Hydro spa under the new names Summit (Hydro spa Mellinium), Venus(not sure what Hydro spa), Meridian (Hydro spa Lexus). These are the Hydro spa Mark III series. Premium Leisure is also selling the other series of Hydro spa. Who ever said you can't get parts because Hydro Spa is out of business and gone is wrong! Premium Leisure bought the line, aquired the line after Hydro spa went out of business, what ever you want to call it. The "Hydro spa" line is alive and kicking just under different model names and a different company called Premium Leisure. This company also aquired Gulf spas. Do some web research and it will all come together. I'll let you guys argue about the quality of Hydro spa vs. the over priced, I mean " Top lines" but you can get parts for Hydro spa tubs.

Peace

Be very careful with PL and their former Hydro Spa parts. A good friend of mine in central Mass (another hot tub servicer) just got burned badly when he purchased a couple of complete pumps/motors from them for what he thought were unbelieveable prices on Waterway Executive's. When he went to use them, he could not get them to fit. It turned out that they were Chinese made Waterway knockoffs, not real Waterway's that he thought he was purchasing and the wet end dimensions in particular were loose to the point that he could not install them in a tight plumbing arrangement. He's hoping he can ultimately use them in a more open plumbing arrangement, assuming there is no problem with the threads, etc.

The old adage of buyer beware applies. There are legitimate sources for legitimate parts, including for the Hydro Spas.

John

We have seen these in the field, they suck. It also makes it difficult on the chinese made tubs to go the other way and replace with a quality USA pump, we did have an issue with the threads

[soakerguy]

I guess if Hydrospa used Chinese motors, pumps ect, then that would mean Clearwater spas is guilty of the same offense since their components are shared on most models throughout the lineup of both manufactures. My Hydrspa A.K.A. Platinum II spa from Costco is a U.L. listed E.T.L. rated spa so unless someone is trying to say that they lied then the stuff being said isn't true and purely a fabrication to scare people from purchasing a non dealer spa.

[n1oty]

>> "I am starting to believe that either you do not have an eye for detail or you are plainly on the FUD mission that you are so quickly accusing others of doing. Please re-read the last paragraph of my comments in post #32 and compare it to the comment you made above."

John, of all the comments that could be made, I don't think that anyone that has actually read my posts over the past two years would say that I don't have an eye for detail.

In your post #29, where you cited the FPN in your state, you clearly referenced "generic" parts. You said, "...regarding my comment about generic parts. I invite you to read the FPN that Massachusetts has inserted at Article 680.7 regarding pool duty motors (and includes spa motors). This is available here:..." Now. from those words, I think it's reasonable to suppose that your citation of the FPN actually has something to do with the subject of generic parts, no? But the FPN you cited doesn't address generic parts, it addressed unlisted parts. They aren't the same thing. So your citation was not relevant to the issue you were defending. Which, by the way, you don't need to defend in the first place, since I've never taken a position contrary to yours on the issue of counterfeit parts (which apparently from your later comments, you meant to refer to, even though you mistakenly called them 'generics') or unlisted parts. Had you read my posts with, uh, an eye for detail, you might have picked up on that.

You insinuated in your post #38, in a somewhat offensive and condescending manner, that I was incapable of following the numbers in finding the paragraph you were citing. What I explained to you was that, because what I found by following your numbers was off point, I scanned the rest of the doc - all of it - to be sure I hadn't missed anything that you intended. No eye for detail, eh? All of this sifting through your irrelevant citation occurred at your post #29. Your comment that you are not addressing generics appeared in post #32 - after I had read your citation. I may not have an eye for detail, but perhaps you don't understand that 29 comes before 32? Are you getting the temporal relationship? Or should I type slower?

But let's get get over the nastiness and get back to the substance of the discussion. As I already mentioned, we don't disagree - at all - on the points of counterfeit or unlisted parts. Both are bad news. These aren't the FUD nor are they relevant to this thread, other than as a general caution to anyone buying any parts for any product. I really don't see much value in your continually focusing on this peripheral issue that we agree on. The horse has been dead for some time, no need for the beatings to continue.

Our fundamental disagreement relates to your comments (which I characterize as FUD) that replacing a tub would cause sigificant expense to a homeowner due to code changes. My position is that you could be right in certain jursdictions, but that this is far from a universal truth. If you have some points to make there, those would be relevant.

Now, I've been clear about what I consider FUD in your post. I generally post to dispute industry experts who, in my view, post misleading information. Sometimes I am right. Sometimes good arguments are presented showing that there is reasonable backup for the view that I am disputing. Fine! That is the point of a discussion forum. But since you have now accused me of FUD (!), please be so kind as to explain exactly what Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt I am promoting?

No, I think you just like to argue for the sake of arguing. In the earlier of the two posts I used the term "generic" when I really meant to use the term "unlisted". A few posts later, realizing my error, I PLAINLY corrected this and stated that I was referencing "unlisted" parts. I do not believe that a reasonable person could misconstrue my intent after that subsequent correction. Yet, you will not let this go. I honestly believe that 90 percent of the people that read this entire exchange have no doubt that I plainly corrected this error within three posts. What's the problem?

I think you have proved your lack of attention to detail for taking me to task for something that someone else plainly said. I do accept your subsequent apology. Nevertheless, that attack was grossly egregious and your error was far worse than my one-time slip up with two terms that did not cause anyone any harm, other than your purported lengthy reading of all the Massachusetts changes. Do I feel sorry that you spent so much time reading and re-reading? No, I don't. I gave the point within the citation. You merely should have looked at that citation and asked me here if something did not comport with your expectations. Long before your next reply, someone else DID bring up the subject of "generic" versus "unlisted", which allowed me to realize and correct my accidental flip-flopping of terms.

I continue to maintain that my comments regarding code and the requirement to upgrade when a permanently installed tub is replaced is more common than you realize, and the interpretation of one inspector in California will not change that. I have already stated that you should look at Articles 90.7, 110.1, 110.2 and 110.3 that apply in this case. Again, in all jurisdictions that I am aware of, you are SUPPOSED to pull a permit before installing a new tub. The act of pulling a permit automatically triggers the above sections of the code (as well as others). Please pay special attention to Article 110.3(A)(1) from the 2005 NEC (since you have indicated that is relevant to your area), which states:

"In judging equipment, considerations such as the following shall be evaluated:

(1) Suitability for installation and use in conformity with the provisions of this code.

Please note that it does not say in conformity with the provisions of this code or a prior code at time of first installation.

As a matter of fact, the only point in the 2005 code relative to ALLOWING the retention of an older wiring method for pools/hot tubs is detailed at Article 680.25(A) Exception. Since the code plainly states the points at which older code methods can be retained, I think it is a stretch (to say the least) for you to assume the ability to create more exceptions beyond what is already present.

Finally, let's talk about equipotential bonding as it is handled in the 2005 code. For now, just take my word that the 2008 NEC is more stringent. Therefore, I cannot fathom what some CT electrician is telling you. For simplicity sake, I will stick to the 2005 NEC. Article 680.26 controls all aspects of equipotential bonding regarding pools/ hot tubs. It's a few pages long, but I suggest you read the entire section, including the FPN's. Also, before you jump down my throat about that section being just for pools, please read Articles 680.42 and 680.43 which plainly make both indoor and outdoor hot tubs subject to the provisions of 680.26. Now, I cannot be held responsible if an inspector misinterprets the code or if some jurisdiction does not enforce certain provisions. Nevertheless, my advice is accurate. If my advice runs the risk of causing FUD to someone, then your advice risks causing great economic harm to the unwary.

Oh, and if you care to dispute the actual electric code, please take a look at the pre-delivery guide that the better hot tub manufacturers give their customers. I'll quote from the 2009 Caldera pre-delivery guide:

>>>>>>>>IMPORTANT NOTE: All electrical connections to the control box must be accomplished by a qualified electrician in

accordance with the National Electrical Code and in accordance with any local electrical codes in effect at the time

and place of installation.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Please note the "in effect at the time and place of installation".

I feel that I have presented more than enough independent evidence to back up my claim that replacing tubs may require upgrading the electrical work.

John

[n1oty]

If you do a Google search for Hydro spa what ever model it is you will have no problem finding parts that will fit your current tub. Also call Pinnacle Spas at 1 800 304 9684 and give a try. They are a division of Premium Leisure that sells the Hydro spa under the new names Summit (Hydro spa Mellinium), Venus(not sure what Hydro spa), Meridian (Hydro spa Lexus). These are the Hydro spa Mark III series. Premium Leisure is also selling the other series of Hydro spa. Who ever said you can't get parts because Hydro Spa is out of business and gone is wrong! Premium Leisure bought the line, aquired the line after Hydro spa went out of business, what ever you want to call it. The "Hydro spa" line is alive and kicking just under different model names and a different company called Premium Leisure. This company also aquired Gulf spas. Do some web research and it will all come together. I'll let you guys argue about the quality of Hydro spa vs. the over priced, I mean " Top lines" but you can get parts for Hydro spa tubs.

Peace

Be very careful with PL and their former Hydro Spa parts. A good friend of mine in central Mass (another hot tub servicer) just got burned badly when he purchased a couple of complete pumps/motors from them for what he thought were unbelieveable prices on Waterway Executive's. When he went to use them, he could not get them to fit. It turned out that they were Chinese made Waterway knockoffs, not real Waterway's that he thought he was purchasing and the wet end dimensions in particular were loose to the point that he could not install them in a tight plumbing arrangement. He's hoping he can ultimately use them in a more open plumbing arrangement, assuming there is no problem with the threads, etc.

The old adage of buyer beware applies. There are legitimate sources for legitimate parts, including for the Hydro Spas.

John

We have seen these in the field, they suck. It also makes it difficult on the chinese made tubs to go the other way and replace with a quality USA pump, we did have an issue with the threads

I'm not surprised.

John

[n1oty]

I guess if Hydrospa used Chinese motors, pumps ect, then that would mean Clearwater spas is guilty of the same offense since their components are shared on most models throughout the lineup of both manufactures. My Hydrspa A.K.A. Platinum II spa from Costco is a U.L. listed E.T.L. rated spa so unless someone is trying to say that they lied then the stuff being said isn't true and purely a fabrication to scare people from purchasing a non dealer spa.

To the best of my knowledge, the old Hydro Spa did NOT use the chinese junk, so you are probably OK. Also, although not terribly common, there have been parts suppliers and hot tub manufacturers who have CLAIMED UL/ETL status, yet that turned out to be false. The only way to know the truth is to check with the testing lab involved. The major North American motor manufacturers, for example, generally list their testing agency certification numbers, either on the motor tag itself or on engineering documents that may be readily found on the internet.

John

[spatech (the unreal one)]

>> "I am starting to believe that either you do not have an eye for detail or you are plainly on the FUD mission that you are so quickly accusing others of doing. Please re-read the last paragraph of my comments in post #32 and compare it to the comment you made above."

John, of all the comments that could be made, I don't think that anyone that has actually read my posts over the past two years would say that I don't have an eye for detail.

LOL, I hope you don't dislocate your shoulder while patting yourself on the back. That statement alone explains why you so vehemently defend your spa purchase and disregard anything that any spa professional says that might in any way make your choice a questionable one. It has to be a well thought out, excellent choice because after all, you made it and everyone knows you "have an eye for detail".

[Roger]

LOL, I hope you don't dislocate your shoulder while patting yourself on the back. That statement alone explains why you so vehemently defend your spa purchase and disregard anything that any spa professional says that might in any way make your choice a questionable one. It has to be a well thought out, excellent choice because after all, you made it and everyone knows you "have an eye for detail".

I'm beggining to think wordsmithing is the same things as being smart and having an eye for detail.

Sorry couldn't resist!!!!!

Now where in the hell is the post from the guy I was trying to help with his leaking pump seal????

[hot_water]

Ah, John, at this point I have to thank you for the good laugh. You continue to be hung up on a point, namely, the counterfeit/generic/unlisted business, after I’ve posted repeatedly that I agree with you! Apparently you can’t accept a simple explanation as to why I commented on your lengthy citation. The temporal issue is, apparently, beyond either your capability or willingness to understand. Fine, it really doesn’t matter. I was kidding, but I guess I really should have typed slower.

Your code arguments are quite a stretch. In fact, after reading all that contrivance, I would definitely also say that one of us sure likes to argue for the sake of argument. I can’t really take the time to dispute all your citations, but suffice it to say that they all are quite disputable in the context of this discussion. Fact is, making my point doesn’t require me to dispute your citations. In this thread, you have another poster that told you that the EPG was not enforced on his new installation; I have told you that I have personal knowledge that it is not enforced here in my area, and I also bothered to contact an electrician friend (a licensed electrician) in CT, who said it doesn’t apply. Note, (and I’m typing r e a l l y s l o w l y) that I’m not disputing your experience in your jurisdiction. I don’t have any sources in Mass so I can’t do anything but believe you. Now, to my feeble and un-detailed way of looking at things, you are the *only one here* that’s said he’s installing EPGs and bonding rebar on existing installations. Others are reporting that this isn’t required in their area, *even on new installations*. While this doesn’t say that EPGs and the like are not required by any particular AHJ, this should be enough to tell anyone that they need to find out the requirements in their area… which is what I advised… rather than take YOUR comments at face value. Since I have yet to hear of anyone that has actually been forced to jack hammer their slab to bond the rebar (and I note that you didn’t say you’ve done it yourself), I suspect that most people will learn that it isn’t required. Some may get bad news. My condolences to them. Sooooo….how exactly does my advice - namely “get the REAL facts before making your decisions ” - cause anyone “great economic harm”? Is it the same sort of thing as the FUD you accused me of spreading?

Now… regarding permits triggering code…. Uh, no. Permits trigger inspections. Inspections are, most of the time (at AHJ discretion), limited in scope to the work being done. The new work does generally have to conform to current code, but anyone that has worked in this area knows that practicality and common sense come into play (well, with most inspectors, anyway). The goal is a safe installation. I asked you if your inspectors are making you jackhammer patios to bond rebar, and you haven't answered. If they are, that's silly..... the safety improvement (if any) doesn't warrant the pain. For example, here in San Jose if you upgrade your service panel, you don’t have to rip out your shared neutral circuits so you can install arc fault breakers on bedroom circuits… even though AFIs on bedroom circuits are an *absolute requirement in current code* (and much more clearly so than this EPG business). By the way, your area interprets that EPGs are required for self-contained portable spas, but that interpretation is not universally held.

And your citation of the owner’s manual statements as somehow supporting your interpretation of code issues…. You’re kidding, right? I expect a better argument from you than fine print from the manufacturer intended to insulate them from product liability. It probably doesn’t do that, by the way (you will understand this comment if you have any experience with product liability), but that’s the intent. It doesn’t prove or disprove any point you’re trying to make regarding code. It’s manufacturer’s boilerplate, nothing more.

As to my “egregious” error in miscrediting a statement to you… egregious? EGREGIOUS?? Ah, you really are cracking me up. First of all, my miscredit of that comment has nothing to do with being detail-oriented, it has to do with being human and making a mistake. I have no problem admitting my mistakes, and I will readily apologize for them. I make lots of mistakes. I admit it. I sure hope that that one is the most horrible, offensive and EGREGIOUS mistake of them all… sheesh! It wasn’t that big of a deal. Feigned indignation is not becoming.

Spatech… guess my “as always” comment was applicable after all. Claiming to be detail oriented, which I do in fact claim and will stand by, is not the same thing as me claiming to be infallibly and always correct, which I did not do but you claim I did. I am merely arguing my position, which is the point of a discussion forum, no? Or does the forum exist to provide a soapbox for your industry inspired FUD campaigns? I get the message that you don't agree but then again I am not interested in convincing industry people of anything... just commenting when I think the info is misleading. You and anyone else has the opportunity to argue your points, just as I do. So thanks for the concern, my shoulder is ok. As for defending my purchase, well, I currently don't own a spa. There is no purchase to defend. I used to have a Platinum III, it was real good, and I'm shopping for a new spa. So… “as always” you miss the point. But, nice job of personal attack, that’s always good when you don’t have anything of substance to add to a thread.

[Roger]

I used to have a Platinum III, it was real good, and I'm shopping for a new spa.

I guess to me a guy with and "eye for detail" that can't see the differences seems odd? I guess some of us see differences...well.... different that others.