Jump to content

Is Full Foam Maint. A Problem


mendon31

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 110
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

hehe thankyou

Brulan, do you live in a wood house or a steel house.

Wood buildings can last as long as needed. In fact, wood can endure for centuries. There’s no reason a good wood building couldn’t last indefinitely. In North America, we have countless houses still occupied that are well over 100 years old. There are many more surviving wood buildings world-wide far older than that, including temples in Japan built 1300 years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brulan, do you live in a wood house or a steel house.

Wood buildings can last as long as needed. In fact, wood can endure for centuries. There’s no reason a good wood building couldn’t last indefinitely. In North America, we have countless houses still occupied that are well over 100 years old. There are many more surviving wood buildings world-wide far older than that, including temples in Japan built 1300 years ago.

And you could get a piece of SS in the right environment to last 1300 years also. But NOT the stuff they make spas outa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wood is the material of choice for the majority of homes constructed here in the US mainly because of cost and availability. It is not stronger than metal which is why skyscrapers are constructed mainly of steel I-beams framework. In fact you would be hard pressed to find much wood at all used in the structural components of any new tall structure. Z-metal is commonly used for even the inner wall studs. Wood varieties such as cedar or redwood are very resilient against exposure to water and weather conditions, however these woods are softer and have little strength at all. Not too suitable strength wise for framework on a hot tub. Teak would make an excellent wood framework material for a hot tub, it is both strong and resists weathering, molding and rotting due to severe water exposure. The cost and availability of Teak probably prohibit manufacturers from using it. A treated metal frame with zinc galvanized steel would offer excellent strength and resistance to rust from water exposure similar to Teak wood. I believe most tubs using a wood framework use a treated Douglass Fir which would be pretty good for strength and durability, but likely not quite as good as a treated steel if both were tested in extreme constant wet conditions. All in all, lets face it they both are pretty good and should not be a determining factor when deciding on a tub. I can't imagine a situation where a hot tub owner would let a hot tub frame be exposed to the constant wet conditions that would eventually ruin both a metal or wood frame. It would take a non-repaired leak a very long time to damage either a treated wood or metal hot tub framework. My 2 cents :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ya but any stainless steel can rust too.

Any exposure to carbon steel dust of any kind on SS will in fact rust SS. But clean pickled SS will not rust. It would have to get carbon from the air or environment. However oxidation is a tricky thing and any metal can be affected by it. A I-Beam in a skyscraper is not used because of it's superior strenth to wood. Its very difficult to achieve the lenghts required with wood. Heres where steel has a tremedous advantage.

And as was stated, either will do more than required in hot tub construction. Any one who tells you steel is better is trying to sell you that fact, but it simply is not true. This is how this whole bruhaha got started. I won't mention any names but someone said steel framed Hot Tubs were better than Wood framed, I called BS and several others also. I personaly think we can all agree that either one is more than suffiecient to build a Hot Tub Frame out of with niether haveing any advantage over the other except wood is quieter. Once them rivets start rattling. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any exposure to carbon steel dust of any kind on SS will in fact rust SS. But clean pickled SS will not rust. It would have to get carbon from the air or environment. However oxidation is a tricky thing and any metal can be affected by it. A I-Beam in a skyscraper is not used because of it's superior strenth to wood. Its very difficult to achieve the lenghts required with wood. Heres where steel has a tremedous advantage.

And as was stated, either will do more than required in hot tub construction. Any one who tells you steel is better is trying to sell you that fact, but it simply is not true. This is how this whole bruhaha got started. I won't mention any names but someone said steel framed Hot Tubs were better than Wood framed, I called BS and several others also. I personaly think we can all agree that either one is more than suffiecient to build a Hot Tub Frame out of with niether haveing any advantage over the other except wood is quieter. Once them rivets start rattling. :D

Steel is more durable and carpender ants have no chance of eating away and having a feast on steel. Wood, Water, and termites=fast decay. I happen to like the smell of wood but I wouldn't have it in my tub being my tub is outside. :wub:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steel is more durable and carpender ants have no chance of eating away and having a feast on steel. Wood, Water, and termites=fast decay. I happen to like the smell of wood but I wouldn't have it in my tub being my tub is outside. :wub:

They both have their advantages and disadvantages. My service guys hate moving the spas that have metal framing in them because of the weight.

Try picking up an 8' cal spa with the metal reinforcement under the lip. A real backbreaker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They both have their advantages and disadvantages. My service guys hate moving the spas that have metal framing in them because of the weight.

Try picking up an 8' cal spa with the metal reinforcement under the lip. A real backbreaker.

I dont pick up Cal spa's but the colemans weight about 700lbs wich is significantly lighter than the Hotsprings 850lb spa's or Catalina's 900lb'ers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steel is more durable and carpender ants have no chance of eating away and having a feast on steel. Wood, Water, and termites=fast decay. I happen to like the smell of wood but I wouldn't have it in my tub being my tub is outside. :wub:

Whats a carpender ant?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your right they always have built a solid unit. They are about the only manufacturer that we regularly go out and servcie spas that are 20 years old. You just dont see that with other brands.

The foam gives it the extra support that the gavalume steel already does. There are def. some old HS's out there and are very well built for 20 years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to be clear to all I found this website after being asked some questions from a friend who is buying a spa soon. (we bought a Coast spa last year from a dealer in Winnipeg, love it and made the purchase based on how I liked the filtration system vs others).

I love this fight with Jim you are all having. Do I agree with either side, I’d say I’m leaning to the vs Jim side so I’d like to pose a few questions and want straight answers if he cares to answer at all;

I do know that it may take a bit more time to fix a leak on my full foam, but I also understand that the foam does support the fittings and piping, therefore reducing the number one reason for leaks. Can Jim point me to a study in which leaks are proven to be as likely in both designs? I understand the theory why they would not be, and I would take the spa with less chance of leaks vs the one that is easier to fix any day.

Next, both his brand and the similar Artic Spas claim that they use the heat from the pumps to heat the water therefore saving you money. If this is true and the rules of thermodynamics have changed in a way that large bodies of water can be affected by such small amounts of heat while being transferred between a fibreglass/acrylic shells, when all true science points to an opposite effect, why wouldn’t these companies take the next logical step and use air heating under the shell as the only way to heat the tub? That would eliminate failure of the heating systems used now. Or is this purely a myth like my third year physics professor taught me?

I have also seen Jim say the only reason the ‘top’ manufactures don’t insulate like his company is that they want to save money and also don’t want to admit they are ‘wrong’. I’m sorry to point out that in business if there is a provable way to show you have an advantage over the competitor and you have the ability to you it you do. If it mean greater cost you still do it, (you just have one with that option and one without). I know of no other business that would shy away from an advantage like this, (if it were true). So that means one of two things, all these other companies are just dumb, or this advantage is either not true or so slight that a consumer will not benefit from it. I would have to guess since this business is so cut throat that it is the latter. Jim please don’t answer this one, just listen, having a gap between the object you want to heat and the insulation doesn’t work on anything else, not on houses, not on pipes, not on anything I know of, so I must assume this is true with heated water, come to think of it the design of water heaters have no air gaps. The properties of insulation are not to carry heat, so they will not add to the heat loss, and as far as the piping they will insulate them too during power outages, however you are correct the heat from the water would do a better job based on your design, again since the heat from the water, (or the cool) will transfer to the air cavity and not vice versa. The simple truth to this is that there is no great advantage to Jim’s tub’s system or it would be used universally no matter what he says, the top makers at some point said yes to full foam when they were not using it, they were not ashamed to say they found something better, and they would not be here. This is the number one way salespeople sell these things, find something different about their tub and do whatever it takes to make the consumer think they need it, look it worked for my with Coast’s filter!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to be clear to all I found this website after being asked some questions from a friend who is buying a spa soon. (we bought a Coast spa last year from a dealer in Winnipeg, love it and made the purchase based on how I liked the filtration system vs others).

I love this fight with Jim you are all having. Do I agree with either side, I’d say I’m leaning to the vs Jim side so I’d like to pose a few questions and want straight answers if he cares to answer at all;

I do know that it may take a bit more time to fix a leak on my full foam, but I also understand that the foam does support the fittings and piping, therefore reducing the number one reason for leaks. Can Jim point me to a study in which leaks are proven to be as likely in both designs? I understand the theory why they would not be, and I would take the spa with less chance of leaks vs the one that is easier to fix any day.

Next, both his brand and the similar Artic Spas claim that they use the heat from the pumps to heat the water therefore saving you money. If this is true and the rules of thermodynamics have changed in a way that large bodies of water can be affected by such small amounts of heat while being transferred between a fibreglass/acrylic shells, when all true science points to an opposite effect, why wouldn’t these companies take the next logical step and use air heating under the shell as the only way to heat the tub? That would eliminate failure of the heating systems used now. Or is this purely a myth like my third year physics professor taught me?

I have also seen Jim say the only reason the ‘top’ manufactures don’t insulate like his company is that they want to save money and also don’t want to admit they are ‘wrong’. I’m sorry to point out that in business if there is a provable way to show you have an advantage over the competitor and you have the ability to you it you do. If it mean greater cost you still do it, (you just have one with that option and one without). I know of no other business that would shy away from an advantage like this, (if it were true). So that means one of two things, all these other companies are just dumb, or this advantage is either not true or so slight that a consumer will not benefit from it. I would have to guess since this business is so cut throat that it is the latter. Jim please don’t answer this one, just listen, having a gap between the object you want to heat and the insulation doesn’t work on anything else, not on houses, not on pipes, not on anything I know of, so I must assume this is true with heated water, come to think of it the design of water heaters have no air gaps. The properties of insulation are not to carry heat, so they will not add to the heat loss, and as far as the piping they will insulate them too during power outages, however you are correct the heat from the water would do a better job based on your design, again since the heat from the water, (or the cool) will transfer to the air cavity and not vice versa. The simple truth to this is that there is no great advantage to Jim’s tub’s system or it would be used universally no matter what he says, the top makers at some point said yes to full foam when they were not using it, they were not ashamed to say they found something better, and they would not be here. This is the number one way salespeople sell these things, find something different about their tub and do whatever it takes to make the consumer think they need it, look it worked for my with Coast’s filter!

The argument for thermal pane or thermal lock is that when there is foam there is not enough mobility in the pipes for movement when the pumps are turned on and off. That is the argument I use. In terms of accessability, obviously thermal is better. But, most leaks occur where the components are so foam would not be an issue in that manner. A matter of fact the heat will trap closer to the components but I think PH is more of an issue for rotting the gaskets in the pump. Finding a leak in the pipes for foam is a little harder but manageable. A higher r-value for foam and a lower r-value for thermal lock given a constant r-value for cover= better insulation. Thermal might save a few cents but a full foam heats up quicker. Foam gives more support for the shell unless gavalume steel is used for a thermal pane. They both have there goods and bad and I recommend any top manufacturers whether foam or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The argument for thermal pane or thermal lock is that when there is foam there is not enough mobility in the pipes for movement when the pumps are turned on and off. That is the argument I use.

What the heck is that supposed to mean? Are you actually telling people the foam stabilizing the plumbing is somehow a negative thing? It's not as if the pipes are locked in place 2 inches away from the pump connections. I'd love to see the transcript from this sales presentation of yours but I'm afraid I'd crack a rib reading it.

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...