Foam Filled Or Partial Fill

[Spa User Guy]

While I am not disputing the legitimacy of the study by ARC or Arctic using it as a marketing tool, as they rightly should. I find it hard to believe anyone would put much into a report that clearly showed Arctic as using less hydro to power there spa. Pennys less than the next nearest competitor that had a 1 inch thinner cover on it.

I can only wonder what the results would be, and if they would even be used by Arctic if the second place tub had a cover of equal R-Value?

I think you are missing the main point to the test results. You could wonder all day long about what if you added some extra insulation to one or thicker cover to the other, but that is really beside the point here. The spas were tested as they would come from factory. If the next nearest competitor had a better cover from the factory it would have been tested like that. Arctic spas arguably come with a very nice well insulated cover no doubt. The fact of the matter is that the results of the test showed that two configurations of an Arctic spa consumed less electricity than a group of other comparable models. The two closest runner ups were very close in the energy efficiency however they were edged out by two Arctic (TP designed spas). The point they make in the test is that a quality TP designed spa such as Arctic, can be on par or better than a quality FF designed spa in energy efficiency. The test proves to all but a few doubting Thomas's that quality built TP Spas and FF spas are comparable with regards to energy efficiency. The test showed that the Arctic Yukon, Hotsprings Vanguard and Beachcomber were all super energy efficient.

[Dr. Spa]

HotSprings is one manufacter that does FF , the right way!!

Outstanding statement! Could you explain the difference between doing it the right way vs doing it the wrong way? What exactly make the right way right, and the wrong way wrong?

The point they make in the test is that a quality TP designed spa such as Arctic, can be on par or better than a quality FF designed spa in energy efficiency. The test proves to all but a few doubting Thomas's that quality built TP Spas and FF spas are comparable with regards to energy efficiency.

ummmmmmmmmmmm, kind of. At least in a controlled artificial environment....... Without wind! Unfortunately, in the real world, wind is a real variable. And, due to knowledge of some currently testing, still in progress, I can attest to the fact that it can make a HUGE difference

[Roger]

I think you are missing the main point to the test results. You could wonder all day long about what if you added some extra insulation to one or thicker cover to the other, but that is really beside the point here. The spas were tested as they would come from factory. If the next nearest competitor had a better cover from the factory it would have been tested like that.

No I am not missing the point. Cover upgrades are available from the factory on almost all brands. And what is the standerd cover in TX may not be the same as the standerd cover in Northern MN. It is an extra 100 dollars that is clearly listed as an add in for no extra cost on the tag in one of our local dealers (marketing at its finest) "This spa comes with the cover upgrade at no extra cost"

So here in Northern Minnesota, is it not a factory thing?

Anyway, I have never recieved even one iota of speculation regarding that statement (I wonder what the results would of been had the second place tub had the same R-Factor where 80 percent of the heat loss occurs) And this tells me one thing, and I do not blame Arctic for using this study to market there product, any other company would do the same thing, I think Arctic is a fine product. But I also think if you were sold one becaue you believed the study clearly showed them to be more effiecient than any tub out there including the top seller in the world......you were decieved! And this is exactly what the study by ARC is implying.

[Altazi]

I do not blame Arctic for using this study to market there product, any other company would do the same thing, I think Arctic is a fine product. But I also think if you were sold one becaue you believed the study clearly showed them to be more effiecient than any tub out there including the top seller in the world......you were decieved! And this is exactly what the study by ARC is implying.

Hello Roger,

I don't understand what there is to "believe" about the study. While it does cast the Arctic Spas in a favorable light, the study was done by a reputable third-party test lab. With what aspects of the testing do you take issue? Note that another Arctic product, a lower-end model Coyote Spa, didn't perform as well as some of the competitors in this test.

I, for one, am not going to settle on a thermopane spa just because it saves me $5/month. There are other factors that weigh in more heavily than just energy efficiency - manufacturer reputation, solid local dealer, good warranty, comfort, etc. What this test says to me is that when looking at a top brand spa, TP or FF, it will be relatively energy efficient.

Am I missing something?

Regards,

Altazi

[Stevie]

oh really

sue me jim

So I see Puddin Head has reached the "I'M GONNA SUE YA" stage! He loves that threat and we love watching him posture like this. How many times were you going to sue ME and countless others jimmy? LOL... You are such a fool. Is this like "I'm telling my Mommy on you"?

Jim has been in front of a judge so much that I'm sure he has added LAWYER to his list of accomplishments along with his electrical engineering degree! LMAO!

Crawl back under your rock old man...

[Spa User Guy]

Hello Roger,

I don't understand what there is to "believe" about the study. While it does cast the Arctic Spas in a favorable light, the study was done by a reputable third-party test lab. With what aspects of the testing do you take issue? Note that another Arctic product, a lower-end model Coyote Spa, didn't perform as well as some of the competitors in this test.

I, for one, am not going to settle on a thermopane spa just because it saves me $5/month. There are other factors that weigh in more heavily than just energy efficiency - manufacturer reputation, solid local dealer, good warranty, comfort, etc. What this test says to me is that when looking at a top brand spa, TP or FF, it will be relatively energy efficient.

Am I missing something?

Regards,

Altazi

I think you are right on in your thinking and interpretation of the test data, when considering a top brand spa, TP or FF it will be relatively energy efficient or comparable. There are always going to be those out there that refuse to accept this and actually comprehend that this is true. Some folks are just plain hard headed and keep coming up with excuses as why not to accept the facts. I don't think you are missing anything someone else is.

[Jim_The_Jim]

I think you are right on in your thinking and interpretation of the test data, when considering a top brand spa, TP or FF it will be relatively energy efficient or comparable. There are always going to be those out there that refuse to accept this and actually comprehend that this is true. Some folks are just plain hard headed and keep coming up with excuses as why not accept the facts. I don't think you are missing anything someone else is.

Every independent test side by side with full foam has favored the thermally insulated cabinet and not full foam.

It is not just the energy efficiency improvements. It is the total cost of ownership, and if you live in a cold climate, you must have an equipment compartment that is insulated from the outside. This keeps the water in the equipment from freezing. Having a thermal contact between the jet pumps and the vessel gives heat transfer in both directions. When the pumps run they pass heat into the spa water. When the power is out the vessel becomes a hugh hot water bottle the keeps things warm and stops freeze damage for days and days.

Can you imagine any other industry where they would place the heater and the pipes outside in the cold, so that while the spa is heating the pipes and all the equipment are being cooled by the cold equipment area?

[Movinon]

I keep trying to type but the voices in my head are bothering me today. Sorry

love the signature line - better watch out big bad jim might file

federal charges

[Roger]

Hello Roger,

I don't understand what there is to "believe" about the study. While it does cast the Arctic Spas in a favorable light, the study was done by a reputable third-party test lab. With what aspects of the testing do you take issue? Note that another Arctic product, a lower-end model Coyote Spa, didn't perform as well as some of the competitors in this test.

I, for one, am not going to settle on a thermopane spa just because it saves me $5/month. There are other factors that weigh in more heavily than just energy efficiency - manufacturer reputation, solid local dealer, good warranty, comfort, etc. What this test says to me is that when looking at a top brand spa, TP or FF, it will be relatively energy efficient.

Am I missing something?

Regards,

Altazi

The aspect of the testing I take issue to if it is not perfectly clear to you is the fact that the second place tub had a cover that was 3" tapered to 2" standered cover for that brand. And Arctic used a cover that was 4" tapered to 3" standered for it. This relates to an almost double r-factor in the area where 80 percent of the heat loss is. Pretty simple. The cost savings per month was more like 30 cents between first and second. Put a 4" tapered to 3" cover on second place tub and how much better would it of performed over the Arctic. Doc Spa...help me out on the r-factor conversion for an extra inch 40%???

[Dr. Spa]

It depends on the density of the foam, as well as the type.

Per inch of thickness for Expanded Polystyrene;

1.0# - R-3.85

1.25# - R-4.0

1.5# - R-4.17

2.0# - R-4.35

But I'm thinking somewhere I heard that possibly Arctic was using Extruded Polystyrene? Which has an even higher R value.

The aspect of the testing I take issue to if it is not perfectly clear to you is the fact that the second place tub had a cover that was 3" tapered to 2" standered cover for that brand. And Arctic used a cover that was 4" tapered to 3" standered for it. This relates to an almost double r-factor in the area where 80 percent of the heat loss is. Pretty simple. The cost savings per month was more like 30 cents between first and second. Put a 4" tapered to 3" cover on second place tub and how much better would it of performed over the Arctic. Doc Spa...help me out on the r-factor conversion for an extra inch 40%???

[Altazi]

Thank you, Roger, for pointing out the important difference between the spas being tested. This doesn't seem to be a matter of "belief", but factual information. I agree that significantly thicker covers on the Arctic Spas may have contributed to their improved energy-saving performance.

I have seen a number of posts on this site mentioning that one can get an "upgraded cover" for many of the other spas for around $100 more. If the upgrade cover would impact the energy savings that significantly, why isn't it pushed more? If the difference between a regular cover and an upgrade cover is around $100, I would think that the payback on energy savings would occur over a very short time - within a year, even. It would make sense to me for the top-brand manufacturers to only have the best covers available for their top-end units. Why sell a top-of-the-line spa with a so-so cover, if the cover is so important?

I must also say that, when the Arctic dealer (a normal-sized man) jumped up on top of his spa and danced on the cover, I was alarmed. He asked me to join him. At 260lbs, I decided not to tempt fate. Still, it was an impressive demonstration.

Regards,

Altazi

[Chas]

If the upgrade cover would impact the energy savings that significantly, why isn't it pushed more? If the difference between a regular cover and an upgrade cover is around $100, I would think that the payback on energy savings would occur over a very short time - within a year, even. It would make sense to me for the top-brand manufacturers to only have the best covers available for their top-end units. Why sell a top-of-the-line spa with a so-so cover, if the cover is so important?

I have spoken to HotSpring dealers from all over the world. The ones in extremely cold areas of the globe do seem to order the upgraded cover. It makes no sense for me to do that, since the savings would be pennies per month here in paradise. The heavier covers are, well, heavier as well. I have seen one or two replacement spa covers show up here and there with 4, 5 and even 6 inch foam, but usually we are replacing them with a standard cover. The heavier covers must be handled, and if you live in a climate where the payback would take longer than the cover will last, the 3.5" cover seems to be a good choice.

I have read about Arctic using 'cast core' which they describe as casting the foam around a metal reinforcement. I have never taken one apart, and they don't show pictures or details on the web site, but it sounds like it would make for a very strong cover. The 'dancing dealer' antics have been repeated by many shoppers, so I would say the strength issue is not imaginary. The weight of the cover is not mentioned.

When you saw this cover, did you happen to have a chance to compare it to a more traditional cover in terms of handling the thing?

Here is some useless information which may help your thinking or it may just be mildly interesting: I have sold covers which had a thin layer of material bonded to the foam cores. One maker used Luan plywood, another used fiberglass - the kind that came on a roll for patio roofs and skylights etc. Both of these covers passed the daycare license requirement in which the inspector had to be able to walk on the cover and not end up in the spa. Both of the companies I ordered these covers have ceased operations - I don't know if Extreme Spa Covers offers this, but the two places I used to order them from charged a lot due to the extra labor involved in adding the reinforcement. The bonded surface made the things amazingly strong, did not add much weight, but did nothing for heat retention. Here in our mild climate the heat issue is almost moot, even though we enjoy some of the highest energy costs in the country. A couple of dollars a month will not offset having to get a helper to open the spa every time you want to get into it.

And if you live in snow, the extra strength of an upgrade cover is only an issue if you let the cover become burried in snow - which I can only guess is not the norm. Don't most of you snowbies open the thing every so often to clear it of snow? Vacation homes I can see, but I would think if this was your primary spa of relaxation that you would be IN the thing often enough to keep the snow-load down to a manageable level.

[Jim_The_Jim]

I have spoken to HotSpring dealers from all over the world. The ones in extremely cold areas of the globe do seem to order the upgraded cover. It makes no sense for me to do that, since the savings would be pennies per month here in paradise. The heavier covers are, well, heavier as well. I have seen one or two replacement spa covers show up here and there with 4, 5 and even 6 inch foam, but usually we are replacing them with a standard cover. The heavier covers must be handled, and if you live in a climate where the payback would take longer than the cover will last, the 3.5" cover seems to be a good choice.

I have read about Arctic using 'cast core' which they describe as casting the foam around a metal reinforcement. I have never taken one apart, and they don't show pictures or details on the web site, but it sounds like it would make for a very strong cover. The 'dancing dealer' antics have been repeated by many shoppers, so I would say the strength issue is not imaginary. The weight of the cover is not mentioned.

When you saw this cover, did you happen to have a chance to compare it to a more traditional cover in terms of handling the thing?

Here is some useless information which may help your thinking or it may just be mildly interesting: I have sold covers which had a thin layer of material bonded to the foam cores. One maker used Luan plywood, another used fiberglass - the kind that came on a roll for patio roofs and skylights etc. Both of these covers passed the daycare license requirement in which the inspector had to be able to walk on the cover and not end up in the spa. Both of the companies I ordered these covers have ceased operations - I don't know if Extreme Spa Covers offers this, but the two places I used to order them from charged a lot due to the extra labor involved in adding the reinforcement. The bonded surface made the things amazingly strong, did not add much weight, but did nothing for heat retention. Here in our mild climate the heat issue is almost moot, even though we enjoy some of the highest energy costs in the country. A couple of dollars a month will not offset having to get a helper to open the spa every time you want to get into it.

And if you live in snow, the extra strength of an upgrade cover is only an issue if you let the cover become burried in snow - which I can only guess is not the norm. Don't most of you snowbies open the thing every so often to clear it of snow? Vacation homes I can see, but I would think if this was your primary spa of relaxation that you would be IN the thing often enough to keep the snow-load down to a manageable level.

If you want to increase the insulation value of the cover use a thermal blanket. It stops the steam from reaching the bottom of the cover.

Would you like me to go into my basement and get Jon Watkins own words why they put the foam in the spas? He stated that it was to be able to avoid using fiberglass.

You spend so much time trying to justify and expand on such basic reasoning. It is not for insulation, it is to build a spa tha could be sold for less than $3k back when he started. He just wanted it simple and cheap, and I aplaud him on that. Taking a piece of Rovel, heat form it and stuff it with foam, so you don't have to make a structure. It is that simple.

[Altazi]

And if you live in snow, the extra strength of an upgrade cover is only an issue if you let the cover become burried in snow - which I can only guess is not the norm. Don't most of you snowbies open the thing every so often to clear it of snow? Vacation homes I can see, but I would think if this was your primary spa of relaxation that you would be IN the thing often enough to keep the snow-load down to a manageable level.

Hello Chas,

Excellent discussion. Thanks for the information on the covers. In my case, my spa will be located at my vacation home, where temperatures can drop below 0F and the snow can accumulate to 36". When I am there, I shovel snow (ugh!), but if I can't make it for a couple of weeks, the snow can build up. You can see why I am concerned about the cover.

I am also concerned about freeze protection in case the power goes out while I am not there, or (God forbid) if the GFCI breaker trips. This gets into the whole TP vs. FF thing, which I won't bring up here, but if the temp is 0F and the GFCI is tripped, it doesn't matter what kind of tub I have - it WILL freeze after a few days.

Regards,

Altazi

[Brulan1]

Hello Chas,

Excellent discussion. Thanks for the information on the covers. In my case, my spa will be located at my vacation home, where temperatures can drop below 0F and the snow can accumulate to 36". When I am there, I shovel snow (ugh!), but if I can't make it for a couple of weeks, the snow can build up. You can see why I am concerned about the cover.

I am also concerned about freeze protection in case the power goes out while I am not there, or (God forbid) if the GFCI breaker trips. This gets into the whole TP vs. FF thing, which I won't bring up here, but if the temp is 0F and the GFCI is tripped, it doesn't matter what kind of tub I have - it WILL freeze after a few days.

Regards,

Altazi

If there is snow covering the whole tub that makes it like an igloo and would trap the heat even better.

[Altazi]

If there is snow covering the whole tub that makes it like an igloo and would trap the heat even better.

Ahh, now THAT I like. Any excuse to get out of shoveling snow. . . Now if I can just find a spa with a side entry. . .

[Roger]

Hello Chas,

Excellent discussion. Thanks for the information on the covers. In my case, my spa will be located at my vacation home, where temperatures can drop below 0F and the snow can accumulate to 36". When I am there, I shovel snow (ugh!), but if I can't make it for a couple of weeks, the snow can build up. You can see why I am concerned about the cover.

I am also concerned about freeze protection in case the power goes out while I am not there, or (God forbid) if the GFCI breaker trips. This gets into the whole TP vs. FF thing, which I won't bring up here, but if the temp is 0F and the GFCI is tripped, it doesn't matter what kind of tub I have - it WILL freeze after a few days.

Regards,

Altazi

I did wsee one comment a while back on the Arctic cover being a bit heavy, and I have seen and handled the upgrades for sveral brands and yes they are heavy comparable to a standerd cover. But here in Northern Minnesota it is a small price to pay for the extra cost savings and snow load.

And yes Chas us "snowbies" do clean the snow off of our covers before we open them as they will not open properly and will create extra load on the center seam when opened , and ice build up if left to thaw freeze thaw freeze as the winter sun seems to do alot. A thermal blanket is a great idea and at 20-30 bucks on e-bay a worthwhile investment untill your original cover wears out and you can get an upgraded replacement from Doc But more than anything in my mind the thermal blanket, albeit a pain sometimes to remove and replace does more for keeping chlorine in and saving your pillows and the underside of your cover.

Kudo's to Arctic for using an extra thick reinforced cover to gain an advantage. But at a cumbersome cost maybe not worth it in more "sunbie" climate.

[Chas]

In my case, my spa will be located at my vacation home, where temperatures can drop below 0F and the snow can accumulate to 36". When I am there, I shovel snow (ugh!), but if I can't make it for a couple of weeks, the snow can build up. You can see why I am concerned about the cover.

There used to be a product called a 'Spa Party Table' or somesuch, which sat on three large suction cups, and had about a 3' diameter top. The upright post was PVC pipe which you simply trimmed to fit.

I only sold a few of them, but the folks who purchased them all had cabins/homes up in the snow. Big Bear, most likely. They trimmed the support to place the top of the table just under the closed cover. That way they didn't have to remove it to close the spa lid, but also it gave support to the cover.

Here is one which is much less elegant, but still would do about the same job - Sorry, the image will not post. Google "Spa Table" and you should be able to find a few.

Others may be available.

They are useful while enjoying the spa, of course, but you can remove them as needed.

Another thing to know about freeze protection: if your vacation home is subject to power outages which last several days at a time, you can buy systems which will call you and alert you. There may be other more pressing reasons for you to get up to the house asap - I don't know. I have yet to build on our vacation lot, and it doesn't sound like it's going to be nearly the snow load you describe.

But you could also have a generator system. Now, you don't need to have the regular heater kick on - that would require a large genny to run for most spas - but you could have your electrician put a circuit from the genny or from another regualr circuit in your house to an outlet in or near the motor compartment. GFI protected, please.

That circuit can be used to power a simple space heater or even a work lamp placed carefully in the motor compatment. That alone will give you a huge extension on the the time before the temp in the tub becomes critical. With no genny, the extra circuit is just a backup in case the tub's regular gfi or breaker fails but you still have power in the place.

Also, I have helped folks get a second cover made for the tub which goes over the entire tub from top to bottom. Beach dwellers use awning fabric for these covers to keep the blowing sand out of the tubs, and to make it less likely that surfers will paddle in and help themselves to the spa while it is unattended. But I suppose you could make one out of the same vinyl as the cover, perhaps line it with a thin layer of foam, batting or fabric to give just a little more heat retention.

There are some ready-made models available, but I bet Doc could whip up a custom model that would fit whatever model you end up buying.

Thinking with my fingers here - just random synapse activity.

[Tom]

Spa User Guy, Aug 30 2006, 09:12 PM:

The point they make in the test is that a quality TP designed spa such as Arctic, can be on par or better than a quality FF designed spa in energy efficiency. The test proves to all but a few doubting Thomas's that quality built TP Spas and FF spas are comparable with regards to energy efficiency

Dr. Spa' date on Aug 30 2006:

ummmmmmmmmmmm, kind of. At least in a controlled artificial environment.......

For sure! Dr. Spa seems to think that's a bad thing, but it's not. In a scientific study, as many variables as possible are controlled (kept the same). The remaining variables are the independent variable (the one being tested, that is, model of spa) and the dependent variable (electricity usage per cubic meter of water). That way, you can determine that the result (electricity usage) varies with or depends on only the model of spa.* All the spas were tested in the same environment, so that a fair comparison could be made.

The ARC chose to test in still air at room temperature and at freezer temperatures to simulate Canadian weather conditions. They chose not to simulate a windy environment (which would have had to be equally controlled and probably equally artificial). Such a test would be interesting and I hope Doc shares his results.

Tom G

* Roger (Tman122) likes to argue that the cover thickness was not controlled. I think this is specious. The amount of insulation was not controlled, nor the size of the motors, nor any other physical aspect of the spas. That was the point of the study, to examine the effect of differences between brands/models on energy use.

As is customary in tests of consumer goods, "All the spas were purchased at random from retail locations by the ARC" (Thermal Performance Test of Spas, Alberta Research Council, page 1). In other words, they bought what they could get off the floor. If the Arctic includes a thicker cover, if Hot Springs includes thicker foam, if Beachcomber uses thicker wood in their cabinet, that is just part of the package, and the test used the package as the consumer would have purchased it, right off the floor.

Tom

[Spa User Guy]

Spa User Guy, Aug 30 2006, 09:12 PM:

The point they make in the test is that a quality TP designed spa such as Arctic, can be on par or better than a quality FF designed spa in energy efficiency. The test proves to all but a few doubting Thomas's that quality built TP Spas and FF spas are comparable with regards to energy efficiency

Dr. Spa' date on Aug 30 2006:

ummmmmmmmmmmm, kind of. At least in a controlled artificial environment.......

For sure! Dr. Spa seems to think that's a bad thing, but it's not. In a scientific study, as many variables as possible are controlled (kept the same). The remaining variables are the independent variable (the one being tested, that is, model of spa) and the dependent variable (electricity usage per cubic meter of water). That way, you can determine that the result (electricity usage) varies with or depends on only the model of spa.* All the spas were tested in the same environment, so that a fair comparison could be made.

The ARC chose to test in still air at room temperature and at freezer temperatures to simulate Canadian weather conditions. They chose not to simulate a windy environment (which would have had to be equally controlled and probably equally artificial). Such a test would be interesting and I hope Doc shares his results.

Tom G

* Roger (Tman122) likes to argue that the cover thickness was not controlled. I think this is specious. The amount of insulation was not controlled, nor the size of the motors, nor any other physical aspect of the spas. That was the point of the study, to examine the effect of differences between brands/models on energy use.

As is customary in tests of consumer goods, "All the spas were purchased at random from retail locations by the ARC" (Thermal Performance Test of Spas, Alberta Research Council, page 1). In other words, they bought what they could get off the floor. If the Arctic includes a thicker cover, if Hot Springs includes thicker foam, if Beachcomber uses thicker wood in their cabinet, that is just part of the package, and the test used the package as the consumer would have purchased it, right off the floor.

Tom

Very insightful post Tom!

[Roger]

Spa User Guy, Aug 30 2006, 09:12 PM:

The point they make in the test is that a quality TP designed spa such as Arctic, can be on par or better than a quality FF designed spa in energy efficiency. The test proves to all but a few doubting Thomas's that quality built TP Spas and FF spas are comparable with regards to energy efficiency

Dr. Spa' date on Aug 30 2006:

ummmmmmmmmmmm, kind of. At least in a controlled artificial environment.......

For sure! Dr. Spa seems to think that's a bad thing, but it's not. In a scientific study, as many variables as possible are controlled (kept the same). The remaining variables are the independent variable (the one being tested, that is, model of spa) and the dependent variable (electricity usage per cubic meter of water). That way, you can determine that the result (electricity usage) varies with or depends on only the model of spa.* All the spas were tested in the same environment, so that a fair comparison could be made.

The ARC chose to test in still air at room temperature and at freezer temperatures to simulate Canadian weather conditions. They chose not to simulate a windy environment (which would have had to be equally controlled and probably equally artificial). Such a test would be interesting and I hope Doc shares his results.

Tom G

* Roger (Tman122) likes to argue that the cover thickness was not controlled. I think this is specious. The amount of insulation was not controlled, nor the size of the motors, nor any other physical aspect of the spas. That was the point of the study, to examine the effect of differences between brands/models on energy use.

As is customary in tests of consumer goods, "All the spas were purchased at random from retail locations by the ARC" (Thermal Performance Test of Spas, Alberta Research Council, page 1). In other words, they bought what they could get off the floor. If the Arctic includes a thicker cover, if Hot Springs includes thicker foam, if Beachcomber uses thicker wood in their cabinet, that is just part of the package, and the test used the package as the consumer would have purchased it, right off the floor.

Tom

As we have discussed many times Tom in public and in private. The fact that they were stock spas purchased just the way they were purchased is no dout a way to justify the test and put the favorable light on your brand. I am still not convinced this is a fair comparision as here in Northern Minnesota the upgraded cover is stock. No one has said the insulation skeem used by Arctic and a few other thermal pane insulated brands is any less effiecient than the insulation skeem on several full foam brands.

This whole thing FF vs TP started with the TP camp touting tremendous superiority over the FF design. FF of course touted no way FF is the way to go. Now it seems after years of debate a truce has been reached but, remember we are talking pennys a month and it seems to me following the lead that us middle of the road guys are using that insulation should never ever be the determining factor on your purchase, stuff like quality construction, quality dealer and fit on your back side should be what your decision is based on. And for years Arctic had a bad reputation in all these areas except quality construction. I have never followed either camp as you know Tom my thoughts on insulation and which design I think is the best to cover every aspect of both camps. I however will not stop pointing out something that I am sure anyone who reads the test will not notice, one small detail not printed clearly on the "independent test"

And to me TP vs FF on the 20 percent heat loss out the sides is not what this ARC test is about. It's about the 80 percent heat loss out the top. And the only way Arctic could of come out on top was to have a higher r-factor. Otherwise the pennys a month would not beas good of a marketing tool. I am very adament about this because , not Arctic, nor its competition nor the imfamous self proclaimed king of the spa world has the guts to speculate what the test results would of been had the r-factors in the high heat loss area been equal simply by getting a 100 dollar upgrade or standerd cover for minnesota, or the whole spas from minnesota. That tells me alot!!!

[Jim_The_Jim]

As we have discussed many times Tom in public and in private. The fact that they were stock spas purchased just the way they were purchased is no dout a way to justify the test and put the favorable light on your brand. I am still not convinced this is a fair comparision as here in Northern Minnesota the upgraded cover is stock. No one has said the insulation skeem used by Arctic and a few other thermal pane insulated brands is any less effiecient than the insulation skeem on several full foam brands.

This whole thing FF vs TP started with the TP camp touting tremendous superiority over the FF design. FF of course touted no way FF is the way to go. Now it seems after years of debate a truce has been reached but, remember we are talking pennys a month and it seems to me following the lead that us middle of the road guys are using that insulation should never ever be the determining factor on your purchase, stuff like quality construction, quality dealer and fit on your back side should be what your decision is based on. And for years Arctic had a bad reputation in all these areas except quality construction. I have never followed either camp as you know Tom my thoughts on insulation and which design I think is the best to cover every aspect of both camps. I however will not stop pointing out something that I am sure anyone who reads the test will not notice, one small detail not printed clearly on the "independent test"

And to me TP vs FF on the 20 percent heat loss out the sides is not what this ARC test is about. It's about the 80 percent heat loss out the top. And the only way Arctic could of come out on top was to have a higher r-factor. Otherwise the pennys a month would not beas good of a marketing tool. I am very adament about this because , not Arctic, nor its competition nor the imfamous self proclaimed king of the spa world has the guts to speculate what the test results would of been had the r-factors in the high heat loss area been equal simply by getting a 100 dollar upgrade or standerd cover for minnesota, or the whole spas from minnesota. That tells me alot!!!

In a real study, the spas would be placed side by side outside. The differences would then be totally apparent. The issues that are important are what the meter reads with exactly the same amount of use and the same environment, plus the down time, and the cost to repair.

All that Rogers post says is that he STILL does not understand. Geeze! How many times do I have to explain it to you?

[Dr. Spa]

just testing something........

If there's a picture above, I can host pictures for ya all........... pm me......... A "work-around" is not cheating

[Jim_The_Jim]

just testing something........

If there's a picture above, I can host pictures for ya all........... pm me......... A "work-around" is not cheating

I see you broke the code.

[Roger]

In a real study, the spas would be placed side by side outside. The differences would then be totally apparent. The issues that are important are what the meter reads with exactly the same amount of use and the same environment, plus the down time, and the cost to repair.

All that Rogers post says is that he STILL does not understand. Geeze! How many times do I have to explain it to you?

Jim you have some valid points above except for the one about me not understanding. Just for the point of speculation and correct me anywhere I am wrong because I know how smart you are compared to me and everyone else. How much...wait let me lay these out and see if you will answer any in your oh so smart wisdom.

1. How much of the total heat loss when a spa is shut down is from the top versus the side walls. With the cover off Jimmy?

2. How much of an increase in R-Factor does 1 inch of foam of the spec used in your covers equate to?

3. As flawed as the results of the ARC test were to me. If they wer'nt to you, then speculate as to what you think the results of the test would of been if all tubs used had the same r-factor on the top?

Remember Jimmy speculation is a very important part of science. And we would not know how a wheel works if we hadnt speculated long ago.