Hot Tub Forum
Original => Hot Tub Forum => Topic started by: tooth on March 18, 2005, 06:26:37 am
-
Can't seem to find much information on Arctic Spas on this forum. I had a look at them yesterday and was quite impressed with some of their features
Heatlock insulation
Heat transfer
Low operating costs
fiberglass shells
castcore covers
forever floor that lets you put tub on any level surface without a concrete pad
Good all inclusive warranty
Price seemed to be within range of the other major brands and I could get a Yukon Signature Series demo model for $8500 Can
I would appreciate any comments anyone might have on this brand of tub and would also like to hear from any current owners.
-
I'm amazed you can't find anything on these spas on this forum! :o
Been discussed a lot. I don't have any personal experience, sorry!
-
Sorry Tooth, it's post's like these that lead us to believe the Arctic team is seeding the board, again.
There's hundreds of posts's regarding Arctic if you use the search engine on this and all the forums. You convieniently listed all the selling features for anyone interested. We apreiciate that.
Don't be swayed by a sales pitch. Be swayed by comfort, cost, and reliability.
-
Sorry but being a newbie I wasn't familiar with the search feature. Have since managed to read through a number of threads on Arctic spas and from the sounds of things they aren't all that special. They still seem to have some desirable features though.
Didn't mean to sound like an advertisement for them :-/
I guess my search continues!
-
I am a satisfied Arctic owner. When deciding on what to buy, don't just take 2nd hand opinion - go find out for yourself. There are many brands of very decent tubs.
Arctic sales tactics have been greatly debated on this site, yet nobody has yet to confirm that they are a poorly made tub. A good dealer is paramount and in my opinion should be a very high priority when considering any tub.
Good luck.
Jc
-
Arctic makes a fine tub, but do shop around to cross compare different manufacturers products to make sure you are getting the best spa for you and your family. Wet Test Wet Test Wet Test!!!!
-
Great Spa, very solid. I had a hard time finding another manufacturer with all of the previously mentioned features in my geographical area. Yes, I am sure there are many spa's on the market that compare...make sure you look around, and of course wet test.
A few things that really stand out for me is the Forever floor and the cover. I can't say enough about that CastCore Cover...you could have a party on that thing! I actually haven't calculated my hydro bill yet, so no comment on the energy efficiency.
As for the Sales end, the entire industry is a bit icky - Arctic Spa included. I found most places would spend more time bashing the competition, then highlighting the positives features of there own spa brand. It's a strange industry culture that I suspect results from the intense competition among manufacturers.
-
Can't seem to find much information on Arctic Spas on this forum. I had a look at them yesterday and was quite impressed with some of their features
Heatlock insulation
Heat transfer
Low operating costs
fiberglass shells
castcore covers
forever floor that lets you put tub on any level surface without a concrete pad
This last item is one that really burns me. Does anyone really beleive it is wise to simply level the dirt in your back yard and place a spa there? What if the ground shifts (around here that happens every fall and spring)? The forever floor has its advantages, but I feel it is misleading to suggest that one needn't build a proper base, concrete or otherwise.
-
This last item is one that really burns me. Does anyone really beleive it is wise to simply level the dirt in your back yard and place a spa there? What if the ground shifts (around here that happens every fall and spring)? The forever floor has its advantages, but I feel it is misleading to suggest that one needn't build a proper base, concrete or otherwise.
Ditto!
-
Ditto!
A crock indeed.
-
A crock indeed.
And many tubs allow you to use alternatives to concrete, such as decking, railroad ties, and those tough plastic spa pads. The problem I have always seen with Arctic isn't that they are a poorly manufactured tub (others, feel free to jump in here) it is that they seem to charge a real premium for features that are either:
1) Common
or
2) Overengineered
or
3) Irrelevant
Kinda like saying:
Our cars have headlights that let you see in the dark and tough tires so you can even ride on rough roads, and the hubcaps are made of carbon-steel that will never ever get chipped from road pebbles and a pure titanium gas pedal and gear shifter and our fuzzy dice are blue, not purple.
If you get a good deal on an arctic, good for you! But by good deal I mean compare them to quality manufactured tubs and see how the price lays out and simply refuse to believe that the arctics are worth any kind of large amount over what is being offered from others. Some would argue they should be priced less because there are debates on whether their engineering approach works, puts undue burden on the equip, or is just not as efficient as other designs. But that just means there are tradeoffs, not that it is a fundamentally bad tub.
And, of course, all of this assumes an honest dealer. Keep looking in the history on this board for some recounts of Arctic dealers who feel the need to exaggerate or misrepresent their tubs, or their competitors tubs.
My 2 cents.
-Ed
-
Very well put Ed. Lest we not foget the "Independent Study" That clearly was desinged to decieve the public because of the higher R-Factor cover. Take that away or use an upgraded cover an any of the competitors tubs and what happens? I bet the study would not be used to sell product if it skewed towards another brand.......interesting food for thought. Those who say the standerd covers were used on all the tubs yet Arctics was thicker as a standerd, does this justify the higher price? I think not. The cover upgrade for my brand to match up with the Arctic was 100 bucks.
-
Horse....consider yourself flogged.
and flogged.
and flogged.
Enough already.
-
Can't seem to find much information on Arctic Spas on this forum. I had a look at them yesterday and was quite impressed with some of their features
Heatlock insulation
Heat transfer
Low operating costs
fiberglass shells
castcore covers
forever floor that lets you put tub on any level surface without a concrete pad
Good all inclusive warranty
Price seemed to be within range of the other major brands and I could get a Yukon Signature Series demo model for $8500 Can
I would appreciate any comments anyone might have on this brand of tub and would also like to hear from any current owners.
Lets break this down;
Heatlock insulation, a fancy name for thermopane insulation skeem, used on many brands.
Heat Transfer, Thermopane and even some FF tubs use heat transfer from the pump motor to help heat the water or increase the R-Factor in the insulation. A heater heats water better more effieciently and faster. Besides unless your going to run your pump 24/7 even though you only need 8 hours per day of filtration, seems a waste.
Low Operating Cost's, False, 2 houses down here in Northern Minnesota one sits, cost's more to operate than mine but is a bit bigger. Any difference I would say is pennys a month which relates to a buck a year. Is extra cost up front worth it to overheat a motor in summer or premature failure because of extra run time? I think not. Over the life of the tub we are talking 20 to 100 bucks in electric savings, Hmmmmmm maybe you should not own a tub if this amount is of concern to you. All the top brands cost about the same to operate. (Sorry generic numbers to show my point)
Cast Core Cover, very good idea, although better covers are out there, and I reccomend a cover upgrade in colder climates for all brands.
Forever floor, covered above.
Warranty, yes as good as most of the top brands.
-
Read above, not once did I blast the Arctic brand. I like them. I just waded through the sales retoric.
-
you know there seems to be alot of dislike and i use the term loosely,over artic tubbs.i personally received wondefull treatment by my artic dealer.i've read afew threads on their "sales" pitch.could we leave a flogged horse lay?
ive had no problems with my artic cub,i'm sure there are alot of great tubbs out there!just find one as quick as possible,because if you have not owned your own spa you don't know what your missing!
;D ;D ;D ;Dtubb on wade
-
You people talk out of both sides of your mouth (as in you people that criticize, yet have never sat in an Arctic Tub!).
Overengineered? Help me to understand, is overengineered as bad as underengineered? I suppose your tub is engineered just right?
You criticize on and on about Arctic Spa features. Although your brand models similar features, you criticize Arctic Spa for the same features. Is Marine Grade plywood for a floor better? I suppose the shell isn't thick enough, or perhaps it's too thick? As for the cover, well I suppose that's just not thick enough either. Is a three year warranty not long enough? How long is your cover warranty?
Heat lock vs. ThermoPane. You complain that Full foam sucks and Thermopane is better, then you turn around and criticize Heatlock. Who cares what they call it. Sounds to me like Arctic Spa has a good marketing team. Would you rather they back it up with a good warranty or throw in a Cashable Voucher?
As for the 'Independent Study', are you saying they are not an energy efficient tub? Or you just not willing to believe that it was an 'independent study'? I'm sure you have reason to believe they falsified the results? I suppose that just laying claim that you have the worlds most energy efficient tub (like many of the manufacturers state) is better than coming up with a study?
Have you really priced out a Arctic Spa? I bet you haven't...My final three choices came down to D1, Jacuzzi and Arctic, and in the segment that I was looking at, they were all within $300 out the door
-
just anote on the forever floor. i believe that the bottom is about 12" thick and filled with foam insulation.the shell apears to be made of a tough fiberglass.correct me if i'm wrong.
if my information is correct,i would beiieve that this floor would better than wood.as far as not building a concrete pad under the tubb,please remember that your pad will also shift.if you put down a compactable soil,this would be easier to relevel.although a concrete pad with an architectural finish is anice added feature for your back yard.in my case my tubb is not exposed below my deck so this bottom would work for me ;)
-
.
You criticize on and on about Arctic Spa features. Although your brand models similar features, you criticize Arctic Spa for the same features.
No, we criticize arctic for the misperceptions, rhetoric, and deception coupled, occaisionally with these Arctic "barrages".
For a good example of what I mean read your post.
-Ed
-
No, we criticize arctic for the misperceptions, rhetoric, and deception coupled, occaisionally with these Arctic "barrages".
For a good example of what I mean read your post.
-Ed
Yes. That's it exactly.
-
As for the 'Independent Study', are you saying they are not an energy efficient tub? Or you just not willing to believe that it was an 'independent study'? I'm sure you have reason to believe they falsified the results? I suppose that just laying claim that you have the worlds most energy efficient tub (like many of the manufacturers state) is better than coming up with a study?
I will only respond to this as again I think Ed coverd the rest.
To use an "independent study" with skewded results to claim superiority over several other brands is a poor sales tactic that lends to the true nature of the sales and marketing department. Who cares if it's independent if the comparison is not fair. It's like handing a independent test guy two stones and asking him to study which makes a bigger splash, yet one stone is twice the size of the other. Then using the results to get people to buy your stone cause it makes a bigger splash than the other. And not telling them it was twice as big as the one you tested against!
-
My only comment was that I do not think it is wise to install a spa w/o a base (concrete or otherwise) with a forever floor or not. Thats it. No bashing from me. No accusation of over engineering. Just that I beleive that statement sets up a customer for undue problems down the road.
I therefore object to the "you people" line of commentary.
-
not tring to start a rift here people.just wanted tooth to know that i feel artic makes a top rate tub,sales pitch aside.don't discount them.make sure you give them all a fair shake or soak.i live in the cold climate of canada and the tubb works admirably
wade :P
-
not tring to start a rift here people.just wanted tooth to know that i feel artic makes a top rate tub,sales pitch aside.don't discount them.make sure you give them all a fair shake or soak.i live in the cold climate of canada and the tubb works admirably
wade :P
We never said and never do say that arctic doesn't make a good tub.
-
Arctic Spa make a good tub, and backs it with a solid warranty. Sure they put a spin on the same stuff out there, but is at the end of the day, it works, and it lasts. When I was in the market for a tub, I walked into an Arctic dealership that had a used tub on the floor. It was 2 years old and they were selling it with a 5 year unconditional warranty, with life on the shell. Debate away, but I think that impressive.
I am curious about the 'independant study' Arctic conducted. In the study, was the cover larger than the standard 5-4" castcore? Did they not use the standard cover that would normally come with the other brands they were using in the study?
Ed - talk about rhetoric... can you string anymore empty words together? Absolutely no substance behind what you are saying, as you back nothing up. What was that about headlights and gas pedals and fuzzy purple things? You totally lost me.
I love this comment " Some would argue they should be priced less because there are debates on whether their engineering approach works" What engineering might that be? I guess I should have argued that when I was purchasing the tub.
-
I am curious about the 'independant study' Arctic conducted. In the study, was the cover larger than the standard 5-4" castcore? Did they not use the standard cover that would normally come with the other brands they were using in the study?
No they did use the standard cover of 5 to 4 taper.
The point is the others in the test had 4 to 3 tapered covers and 3 to 2 tapers, and that relates to an increase in R-Factor of, oh lets see...without knowing the exact numbers but I could get them, around a 50 percent better cover over the rest. In the area where 80 to 90 percent of the heat loss on any tub comes from. So if they were to upgrade the covers on the other brands for the extra 100 or 200 dollars, what would the test results be? We would not be debating this "Independent Study" then because it would of not been used as a sale's tool. Because if you look at the results you will see the top tub was only slightly more effiecient that the next three, and with the covers being equal it would have been less effiecient than the others. And would this put the price of the other tubs so much higher than the Arctic that it would not make the comparision fair, I think not!
-
I think you have to test them as you buy them standard off the show room floor. If Brand X comes with a standard 5-4" cover, and the other 3 tubs being tested, come with standard 4-3" covers, then you need to test them like that, because that is what the consumer is likely going to buy. Real world stuff.
If Consumer Reports did a study, do you think they would upgrade all the covers, all but one? I don't think so. They would probably buy the units as stock items (no upgrades), and make comparisions. It goes without saying the tubs need to be in the same class (size, jetting, pumps...).
As for the results, yes the tub with the thickest cover is likely to win, which is saying nothing about the energy effiency of the tub itself...agreed. Perhaps the other brands should think about offering a thicker cover? I'm buying what I percieve to be the most energy efficient tub.
Now, if Arctic tested the tubs, and did not use the standard grade covers across all tubs (smaller thickness than what would come standard), then I would say that not only is it misleading, but grounds for a lawsuit.
-
As for the results, yes the tub with the thickest cover is likely to win, which is saying nothing about the energy effiency of the tub itself...agreed. Perhaps the other brands should think about offering a thicker cover? I'm buying what I percieve to be the most energy efficient tub.
This statement is absolutly true. And the fact that the cover was the determining factor in which brand came out on top, should of steered you clear of the tub. It should of been stated in the test results so you weren't decieved into thinking you were buying a more energy effiecient tub than the rest. If your goal was to buy the most energy effiecient. Exactly why the independent test was very decitfull and a down right lie to sell you a product. But alot of dealers do this kind of stuff to sell alot of different products, so welcome to purchasing in a free market society. Justa wadin thru the retoric.
-
Can anyone direct me to a link to the test?????
I would like to read that for myself.
I do have to state this though....I have heard some things from "number one" dealers that are outright "lies" as well to sell a tub.
I would like to see the results of the test personally as posted in a link so that I can wade through the rhetoric myself.
Thanks if you could be so kind.
Regards,
:-/
-
I beleive this is what you are looking for Guttboy:
http://www.goarctic.com/frames.html
-
I think I found the test by the ARC on the Arctic website. It might have been me but I could not see any information on the type of cover used on the spa's.
I did find it funny on the cost comparison download....anyone have any clue on which "foam filled spa" was tested?
Not slamming Arctic at all just would like to know which "foam filled" brand they used.
Regards,
;)
-
This discussion is pretty hot right now, not sure if I want to throw gas on the flames or not......well here goes:
Several manufacturers have comissioned 3rd parties to study the energy efficiency of their brand...including both that I sell. I for one put little stock in these. The 3rd party was paid to do the study by one manufacturer. Whether it is in the contract or not, the desired results are implied and delivered by the 3rd party.
I would be more likely to beleive a study that was either commission by all of the manufacturers combined (never going to happen) or one that was conducted by the government or a 3rd party that does not profit from conducting the study in any way.
-
I love this comment " Some would argue they should be priced less because there are debates on whether their engineering approach works" What engineering might that be? I guess I should have argued that when I was purchasing the tub.
Spazz, I've posted this in great detail before and won't do your homework for you. This happens time and time again, as if people who have been around for a while, and been through the technical discussions, need to keep a folder on "proof" so that every spastic who rolls in will be impressed. Use the search feature. Go find the "debates on whether their engineering approach works" and stop asking people to bring you your information on a silver platter.
I apologize for not setting you straight earlier, but I've been busy and your education is not my priority.
Now, if Arctic tested the tubs, and did not use the standard grade covers across all tubs (smaller thickness than what would come standard), then I would say that not only is it misleading, but grounds for a lawsuit.
Ahh. He begins to make sense. Kudos! Arctics are not bad tubs, THEIR rhetoric is over the top. If you bought one, you will enjoy it.
-Ed
-
I think I found the test by the ARC on the Arctic website. It might have been me but I could not see any information on the type of cover used on the spa's.
I did find it funny on the cost comparison download....anyone have any clue on which "foam filled spa" was tested?
Not slamming Arctic at all just would like to know which "foam filled" brand they used.
;)
I believe the brands were all listed in the study that can be found on our website.
Regards,
James
-
This discussion is pretty hot right now, not sure if I want to throw gas on the flames or not......well here goes:
Several manufacturers have comissioned 3rd parties to study the energy efficiency of their brand...including both that I sell. I for one put little stock in these. The 3rd party was paid to do the study by one manufacturer. Whether it is in the contract or not, the desired results are implied and delivered by the 3rd party.
I would be more likely to beleive a study that was either commission by all of the manufacturers combined (never going to happen) or one that was conducted by the government or a 3rd party that does not profit from conducting the study in any way.
I can appreciate your perspective. I am sure it seems that the company commissioning the study would have plenty of influence on the results. I can assure you this is not the case. The Alberta Research Council is a well recognized research and testing firm that would not risk their credibility by allowing us to be involved in the study whatsoever. In fact, we could not even be involved in buying the competitors spas. They purchased them and then submitted us the bill. We simply told them that we were interested in testing the energy consumption of the spas to compare. They prepared the tests and all were conducted in an isolated environment.
By the way, I heard another comment on the message board that the competitor's spas were given different covers then the spas come with. Again, this is not the case. The spas were tested with the covers that sold with the spas. No alterations were allowed.
-
James,
I was referring to the other study that you can download from your site that was conducted in Loveland Colorado. There is a "foam filled" spa that was run against the Arctic. No mention as to what name brand or type of spa that the study was done against....just "foam filled".
Again not a slam just was curious as to which one this was run against.
Regards,
Mike
-
To use an "independent study" with skewded results to claim superiority over several other brands is a poor sales tactic that lends to the true nature of the sales and marketing department. Who cares if it's independent if the comparison is not fair.
Specifically how were the results skewed? How difficult is it to compare how much energy each spa uses in a controlled environment? The spas were all similar in size and had similar equipment. The comparison was fair.
-
James,
I was referring to the other study that you can download from your site that was conducted in Loveland Colorado. There is a "foam filled" spa that was run against the Arctic. No mention as to what name brand or type of spa that the study was done against....just "foam filled".
Regards,
Mike
Hey Mike,
I stand corrected. I forgot about that one. We didn't commission that test, a customer did. It was one of the spas that was tested again by the Alberta Research Council. I would prefer to let the ARC results speak, since it was a controlled test.
-
This last item is one that really burns me. Does anyone really beleive it is wise to simply level the dirt in your back yard and place a spa there? What if the ground shifts (around here that happens every fall and spring)? The forever floor has its advantages, but I feel it is misleading to suggest that one needn't build a proper base, concrete or otherwise.
Hey HotTubMan,
I just wanted to say that my Spa sat on the lawn in my backyard for 3 years without a proper base. In fact, since I make the spas, I deliberately put it in an unlevel area and shimmed one corner with scrap plywood pieces I had in the garage. I sold the spa to a rugby buddy of mine last summer, and have never had one issue.
Just my experience
James
-
James,
Do you happen to have any dealers around the San Antonio/Austin Texas area? Cant find any from the website....I like the layouts of some of the Arctics but without being able to see them in person I have to rule them out.
Regards,
Mike
-
Though I believe that's possible James, would a spa be covered under your warranty if a customer did the same and expereinced damage? Do you suggest that putting a spa on your grass is an exceptable installation?
Do you know of other brands which construct their spas to withstand this same application or do you feel this is limited to an Arctic? What % of manufactures could offer the same "feature" to their customers do you believe?
Steve
-
Though I believe that's possible James, would a spa be covered under your warranty if a customer did the same and expereinced damage? Do you suggest that putting a spa on your grass is an exceptable installation?
Do you know of other brands which construct their spas to withstand this same application or do you feel this is limited to an Arctic? What % of manufactures could offer the same "feature" to their customers do you believe?
Steve
Hey Steve,
I am not suggesting that putting it on the grass is the best installation. However, we would cover it, as long as the spa was installed on a relatively level surface.
As for how unique this feature is, I am not sure. I know there are a number of brands that require you to install their products on a concrete slab, or a deck so as not to void their warranty.
James
-
Can anyone direct me to a link to the test?????
I would like to read that for myself.
I do have to state this though....I have heard some things from "number one" dealers that are outright "lies" as well to sell a tub.
I would like to see the results of the test personally as posted in a link so that I can wade through the rhetoric myself.
Thanks if you could be so kind.
Regards,
:-/
Hey Guttboy,
The test is located at www.goarctic.com. Got to Arctic Life --> Performance Report.
James
-
Thanks for Showing up JP.
If the covers were not all the same thickness, then the test results were skewed. Yes the test involved standard covers. But the Arctic has a 1 sometimes 2 inch thicker cover than all the rest. To claim superior energy effieciency because of a thicker cover IS decieving the public, shame, shame. Some of us can see right through it.
-
If the covers were not all the same thickness, then the test results were skewed. Yes the test involved standard covers. But the Arctic has a 1 sometimes 2 inch thicker cover than all the rest. To claim superior energy effieciency because of a thicker cover IS decieving the public, shame, shame. Some of us can see right through it.
I understand your point Roger, but I think that Arctic is justified in doing the tests exactly the way the spas come from the dealers. If they put a thicker cover on as standard (and I don't know if they do or not - but I'm going to assume they do) then they will most likely be that much better at retaining heat because of it.
Now, if they don't insulate the rest of the tub well, or if they choose to use huge pumps with a voracious power apetite, then they may very well end up abrogating the advantage of the thicker cover.
I go back to the statement I have made for years:
HotSpring engaged the services of a fine, independant testing firm. The test is easily repeatable. Any spa firm on the planet could send as many or as few models as they choose, and the test would be run exactly the same. That could offer a true comparison number which would - for the first time - have some relevance in to the shopper.
-
I think you have to test them as you buy them standard off the show room floor. If Brand X comes with a standard 5-4" cover, and the other 3 tubs being tested, come with standard 4-3" covers, then you need to test them like that, because that is what the consumer is likely going to buy. Real world stuff.
If Consumer Reports did a study, do you think they would upgrade all the covers, all but one? I don't think so. They would probably buy the units as stock items (no upgrades), and make comparisions. It goes without saying the tubs need to be in the same class (size, jetting, pumps...).
As for the results, yes the tub with the thickest cover is likely to win, which is saying nothing about the energy effiency of the tub itself...agreed. Perhaps the other brands should think about offering a thicker cover? I'm buying what I percieve to be the most energy efficient tub.
Now, if Arctic tested the tubs, and did not use the standard grade covers across all tubs (smaller thickness than what would come standard), then I would say that not only is it misleading, but grounds for a lawsuit.
i must disagree with you you on the point that the test should have been done with standard covers, no matter the thickness. thats like saying your lexus goes faster than my conversion van. they are both vehicles, both have 8 cylinder engines, and both cost about $40k. its NOT apples to apples.
if the main point of the test is energy efficiency, then you use the same size/ thickness cover on ALL models. you would of course note the additional cost as needed, but as stated above, its not much on most models. that would reaaly determine the true energy usage between different models.
you know.... ;) ;) if your lexus was ....say $43k, and my van was only $39k,and i bought a $3k jet engine and bolted it to the roof....then I would have the faster vehicle, and still enjoy the 22" tv and the bed!! ;D ;D ;D
-
What you are saying is that all the tubs have to be built the exact same, what about the rest of the insulation, a full foam tub has more insulation on the sides of the tub. The tubs are tested as they are sold.
Should we use the same cover and dig out insulation or add insulation. The tubs are built and designed different if they were all the same why would you have a test??? The cover used is our standard cover, they are part of the design.
The problem with your van and lexus story is that the van's standard equipment does not come with a jet engine. The tubs used where all similar in size and water capacity. (All in the same class of spas) A van and Lexus are not.
-
OK so let me get this straight, the Arctic spa has a thicker cover than the rest tested so it did better on the energy usage test? Hmmm ok well that clears it up. I wonder how the others tested will fair with a cover of equal R-Value? Bet that won't get answered.
-
OK so let me get this straight, the Arctic spa has a thicker cover than the rest tested so it did better on the energy usage test? Hmmm ok well that clears it up. I wonder how the others tested will fair with a cover of equal R-Value? Bet that won't get answered.
Sorry guys, I don't buy into that line of thinking at all.
Lots of things come to mind here. First off, if you feel the spa you are selling would be that much more efficient with a thicker cover, then you owe it to your customers to sell that way. Comparisons like this must be taken the way in which the spa is sold. Period. If a 5" cover is standard equipment on a certain brand and someone else is offering a 3" with their units, this company has no right to suggest the information would be controversial as they have chosen a less expensive, less efficient cover to sell as standard equipment with their spa.
The question remains that what percentage of this factor of cover thickness makes up the operational cost difference if there is one? 5%...25%? ???
The only true and accurate way to compare two spas is to take two similar units in size, under the same conditions with similar jets and HP and run them as they would be sold to the consumer.
Would it cost more for manufacturers to offer a premium 4 or 5" cover as standard equipment? No doubt but at the same time, we can't punish the companies that recognize the advantages of a thicker cover and sell a product that is going to be slightly more expensive (and possibly more efficient) because of it.
Steve
-
TMAN,
What the Hell does that even mean, and if other companies had better covers they could use them, if they were their standard covers. I love it how you guys say that Arctic covers are over kill, and that other covers are fine, then cry like little girls about our covers being used in the test. Stop talking out both sides of your mouth. Have your manufactures make a cover comparable to ours or shut your pie hole.
-
I agree with you Steve, well said
-
I wonder how the others tested will fair with a cover of equal R-Value? Bet that won't get answered.
The answer quite simply is as soon as they are willing to step up to the plate and offer a premium cover as standard equipment with their spas Tman.
It all comes down to the mighty buck. Some see Arctic as "pricey" spas but that is also the reason that consumers need to look further than HP and jets to determine value. If you spent $300 on upgrading your cover and potentially could offer a $10 per month savings, is that value? I dunno...your cover may last 5 years and it has become less efficient over time as well. You need to weigh the facts.
Steve
-
If the Spa's were tested as the consumer would be able to purchase them and no serious jet engine conversion van things were done then....let em ride!!!
What I am saying is that if it is the way that the spa is shipped to the consumer then thats the way it should be tested as Steve put.
Im siding with the Arctic guys on this one after all the debate. If indeed the test was performed, and from the website it looks legit, by consumer purchased spa's...no rigging then it goes to Arctic.
Now with that being said....if the others want to place larger covers on their spa's and give them to the consumer then redo the test and see how it goes if ya like.
;)
-
now now, play nice...
apparently you didn't understand my post. allow me to clarify....
that test is for the TUBS, not the COVERS. if you use the same (approx) covers, then you will get a realistic picture of the energy usage and efficiency of the TUBS, again, not the COVERS.
using your "common sense", if i put the arctic cover on a home depot special ($1995), and put a standard 3-2" cover on an HS (any model)and then determinedthat the HS has lower energy costs, then that would mean the thinner cover is better, right???
admittedly the bolt-on rocket engine was a bit over the top, but the entire point of my post was to compare apples to apples....
heres a better car analogy....
subaru sells cars. all subarus come with all wheel drive.
chrysler sells cars. most chryslers have OPTIONAL all wheel drive, but it is not standard equip.
does this one fact make subaru a better car????
its simple marketing, selling the sizzle of a standard feature that is an upgrade for most others....
from what i have seen and read, arctic makes a very good product, and if you have one i hope you enjoy it tremendously. it comes with a better standard cover than most spas, but that can be easily remedied for not much $ when you consider that we're talking $7-9k range on the tubs.
I, however am really looking forward to my new niagra that was just delivered earlier today! electrical is almost done and will be ready for water by tomorrow afternoon.....
-
As a follow up to this, I have a couple of things I'm still unsure about.
1) Does the cover have to be 5" thick to be efficient? Can a 3" cover with better foam, a thicker polyurethane rap and better seal, offer the results of a thicker cover? Maybe we're putting far too much validity into bigger is better!
2) Has anyone ever been involved with or has witnessed an "independent study" where the company that initiates it, doesn't come out on top?
Steve
-
Talking out of both sides of my mouth huh, well let me completly clear this up. A sales guy told me Arctic was the most energy effiecient out there. More effiecient than HS and several other brands and he had a test to prove it. I asked to see the test, he showed me. I asked if all factors were equal on the test and he said yes all tubs were factory dirrect. I asked to see the spec for the test and I never got them. So I did some research and found out the cover difference. The Arctisc was .09 cents a month more effiecient with a 5-4 tapered cover than the HS with a 3-2 tapered cover. When I asked the sales guy why there was so little insulation in the sides and how that affected energy usage during times when the motor wasn't running he told me 80 percent of the heat loss is from the top or cover of the tub and we use a thicker cover than the other manufacturers. So I look at the results, and all the manufacturers listed in the test results offered a cover upgrade for very little money and I start to think I wonder how much better the others tubs would of been than Arctic if they had these cover upgrades, Hmmmmmm Guess I am the only one that see's this logic. But hey, if any one wants to continue to think the extra money charged for an Arctic is because it is more effiecient well go ahead. Mean time I payed 350 bucks for my second cover and made sure it was upgraded like the first one I bought, so I could have a tub more energy effiecient than an Arctic. Even though the difference is so little that it don't matter but it was never used to sell the brand I bought. Unlike the retoric that is used to sell Arctic tubs. And Stabone you for one know all about the retoric because you fell for it hook line and sinker. I remember when you bought your tub.
-
The answer quite simply is as soon as they are willing to step up to the plate and offer a premium cover as standard equipment with their spas Tman.
First thing my dealer asked me is if I wanted to pay a little extra and get a cover upgrade. He said here in Northern Minnesota he thinks a 5-3 taper should be standerd. And explained that 80 percent of the heat loss was from the top. He didn't come up with some bogus independent study that had results skewed by the cover r-factor, to show me how effiecient his brand was. I'ts not standerd but it was a very cost effective upgrade. And I still dissagree with you Steve. If the playing field is not level, is it truely a victory? And besides it's not the test that burns me. Its the "What makes Sence" Our spas are more energy effiecient, "check out the independent study"
-
The answer quite simply is as soon as they are willing to step up to the plate and offer a premium cover as standard equipment with their spas Tman.
It all comes down to the mighty buck. Some see Arctic as "pricey" spas but that is also the reason that consumers need to look further than HP and jets to determine value. If you spent $300 on upgrading your cover and potentially could offer a $10 per month savings, is that value? I dunno...your cover may last 5 years and it has become less efficient over time as well. You need to weigh the facts.
Steve
step up to the plate ??? if i live in florida, california, nevada, arizona, and MANY other parts of the us that dont see seriously cold weather, i wouldn't need that much of a cover. now in canada, and any other cold climate, it could/would(?) be a value.
being that the actual difference seems to be VERY small (.09 cents????), i prefer a company thats gives a "good" cover as standard, but offers other covers as an upgrade, depending on my personal needs, preferences, and where i live. dont include a premium product, build it into the price, and then tell me your the best, when i can buy the same kind of cover elsewhere, and the overall cost winds up being about the same.
using borderline deceptive ad campaigns (that's what the "test" seems to be) doesn't give me that warm fuzzy feeling either.
my big issue with the whole thing boils down to this.....
(ad copy)
....at arctic spas we give you a premium 5-4" cover as standard equip, to help your power usage be as efficient as possible. this is only one of the ways arctic spas have one of the lowest energy costs in the industry. please see your dealer for more info... etc,etc...... THIS is truth in advertising....
..... arctic spas are the BEST in the industry at energy efficiency, and heres an independent test to prove it.... THIS is not true....
any questions? oh sorry.. that was the brain on drugs thing......, in a frying pan........, with bacon and hash browns on the side......, or something like that.... ;D ;D ;D LOL
-
(http://www.milkandcookies.com/images/feature/g/grittruck.jpg)
-
Simply put, the implication of these tests is that the tub is being tested. When you say "tub" most people (I would guess) imagine things like the insulation of the tub, the use of the heaters to recycle power, the heater, AND the cover.
Numbers don't lie, people lie.
The problem is, these accurate numbers are being used to sell a tub inaccurately. Why do I say this? It probably doesn't cost that much to have a thicker cover put on your tub. It *would* cost alot more to have your tub's internal insulation replaced.
Now, what this debate has taught me is that hot springs makes a much much much more efficient tub than arctic. How can I say this? Arctic has a MUCH thicker cover than hot springs in this test and only outperformed hot springs by $0.09 a MONTH. WOW :o If the internal insulation of the 2 tubs were equal, arctic's extra 2-3 inches should have made a MUCH bigger difference.
If I were a hot springs dealer, I would start quoting the Arctic study as well, and especially point out this fact. Then point out how easy it is to leave a corner exposed on a cover, or how much HEAVIER the bigger cover is, for no real benefit over a hot spring.
8)
Now, that's just a little tongue-in-cheek, but it is meant to show how exposing the "cover controversy" in the study could honestly change people's opinions about the tubs rated.
-Ed
-
In just looking at numbers...
if a $300 cover upgrade will save you 10 dollars a month (the cover before the upgrade must have been saran wrap) then you can realize your savings in 2.5 years of owning the tub and cover...
if in fact a "tub" was 9 cents (i don't think it was meant to be .09 cents) a month more effiecient with a 5-4 tapered cover than the "other tub" with a 3-2 tapered cover and an upgrade (to a 5-4 tapered cover or equivalent) costs about $300 you will realize your savings after you've had that tub about 278 years...
-
Which is probably exactly why HS doesn't ship with a larger cover. It doesn't need the extra help and would take too long for the customer to recoup the cost.
And the HS with the "Arctic-thickness" cover is probably overkill, just like an Arctic with a "HS-thickness" cover would do worse in the test.
Again, the study can become a liability if you point out that on arctic tubs you are "forced" to purchase the cover "upgrade" (yes, it is standard equipment, but I would imagine that it is already factored into the price of the tub) just to make the thing run efficiently.
Again, just pointing out "points of view" to try and demonstrate how not having identical covers injects all sorts of debate into the results interpretation.
I don't think alot of consumers think of the cover as an integral part of the tub. If I dog jumps on my cover and breaks it, I don't say "my hot tub is broken", I say "my cover is broken". BUT if my heater stops working, I say "my hot tub is broken", or if a leak occurs, I say "my hot tub is broken".
-Ed
-
I have heard varied things about this study but one thing was that all the spas tested with the exception of the bottom 2 were very very close in operating costs and that is what most reasonable people have always agreed on that a "WELL MADE" spa weather it be a FF or a TP type will cost "about" the same to operate....the better makers of all spas will be very very close to each other with regards to energy consummation ...
-
...........But then we'd have one less topic to argue about, and what would the fun be in that? ;)
Brewman
-
lol...Brewman you are right...than lets just set the record straight Marquis makes the most energy efficient spa in the universe and I have personally tested this with my own independent study and if you want come to my showroom.....uhhhhh errrr I mean testing facility and I can prove it to you.....I also have the inside track to who shot JFK And how to get that last calorie out of diet coke.... ;)
-
Back up here a minute I said I bought my second cover for 350, I think the upgrade when I bought originely was 50 bucks. And I was being retorical when I stated .09 cents because I do not have the test results in front of me. But it was some ridiculasly small number that would of surely been outdone by the other brands in the test, if they would of been outfitted with equal covers.
My point is the test is bogus and the results, to those of us in the know, could do nothing but steer us from a brand touting superiority based on skeewed results.
Again I reiterate, I like the tubs, I would put them in my top ten. But the way they are sold is deplorable. Find a new marketing staff.
-
TMAN, how do you remember when I bought my tub, I have been selling Arctics for 5 years, and my families plumbing and pool business has been around for 27 years. We have been servicing all brands of tubs, for that whole time, and sold Jacuzzi for 15 years. I know what is out there and there are some other really nice spas. I believe Arctic's are the best tubs for cold weather climates, and the features that set them apart from other tubs, you better believe I am going to show people.
I have sold tubs to so many people that told me I was the first sales person that didn't call my product and features "the best". I know what is out there, I have a HS dealer across the street from my new location, and have sent people over there because they are looking for a size or feature, or putting a tub some place I don't think you would need an Arctic. Because I know that HS is a great tub and company, and that they are a good dealer.
People (on the whole) are not stupid, if a company, and it's dealers are selling gold and delivering poo, it does not take long for the cat to get out of the bag. I don't hear people on this sit saying they feel "fooled" by Arctic, and they are disapointed about there spa! What manufacture doesn't have a few jack-cracks selling their product that belong in a used car lot not a spa showroom?
As far as others on hear that accuse Arctic of selling features that other spas have as "unique", please show me a tub that has a built in foundation, cover, shell, powder coated cabinets or real cedar, heat lock insulation.
I find it funny when Arctic is mentioned on this site the "politically correct" take is, "an average spa at a high price. What components and features are average or below average on an Arctic compared to other tubs? Is it, 4hp/56 frame Waterway Pumps, our heaters, Arctic's own bearing less jets, 2 inch piping, Gecko controls, 1 micron dispossable filters, bottom suction, bottom of footwell drain, warranty, covers, cabinets, floors, shells? Remember, I am not asking if you agree with how we insulate, or what you think is over built, or done, if you like the sales approach or marketing, don't believe we have 1 micron filters, or that tubs without circ pumps don't filter as well. Save that for a sales pitch.
What components, building materials, do above average tubs have? I am wondering, because I see alot of smaller 46 frame pumps, less HP, smaller heaters, 1 1/2 feed lines, (yes any of you FF's that have 2 or 3 inch pipe out of the pump, I have seen the bushings or reducers back to 1 1/2 located in the foam just behind the equimpent compartment, 2x4's wedged up under seats and loungers to support the shell, ff tubs that when cut in half are not FULL FOAM but 1/2 to 3/4's foam, cabinets that are flimbsy and not sealed around the bottom or corners, that 1/4 thick pieces of the finest pine are stained and stapled to plywood backing, to make it appear thick and solid. . Stapled on plastic floors or plastic pans that insects and rodents can easily get past, that add no support or strenght to the tub, which is why they need you to provide them with one. (concrete pads, spa floors, etc) Any of you showroom sales guys on here, that have never done construction, service, or probly even a delivery if you think a free standing concrete pad or one of those spa floors is not going to shift with the ground, you had better get your head examined. You have to provide a solid base for a tub to sit on, we build ours on the tub. ( Again this is not whether you think a concrete pad is better, but is an Arctic floor average compared to others.) Covers that get water logged because the foam inserts are cut to size not molded, break or sage in the middle from snow on top of them.
I am not saying all tubs have or do the things that I have listed above they are things I have seen. I feel different climates and tub locations provide different challenges for hot tubs. In cold weather climates operating costs are not the only concern. Prolonging the time before equipment can freeze and be damaged in power loss or equipment failure, cabinets that are strong and durable, covers that insulate well, can hold heavy snow falls, molded not cut foam inserts to help prevent moisture damage and water logging, and a strong, fully sealed floor are things that matter. Also having a manufacture that backs their warranty, and is always improving the product. That is why I sell Arctic, not because it may or may not be a few bucks a month less or more to operate. Everyone on this sight thinks there product is "the best" (and shame on you if you don't).
The bottom line is that there are alot of tubs that can satisfy the needs of the hot tubing world, the service and the way you treat people after the sale is what people remember and what makes them tell their friends about what a great hot tub they have.
Bad mouthing and showing features that you believe make your spa better are not the same thing. People on this site talk about selling your product on its own merit, yet bash Arctic for selling our tubs on what and why are tubs are built the way they are. A company doesn't stay around very long selling on false or over hyped products.
-
One other point on the energy test, and any of the tests for that matter is that the company doing the tests was not allowed to change any of the filtering or heating modes. If you look at the results, there is an * by the HS tubs results, because it was preset on a cycle were it only ran when it needed to heat. Other ff tubs in the test were set on full filter cycle modes. This is a big reason why the HS tub out performed other FF tubs that are insulated the same way. If I sold a FF tub and saw the results, I would wonder how a tub insulated the same, ran on a circ pump, with one of the thinnest covers in the industry out performed what I sell. Are other circ pumps using that much more electric. Yet know one has mentioned that. Even the company that did the tests said that the HS should have walked away with the test.
For one, almost all manufactures have a test that shows their tub being the most efficient, and most dealers use their test results. Coast Spas's slogan is " best built spa in the world" .
Claiming to be the most energy efficient spa is not a new thing in this industry. Each dealer has to set their own standards for how they present their product. I for one don't mention the test, unless someone asks me for one because the dealer down the street showed them their energy tests. Acting like Arctic is the only manufacture that has done tests like this is not right.
If Arctic is this average tub with a big price tag, lies about their product, and bad mouths everyone else. Why would anyone buy one over your product? Are consumers that dumb? I know if I read this forum, as a consumer I would have to go see an Arctic, because any product that gets all of its competitors panties in a knot, must be worth seeing. People get defensive when they are theatened or feel insecure. Not about something they feel superior to or are not worried about. If we are such a collective group of A-holes, at Arctic, sell a substandard tub, charge to much, and lie about how great are tub is, we will take care of ourselfs, you all don't have to sweat us so much. I know if I felt about a competitor how you guys feel about Arctic, they would be such a little threat to me I wouldn't care what they told people. But if a tub moved to town that I was worried about I would be acting like most of you on here!!!!
-
If you look at the results, there is an * by the HS tubs results, because it was preset on a cycle were it only ran when it needed to heat. Other ff tubs in the test were set on full filter cycle modes. This is a big reason why the HS tub out performed other FF tubs that are insulated the same way.
Help me understand what you are trying to say here: HotSpring runs the circ pump at all times. There is no filter cycle - it's always on. If the tub needs heat, the relays close and it heats until it's at temperature again. Then the relays open and the heating stops, but the circ pump keeps right on going.
There is an optional 'Summer Timer' mode which cuts off the circ pump for eight hours per day. During that eight hours, the circ pump will only come on if the tub needs heat and then go off. But at the end of the eight hours, the circ pump kicks back on for the rest of the day and night. However, I'm not even sure that was available on the tub which was tested - I don't remember the year that feature showed up, but it wasn't very long ago. If I sold a FF tub and saw the results, I would wonder how a tub insulated the same, ran on a circ pump, with one of the thinnest covers in the industry out performed what I sell.
Careful engineering. Multiple types of foam are layered, nooks and crannies filled, plumbing supported, hot air recycled, small lines move water behind Moto Jets and in filter compartments, no areas are allowed to cool, equipment areas are insulated except for the door (optional in cold areas), air flow is managed, They make their own covers and they fit really well. I hardly think they are the thinnest in the industry. Also, heavy duty covers are optional.
I mean come on! Do you really think that all FF spas are created equal? If I lumped Arctic into the "All TP spas are created equal," you would write a novel. Are other circ pumps using that much more electric.
Yes, some do. And some use less. But it's not one componant you can point to - it's the whole tub, the whole design. Yet know one has mentioned that. Even the company that did the tests said that the HS should have walked away with the test.
In some people's opinion, they did.
-
Hey, Chas I figured I would get you on this one, first it is nothing against HS. Ask JP about the cycle on the HS I can't find my sheet on the test, but it says on the test. It sounds like the summer cycle. The point I was making is that there is an * by the results because of a difference in how the HS was operating and the other FF tubs in the test, yet no one cares about that, only that Arctic's cover that is overkill and isn't needed for anything than standing on, yet it is unfair inthe test.
No problems Chas, I'm not saying anything bad about HS, only presenting a fact about the test.
Since everyone seemed so concerned about an even playing field, I was waiting for one of you guys who studied the test results so much to notice that, I knew your bias and bitterness would win out, and not worry about stuff like how the tubs were operating!!
Again, Chas don't take it so personal. it is nothing against HS, just a fact of the test!!!
-
You know, we need to do our own test. Each of us should contact the company we represent, or the company who's tub we purchased.
Ask them to send us as thier representative to a 'spa off.' Location needs to be someplace which will really put these things to the test. I'm thinking Tahiti, Hawaii or perhaps New Zealand.
The company should pay for shipping, and put us up in a five-star resort: after all, we would be working very hard to make them look good.
Any takers?
;)
-
I'm packing my bags 8) 8)
-
I would buy my own testing equipment, bring one of my own tubs, and travel to any corner of the world to do a test with everyone on the site. And do a test that is real life. Cycles set how they really operate in peoples backyards. Have the covers off 1 hour daily.
-
You are supposed to use a cover with the hot tub? :o
-
Not alot of people get in their tub with the cover on, and 1 hour daily would be the amount of time the people are in thier tub, smart ass!!! LOL ;D
-
Stabone,
Enough already....It seems like you simply can't take compliment ....Arctic builds a fine spa but the over top rhetoric that you have to spew is the down fall.. that list you gave... many of the other manufactures do some of the very same things and also have "their unique" things as well .....Why can you simply not offer any help to those who need but you only seem except on rare occasions pop in to promote the Arctic name .... You will get more respect if you would be consistent and offer some help/input outside of an Arctic thread.....
-
Why, don't you worry about yourself, I'm helping Russ right now with his chlor situation as a matter of fact. I like to get loose from time to time. If you don't like it piss off. I'm not on hear to bring sunshine to your life.
Where is a compliment in that whole thread, the difference is when another brand says something about a unique feature there is an open discussion about it, Arctic, is singled out on this site for the same things all companies do. I am not hear to be friends with most of you hypocrites in this site.
Ok, what features that I tallked about Arctic, do other manufactures have. I don't know any tubs or sell against any that have alot of the features I sell so since you say alot of others have them why don't you name a few.
1) A fully sealed, foundation floor
2) Standard 5 to 4 inch 2lb castcore cover
3) standard 56 frame 4hp pumps
4) Powder Coated Aluminium Cabinet
5) Self -supporting shell, warrantied for life of tub
6) Heat- Lock
-
Stabone.....
I am not here to get into a pissing contest with you.....The tub I represent has some of those features and more and the whole point is that most all of the better tubs have good things they do ....again very few people say Arctic does not build a good spa it is just that each of the better made spas are also well built and well backed each offering certain things that they might do better or different than the next guy..... D-1 ....Hot Springs.....Sundance......Marquis all offer a list that is as long as yours...... Artesian....Coleman........and Master probably could also come up with one....the difference is that guys don't come on this board and start promoting their product as the only and the best except for the Arctic guys......and If you had the ability to read any of the past threads you will find the problem most have with Arctic is not the product but the attitude of the people like yourself who represent it.....
-
Wow!! When I started this thread I never imagined I would get such a response.. Many thanks to all who have replied. It has been a real learning experience for me reading your somewhat heated posts ???
After researching all the tubs available in our area and wet testing several in our price range we made our decision this week and purchased the Caldera Martinique 04 floor model. Now just need to wait for the air temp to rise above freezing at night so I can get a concrete pad poured then it's hot tub time ;D
Many thanks again to everyone for their helpful information. This is a great forum. Keep it up :)
-
Sorry staboner, I couldn't read your reply. Like another poster that's banned from this board I have heard it all before from posters like yourself. Retoric from a spa salesman with a bad attitude, you piss off. Ooops I lost it there sorry folks.
Again I though about 6 months ago or so on this or another board I guy named stabone was looking for a spa and was again touting Arctic for it's supremecy.
A whole lota stuff you said in your post about a shell and cedar and a bunch of other stuff sounds standard to me, but hey go ahead and believe what you want and I will continue to spew my opinion of Arctic as well. In my top ten but nothin special. Ha ha I have been in the plumbing business longer than you nananabooboo.
-
Be careful of electricity:
True telephone story.
An elderly lady with a dog called the telephone company to say that her phone failed to ring when her friends called, and that on the few occasions when it did ring, her dog always barked before the phone rang.
The telephone repairman proceeded to the scene, curious to see this psychic dog or senile elderly lady. He climbed a nearby telephone pole, hooked in his test set, and dialed the subscriber's house. The phone didn't ring but the dog barked loudly and then the telephone did ring.
Climbing down from the pole, the telephone repairman found:
1. The dog was tied to the telephone system's ground post via an iron chain and collar.
2. The dog was receiving 90 volts of signaling current when the phone number was called.
3. After several such jolts, the dog would start barking and urinate on the ground.
4. The wet ground around the ground post would complete the circuit and the phone would ring.
This shows you that some problems can be fixed by just pissing on them.
This is why guys say "Piss on it" when they can't fix something....
....which seems to be the case here.
-
Don't you love getting email's at work from a colleague, and it's like 1500 words, and 20 paragraphs. Does anyone actually ready those?
I think this quote suits this thread.
Horse....consider yourself flogged.
and flogged.
and flogged.
Enough already.
-
Let me reference, my question to Mendocino by first saying, I was not right telling you to piss off, "Lord I Appoligize" , and that the point is not whether these materials and components are "better", and more importantly perceived as 'better" to all consumers. Or that their are not features and components on other tubs that are not better or perceived as better to different consumers, than those of an Arctic. Some may appeal to one persons needs, yet not anothers.
What is wrong is that by trying to make Arctic sound like liars and cheats for selling some features on our tubs as "unique" , and emplying that our energy test was not conducted in a professional manner, or that we are the only company that has conducted 3rd party tests. These features or materials that you claim to be standard on other tubs, I don't see them on other tubs, ( Also, I will add, I see features on other tubs in the field that Arctic does not have that I could see a consumer liking better than the comparable feature on an Arctic). And vise versa!
If what most of you claim is true, that Arctic sells features, as exclusive or "unique" that most tubs in the industry have, why do you rip the marketing of Arctic, we are selling tubs equiped and built just like everyone else, yet our marketing has found a way to sell these features as exclusive, on an average tub, to the same people that walk into other spa showrooms and see these same features and materials on other tubs, yet come back to the Arctic dealer, pay more for the same thing they saw everywhere else, listen to us bad mouth every spa and dealer in our area, take their check, kick'em in the ass on the way out the door!! And then get on sites like this, tell their friends and family how much they love their spa, tell how their Arctic dealer did not bad mouth, and provide them with great service, it is amazing!!!! (By the way James I am getting low on the brain washing dust, we pump into all Arctic stores through those machines that look like air fresheners, " OVER NIGHT IT, I AM GOING TO LOSE ANOTHER ONE, IF I DON"T GET MORE SOON!! MY STAFF IS ALREADY STARTING TO TURN ON ME!!!!!
WOW, sounds like our marketing is doing something right, and that others marketing better step it up!!
[/quote]
-
Anyone for tennis?
::)
-
Anyone for tennis?
::)
2 o'clock on Sunday O.K?
BTW, I only have a hockey stick will it work for tennis?
-
I'll be there. And if I'm a little late, start without me.
;)
-
1) A fully sealed, foundation floor
Yes Coleman has an ABS pan that runs 6" up to the cabinet.
2) Standard 5 to 4 inch 2lb castcore cover
Not that I am aware of. How heavy is is after 5 years once it has absorbed water?
Standard 56 frame 4hp pumps
Many manufacturers use 56 frame. Beachcomber, Coleman, Coast etc etc. 4hp....Is that break or continuous? Coleman uses up to 5.9 bHP pumps
4) Powder Coated Aluminium Cabinet
Definitely unique. Aluminum powder coated or not will eventually oxidize. Once the process starts, aluminum oxidizes and deteriorates faster than steel.
5) Self -supporting shell, warrantied for life of tub
Again, Coleman has a self supporting shell. Canadian manufacturers have an advantage on shell warranties as there are no regulations stopping them from offering such a warranty. Beachcomber offers it. I have often stated that a lifetime shell warranty would be about as valuable as an auto manufacturer offerring a lifetime frame warranty. You will replace everything on a car before the frame fails. Same goes for a spa.
6) Heat- Lock
Again, Coleman. They were doing it before Arctic produced one spa.
Coleman makes a great spa. So does Arctic. Neither came close to inventing ( or re-iventing) the wheel.
-
Let me reference, my question to Mendocino by first saying, I was not right telling you to piss off, "Lord I Appoligize" , and that the point is not whether these materials and components are "better", and more importantly perceived as 'better" to all consumers. Or that their are not features and components on other tubs that are not better or perceived as better to different consumers, than those of an Arctic. Some may appeal to one persons needs, yet not anothers.
What is wrong is that by trying to make Arctic sound like liars and cheats for selling some features on our tubs as "unique" , and emplying that our energy test was not conducted in a professional manner, or that we are the only company that has conducted 3rd party tests. These features or materials that you claim to be standard on other tubs, I don't see them on other tubs, ( Also, I will add, I see features on other tubs in the field that Arctic does not have that I could see a consumer liking better than the comparable feature on an Arctic). And vise versa!
If what most of you claim is true, that Arctic sells features, as exclusive or "unique" that most tubs in the industry have, why do you rip the marketing of Arctic, we are selling tubs equiped and built just like everyone else, yet our marketing has found a way to sell these features as exclusive, on an average tub, to the same people that walk into other spa showrooms and see these same features and materials on other tubs, yet come back to the Arctic dealer, pay more for the same thing they saw everywhere else, listen to us bad mouth every spa and dealer in our area, take their check, kick'em in the ass on the way out the door!! And then get on sites like this, tell their friends and family how much they love their spa, tell how their Arctic dealer did not bad mouth, and provide them with great service, it is amazing!!!! (By the way James I am getting low on the brain washing dust, we pump into all Arctic stores through those machines that look like air fresheners, " OVER NIGHT IT, I AM GOING TO LOSE ANOTHER ONE, IF I DON"T GET MORE SOON!! MY STAFF IS ALREADY STARTING TO TURN ON ME!!!!!
WOW, sounds like our marketing is doing something right, and that others marketing better step it up!!
Blah blah blah blah blah retoric.
-
Thank you Hot Tub Man, I was really asking these questions to get some feed back from you guys that sell tubs that I don't see in my area. As I shifted through your reply of bashing, I did get some feed back.
I appoligize, for having the pumps on that list of my last post, I know they are not an exclusive component, yet was more to my point of being an average pump to have on a spa. That was my fault.
Again, let me make this very clear, I have put my time in battling you on this site over what is better or why a material is bad and can fail over time. It is a never ending circle of bickering that makes all of us sound stupid. That is not my intent hear, I and others have been called out and accused of lying about features that we sell on or tubs that we believe work well and will hold up well, and in the final product make a very nice, welll built spa. In these accusations, the main arguement is that alot of tubs have these features, materials, that Arctic Spas boasts as "exclusive features". I have asked you guys on hear as professionals not to name a features on tubs "like" or "similar" to Arctics. I did not ask what you think the positives and negatives are, or why other materials used on other tubs is a better application in your mind!! I think we have already discussed most of these issues in that manner in the past. What is better, is up to your personal preference and opinion!! And should be respected by both sides. ( I will try and have been trying to hold my side of this up on this site sense my first few days on hear where I was guilty of this one sided attitude and bias).
1) Coleman's floors are ABS not fiberglass
- Does Coleman warranty their floor as a foundation ?
2) Cover's. I will take that answer and bashing as their is not a another 5 to 4 inch CastCore cover to your knowledge.
- I do not know what the exact weight of the cover will be after it is used 5 years. I will weigh my cover it is almost 5 years old now and let you know.
- These covers come with a 3 year warranty. I have personnaly warrantied them myself for 5 years from the inserts- breaking, saging, or becoming water logged. If that is what a customer needs to assure them that they are a great cover and I am willing to back up what I tell people!
- I have been selling Arctic 5 years in August, and have not replaced an insert due to breaking or water logging. I have replaced vinyl.
3) Coleman uses framing, and insulation on their shells for support. That is not self supporting!! Better or worse this is not how Arctic builds theirs. I am sure their are positives and negetives to both methods .
4) Coleman uses a different style of heat lock than Arctic. Both methods recover lost heat of the pumps. But the differences in insulation change how the heat is transfered to the water, and how the heat from the water can be transfered to the air space. Both are obviously fine ways to insulate a tub. I think most would agree a Coleman and Arctic would have very similar operating cost!
5) Powder Coated Cabinets- Have you seen or heared of our cabinets not holding up. Or are you refering to lower end aluminium lawn furniture as your reference. Again, Hot Tub Man, it does not take a real genious to find fault in building materials, everything has a positive and negative. The way our tubs are built I feel the positives out way the negatives. You may not, and that is fine.
-
4) Coleman uses a different style of heat lock than Arctic. Both methods recover lost heat of the pumps. But the differences in insulation change how the heat is transfered to the water, and how the heat from the water can be transfered to the air space. Both are obviously fine ways to insulate a tub. I think most would agree a Coleman and Arctic would have very similar operating cost!
The 16 hours a day when the Coleman or Arctics pump motor is not running which one looses more heat through the side walls. Can either of you answer that? Cause if I was going to purchase a insulation method that relyed on heat from the motor to create R-Factor I would want to know that.
Do either of you guys (Coleman or Arctic) think increasing motor run time (or uneccesary fitration) would be an exceptable method to increase heat generating time from your motor in order to help reduce side wall heat loss during -20 to -30 below days?
Just wanted to put a different spin on that particular insulation method. It's what I have on my tub except I have improved it behond what either of your brands have.......I have a bit of a temperature creep problem but during very cold spells it can be very usefull.
-
Hi Firstly I work for Arctic so you know this is goign to have some bias, but as least you know this. If you want some information I would suggest as others did shop around the other dealers and then go in the Arctic Show room and ensure that everything you heard from EVERYONE makes sense. Then wet test as often as you want to ensure your getting the proper tub for your needs. Also, get testimonials from the dealer regarding their customers and and how they treat their customers. Service after the tub is in your back yard is as important to us as selling the tub,
-
Well said Sandy. It doesn't matter if you're looking at a Sundance, Hot Springs, Marquis, Master, Cal Spa or Arctic, wet testing is very important along with the information about the Manufacturer's & Dealer's reputation for Quality and Service.
-
Hi Firstly I work for Arctic so you know this is goign to have some bias, but as least you know this. If you want some information I would suggest as others did shop around the other dealers and then go in the Arctic Show room and ensure that everything you heard from EVERYONE makes sense. Then wet test as often as you want to ensure your getting the proper tub for your needs. Also, get testimonials from the dealer regarding their customers and and how they treat their customers. Service after the tub is in your back yard is as important to us as selling the tub,
I would suggest going to Arctic first so that you can decide for yourself if everything they say about spas made in California is correct!! Besides, you need to be able to see the ant pile in the old competitors spa before you can appreciate DuraBase on the Marquis! ;)
-
What is the 'R value' of an ant pile anyway?
;)
-
Boy that last statement regarding side wall insulation value during the 16-20 hours a day when your pump motor is not running because you don't need any more fitration for clean water sure shut this thread up.
"what makes sence to you"
Go to the Arctic dealer first. See if it makes sence after you have visited the rest.
-
TMAN, that question was not a real show stopper!! I was just a bit tired of the topic, and have been a little busy to give an answer. ( I think what really cooled off the thread was the other facts about the energy test that were over looked by all of you in your bashing of Arctic about the test.
I think that 4 to 5 inches of insulation on a sealed cabinet retains heat very well.
I will not speak for Coleman or any other TP design. The insulation and cabinet design is not the same, as Arctic.
I believe that 4 to 5 inches of insulation retains heat very well. Whether it is a cover, cabinet, floor of a spa. If you are saying the heat loss from the sides of the cabinets is so much greater than a FF design, than the arguement that alot of you have made about the cover advantage for Arctic in the energy test, does not make sense. If the Arctic had more heat loss from the cabinet, and the FF design's had more heat loss from the covers, it really wasn't a big advantage for the Arctic. In terms of over all insulation. The Advantage in covers would only be a factor if all other insulation is equal. Covers are part of hot tub insulation as much as the insulation inside the cabinet and are factored into the whole R value of the tub. So if the Arctic Cover made the difference than, the Arctic cabinet was retaining heat as well as the others. Or is the heat loss from the other covers that much greater than loss of heat from Arctic Cabinets?
How does 4 to 5 inches of insulation do such a great job and is such an advantage as a cover, yet you argue that it will not retain heat very well used on other areas.
-
If you are saying the heat loss from the sides of the cabinets is so much greater than a FF design, than the arguement that alot of you have made about the cover advantage for Arctic in the energy test, does not make sense.
Stabone, I think you misread if that's going to be your angle. I'll repeat and keep it on-target, I don't want to kick this up all over again (yeahyeah, too late).
- The study said arctic (TP) and hot springs (FF) were essentially equivalent in efficiency.
- The Arctic used a MUCH MUCH MUCH thicker cover than the hot springs.
- If the side insulation was equivalent, the thicker cover on the arctic would have given arctic a MUCH bigger edge over the hot springs.
- Since the results didn't show such a big edge, it is completely reasonable to deduce that arctic loses more out the side than hot spring.
Nothing in there to extrapolate to other brands or insulation types in general. Just using the data points that:
1) Arctic used a significantly thicker cover than the hot springs.
2) They came out close to even in the energy efficiency tests.
-Ed
-
Ed, what about the other FF tubs, and the fact about the operation of the HS tub. Why are you only acknowledging the cover difference, not all the factors.
Ed, we are talking about heat loss from the sides.
HS uses more insulation in the cabinet.
Arctic uses more insulation in the cover
If you are saying the difference is in the cover, than the heat loss is the same from the cabinet, or less than the heat loss difference from the covers. Either way the overall result, is that the Arctic in it's standard form is more effecient than the other tubs in their standard form. ( There are so many ways to break these kind of tests apart that it is point less to even talk about)
Why is the insulation advantage that is claimed by the difference in heat loss from the cabinet area, not a factor as much in the heat loss difference from the covers. Both are differences in the insulation? That result in heat loss difference between the two tubs.
This is getting way off topic, and I don't have the time to get started on this today. TMAN, I think our cabinets retain heat very well, and the over all design of Arctic makes them one of the more efficient tubs in the industry. I rely do believe that the well built spas operating costs are very close, different insulation designs should not be judged on operating costs only. And there plenty of positives and negatives for any design. The one that has the most positives in what you are concerned with, is the best design for you. A positive to one person maybe a negative to someone else.
-
Ed, what about the other FF tubs
I don't care about the other tubs. I barely care about the study, other than to help disect it as pure numbers not your personal marketing tool.
Ed, we are talking about heat loss from the sides.
HS uses more insulation in the cabinet.
Arctic uses more insulation in the cover
You admit HS loses less out the sides. This was what I wanted to point out.
Why is the insulation advantage that is claimed by the difference in heat loss from the cabinet area, not a factor as much in the heat loss difference from the covers.
Because if I live in an area that gets super cold, and I own a hot springs, I can just get a thicker cover. Whereas, if I bought an Arctic, I can't get more insulation in the sides.
See how that works?
-Ed
-
Because if I live in an area that gets super cold, and I own a hot springs, I can just get a thicker cover. Whereas, if I bought an Arctic, I can't get more insulation in the sides.
See how that works?
Ed,
Good point. By the way, I only read the last two posts. This was way to long of thread. Keep it short people.
Chris
-
Maybe the delete-happy ht_mod should lock it?
A bunch of nothing is going on. Study this; :P
-
Still no response. Extra filtering in order to keep the R-Factor in the cabinet. 16-20 hours a day every single day for the life of the tub there is no heat produced from the motor!! Talk about heat loss.
Stabone 80 percent or more of the heat loss is from the top not the sides. Your in this industry you should know. Put an equal cover on the rest of the brands in the test and would the Arctic fair as good as any others in the tests?
Why bother spewing your brand is the most energy effiecient when it is only true for 4-8 hours a day. Lets sell our tubs on the fact that they are the most effiecient 4-8 hours out of the day and try and get the costumer to focus on that and not the fact that during the majority of the day 16-20 hours our tubs are less effiecient than most brands. Your brittle story is being exposed.
Go ahead spew some more and don't answer, I'm used to it.
Heatlock insulation; Not of value, all tubs have some sort of insulation and I would hope Arctic would.
Heat transfer; only good 4-8 hours a day. 16-20, nothing less side wall insulation than alot of brands so......more heat loss.
Low operating costs; Not true, no better than alot of brands and worse than some
fiberglass shells; 80 percent of the tubs out there use fiberglass.
castcore covers; Exclusive to Arctic we shall see. Good thick cover which is where most heat loss is, but will just probably make up for the extra side wall loss during non run times. Make sure to get a cover upgrade on another brand. Cheap effieciency.
forever floor that lets you put tub on any level surface without a concrete pad; Bad idea, use something please.
Good all inclusive warranty, Good, because the compitition is offering it.
-
This has been officialy beat. I'll stop now Staboner.
-
What is the 'R value' of an ant pile anyway?
;)
I think it depends on whether the hill was blown in or if it came in little pink panther bags. :o
-
on the ant subject....
since ants can lift approx 100 times their body weight.... how big would the ant pile have to be (ff or tp) before there are enough of them to pick up the tub and move it around the yard, really messing with your head????
;D :D ;D
-
I've been too bored to properly moderate this topic. Should we just let it die, or is there more to be said?
(http://Mccallw.tripod.com/horse.gif)
Apparently animated gifs don't work here, the stick figure is actually beating this dead horse.
-
on the ant subject....
since ants can lift approx 100 times their body weight.... how big would the ant pile have to be (ff or tp) before there are enough of them to pick up the tub and move it around the yard, really messing with your head????
;D :D ;D
Little Known Fact: Ants don't weigh anything. So this commonly-held belief that they can lift 100 times their weight is actually worthless information since 100 time zero is zero.
;)
-
Oh,I get it.
Dead horse.
Hmm.
Thanks, Bill.......
-
Me thinks this thread be dead.
-
WAIT!! IT CANT BE!!
GIVE IT AN AMP OF DICHLOR. NEW SILVER ION CARTRIDGE. CLEAN THE FILTER.
CHARGE THE PADDLES TO 300!!
SHOCK! SHOCK! SHOCK!
oh well...... time of death...now.