Hot Tub Forum
Original => Hot Tub Forum => Topic started by: Chris_H on October 06, 2005, 02:14:30 pm
-
Please see the following link stating why manufacturers are now going to ETL instead of UL.
I think allows me to safely assume that one specific manufacturer did not lose their UL listing, as one person likes to tell people. I personally think that UL probably has had discussions with Watkins about this and Watkins probably balked at the idea and took their business elsewhere.
http://www.poolspanews.com/2005/092/092topnews.html
-
The article also mentions that D1 will be moving their testing from UL to ETL soon.
Wonder how long it will take "him" to claim that he was responsible for D1 loosing their UL listing.
It's just lucky we all have this knight in shining armor looking out for our best interests. I know it makes me sleep better at night, in my UL/ETL listed Select Comfort bed.
-
The Master dealer here said HS lost their UL listing due to fires in their spas.
Did HS have an issue with fires? I dismissed it as the Master dealer bashing another mfr.
-
The Master dealer here said HS lost their UL listing due to fires in their spas.
Did HS have an issue with fires? I dismissed it as the Master dealer bashing another mfr.
Hotspring did have an issue with their heater causing fires, but it was cleared up. It did not cause them to lose their UL listing.
-
MAAX (Coleman, Elite, Nahani) uses ETL.
Hydropool (Hydropool, Serenity) uses ETL.
-
According to Chas, who's someone I'd be inclined to believe on this, HS decided to drop UL for ETL, since they test to the same standards.
-
D-1 has been ETL for awhile now.
-
AND it costs substantialy less to list with ETL.
According to Chas, who's someone I'd be inclined to believe on this, HS decided to drop UL for ETL, since they test to the same standards.
-
Arctic is ELT listed.
-
Help me out here.....In reading the article I can not see whats the big deal outside of holding makers to more accurate temp readings. Its not changing from the 104 mark for safety , just taking out some of the wiggle room.....what am I missing.
-
Help me out here.....In reading the article I can not see whats the big deal outside of holding makers to more accurate temp readings. Its not changing from the 104 mark for safety , just taking out some of the wiggle room.....what am I missing.
Isn't there something around CD Ozone and UL? It seems as if ETL is the standard of choice for spa mfrs now anyway.
-
I had heard that UL standards on stereos were forcing many manufacturers to switch.
-
Wow. Considering this thread seems to be noting such an important regulating arm of hot tub manufacturer's codes, it seems it died a pretty quick and silent death. What are we missing indeed?
-
Well, if you notice it said that the makers were having trouble with revisions to the UL standard: "The revisions cover seven areas of standard UL 1563" which happens to be the standard that ETL uses. So if UL changes its standard and manufacturers don't want to come in line with it, they will be forced to get ETL to develop it's own standard - or get UL to drop the "104 max temp" stipulation.
Personally, having sold tubs which go above 104 for 20 years, I don't see it as a problem. People often brag that they like to run their tubs real hot, but once they get into a tub which not only gets real hot but STAYS real hot while in use, they tend to back it down to 102 or 103.
-
I would like to offer my qualified opinion and some background information on the concept of listings. Let me first explain that in my profession it is necessary for me to sit on various technical committees that write codes and standards relating to safety. In this capacity we on the technical committees deal with the subject of listings all the time. Specifically, we determine what equipment must be listed.
When a code or standard requires a listing, the manufacturer of equipment that falls under that document is obligated to submit his product(s) for test to an independent third party laboratory. Not all labs are capable of testing all products. UL is well known, and they have developed protocols for testing and have listed thousands of products over the years. Most of their listings are orientated to consumer products.
UL has not had much competition and they have, perhaps unintentionally, developed a reputation for being somewhat difficult to work with. ETL is offering UL some much needed competition. This is better for the consumer, better for the manufacturer, and ultimately better for UL. There is no downside to this.
As consumers, we need to make sure that we buy from responsible manufacturers who submit their products for third party test as required by code. The name of the lab doing the testing, assuming the lab is qualified and recognized, has no direct impact whatsoever on the consumer.
Whereas this testing and listing process is extremely expensive and time consuming, and since both UL and ETL are recognized as qualified and excellent labs, the consumer is the main beneficiary.
Regards,
Bill