Where does Cal Spas stack up?

[Spatech_tuo]

First of all, once the Arctic spa line is finally certified the proof will be in the pudding that they are just as efficient, if not more than many already tested. And I would argue that the results will be impressive.  

I disagree, the results won't be impressive because I don't think we and customers will see anything other than a pass/fail result. They will simply say you are CEC or not.

The problem I can see is then a few of ones on that list that I personally can't believe are very energy efficient will say "we're CEC certified just like Hot Spring, Arctic, Jacuzzi... so we're just as efficient".

[Summitman]

Umm well the CEC report that I saw shows more info than just pass or fail from what I read.  Maybe Im looking at the wrong thing but it shows quite a bit of stats.  I could really care less what anyone claims on their sales floor I have proof that our spas perform extremely well.  My competition has claimed lots of things for many years and it hasnt effected our sales.

[Spatech_tuo]

Umm well the CEC report that I saw shows more info than just pass or fail from what I read.  Maybe Im looking at the wrong thing but it shows quite a bit of stats.  I could really care less what anyone claims on their sales floor I have proof that our spas perform extremely well.  My competition has claimed lots of things for many years and it hasnt effected our sales.

Yes but they're self reported stats!! I'm supposed to believe Master's results when they put so much work into fooling the public with their spa shows?

[James]

First of all, once the Arctic spa line is finally certified the proof will be in the pudding that they are just as efficient, if not more than many already tested. And I would argue that the results will be impressive.  Until then I suppose many can say they arent approved by a certain agency and arent efficient yada, yada, yada.  Keep in mind that just because a spa line isnt approved on the list it doesnt mean that the spa line has been denied or even tested yet.  These things take time and I would imagine coming from Canada does nothing but delay the process.  

[glow]I could not agree with you more. I am sure once Arctic and the others get on board, they will be a champion for the CEC standards as well. I have never said that Arctic was inefficient . I only pointed out that they are not CEC certified and Cal is.[/glow]


I would like to ask since James keeps bringing up the point that the Arctic study is seven years old, once a spa or model passes the testing, are they retested every year to be up to James standards of a proper test?  Or, once they pass the test is it end of story?  

[glow]Good questions. However it was Tom who originally brought up the age of this test. I never knew it till he pointed it out. Keep in mind, these are not my standards, these standards are from a 3rd party government agency. As far as testing and retesting, I don't know. I'm sure as this unfolds, we'll all know more.[/glow]

Again their isnt much I can say that would prove Arctics are as efficient since they havent been approved yet, but once they finally go through with the testing Arctics will no doubt pass.  Those that question that point either havent seen an Arctic spa in person, or flat out have to compete against Arctic daily and have other motives.  They are very impressive and perform well in many different climates.  

[glow]The best of luck to Arctic with their testing.[/glow]


Just my .02 cents.

[Summitman]

Yes but they're self reported stats!! I'm supposed to believe Master's results when they put so much work into fooling the public with their spa shows?

If these are all self reported stats then I question the legitimacy of the whole test.  If that truly is the case then these test results are only worth the paper they are written on.

[Summitman]

And I just wanted to point out that just because Arctic isnt approved doesnt mean that they have failed the testing standards.

[Gary]

A short follow up.

Those manufactures with models on the CEC Title 20 approved list are:

Artesian Spas, Bullfrog International, Cal Spas, Clearwater Spas, Dimension One Spas, Master Spas Inc., Softub Inc., Spa Manufacture, Inc., ThermoSpas, Inc., Watkins Manufacturing Company (every single HSS & Caldera brand spa model are on the list)

As you can see, it is a rather short list.

Tom is correct when he points out that there are no Canadian brands on the list.

Also remarkable is that the list indicates if the tub model is fully foam insulated or not. There is not a single non-fully foamed spa on the list as well.

Perhaps this will help with the FF vs TP debate.

If anyone thinks any of those spas would pass the requirements to get on that list I have some Atlantic beach front property in Arizona to sell you.

This has been debated on here many of times, there is [size=16]no testing [/size]that the CEC does all a manufacturer has to do is fill the form out and they get on the list. I read through the list and I call BS!!!! on the numbers posted by most.

[Tom]

LONG POST WARNING

Interesting discussion, but I have such a sense of déja vu!  James, you argue well, given the facts at your disposal.

It seems to be mostly hot tub professionals involved in the discussion at this point, with a few interested onlookers.  So let me reiterate a few points to add to the depth of the debate.

• Arctic Spas took the initiative two ago to promote the development of Canadian standards for energy efficiency for hot tubs, as we felt that the California standards were far too low and were inadequate for the Canadian climate.  The Office of Energy Efficiency of Natural Resources Canada undertook a market study which determined that the development of standards appropriate to Canadian conditions was both feasible and desirable.  A Technical Subcommittee will be formed to investigate and formulate the Canadian test standards.  Ultimately, these standards will apply to all spas manufactured in or imported into Canada.
• The method for becoming a CEC test facility is simple and is readily available on their web site.  The facility manager signs an affidavit testifying that the facility meets the required standards.  There is no inspection.  Test instruments must be properly calibrated by an independent organization.  Last I heard, we were waiting for our test equipment to arrive.
• Most large manufacturers with the proper facilities will do their own testing.  I don't know if there is any planned program for spot testing or verification by the CEC.  In this, the procedure for hot tubs will be exactly the same as for any other rated appliance --  stoves, fridges, clothes driers etc.  AFAIK they are all tested and reported by their respective manufacturers.
• CEC-400-2008-014-SD, Table V "Data Submittal Requirements" contains on p. 195 under Portable Electric Spas the requirement "Spa enclosure is fully insulated" with the permissible answers "Yes, no". (In Sec 104:2:F of the proposed revision, that was not in the list of required data; however, it still appears on p. 195.  Was I the only one to notice that inconsistency?)  There was no definition of 'fully insulated' in the regulations.  Can a spa could be considered "fully insulated" if it contains some material on all six sides, however minimal the insulating value of the material?  A spa with no bottom covering, for example, could not be considered "fully insulated" under this interpretation, but the manufacturer could argue that it is 'insulated' on all surfaces exposed to wind and weather  and therefore is 'fully insulated'. I wrote to the CEC to have this clarified.  A Mr. Peter Straight replied,  'The common usage of the term "fully insulated" is understood to indicate a uniformity of insulation.  A reduction of insulation in certain areas, where it could have been left in full, is no longer full.'  

On this last point, based on prior discussion in the thread, it is clear that this is NOT the definition used by the units already in the database, and that the CEC had neglected to clarify or apply this definition to that early data.  I'll have to look up the current regulations.

By Mr. Strait's definition, any spa with an interior cavity (one with no insulation at all, one with 1/2" of bubble foil, and one with 3" of PU perimeter foam) would all be rated "No".   This simplistic rating clearly does not provide sufficient information to the public.  It's a full-foam consipiracy!    

But then, what does the CEC care how a unit is insulated, so long as it meets the standards?   In the end, that doesn't matter to the consumer; as another post pointed out, "CEC certified" will be the only mark.  

When we get EnerGuide and Energy Star ratings, that will be another tool to help the consumer distinguish the best from the merely adequate.

[Tom]

When we get EnerGuide and Energy Star ratings, that will be another tool to help the consumer distinguish the best from the merely adequate.

Or so you'd think.  

The ENERGY STAR Product Labeling Program identifies and promotes energy-efficient products. However, it seems that Energy Star and Energy Guide ratings, like spa efficiencies, are self-reported with little verification.  In a report to the EPA http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2007/20070801-2007-P-00028.pdf, I found this:

Self-certification is...generally viewed as effective and has been employed for decades across many types of programs that touch U.S. consumers.  Self-certification programs are viewed as particularly appropriate in countries such as the United States that have competitive market places that allow manufacturers to question their competitors and that also have robust consumer protection activities.  Importantly, there is no evidence that these self-certification programs do not work. [Note the logic flaw in this last statement.]

[However,] EPA does not have reasonable assurance that the self-certification process is effective [same logic flaw].  EPA relies on some alternative verification mechanisms, but lacks any quality assurance or review of these reported results.  The Agency’s verification testing also lacks a clear documented methodology governing products selected for verification tests and does not test for statistically valid results. Consequently, product efficiency and energy savings reported by manufacturers are, for the most part, unverified by EPA review.

[Gary]

If these are all self reported stats then I question the legitimacy of the whole test.  If that truly is the case then these test results are only worth the paper they are written on.

Bingo we have a winner!!!!!!!

[Hillbilly Hot Tub]

A short follow up.

Those manufactures with models on the CEC Title 20 approved list are:

Artesian Spas, Bullfrog International, Cal Spas, Clearwater Spas, Dimension One Spas, Master Spas Inc., Softub Inc., Spa Manufacture, Inc., ThermoSpas, Inc., Watkins Manufacturing Company (every single HSS & Caldera brand spa model are on the list)

As you can see, it is a rather short list.

Tom is correct when he points out that there are no Canadian brands on the list.

Also remarkable is that the list indicates if the tub model is fully foam insulated or not. There is not a single non-fully foamed spa on the list as well.
Perhaps this will help with the FF vs TP debate.


I will have to correct you, Clearwater is NOT a full foam spa, it is thermo-pane design, similar to Artic and as you said, it is on the list.

[James]

From Me:

Those manufactures with models on the CEC Title 20 approved list are:
 
Artesian Spas, Bullfrog International, Cal Spas, Clearwater Spas, Dimension One Spas, Master Spas Inc., Softub Inc., Spa Manufacture, Inc., ThermoSpas, Inc., Watkins Manufacturing Company (every single HSS & Caldera brand spa model are on the list)
 
As you can see, it is a rather short list.
 
Tom is correct when he points out that there are no Canadian brands on the list.
 
Also remarkable is that the list indicates if the tub model is fully foam insulated or not. There is not a single non-fully foamed spa on the list as well.
Perhaps this will help with the FF vs TP debate.
 
 
[glow]From Hillbilly: I will have to correct you, Clearwater is NOT a full foam spa, it is thermo-pane design, similar to Artic and as you said, it is on the list. [/glow]

 
In response:

If you have a moment, please, read the approved list from the CEC.  The list indicates with a "Yes" or "No" answer if the spa is "Spa Enclosure Fully Insulated (T/F)". Your correction aside, you'll notice every tub on the list has "yes" as the answer to the question.

With Tom's excellent answer and the CEC provided definition as to what "Spa Enclosure Fully Insulated” means in mind, why do you suppose the Clearwater spas are listed as true when asked "Spa Enclosure Fully Insulated (T/F)" yet you ( and the Clearwater WEB site) indicate they are not “Spa Enclosure Fully Insulated”?

Great Post Tom.

[Spatech_tuo]

From Me:

why do you suppose the Clearwater spas are listed as true when asked "Spa Enclosure Fully Insulated (T/F)" yet you ( and the Clearwater WEB site) indicate they are not “Spa Enclosure Fully Insulated”?

"Fully insulated" and "Fully foamed" are NOT the same thing. Clearwater is simply claiming their spas are fully (or in other words, completely or properly) insulated. EVERY spa manufacturer is going to claim they are fully insulated so they will all check that box as true so I’m not sure why that column even exists.

The problem is not all on that list are equally insulated and passing this CEC test happens with self reported data so this whole CEC thing is a starting point. Hopefully after it goes into effect the CEC will have all of these "fully" insulated spas checked to see if they truly pass. This CEC standard is like a baby, it starts out nearly blind and has no teeth but hopefully it will grow and help bring about change to some of the spas out there that are not so "fully" insulated (and IMO a few are those who have put themselves on pass list).

[James]

"Fully insulated" and "Fully foamed" are NOT the same thing. Clearwater is simply claiming their spas are fully (or in other words, completely or properly) insulated. EVERY spa manufacturer is going to claim they are fully insulated so they will all check that box as true so I’m not sure why that column even exists.

The problem is not all on that list are equally insulated and passing this CEC test happens with self reported data so this whole CEC thing is a starting point. Hopefully after it goes into effect the CEC will have all of these "fully" insulated spas checked to see if they truly pass. This CEC standard is like a baby, it starts out nearly blind and has no teeth but hopefully it will grow and help bring about change to some of the spas out there that are not so "fully" insulated (and IMO a few are those who have put themselves on pass list).

I agree TOU.

I'd like to believe that those companies that are not fully foamed simply misunderstood the CEC's definition of what "Spa Enclosure Fully Insulated (T/F)" and answered YES when they most certainly should have answered no & that there was no misrepresentation involved.

Tom did a great job in finding out what the CEC's definition of "Spa Enclosure Fully Insulated" was.

In short the definition means, as I read it, that any tub that does NOT have insulation, where it otherwise COULD have had insulation, would not be considered as a "Spa Enclosure Fully Insulated" spa. That manufacture would check “NO” to the “Spa Enclosure Fully Insulated (T/F)" question.

I guess the great debate (debated till the cows come home in this forum) WOULD NOT be “is air as efficient and effective as insulation” but “is air insulation in and of itself?”

(Although, when I think about it, why would a manufacture care if their answer was yes or no as long as they truly met the standards?)

[spaman--]

YAWNNNNNNN!!!!!!!