Hot Tub Covers that don't get heavy

[Dr. Spa™ Ret.]

Four years were spent by AccuLok to develop a material that resisted water vapor absorption. Testing by an independent laboratory showed a 400% improved performance of this barrier in comparison to other traditional covers.

Seattle Spa Covers had similar testing results........ of course when it came to actual real world applications  

Filing for a patent is an expenisve process and it does mean that it is a unique product worth protecting. The certificate on the site and the warranty do indicate it's performance.

The only indication is YOUR belief in performance. Again, Seattle Spa Covers wasn't any different...and a warranty "ain't no good" if the company isn't around to back it up.

 An explanation of the technology would be crazy to share - do you think Coca-Cola shares it's recipe?

Who asked for an explanation of the technology? I"m simply saying that making the claim you have something better than someone else, with NO kind explanation/description, is nothing more than empty marketing gobilty-gook...Can I interest you in some sea monkeys?

[East_TX_Spa]

...Can I interest you in some sea monkeys?

When I was 8 years old, I ordered some Sea Monkeys out of my Spiderman comic book because I thought they were going to be sexy like this one:


Real life sea monkeys aren't very sexy...just so ya'll know.

Term

[Shaamus]

Four years were spent by AccuLok to develop a material that resisted water vapor absorption. Testing by an independent laboratory showed a 400% improved performance of this barrier in comparison to other traditional covers.

I'm not saying that your test is invalid in that you are testing your film in a lab against polyethylene.  In fact, that's the one thing I believe in your information.  The point is, and you know this Chad, that it's the equivalent of a sand-bag dam with ideally 10,000 bags.  Your dam is only one short at 9,999 bags and my dam is four short at 9,996 bags.  My dam is letting is 4x as much water as yours is but it's still not letting a whole lot in overall.  That's the problem with your marketing.  You're leading people to believe that your cover is 4x better in useful life.  That just isn't the case and having bought an average of 4000 covers a year you know that.  You're taking one little testing and twisting it in the same manner that Jeff Sliger at Spa Cap does.  You are not making claims as to how the film reacts to ozone, chlorine, bromine, MPS nor at what point the film will break down and become useless.  But you are letting unsuspecting customers make that leap.  That's not right and borders on unethical.  Further, if you were to post your warranty we could see what is being excluded, but you've yet to do that.

Filing for a patent is an expenisve process and it does mean that it is a unique product worth protecting. The certificate on the site and the warranty do indicate it's performance. An explanation of the technology would be crazy to share - do you think Coca-Cola shares it's recipe?

If a product is patent-pending (even before the patent is issued), the application is in the public domain.  This is a reason that many companies (I would guess Coca-Cola) do not file for patents.  If your product is patent-pending as you say, your technology is only a patent search away.

[stuart]

Answer - return customers are a great thing. Why sell one cover when you can sell one every couple of years?

This very well could be the next great thing although I highly doubt it. As Chas stated, if it where these guys could have made a ton more money approaching the engineers at Watkins, Calspa, Arctic  or even D1 and selling them covers.
 
I'm highly suspect with a topic that is started like an advertisement and feel that if that is allowed I have some products I would like to sell here.
 
Here in Colorado we have as much or more failure due to UV damage to the vinyl as we do water logging and much like the Castcore cover from Arctic I personally feel that you've simply made a cover with a better story that you can charge more for when it fails....

[wmccall]

 
I'm highly suspect with a topic that is started like an advertisement and feel that if that is allowed I have some products I would like to sell here.

I suspect that was aimed at me, and yes I did see it. Reviewing the rules at the top, its not technically disallowed, and in itself isn't neccesarily a bad thing,  we have two instances this week.  I won't let them speak up and suggest their product in every thread and message they post, but they certainly bring up interesting discussions.

[Steve]

It's really a 3 year warranty...

http://acculokhottubcovers.com/documents/AccuLokWarranty_000.pdf

BLAH! Prorated crappy warranty that is no better than any other out there. I was really hoping this was something special but alas...it ain't. A warranty that in NO WAY reflects a quality, earth shattering new product.

Answer - return customers are a great thing. Why sell one cover when you can sell one every couple of years?

If this is your strongest argument, I would strongly suggest another angle. Lost ALL credibility with me on this one! Sorry. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for people trying new things and creating new, innovative ways to do things better but this has come across as a low budget infomercial to me with no real field testing provided to back up some pretty strong claims. And I mean that 4X more than you think!  

Steve

[Shaamus]

Don't get me wrong, we disclaim and exclude some of the same things because they are out of the control of the manufacturer.  Things that happen as a result of outside forces shouldn't be covered in my humble opinion:  broken foam, torn straps, torn handles, etc.  These things are "done", they don't happen.  But the way that they are marketing this thing, you would expect a little more wiggle room for the customer that is taking the plunge on the last cover they'll ever own.

Also, that 50% retail value looks like their costs are covered if there is an issue in years 4-7 especially since (like most warranties on spa covers including our own) freight isn't covered.

Our warranty isn't much better except our pro-rata share is based on replacement cost not retail value.  I just expected more.  Maybe I was wrong and they don't believe in their product as much as I assumed.  I hadn't thought about it this way, but Steve's description of a low-budget infomercial appears to be appropriate.

[East_TX_Spa]

... Steve's description of a low-budget infomercial appears to be appropriate.

THAT was the point I was trying to illustrate from the git-go...the post was nothing more than spam.  He/She should have to pay to advertise their drivel the same way I have, lo these many years.

Term

[Chas]

Answer - return customers are a great thing. Why sell one cover when you can sell one every couple of years?

Sorry, but that makes no sense whatsoever. Sure, it brings in cash in the short run to force customers to buy a product with a limited life. But in the long run customers talk to shoppers, and it would all end real soon. Where is Yugo these days?

All I'm saying is give the current tub makers and cover makers some credit - they want the product, from the top to the bottom, to do more than the customer expects it to. Advertising that 'they' want to rob you is fallacious.


 8-)

[gwstudios]

The cover that came with our Dynasty started out at about 50 pounds and now weighs over 100. I can barely lift it on and off the shelf I built into our deck to hold it.

[wmccall]

The cover that came with our Dynasty started out at about 50 pounds and now weighs over 100. I can barely lift it on and off the shelf I built into our deck to hold it.

Hello rare fellow Dynasty owner, which model do you own? I understand how you feel, my 92" cover gets pretty heavy.

[Chas]

The cover that came with our Dynasty started out at about 50 pounds and now weighs over 100. I can barely lift it on and off the shelf I built into our deck to hold it.

Did you use a floating feeder in your tub? Or if not, did you leave the cover open for 10-15 minutes after adding powdered sanitizer?

This is the most common reason a cover will go bad. It is not the only reason, but it is the most common.


 8-)

[Tom]

Interesting thread, with parallels to Arctic's Mylavac^TM seal.  

Dang, how did we miss doing a test showing that our Mylar^TM -based vapor barrier is 6X as effective as what anybody else uses?  Stuart always insists that we've a cover with a better story rather than a better cover.  Maybe that test would convince him?  

Mylavac:  US TM #77154712  Reg. #3465339   Polyurethane film for use as a moisture barrier.  Public information.

I think we've a patent, or a patent pending, but I don't have time to hunt it down (I have a list of our trademarks so that was easy to find).  I do think it's a good cover, patent or not (kool-aide, anyone?).

Somewhere in the USPTO I remember running across a patent for coating the foam with contact cement as a vapor barrier....

[stuart]

 

I suspect that was aimed at me, and yes I did see it. Reviewing the rules at the top, its not technically disallowed, and in itself isn't neccesarily a bad thing,  we have two instances this week.  I won't let them speak up and suggest their product in every thread and message they post, but they certainly bring up interesting discussions.

Not aimed at you at all…. It’s aimed at the blatant use of a chat forum like a classified ad. I’m here to help people not sell. I think I’ve proved that over the last 3 years and I don’t like people wasting my time unless they need assistance or offer some for customers.

Interesting thread, with parallels to Arctic's MylavacTM seal.  
 
Dang, how did we miss doing a test showing that our MylarTM -based vapor barrier is 6X as effective as what anybody else uses?  Stuart always insists that we've a cover with a better story rather than a better cover.  Maybe that test would convince him?    
 
Mylavac:  US TM #77154712  Reg. #3465339   Polyurethane film for use as a moisture barrier.  Public information.
 
I think we've a patent, or a patent pending, but I don't have time to hunt it down (I have a list of our trademarks so that was easy to find).  I do think it's a good cover, patent or not (kool-aide, anyone?).
 
Somewhere in the USPTO I remember running across a patent for coating the foam with contact cement as a vapor barrier....

I’ve never claimed that it’s not a good cover….I have a problem with the marketing. Your selling a cover that will have to eventually be replaced claiming it won’t. Not only that it will cost twice as much as most covers to replace and probably heavier and harder to get rid of when it does water log.

It’s not the snow load or amount of executives walking on the cover that causes the water absorption, in most cases it’s the UV, or chemical gases penetrating the seal and breaking down the foam.

To me it’s kinda like 1 to 10 micron filtration…is it needed? Is it effective? Does 20 to 30 micron work? 20 to 30 works fine and there are some inert problems with going down to single digits in filters but the story sells.

You see, as long as you can really say “Only ours” and it isn’t patented then it’s probably just a sales pitch. Many manufactures do this, they claim ownership of the “Only” next best thing when in reality it’s available to everyone but know one else saw the value or came up with a good enough story (and it’s usually a story).

[Summitman]

Not aimed at you at all…. It’s aimed at the blatant use of a chat forum like a classified ad. I’m here to help people not sell. I think I’ve proved that over the last 3 years and I don’t like people wasting my time unless they need assistance or offer some for customers.


[glow]I’ve never claimed that it’s not a good cover….I have a problem with the marketing. Your selling a cover that will have to eventually be replaced claiming it won’t[/glow]. Not only that it will cost twice as much as most covers to replace and probably heavier and harder to get rid of when it does water log.

It’s not the snow load or amount of executives walking on the cover that causes the water absorption, in most cases it’s the UV, or chemical gases penetrating the seal and breaking down the foam.

To me it’s kinda like 1 to 10 micron filtration…is it needed? Is it effective? Does 20 to 30 micron work? 20 to 30 works fine and there are some inert problems with going down to single digits in filters but the story sells.

You see, as long as you can really say “Only ours” and it isn’t patented then it’s probably just a sales pitch. Many manufactures do this, they claim ownership of the “Only” next best thing when in reality it’s available to everyone but know one else saw the value or came up with a good enough story (and it’s usually a story).

I would like to see the Arctic company line that says your Arctic cover will NEVER need to be replaced.