Horse power

[hottubdan]

"Are you guys claiming Hot Spring is superior or markedly different than
Sundance, Jacuzzi, or D1 in energy efficiency?"


I am claiming there is a reason Sundance, Jacuzzi, D1, etc. do not have any published 3rd party testing.  I leave it to your imagination why.

[Mendocino101]

Could it be that they did want to spend the money to put it in a marketing ad ?...I mean I think most would agree that all well made spas like Hot Springs, Jacuzzi , Sundance, Marquis, etc for spas of comparable specs. like one or two pump, like size heaters, size will all cost about the same to run each month. If anyone thinks that one of them cost substantially less than the others....Than please give my best to the fairy god mother, the tooth fairy, jack, sleeping beauty and mother goose....because fairy tale land must be where their living...

[Josh]

"Are you guys claiming Hot Spring is superior or markedly different than
Sundance, Jacuzzi, or D1 in energy efficiency?"


I am claiming there is a reason Sundance, Jacuzzi, D1, etc. do not have any published 3rd party testing.  I leave it to your imagination why.

Perhaps the whole problem here is that because there's a lack of concrete information on the subject, too many people are resorting to using their imaginations when it comes to this stuff.  

I tend to agree with what Steve said:

Oh...and for the record... most major manufacturers are within a few bucks per month in operational costs so don't spend too much effort on it... No one company stands leaps and bounds over others in operational costs even though some will claim superiority. It's called marketing...

Steve

[Repeat_Offender]

I think the majority of consumers understand going in that this is a luxury item and aren't going to panic because it costs $8 more per month to run a HotSprings vs a comparable Sundance. Given that assumption I don't see value to any such study other than to provide more sales fodder.

[Spatech_tuo]

Perhaps the whole problem here is that because there's a lack of concrete information on the subject, too many people are resorting to using their imaginations when it comes to this stuff.  

..or maybe they're using their experience.

[Spatech_tuo]

I think the majority of consumers understand going in that this is a luxury item and aren't going to panic because it costs $8 more per month to run a HotSprings vs a comparable Sundance. Given that assumption I don't see value to any such study other than to provide more sales fodder.

At $8/month I would not worry about energy consumption when deciding between a Hot Spring and a Sundance. Now if the decision were between Hot Spring/Sundance versus a XX Spa, then I'd expect a bigger difference.

If you look at the Arctic study (and you believed in its accuracy) you'd conclude that energy consumption is not a major factor when deciding between the top performing brands in that study but the bottom performers in that study just did not stack up and in those cases energy consumption should definitely be a deciding factor.

Someone came to one of the other spa forums yesterday concerned about the energy use of his new spa. Someone asked him if he had given any thought to this subject before he purchased and I think his response is pretty typical of MANY people looking into spas and assuming them to be pretty much equal relative to energy consumption or not thinking about it at all:

The short answer is...not really. I think a lot of 1st time buyers are not thinking of insulation as their top, or even major, concern. Not because it should not be, but because their attention is focused on the "features" of the tub and how it fits. For example I have been in my friends Cal spa several times figuring what did and did not work for me and this was in the mountains of New Hampshire and [glow]not once did I think about how insulated it was. [/glow]

BTW, his spa was not a Cal in case that is what someone may read into this, it was a Mxxxxr.

[Tom]

Tom, is that comparing a high end modern spa with one of those wooden uninsulated ones?
Meaningless data on it's own.

Why not read the study and answer your own question?  It's freely available on our site, and 'unofficially' available elsewhere.  

Seems odd that someone who clearly hasn't even looked at the study would dismiss it as 'meaningless'.   It is AFAIK the only third-party comparative data published to date, which makes it the most meaningful available.

The data showed that the spas tested fell into two groups.  The "well-insulated" spas were clearly distinguished from the "less-insulated" spas at both tested temperatures.   As some have pointed out, those in the "top" group were fairly close together, especially in the warm test at 20C, and it was only in the "cold' test at -12C that there is much differentiation.  

My post was in response to a comment that spas are all pretty much the same regarding energy efficiency.   Available data shows that this is NOT the case; there are some clear differences. Some brands/models are demonstrably more energy-efficient than others.  Is that an important consideration?  For some, it may be; for others, it may not.  But to claim that there is no distinction at all is simply incorrect.

For the person who wondered why the test was at -12C:  data at the time suggested that it was the mean winter temperature for Alberta (and for some parts of Canada, it is the mean annual temperature!).  

Those of you who live in warmer climes, be grateful.  You can probably buy a relatively uninsulated spa and pay no great energy penalty.

[Tom]

It would have been interesting to have seen how Master, LA, Coleman, Dynasty, etc. and a few of the other larger thermopane spa makers would have faired in teh Arctic study.

I agree, it would have been worth while.  But in testing those eight spas, we had to go with what was readily available in the local marketplace and what would fit in with our growth and marketing strategy.

Even that limited study cost a fair chunk of change.  How about you pay for the next one?  

[Repeat_Offender]

Guess you either didn't understand my question or didn't read the study yourself so you could answer it. I'm not dismissing the "study" as meaningless, it's your post that's meaningless. Presenting some abstract equation without quantifying the scope of items contained has no value. Maybe you thought we would be impressed with that equation you cut and pasted? No. Got a physics degree myself, though I'm no spa salesman. If you wanted to do something useful you should have just posted the link to the study for anyone that cared to see it.

[Repeat_Offender]

HA! This POS??   http://www.spaspecialist.com/AlbertaResearchCouncil.html

You paid money for that? Too funny...out of the eight spas "ramdomly" picked, 3 of them were Arctic???
I take back what I said about the study not being meaningless. What a joke. I wouldn't line the bird cage with that.
It's fitting that Jim's picture appears on that webpage.

[Tom]

You paid money for that? Too funny...out of the eight spas "ramdomly" picked, 3 of them were Arctic?

Now you're just being a tease, and deliberately misreading my posts.  

We paid for the tests, and of course we wanted our products included.

Jim Arjuna uses the study without our permission, but we have discussed the matter internally and decided it's not worth taking action on (we won't strain at gnats, so to speak   ).

You have yourself a Merry Christmas.

[Brewman]

Gnat.  I like that.

[clover]

This discussion is truely endless.  No matter what you do, you are picked apart by the engineers and everything is found to be slanted or unsientific.  But still, consumers are still confused about WHAT to pay attention to.  It seems that others would prefer to find fault and pick something apart rather than to find something good or worthwile in the data provided.

Again, it comes back to money, yours, theirs and who should do what for who.

Every manufacturer wants to sell their product.  IF they were to do a "documented, certifed, third party, evaluation, like HS or AS who tested 3 of their models and 5 other manufactured models, other manufacturers will call a foul that the study is biased, meaningless, the consumer will consider the source that paid for the "independent" testing and say the study is "flawed" and meaningless.  Salestalk would abound with mis-information.  

Whatever is done, it has to be done with a credible source, like the Pope or Mother Therasa who presumable represent the interests of many.  Many in this thread would simply dismiss it as meaningless information.  Why do it.  Self satisfaction maybe.  Artic did their study.  They paid big bucks for their information and it reinforces what they wanted to know.  

It does have meaning, it is useful, it is just that the money spent satisfies Artic's need for information.  Their willingness to share is rebuked and found faulty.

HOW CAN YOU WIN.  The consumer, the maker, the seller, the shopper all want the information.  WHO should pay for it?  When it is provided, it too will be dismissed as sales foder.

Find a good Hot Tub you like and Buy it.  By the time you're ready to buy your next one, we will have this all worked out.

[Tom]

Good post, Clover.  

Merry Christmas to all

Tom

[clover]

Good post, Clover.  

Merry Christmas to all

Tom

Thank you Tom,

and to all, a good night

Be merry, be happy, and leave Joy alone!