General > Beating a dead horse

Horse power

<< < (17/19) > >>

Spatech_tuo:

--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---

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:

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

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:

--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---
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.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page