Welcome to our forum.
nobody cares about lights/waterfalls after 6 months...buy the spa that feels better
I really like the new chelsee. It got a minor refresh for the '17 model - i think lighting and control upgrades (maybe that's considered a major refresh in the hot tub biz, it's all still kinda new to me). But the chelsee really has the feeling of a higher end hot tub. Closer to the Optima than ever. Even if it didn't get the upgrades, I would take it over the R7 because of the foot dome, the jets felt more powerful, and easier water care with a combination of UV, Ozone, and sun-purity mineral system which really allows you minimize chemical usage. the bullfrog was a little more basic. Although I liked the composite frame construction and their made in USA story, the Sundance won almost every other category.
While looks should not be at the top of anyone's list it won't necessarily be at the bottom either. Its like with my car, I mostly care about how it runs but in reality I do care with how it looks. Like it or not customers do picture what the tub will look like in their yard, what the lighting looks like in/out of the tub and even things like what kind of waterfall it has. A wet test is key but unless one shows itself to be an obvious winner over the other in the wet test then aesthetics will also play a part and understandably so to whatever degree it matters to the potential owner.
and if you have an above average or heavy bather load you'll still use the same exact amount of traditional chemicals.
Quote from: BullFrogSpasMN on August 21, 2017, 02:48:23 pmand if you have an above average or heavy bather load you'll still use the same exact amount of traditional chemicals. By this logic, if you have an average bather load you'll use less chemicals. Hence my point that you can use less chemicals than a bullfrog spa. I like that Sundance designed their products specifically for the combination of UV light, ozone, and mineral cartridge. It holds value to me. It might hold value to someone else who is on the fence. I also like that my dealer supports this system for water care, and designed their own water maintenance to work with it. Part of my buying buying decision was based on which water care system is easier, not just from brand to brand, but from dealer to dealer. Each has their own quirks, and for me it came down to aligning with the right one and getting the right fit.
My head is starting to spin choosing the right tub. I now have initial quotes (no negotiations yet) for a Sundance Chelsee at 7800 + tax or a Bullfrog R7 at 7300 + tax. I am wet testing both this coming weekend but want to plan some of this in advance. The problem I have with the Bullfrog is that the lighting is pretty terrible and non existent. The Sundance just looks a lot better. I almost don't want the Bullfrog to feel good because the Sundance is more visually appealing. What would you guys do if this happens, do you go for a better feeling Bullfrog or the better looking and still not bad feeling Sundance?
Quote from: BullFrogSpasMN on August 21, 2017, 02:48:23 pmand if you have an above average or heavy bather load you'll still use the same exact amount of traditional chemicals. By this logic, if you have an average bather load you'll use less chemicals. Hence my point that you can use less chemicals than a bullfrog spa. I like that Sundance designed their products specifically for the combination of UV light, ozone, and mineral cartridge. It holds value to me. I also like that my dealer supports this system for water care, and designed their own water maintenance to work with it. Part of my buying buying decision was based on which water care system is easier, not just from brand to brand, but from dealer to dealer.
Yup. I reconsidered sundance when I found out the new ones had an ABS base. I went with the Optima in coastal/platinum. I was very close to buying the Chelsee though.
Author
Topic: Over-Thinking now: Sundance Chelsee or Bullfrog R7 (Read 18223 times)
