Who is telling me the truth?Arctic or Beachcomber?

[lagator43]

I have been shopping and researching.  Arctic spas claim that by placing the mechanical components under the spa shell it helps your heating costs.  Beachcomber places their mechanical systems under the step and fill the entire cabinet with 4 wall insulation. They claim this is superior because of the extra insulation.   Who is telling the truth?  Help.

[Repeat_Offender]

I think they're both right and both wrong. Pumps generate heat while running, albeit a negligible amount therefore if they are mounted within the shell any heat they lose is lost to the shell. The down side is there is less room for insulation. Any pumps mounted outside of the shell provide more room for insulation but the heated water is circulated outside of the insulated area where it gives up heat. I saw the pump location on their website and neither the pumps or the piping seem to be insulated.

[sledjunkie]

Both salesman are lying to you.

[drewstar]

This ties back to the infamous and on-going Full Foam or Thermal Pane debate.  Artic insulates it's tub by employing a Thermal Pane system (heated air from the motors to  create an insulating barrior in the cabinet).  Beach Comber insulates it's tub with Full Foam.  Beach Comber's difference from other Full Foam manufactuers  is the motor/pumps are not in a section of the cabinet but rather in a seperate box (the steps).

Sorry, you wont get a clear anwers on "what's best", because there isn't one. You can go over to the Dead Horse section of this forum and read up on it.  The best you will get is opinion. There is no credible data that clearly shows one technolyg as being superior to the others.

I will say both of those brands have been recognized in this forum as being a quality unit.  Don't let the insualtion of either one of these units be the deciding factor between the two.


Oh, and don't mind sledjunki...he's our "special member" that thinks everyone is lying to him.  

[Pisces]

I have a friend with a beachcomber that I've done some work on. I'll say one thing for the external equipment location that I haven't heard mentioned, it sure makes working on the equipment easy.

[The_real_Clown_Shoes]

I like the Beachcomber method, but Arctic is a quality spa as well.

[Rayman]

I am a biased Beachcomber owner so take this comment for what it is worth.  When I was shopping the Arctic salesperson was slamming Beachcomber pretty hard, when I asked the Beachcomber salesperson he would only comment on the benefits of Beachcomber and never said anything about other brands even when I had mentioned the Arctic comments.  I bought the Beachcomber because of the dealer and it's a quality tub.

Ray

[jfish63]

Rayman, what does beachcomber put on the bottom of their tubs. I was told by a coleman salesman that the wood frame and the insulation are exposed on the bottom of the tub.

[Altazi]

I think they're both right and both wrong. Pumps generate heat while running, albeit a negligible amount therefore if they are mounted within the shell any heat they lose is lost to the shell. The down side is there is less room for insulation. Any pumps mounted outside of the shell provide more room for insulation but the heated water is circulated outside of the insulated area where it gives up heat. I saw the pump location on their website and neither the pumps or the piping seem to be insulated.

Most spa pumps are 50-75% efficient at converting electrical energy into mechanical energy.  A single 3hp pump that is 75% efficient, running at full load, will produce about 870W of "waste" heat.  That is over 20% of the output of a 4kW heater - not what I'd call "negligible".  Of course, the pump isn't necessarily being run 100% of the time, either, so that would affect the total heat produced by the motor.

In theory, the Arctic Spas design would be more efficient than a full-foam tub at transferring this waste heat into the water.  This is energy that the heater won't need to supply.

Regards,

Altazi

[Silent Water]

I've been doing the same homework.

Up until this year, the Beachcomber tubs had no bottom "cover".  The 2006 models are enclosed with a composite polymer base called a "PermaSeal foundation".  Ya. I'm reading all the brochures!

I have to say that I'm impressed by Beachcomber tubs.  Their position in the market is geared towards long term dependability. There are no head cushions to wear out, the equipment is easily serviceable, and their shells are really comfortable. My only gripe as a tub-shopper is that their sticker price can be misleading.

In order to get some of the options that I like about their product (24/7 circ "hush" pump, 4 wall insulation, "turbo" air pump), I have to add their "optional" Limited Edition package for several $$ more.  Turns out that this dealer doesn't stock the tub without the "options" so I don't have much of a choice.  If I decide on Beachcomber for their product (it's a close race right now) I will negotiate price, but the "add ons" make this tub about $1500 more expensive than a comparable Caldera or Sundance.
It all is going to come down to the wet test, I'm sure.

BTW, we sat in the Artctic tub too. Completely different feel. Tubs are really geared towards individual seating - lots of armrests and pockets - more angular and less "roundy". We wanted something a bit more open-concept for the times when friends pile in!

Good luck with your decision!  Please let us know how it goes.

[Repeat_Offender]

Altazi,

I think if you factor in how much of this waste heat actually gets transfered into the water as opposed to being lost to the ambient temp as well as how little actual run time there is, as you noted, I would say not much is gained. Just an opinion, I could be wrong. I just don't think it's a big enough selling point.

[Tman122]

I think they're both right and both wrong. Pumps generate heat while running, albeit a negligible amount therefore if they are mounted within the shell any heat they lose is lost to the shell. The down side is there is less room for insulation. Any pumps mounted outside of the shell provide more room for insulation but the heated water is circulated outside of the insulated area where it gives up heat. I saw the pump location on their website and neither the pumps or the piping seem to be insulated.

Most spa pumps are 50-75% efficient at converting electrical energy into mechanical energy.  A single 3hp pump that is 75% efficient, running at full load, will produce about 870W of "waste" heat.  That is over 20% of the output of a 4kW heater - not what I'd call "negligible".  Of course, the pump isn't necessarily being run 100% of the time, either, so that would affect the total heat produced by the motor.

In theory, the Arctic Spas design would be more efficient than a full-foam tub at transferring this waste heat into the water.  This is energy that the heater won't need to supply.

Regards,

Altazi

Very good explanation Al. Only one thing I would like to add. Rather than say the pumps don't run 100% of the time it should read the pumps only run for 4-6 out of the 24 hours in a day. So they are not creating heat for most of the time. Now a little 48 frame 24/7 circ pump on the other hand?? I believe that's an option on the Arctic. Might be a worthwile investment.

In regards to the poster, both those tubs will be pennys difference to operate, get the one your butt is most comfortable in. And the one that the dealer treats you the best.

[In_Too_Long]

Lets not forget that Beachcomber's equipment is in a completely insulated cabinet  as well. When people say they are outside, they are actucally inside their own insualted room capturing heat from a 48 frame circulation pump that runs 24 hours a day.
Most companies that use dead air space insulation fail to insulate their door. Look next time. At least in the 20 years I have been in the industry every portable spa with the equipment on the inside has never had insulation on the door, would you not get heat loss from that, like your garage? But I digress. The most important thing in choosing a hot tub is your comfort. You need to feel good in it so you use it more. You can save a lot of money on electricity if you never use your tub.

[Altazi]

Hello All,

I have no dogs in this fight.  I make no claims regarding the thermal superiority of any spa design.  I couldn't do so unless I had a wide variety of tubs at my disposal for in-depth (no pun intended) testing.  Of course, if the manufacturers wanted to supply me with all of these spas for testing, I would make reasonable efforts to accommodate them!

To Repeat_Offender: You are correct about the total heat output of the pump being affected by how long the pump runs.  I did mention that in my post, though    I also said "In theory. . ."  Clearly there are many real-world factors determining how much of the pump's "waste" heat will make it into the water.

My point here is that in the Arctic Spas-style product, more of this waste heat is LIKELY to enter the water, as opposed to the classic full-foamed tub, where the equipment is thermally isolated.  Now, I know that there are some FF designs that make efforts to reclaim some of this waste heat - whether these are of comparable thermal performance of the Arctic Spa products is not knowledge in my possession.  I can imagine a full-foamed design that can capture much more of the waste heat from the motors - and it would be utterly cost-ineffective.  Who would spend an extra $10k+ to save a few pennies each month???

In any event, it seems a shame to just dump what can be kilowatts of waste heat out into the air, instead of trying to put some of it into the water.  I applaud all spa designs that make effort to reclaim some of this waste heat.

I strongly support all who state that the comfort of the tub is far more important thany trying to save a few pennies each month.  Who cares if your tub's electric bill is $10 cheaper than your neighbors, if you'd rather be in your neighbor's tub than your own?

Ditto the comments about a good, local dealer.  Who ya gonna call?  8-)

Regards,

Altazi

 

[anne]

Who is telling the truth?  Help.

Wow- this has been a great thread. Granted FF vs TP seems like an old issue, but this is a nice friendly debate about interesting stuff......

Sounds like the answer to the above is that there IS no "truth." One guy is selling apples, and the other is selling oranges. If both apples and oranges provide part of your daily fiber and vitamin intake for the day, and both have good antioxidants, and are fresh and well grown, then you just have to pick which fruit you prefer. If the apple salesman is a jerk, or the oranges are overpriced, that makes your decision harder. However, I dont this too many people would argue that in general apples and oranges are both healthy choices.