Hot Tub Forum
Original => Hot Tub Forum => Topic started by: Gary on March 29, 2007, 01:22:25 pm
-
I found this on the net and thought this is good information, that was until I did some math and found out just about every one of the companies is blowing more smoke than a forest fire. I found out that a company can submit their numbers and California does not check or ask for back-up documentation. So how so you feel about a company that is bald face lying about these numbers. We have some smart folks on here and I am sure they will do the math and see what a joke it is.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/appliance/excel_based_files/pool_products/
Some of these did not just tell little white lies, they are trying to sell you ocean front property in Arizona.
-
http://www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/appliance/excel_based_files/pool_products/
Boy, that "Spa Insulation" column packs a lot of information... :P...and I'm sure those spa R values are right on the money!
Thanks for the laugh, Gar.
BTW, if you didn't see it in a previous post, that martini I drank to you went down real well... ;)
-
This whole program is, sadly, a big joke....They can't and won't police it, they have no controls over the testing and all anyone has to do is sign an affidavit saying the information is correct to the best of their knowledge.
They wanted to make it a law however this was dropped when they were challenged to the validity of the information.
Here is an excerpt from one of my emails to Jim with the CEC...He called me very flustered after this saying he sees the discrepancies and doesn’t' know how to police it so they may have to put it on hold...that was 6 months ago...
" Jim,
How is the "R" value standard set? It seems that one of the manufactures that you have rated is giving a per inch value and the other is giving a "total" value? Could this be? The discrepancy is immense and would be used as a crippling sales tool against others in the industry.
How could two covers made by the same vendor with the same materials have a difference of R3? Even more disturbing, how could two spas with similar insulation properties, thickness and density have a discrepancy of R11?
Considering the capacity, type insulation, voltage and volume are the same wouldn't the wattage be a bit closer or even less draw on the spa with a better "R" value? The pumps, heaters and equipment pull very close to the same amperage across the board...
Under the test requirements that I have heard the spa is to be tested at volume...Does this mean that a 400 gallon spa is checked to see that it is filled to 400 gallons or is there fudge room for 20 to 50 gallons? By the standards you've set up this could make a lot of difference on the ratios."
The sad part is that if this program could be controlled it would be a huge benefit to consumers and would weed out some of the false reports. The way it stands however, it’s just one more way for the spa industry to manipulate the customer and for those that have no problem lying to sell their product.
-
I am amazed more folks did not have any feedback on this, if I owed one of those spas I would be on the phone with them and asking for some utility bill credit.
I called Clearwater and Master and gave them parameters of .08 per KW hour, usage and ambient temp and the both told me about the same thing, roughly $25 a month. Then I told them that does not jive with what they have posted on the CEC website and it is not even close, Clearwater hung up on me and Master starting stuttering worse then Mel Tellis.
Why would anybody buy from such unethically companies, they sound like another guy in Colorado.
If I sound harsh I mean to, I think if us appalling that companies will sink to these standards.
I have written a letter to each one of them asking for their data, if any respond I will let you know.
-
Jerry Reed has always spoken with a clear, unwavering voice when I've had the occasion to hear him speak. Perhaps you meant M-m-m-mel T-t-till-is?
T-t-terminat-t-t-orr
-
I knew it was one of the guys that works with Burt. :)
-
I found this on the net and thought this is good information, that was until I did some math and found out just about every one of the companies is blowing more smoke than a forest fire.
Interesting data, since a couple of years ago it seems that many US companies were objecting to the CEC standards as being too stringent. Yet somehow all the models are well under the standard, even one which in a test by the Alberta Research Council used twice as much power as the CEC standard (they may have improved the model since then).
But surely a few random spot checks would determine accuracy?
-
http://www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/appliance/excel_based_files/pool_products
-
Why would anybody buy from such unethically companies, they sound like another guy in Colorado.
Could it be because those of us who buy them are purchasing a product that WE FEEL offers superior therapy and value for our dollar? I'm constantly amazed how some around here really get their panties in a wad over something as inherently persuasive and purposely deceptive as marketing is as a whole. Gary, please continue to find and point these things out but do us all a favor and leave us customers out of it. And take a chill pill...
-
I don't understand the point of the document. I't is full of meaningless numbers. Spa insulation true or false? Very scientific! The average consumer would never run across this information, which renders it useless. A bunch of gobledegook is what that is.
I found this on the net and thought this is good information, that was until I did some math and found out just about every one of the companies is blowing more smoke than a forest fire. I found out that a company can submit their numbers and California does not check or ask for back-up documentation. So how so you feel about a company that is bald face lying about these numbers. We have some smart folks on here and I am sure they will do the math and see what a joke it is.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/appliance/excel_based_files/pool_products/
Some of these did not just tell little white lies, they are trying to sell you ocean front property in Arizona.
-
Could it be because those of us who buy them are purchasing a product that WE FEEL offers superior therapy and value for our dollar? I'm constantly amazed how some around here really get their panties in a wad over something as inherently persuasive and purposely deceptive as marketing is as a whole. Gary, please continue to find and point these things out but do us all a favor and leave us customers out of it. And take a chill pill...
So, are you saying that as a customer, if you knew a company lied and was unethical, you'd still buy from them?
Marketing surely hypes. However, ethical companies like Sundance, Watkins, Marquis, et al, are not going to out and out lie. Some companies in this industry make it a habit to do so.
I'd like to think consumers would like to know which companies are ethical and which are not.
-
So, are you saying that as a customer, if you knew a company lied and was unethical, you'd still buy from them?
Marketing surely hypes. However, ethical companies like Sundance, Watkins, Marquis, et al, are not going to out and out lie. Some companies in this industry make it a habit to do so.
I'd like to think consumers would like to know which companies are ethical and which are not.
Are you serious? Too much HS Koolaid, obviously.
So prove that HS tubs have an R-rating of 25.
Your allegations regarding "Some companies in this industry make it a habit to do so." is just as groundless as anything I've read from any of the alleged "out and out" lying companies.
Let's discuss facts on this board and leave the bull$hit out, please.
And, once again since you don't seem to listen too well, leave us customers out of it.
Marketing is marketing is marketing...admit and live with it 'cause it ain't gonna change.
-
So, are you saying marketing equal bull$shit?
Are you saying all marketing is lying?
Try this one:
there is no such thing as HS kool aid.
-
So, are you saying marketing equal bull$shit?
Are you saying all marketing is lying?
Not at all...but if you believe there is no "stretching of the truth" in marketing then I suggest you re-evaluate your beliefs.
Try this one:
there is no such thing as HS kool aid.
Thank you for pointing out the obvious. Please search this forum for "HS koolaid" to understand my comment to Vanguard.
-
Of course there is stretching the truth in marketing. Sometimes there is outright lying, sometimes there is truth.
Unfortunately the consumer has to sort through it.
I know how the term HS kool aid is used. I have used it myself. In that context I have tasted Jacuzzi kool aid, Sundance kool aid and Marquis kool aid, not to mention Arctic kool aid on this site. Never seen anyone accused of drinking anything but the HS kool aid. So, if HS kool aid exists, so do the rest. If the rest don't exist, neither does the HS.
-
Are you serious? Too much HS Koolaid, obviously.
So prove that HS tubs have an R-rating of 25.
Your allegations regarding "Some companies in this industry make it a habit to do so." is just as groundless as anything I've read from any of the alleged "out and out" lying companies.
Let's discuss facts on this board and leave the bull$hit out, please.
And, once again since you don't seem to listen too well, leave us customers out of it.
Marketing is marketing is marketing...admit and live with it 'cause it ain't gonna change.
First of all, I'm not putting in bull$hit. We all know there are companies that lie out there. That is not exclusive to the hot tub industry.
I'm not going to try to prove that HS has a 25R value. All I'm saying is that some companies are ethical, some are not.
I am also a customer. I'm not a dealer, so no kool-aid drinking going on.
I'm not trying to drag customers in. All I'm saying is that I would think customers would want to know who the good guys are and who the bad guys are. To say that some companies lie is groundless, well, I think most of us agree that a great example would be the guy over at that "other" forum.
I agree, marketing is marketing. But, not all marketing is lying. Hype yes, but lying, no.
And why did you get your shorts all in a twitter over this. Geez.
-
I think some missed my point. Believe it or not I am consumer also, I buy cars, motorcycles, helmets, stereos... and if I had information that a company purposely lied to a government agency to gain approval on their product I would not buy from them, no matter what kind of deal I thought I was getting.
The way my brain works I would say to myself "if they are willing to lie about this to these guys what does that say about the rest of their company".
So yes I thought this information was relevant for the consumers.
-
I think some missed my point. Believe it or not I am consumer also, I buy cars, motorcycles, helmets, stereos... and if I had information that a company purposely lied to a government agency to gain approval on their product I would not buy from them, no matter what kind of deal I thought I was getting.
The way my brain works I would say to myself "if they are willing to lie about this to these guys what does that say about the rest of their company".
So yes I thought this information was relevant for the consumers.
I couldn't agree more!
Even when someone agrees that a manufacture is not being truthful in marketing they still defend the rest of the ethics of the company.
If someone will lie to get you to buy they will lie about warranty, performance and just about anything else if it affects their financial output.
-
I couldn't agree more!
Even when someone agrees that a manufacture is not being truthful in marketing they still defend the rest of the ethics of the company.
If someone will lie to get you to buy they will lie about warranty, performance and just about anything else if it affects their financial output.
So, reporting to a gov. agency is beyond marketing. Consumers should know who is lying and who is not.
Well, I am in the industry, and I can't even read this data base. All I know is these manufacturers have reported some data. The only one most consumers would begin to understand is R value. Here is my confusion...I thought R value has to do with the thickness and type of insulation. How can a spa have an R value if some part of the spa have 4" of foam, others 15"? Did they use an average?
Again, since this is simply a self reporting with no verification system, I don't know what use it has to anyone.
-
Lack of time, and interest, I just copied and pasted this from my site..........
R-value is a term coined by the FTC in response to a need for a way to compare the relative effectiveness of various forms of insulation. R-values are measured by testing laboratories (ASTM), usually in something called a guarded hot box. As air within the test hot box is heated, convection takes place, causing the heat to rise. As the heat rises it warms the underside of the foam where upon conduction of the heat through the foam begins. The R-value is the ability of the foam (or other material being tested) to slow this conduction. Heat flow through the foam is calculated by keeping one side of the material at a constant temperature, say 90°F (32°C), and measuring how much supplemental energy is required to keep the other side of the material at a different constant temperature, say 50°F (10°.C)--
Various industries are required to have their products R-value tested by ASTM under very exact testing perimeters. One of the parameters of this test is the temperature at which guarded hot box is heated to, AND the temperature the other side of the test material is kept at. Changing either of these temperatures will result in different R-value results. Once again, certain industries are required to use ASTM testing procedure and parameters. For these industries, when they list their products R-value (such as R-20) it's understood that the difference in temperatures of the testing procedure is 40 degrees (or R-20 @ 40º). It's also acceptable to list another R-value AS LONG as the temperature difference is listed ALSO (i.e. R-40 @ 20º). Here's the relationship to spa covers. SPA COVERS ARE NOT IN AN INDUSTRY REQUIRED TO HAVE R-VALUES TESTED ACCORDING TO ASTM STANDARDS! When comparing the R-value of a hot tub or spa covers it's important to ask what temperature difference the R-value was calculated at.
-
And why did you get your shorts all in a twitter over this. Geez.
Read Gary's 2nd post and read my 2nd post and I hope you'll get your answer.
-
So, reporting to a gov. agency is beyond marketing. Consumers should know who is lying and who is not.
So please list all of the manufacturers in the report and tell us which ones are lying and which are not. And please back this up with facts and not inuendo.
Again, since this is simply a self reporting with no verification system, I don't know what use it has to anyone.
I couldn't agree with you more. And to take Clearwater and Master to task over something as insignificant as this is nothing but blowing smoke.
-
So please list all of the manufacturers in the report and tell us which ones are lying and which are not. And please back this up with facts and not inuendo.
I did the math on Clearwater 9100 using their numbers and used $.08 per KW hour, 70F using their standard filters settings.
It came to roughly $10 a month.
If that does matter you that is fine, but it does matter to me.
Forget all the math , they are saying they build a better insulated spa than Hot Springs and use a better cover. That is comical, but an unknowing consumer might read that and hold it as fact. Then they get their spa home and wonder why it is costing them $40-$50 month to operate. Do you think that is right?
-
Maybe one of these days someone will be in a position to test all this. Until then, we are all at the mercy of the manufacturers.
That is what is so great about a forum like this. If a consumer wants feedback, they can get it. For the most part, folks on this forum try to give good info.
The problem right now is there are too many manufacturers building hot tubs. Until that number goes down, we will probably never get unbiased information.
-
So please list all of the manufacturers in the report and tell us which ones are lying and which are not. And please back this up with facts and not inuendo.
I couldn't agree with you more. And to take Clearwater and Master to task over something as insignificant as this is nothing but blowing smoke.
That's my entire point. There is no way of knowing from the data base itself whether there is any truthfulness at all. Without independent testing as Dr. Spa describes, the site is less than useless.
-
I read the page that was attached initially. I can tell you one thing. I have no idea what it meant. I'm not the only one.
-
I read the page that was attached initially. I can tell you one thing. I have no idea what it meant. I'm not the only one.
Well then knowing how difficult it is for old spa pros to decipher then think about a salesman saying to a consumer "we are one of the few that have passed the stringent California Electric Code requirements and in fact came out better than some of the more advertised name brands".
Do you think the Consumer will question this or do you think they will buy into the hype?
-
Well then knowing how difficult it is for old spa pros to decipher then think about a salesman saying to a consumer "we are one of the few that have passed the stringent California Electric Code requirements and in fact came out better than some of the more advertised name brands".
Do you think the Consumer will question this or do you think they will buy into the hype?
It only will be hyped if a manufacturer decides to use it in their promotional materials. Until it is better understood what they were actually testing, I would doubt any dealer will use it. How much can you talk about these results in a sales presentation? Two minutes maybe five minutes? I would think more like 2 sentences.
In any case, I thought Hotspring had infinite R-value so I was quite shocked to see R-value 25. It certainly is not as efficient as I thought. Shows you what I know.
-
Not once in that "document" did I read anywhere that any of those companys "passed" any kind of "code requirement." Nor does it say any of those companys adhere to, are in comliance with, or any other such wording to the effect that they are doing anything different than any other spa company. Again worthless blathering gobble-D-gook. In fact if I were wmcall I'd be sending this pointless thread to the dead horse file where it belongs.
Well then knowing how difficult it is for old spa pros to decipher then think about a salesman saying to a consumer "we are one of the few that have passed the stringent California Electric Code requirements and in fact came out better than some of the more advertised name brands".
Do you think the Consumer will question this or do you think they will buy into the hype?
-
Not once in that "document" did I read anywhere that any of those companys "passed" any kind of "code requirement." Nor does it say any of those companys adhere to, are in comliance with, or any other such wording to the effect that they are doing anything different than any other spa company. Again worthless blathering gobble-D-gook. In fact if I were wmcall I'd be sending this pointless thread to the dead horse file where it belongs.
Would you be saying that if Sundance/Jacuzzi chose to upload their data? ;)
-
I found this on the net and thought this is good information, that was until I did some math and found out ... what a joke it is.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/appliance/excel_based_files/pool_products/
FWIW, here are the test procedures from Section 1604(g)(2) of the Appliance Efficiency Regulations:
(2) Test Method for Portable Electric Spas
The test method for portable electric spas is as follows:
(A) Minimum continuous testing time shall be 72 hours.
(B) The water temperature shall remain at or above the test temperature of 102.F for the duration of the test.
(c) The ambient air temperature shall remain at or below the test temperature of 60.F for the duration of the test.
(D) The standard cover that comes with the unit shall be used during the test.
(E) The test shall start when the water temperature has been at 102.F for at least four hours.
(F) Record the total energy use for the period of test, starting at the end of the first heating cycle after the four hour stabilization period, and finishing at the end of the first heating cycle after 72 hours has elapsed.
(G) The unit shall remain covered and in the default operation mode during the test. Energy-conserving circulation functions, if present, must not be enabled if not appropriate for continuous, long-term use.
(H) Data reported shall include: spa identification (make, model, S/N, specifications); volume of the unit in gallons; cover R-value; supply voltage; average relative humidity during test; minimum, maximum, and average water temperatures during test; minimum, maximum, and average ambient air temperatures during test; date of test; length of test (t, in hours); total energy use during the test (P, in Wh); and standby power (P/t, in watts) [though given in Watts, this is clearer if thought of as Watts per hour]
There is no indication of how the R-values are to be calculated; few manufacturers will go to the trouble of an actual test as described in another post, so this will be an estimate. It should, however, be a reasonable estimate based on figures from suppliers and calculations from tables of thermal conductivity.
The application package includes a sworn declaration "under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of California" and if the figures are as fishy as some of you assert, perhaps we'll be seeing some court action?
-
FWIW, here are the test procedures from Section 1604(g)(2) of the Appliance Efficiency Regulations:
(2) Test Method for Portable Electric Spas
The test method for portable electric spas is as follows:
(A) Minimum continuous testing time shall be 72 hours.
(B) The water temperature shall remain at or above the test temperature of 102.F for the duration of the test.
(c) The ambient air temperature shall remain at or below the test temperature of 60.F for the duration of the test.
(D) The standard cover that comes with the unit shall be used during the test.
(E) The test shall start when the water temperature has been at 102.F for at least four hours.
(F) Record the total energy use for the period of test, starting at the end of the first heating cycle after the four hour stabilization period, and finishing at the end of the first heating cycle after 72 hours has elapsed.
(G) The unit shall remain covered and in the default operation mode during the test. Energy-conserving circulation functions, if present, must not be enabled if not appropriate for continuous, long-term use.
(H) Data reported shall include: spa identification (make, model, S/N, specifications); volume of the unit in gallons; cover R-value; supply voltage; average relative humidity during test; minimum, maximum, and average water temperatures during test; minimum, maximum, and average ambient air temperatures during test; date of test; length of test (t, in hours); total energy use during the test (P, in Wh); and standby power (P/t, in watts) [though given in Watts, this is clearer if thought of as Watts per hour]
There is no indication of how the R-values are to be calculated; few manufacturers will go to the trouble of an actual test as described in another post, so this will be an estimate. It should, however, be a reasonable estimate based on figures from suppliers and calculations from tables of thermal conductivity.
The application package includes a sworn declaration "under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of California" and if the figures are as fishy as some of you assert, perhaps we'll be seeing some court action?
However, there is no regulatory authority really given. It is up to the manufacturers to do the test. The CEC is not set up to verify the results. So, until a real authority is set up that will test the spas under like conditions, this data cannot be fully trusted.
-
FWIW, yeah! It's still baseless pointless garbage.
Would you be saying that if Sundance/Jacuzzi chose to upload their data? ;)
-
FWIW, yeah! It's still baseless pointless garbage.
Agreed! ;D
-
Interesting that you call the figures reported by manufacturers "lies", "bullsh*t", "less than useless", "garbage" and "untrustworthy". No doubt warranted after revelations of financial chicanery during the past half decade but still a sad reflection on the reputation of American industry.
It saddens me further that reputable companies are "tarred with the same brush". Arctic products have already been submitted for independent evaluation and far exceed the CEC standards; we don't need to fudge the results; why would we lie? Then again, given the circumstances, why anyone should believe us?! :-/ ;D
Certainly, there is a need for independent verification, but it would seem that with 130 manufacturers, each with up to 20 or more models, such testing would be difficult, time-consuming and costly and something of a logistics nightmare.
In an earlier post, I mentioned random spot testing, which would see the independent test laboratory or government agency making a 'blind" purchase from a retail store (the store does not know who is buying the unit) for the test. This totally eliminates any manufacturer influence and was the method used by the Alberta Research Council in this study:
http://www.arcticspas.com/downloads/performance/Thermal%20Performance%20Test%20of%20Spas.pdf
AFAIK, this still remains the only independent comparative test of hot tub energy efficiency (The HS test of a single 110V unit is not a comparative test).
It is our opinion, BTW, that the CEC requirements are not stringent, and we are recommending to the Canadian Office of Energy Efficiency that Canadian testing be at an ambient temperature more suitable to our climate. At present, it looks like they will rely on manufacturer-submitted data, though there may be some mechanism for independent verification in the future.
Tom
PS: For comparison, here's a UK report on energy consumption of the Freeflow, which seems to be a mid-range spa. It's a good report, giving the parameters of the test, but again it appears to be in-house testing:
http://www.freeflowspas.co.uk/energy-usage.html
1 GBP = 1.97 USD so you can just double the figures given there.
-
So Tom what your saying is that there is no way to "fudge" the numbers on your test?
I would say that Arctic along with many other manufactures pushes that envelope more often than not. Take a look at what most Arctic dealers use as there sales pitch. You guys show a house insulation (even on your website) and say that your insulating more like a home than anyone yet you forgot to put that the plumbing in a house is in those walls of insulation not inside the living area.
Your dealers also push "Made in Canada for cold Canadian conditions" as if where the spa is made matters how it is made? Columbia ski jackets are made in Malaysia and are still very highly rated and very warm. The truth is that California probably has some of the most stringent laws on manufacturing yet your road show team specifically makes comments about "don't buy a spa made in CA as it won't hold up as well in cold climates".
The spa industry is renown for pushing the envelope on truthful marketing and Arctic is no different. They can attribute much of their phenomenal growth over the last few years to some pretty questionable marketing campaigns. Selling how many people can stand on a cover, having dealers all over the country showing competitive spas with ant farms in them and so on.
I think that your product can stand by itself without some of this and I don't fault you for trying to get credit for your "Efficiency test" that you had done...After all that is your job...to my knowledge one of the things you are specifically paid for is to surf the web chat forums and make Arctic look good. It's sad that we have to create jobs for things like this in the industry.
IMO, your skills, diplomacy and knowledge would be better used to promote the spa industry 100% of the time within other discretionary spending arenas that turn folks minds to spa ownership however, unless all manufactures do that it would be unfair for you to.
The CEC testing is a farce…it most certainly has been used falsely and unethically since it’s inception and should be either made 100% or completely stopped. My vote is to create a federal program that is policed and governmentally regulated for everyone to follow.
-
So Tom what your saying is that there is no way to "fudge" the numbers on your test?
Hardly. The ARC study has been kicked to death and its short-comings are well known, but IMO the data itself remains valid.
As you point out, the unfortunate fact is that if ANY of the CEC data is demonstrably false, its value is zilch. I haven't analyzed the data, but evidently some people have (has anyone posted actual calculations yet?).
Even the popular EnergyStar program relies on data submitted by the manufacturers. Is there such a furor over dishwashers and refrigerators? Is there any independent testing of these products?
The CEC testing is a farce…it most certainly has been used falsely and unethically since its inception and should be either made 100% or completely stopped. My vote is to create a federal program that is policed and governmentally regulated for everyone to follow.
I am in full agreement, though I doubt that it will happen. Spot checks, with heavy fines for companies found to have misrepresented their product, seem a more likely course
-
Hello all,
this thread is interesting as it has been pointed out there is no way for the numbers of some of the makers to be accurate, my understanding or the rumblings I have heard are that for some if it is proven that the numbers are blatantly false that stiff fines will be in order.
-
Welcome Back! :)
-
After all that is your job...to surf the web chat forums and make Arctic look good.
Well, helping Arctic owners plays a part, but yes, just as Term and Mendo and many others represent their brands, so is it part of my job to represent Arctic.
"A Brand that is not part of the public lexicon is dying. If they are not talking about you, you have not left an impression.... " (David Lemley, writing in Brandtail Vol 1 Issue 4, house newsletter of Lemley Design)