Sign up
|
Log in
Hot Tub Forum
It's HOT...
Welcome,
Guest
. Please
login
or
register
.
Did you miss your
activation email
?
1 Hour
1 Day
1 Week
1 Month
Forever
Login with username, password and session length
News:
Welcome to our forum.
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
Hot Tub Forum
»
Original
»
Hot Tub Forum
»
Independent Wet Test Report and Spa Review
« previous
next »
Print
Pages: [
1
]
Author
Topic: Independent Wet Test Report and Spa Review (Read 18304 times)
Duffman
Full Member
Posts: 139
Independent Wet Test Report and Spa Review
«
on:
August 14, 2005, 10:07:02 pm »
------------------------------------------------------------------------
My Wet Test and Analysis Report is Complete
http://www.members.cox.net/duffman471/Spa_Wet_Testing_Analysis.htm
I'm not a dealer, just another prospective shopper that got a little carried away in his research. I truly hope this report helps as you do your own research. Just remember how important it is to wet test any spa you would consider purchasing before putting money down. No advice or reommendation is a substitute for your own experience when testing a spa.
The content below evolved over the last month into the report that is referenced here.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arctic Spas:
---------------
As a neutral comment I would like to state my observations on the insulation design they advertise. I have read the “independent” study available on the Arctic website that evaluated efficiency for numerous competitors. While Arctic came out on top in this report it should be noted that the conditions for the test went as low as negative 13 degrees C (8.6 deg F). I contacted Arctic and two dealers who agreed that unless you have very cold winters, the cost to operate would not be significantly different then other spas. Personally I like the engineering of Arctic’s design but since I live by Washington DC, I would not expect to save a significant amount money on electricity. If I lived in Minnesota I might have a very different opinion.
The features I liked best include:
(a) Spa shell material and thickness. I have heard of few cases where a spa’s shell cracked but I felt comfortable that I would not have any concerns in this area with the Arctic.
(b) I liked the variety and placement of jets in the upper-level packages. There is also a very powerful whirpool jet which adds a great massage option to the spas.
(c) I felt that the two motor systems had a good power level for most users but require use of the diverter valve to get the most out of any seat. The versions with three motors provided significant improvement in performance.
(d) From the brands I have researched I think Arctic provides the most solid cover. It has a metal sheet inside it for reinforcement. I will not confirm Arctic’s claim that it insulates better then other covers, but I do believe it is likely the strongest and will probably last much longer. However, it is heavy enough that you will probably want a cover lifter for it.
(e) The "forever floor" used on the base of all Arctic spas appears to be the most durable compared to any other brand I have inpected. It looks like there is great seal for protection from insects getting inside. Also, it is the only floor that I have seen that does not require a solid base (e.g., wood, brick, pavers, packed gravel, or concrete). Arctic claims you can place their spas on level ground without any special base.
The features I disliked were:
(a) Arctic seems to have the most seat sculpting for any of the spas I have seen. Not only does this type of shell use up a lot of space in all the tub (the Tundra model is an exception), some of the corner seats were actually snug and a bit uncomfortable for me (I'm a big guy but not huge <5'6", 210 lbs>). To better understand what I mean about using up space, note that four out of the six "8 foot" Arctic spas only hold 380-418 gallons of water (of course if you like these models, the decreased volume will certainly cost less to heat). Only the Avalanche and Tundra models hold 490-540 gallons which is more consistent with most 8' spas I have seen (typically around 500 gal). It should also be noted that when I asked about small side seats in the Tundra and the small corner seat in the Frontier and Summit, the dealer and Arctic rep I talked to said these seats were designed with women in mind. You’ll just have to try it yourself. If you have a smaller waistline, these seats might be perfect for you. To be fair though, I really liked the sculpted upper and lower arm rests, and the wrist jets were well placed on the corner seats.
(b) I felt the availability of foot jets was limited, even on the top end models. On the Tundra model, there are dedicated foot jets for two of the corner seats but you have to be 5' tall or less to comfortable use them. I had to bend my lower legs back underneath my knees to get my feet on them. On other models the foot jets were more difficult to reach from the large captain's chairs
(c) When inspecting the plumbing inside one of the 8' models I noticed that there was a bit of water seeping from multiple tube connections. The dealer's response to this was that the water in that spa was at room temperature, and that once the spa was heated to operating temperature, the silicone in the PVC connectors would expand and provide a proper seal. When I initially wrote up my opinion on this I figured the dealer was just giving me a reason not to look at the Arctic negatively. However, I just talked to another Arctic rep today who confirmed that this can indeed happen. I have to wonder if this happens with other spas.
«
Last Edit: September 03, 2005, 11:31:16 am by Duffman
»
Logged
Hot Tub Forum
Independent Wet Test Report and Spa Review
«
on:
August 14, 2005, 10:07:02 pm »
Duffman
Full Member
Posts: 139
My Wet Testing Observations (Part 2)
«
Reply #1 on:
August 14, 2005, 10:07:53 pm »
Continued from previous post...
Coyote Spas:
-----------------
These are the lower range models manufactured by Arctic. They use many of the same core design features but are much more limited with the jet options. Personally I was looking for significantly more and larger jets. Also I saw little to no foot massage options. What I did like was the more open seating layouts.
HotSpring Spas:
---------------------
The features I liked were:
(a) Open seating layouts, even for the sculpted captain’s chairs. I found all the seats to be comfortable.
(b) Great leg/foot room in the middle of the spas. I don’t think there would be any footsie problems with this brand.
(c) I liked they locations for the foot massage jets and that the larger diameter nozzles were used.
(d) Decent power level with all jets running at maximum
(e) Dual control panels. I liked that there is a panel on the edge of the tub as well as on the outside cabinet. This allows for temperature observation and adjustment without lifting the cover.
I didn’t care for the following features:
(a) I thought there was an overuse of the small diameter nozzles on the seats. I am used to seeing this with lower end spas but not ones at this price range. When a seats are loaded with them I feel there is a bit of a stinging sensation. I have always preferred the larger diameter jets except in moderation.
(b) One of the corner chair features is called moto-massage that has one or two jets moving up and down your back. This is kind of cool, but I absolutely disliked the single jet moto-massage chair. Since it is centered on your spine I found it a bit uncomfortable and felt it did nothing for my muscles. I understand the newer models are abandoning the single jet version.
(c) On one of the spas there was a seat with jets for massaging the wrists. The problem was at 5’6, when I rested my arms in the hot tub, the jets were just hitting the tips of my fingers. I think you have to be about 6’ tall to use them. I tried one with a lounger and had the exact same problem with the proximity of the foot jets. I had to really stretch out to feel them at all
(d) Monthly cleaning of 5 filters. I mentioned to the dealer that from forum contributions I had read, some dealers suggested cleaning just one per month and rotating their position. However, the dealer I spoke with said it is definitely recommended that all 5 be removed and cleaned each month.
(e) While testing a nearly 1 year-old demo spa I witnessed a jet nozzle pop off of the seat when I set the tub to high power. I was able to pop it back into place but the dealer said it probably needed to be tightened. Since the spouts were designed to be removed and interchanged I did not see this as a big problem. Within minutes of this event, a plastic cover on one of the ornamental water spouts flew off when the spout pressure was increased. While I was fishing for it the dealer said the plastic pieces are glued on at the factory and that he would have to glue it back into place.
Tiger River Spas:
---------------------
These are basically lower range HotSpring Spas with smaller jet packages. The features I liked were: (a) Open seating layouts, (b) Good power level for all seats
I did not like that the majority of the seats and all the foot jets used the small diameter nozzles.
«
Last Edit: September 03, 2005, 09:46:43 am by Duffman
»
Logged
Duffman
Full Member
Posts: 139
My Wet Testing Observations (Part 3)
«
Reply #2 on:
August 14, 2005, 10:08:35 pm »
Continued from previous post...
Cal Spas:
------------
As a neutral comment I would like to state my observations regarding the many internet posts regarding Cal Spa and their warranty. I have spent many, many hours looking at hot tub reviews and forum contributions and the majority of negative experiences posted appear to come from Cal Spa purchasers. Since I really liked the Cal Spa designs, jets, and price range I was very concerned with this. While I am sure there are many dissatisfied customers, there have been a number of Internet forum posts from Cal Spa that seem sincere in their desire to fix any problem once properly reported. Also I checked the Better Business Bureau on California Acrylic Industries (Cal Spa) in Pomona, CA. On the BBB grading system from AAA to F, Cal Spa was rated a B. There seemed to be a significant number of disputes but according to the BBB, almost all of the reported issues were resolved. To be honest though, I still don’t know how to feel about this issue. Given their history I do think Cal Spa should make every effort to increase customer confidence.
The features I liked were:
(a) Comfortable, open seating layouts, even with a significant amount of sculpting to the seats (of course some prefer the sculpting)
(b) I liked that the “volcano” style foot massage jets were positioned in the middle of the spa rather then on the side of the center area which is common to many other models.
(c) Large variety of jet types including neck jets on the corner seats.
(d) Good balanced power to seats and foot jets for the 3 pump model. The only drawback is that the balanced power between the pump which drives the foot jets and lounge seat was just a little below average.
Here’s what I didn’t like:
(a) I didn’t like the sculpting in the lounge seat and had to push against the spa to keep from floating out. Cal Spa does offer the same spa without the lounger at the same cost so I would certainly choose that version. The other thing I didn’t like about the lounger was the indentations molded for the legs. It make the leg rest area uncomfortable for anyone who might want to sit there. Other spas design their lounge so the leg area can be used as a seat
(b) The neck jets were nice but I had to turn them down to lower pressure. At my height (5’ 6”) the water was splashing off of my neck and shoulders onto my face.
(c) For the CBA-32 and CA-22 the power level was not satisfactory. The spa with the dually motor was extremely underpowered in my opinion. Only when turning off the pressure to nearly every other area of the hot tub did I get a good massage in the captain's chair. Also, I could have good power to a couple seats or the feet but not both.
«
Last Edit: September 05, 2005, 03:47:06 pm by Duffman
»
Logged
wmccall
Global Moderator
Mentor Level Member
Posts: 7431
Re: Wet Testing Observations (Parts 1-3)
«
Reply #3 on:
August 15, 2005, 08:44:23 am »
Very interesting reading, well done. I'm sure a lot of people will find it beneficial.
Logged
Member since 2003. Owner Dynasty Excalibur 2003-2012. Sundance Majesta from 2012-current
cappykat
Senior Member
Posts: 1038
Re: Wet Testing Observations (Parts 1-3)
«
Reply #4 on:
August 15, 2005, 02:17:59 pm »
Great research. You might have found your calling.
Logged
2005 Marquis Epic
Duffman
Full Member
Posts: 139
My Wet Testing Observations (Part 4)
«
Reply #5 on:
August 17, 2005, 06:21:15 pm »
Artesian Spas:
-------------------
I wasn't able to wet test an Artesian gold or platinum spa since the only dealer in the area won't stock them (They complete with his preferred Caldera models), but I was able to try out the Artesian Island Grand Cayman model.
The Island series had open seating layouts and a decent jet package, but I didn't see anything special that stood out. However, I have heard nothing but good things about the Platinum line... except the $10000 price tag ;-)
There were three significant issues with this spa that I did not like:
(a) The power level of the two motors was unsatisfactory to me. If I had 5-6 people in the spa and balanced the diverter valve settings, only the person in one of the corner chairs would get decent pressure. The pressure was fairly mild everywhere else and the large diameter foot jet was almost worthless. Note: Since posting this update I received feedback that there is a three motor/pump option that should resolve the power concern. Unfortunately the dealer didn't even mention it to me.
(b) The diverter valve design was very disappointing in the two pump design because the pump that drives the foot jets also powers three of the four corner seats and at least one of the side seats. As a result, if you want decent pressure in 3/4 of the tub you practically have to turn the foot jets off. If you want foot jets then 3/4 of the tub's seats must be turned way down. The kicker is that if you do want to divert power to the foot jets and use the captain's chair under power from the separate motor, you better be at least 6' tall. The large foot jet is just too far away for most people to use. Note: I have been informed that with three pumps there is dedicated power to the foot jets.
(c) For the two corner seats with neck jets in two of the corner chairs your shoulders are positioned underneath the spa shell. The hard shell was actually molded so that it wraps over your shoulders. Even with the padded headrest, my shoulders bumped/rubbed uncomfortably against the overhang of the shell.
Caldera Spas:
------------------
I had previously wet tested a couple Calderas, but just got to try the Niagara model (Caldera's top model). As a result I feel it necessary to update my test observations
For most Caldera models I did feel there were many design similarities to HotSprings. However I personally have to give the edge on the jet packages to Caldera. The corner seats on the HotSpring with the moto-massagers just didn't do as much for me.
The features I liked were:
(a) Open seating layouts
(b) very good power levels. I was able to enjoy all the seats and the foot jets when the motors were both on and the diverter valves balanced across the spa
(c) One feature I just discovered and really like is that many of the larger jets can be set at a specific direction, or with a quick adjustment will oscillate for a completely different feel
(d) In some of the models the foot jets are limited in placement. However, I think the Niagara's design is great.
(e) Generally I don't care for lounger seats but the Niagara does a great job with the foot jets on the edge of a side seat; allowing one of the corner seats to combine as a pseudo-lounger. It was practical, comfortable, and I didn't have to fight against floating out of the seat.
(f) The power and location of the large diameter foot jet is perfect for my needs. Thinking out of the box I pointed the foot jet straight up and diverted higher power it. I then stretched out my body on the surface and floated in the center of the spa with my back over the jet. The power of the jet easilly held me up while allowing me to fully relax. It was like resting on a cloud that massaged my back at the same time. Very cool!
What I didn’t care for:
(a) In some of the models I felt that for the number of jets provided, too many of them were the smaller diameter nozzles. I guess this is what helps keep the overall power level higher.
(b) One of the headrests on the Niagara (corner seat with the neck jets) wraps around your neck and keeps you from fully resting against the seat. I found it a bit uncomfortable.
(c) The drain system is not at floor level and will leave a foot of water at the bottom of the spa. The dealer said you shouldn't need to fully drain the tub so buckets will never be necessary. Perhaps... perhaps not.
(d) This is minor but the side panels do not detach without removing about 6 screws for each panel. Since at this price range I would not expect much call for opening the panels, this is very minor.
(e) Another minor issue: I’m not thrilled with the floor of the spa and have read a number of reports of bugs and even mice nesting inside Caldera models. I know this can happen with many brands but I felt the design with some other spas was better in this area. I suppose I would just use the Bounce sheet suggestion and replace the dryer sheet every few months.
«
Last Edit: August 18, 2005, 06:12:07 pm by Duffman
»
Logged
orlandoguy
Full Member
Posts: 333
all you need is tub
Re: My Wet Testing Observations (Parts 1-4)
«
Reply #6 on:
August 18, 2005, 10:37:29 am »
Just curious; have you tried a premium Jacuzzi?
I tried many models and still feel I made the best choice.
Logged
Duffman
Full Member
Posts: 139
My Wet Testing Observations (Part 5)
«
Reply #7 on:
August 18, 2005, 06:03:19 pm »
Marquis Spas
---------------
For the last few days I have received a number of recommendations to try the Marquis. I finally got over the local Marquis dealer and wet tested the Epic, which is the top-end tub in the Marquis line.
Before listing my likes and dislikes I want to provide some neutral commentary on a diverter valve system Marquis uses for each of its two pumps called “Tri-zone Therapy” settings. All spas allow you to divert pressure to decrease intensity in some of the seats or foot jets, and increase others. Marquis’ Tri-zone therapy system is no different expect that very specific diversion settings were created. Listed below are the different massage seats/stations in the Epic and a detailed description what you can and cannot do with the Tri-zone settings.
Seat 1) Lounge Seat with Back, thigh, calves, and foot jets (pump 1)
Seat 2) Full Back Massage Seat (pump 1)
Seat 3) Waterfall seat with single back jet (pump 1)
Seat 4) cool down corner seat with 2 back jets (pump 1)
Seat 5) “Deep Therapy” corner seat with shoulder, lower back, and foot jets (pump 2)
Seat 6) “Therapy Pillar” (pump 2): Rather than sit in a seat, you sit on the floor of the spa and get a massage from a vertically aligned group of jets
Seat 7) cool down corner seat with 4 back jets (pump 2)
Tri-zone controls and Limitations:
(a) For the lounge chair there are separate jets for the back, thighs, calves, and feet. With the tri-zone system it is possible to get significant pressure to just one of those four areas at any one time. There are two tri-zone diverter valves that control the lounge seat. If you want jets on your back in this seat you have to set the Tri-zone control for pump 1 to “overall”. At this setting it is not possible to get pressure for the lounge’s jets for the thighs, calves, or feet. Also, power on pump 1 is shared with the jets on seats 3 and 4. If you want to use the lounge jets for thighs, calves, or feet then you MUST turn off the back jets. When this happens, seats 3 and 4 will have no pressure. In this setting you can adjust a separate diverter valve to use only the thigh, calves, or foot jets; never more than one at a time except with very, very mild water flow (I will not even call it pressure).
(b) The full back massage seat is very deep in the spa and provides a very intense massage. The Tri-zone system does have the following limitations: When using the full back seat, Seats 1, 3, and 4 will be turned off.
(c) The Deep therapy station controlled by pump 2 is a deep corner seat with numerous shoulder and lower-back jets, and also foot jets within easy reach along the side of the spa. The function of this seat is very similar to Seat 1 (lounge) under the Tri-zone diverter valve system. One subtle difference is that there is an “overall” setting which splits pump 2 pressure between the Deep Therapy seat and seat 7. However, this setting does not permit any use of the foot jets. When setting the Tri-zone valve to the Deep Therapy seat, a separate valve must be used to adjust pressure between the shoulders, lower back and feet. Similar to the lounge, it is not possible to get more than very mild water flow from more than one of those jet sets simultaneously.
(d) The Therapy tower is unique among all the spas I have wet tested in that there is no “seat.” You either lean against the sidewall or sit flat on the bottom of the spa. There is a vertical series of jets along the sidewall. It is meant to provide a more intense massage as all power for pump 2 is diverted to the Therapy Pillar when enabled on the Tri-zone valve. Seats 5 and 7 are turned off.
If you cannot fully grasp that lengthy description, go to the Marquis website and click the “Virtual Test Soak” link. There, you can visually understand everything that is summarized here. Minor note: the animated “bubbles” in the virtual soak animation that resemble a snow globe effect simply represents general water circulation, not jet operation.
«
Last Edit: August 19, 2005, 12:05:04 pm by Duffman
»
Logged
Duffman
Full Member
Posts: 139
My Wet Testing Observations (Part 5 cont...)
«
Reply #8 on:
August 18, 2005, 06:04:23 pm »
Marquis Spas continued...
Here’s what I liked about the Marquis:
(a) The spa design was a very open and comfortable layout. I liked the variety of seat depths and the wide-open floor area in the center; definitely no footsie issues with this spa.
(b) The Marquis spa had a very interesting plan for the padded headrests on the seats; they don’t have any! Instead, Marquis designed specially molded headrests that are actually part of the spa shell. This surprised me at first, but I must admit they were comfortable. Given the fact that all padded headrests degrade over time and eventually need to be replaced, I thought this was a great idea.
(c) With respect to the spa cover, except for those provided with Arctic Spas, the Marquis’ version is the most solid one I have seen to date. I have heard these higher end versions referred to as “walk-on covers,” not that anyone ever should. I feel confident that this cover would last longer than most others offered with new spas.
(d) A handy jet/light remote control is provided standard for use in the spa when sitting across from the main control panel. Note that this remote does not display temperature and is not meant to monitor/control the spa from elsewhere inside the house. That remote is a separate option.
Here’s what I didn’t like:
(a) From the feedback I received I know there are plenty of people who love the Tri-zone system. Since the diverters are set up to provide high power to a limited number of jets, this spa certainly provides an intense massage at the activated seats. I’m sure this is what makes the Epic so attractive to many buyers. I definitely think Marquis came up with a clever marketing effort in repackaging the diverter valve to present specific therapeutic options. For others like me, the Tri-zone system may be interpreted as very limiting. Because of this dichotomy, I must highly recommend you wet test the Epic before buying one; more so with this model than any other I have reviewed.
From the way the Tri-zone diverter valves were designed, it is just a fact you cannot possibly run power to all of the seats at one time. For me this fact is minor compared to the fact that in the captain’s chair and the lounge, you can only get pressure to one of the massage areas at any one time (shoulders, lower back, OR feet for the captain’s chair. For the lounge you can only get pressure to the back, thighs, calves, OR feet). I certainly acknowledge that the Marquis offers an intense massage at the major stations but so do most spas when making full use of the diverter valves.
(b) To effectively use the Therapy Pillar you better be at least 5' 8" tall. I was unable to sit on the floor of the spa at 5' 6" and would not see myself using that station much at all.
(c) A related issue to the one above is fairly minor, but is definitely an inconvenience to someone like me who has back problems. When sitting in the lounge you cannot switch between its four jet types with same diverter valve. To switch from the legs/feet to the back or vice-versa, it is necessary to get up out of the seat to adjust the main Tri-zone control knob for pump 1.
(d) This is a minor issue but one I have not seen with any of the other spas I reviewed. The main control panel layout is positioned on the inside wall of the spa where it is difficult to read while standing outside the tub. Since there is no secondary control panel mounted to the outside, making adjustments while monitoring/maintaining the spa is a little awkward.
(e) The Marquis jets types are extremely limited for a spa in this price range. They only come standard with the small and medium diameter directional jets. Rotating jets can be purchased separately as accessories if you want some variety (~$20 each).
Coleman Spas
--------------------
Like most people, when I think Coleman I think camping. I didn’t realize they’ve been making spas since the 80s. I tried out a couple of the top-end spas and determined that while they don't have all the features and frills as some other brands, Coleman seems to make an all around good quality spa with respectable power, decent jet variety, tub design, and a more attractive price range relative to many competitors. Dollar for dollar I think these tubs are worth looking at if cost is a significant trade-off factor.
I think it is definitely worth noting a cool feature that seems unique to the Coleman spa. At the foot of the lounge there is an overhang that allow foot jets to hit you from the top and bottom. The overhang also made it easier to stop the float-away sensation many get in the lounge seats.
Here are a couple things I didn’t like:
(a) There is definitely an above average level of sculpting to the tub seats. This is not necessarily a bad thing. You just need to wet test the seats for comfort and decide for yourself. Personally I was not comfortable in every one of the seats.
(b) When sitting in the corner cool down seats, the tub tends to overflow while you lean back.
«
Last Edit: August 19, 2005, 07:10:50 am by Duffman
»
Logged
orlandoguy
Full Member
Posts: 333
all you need is tub
Re: My Wet Testing Observations (Parts 1-6)
«
Reply #9 on:
August 18, 2005, 06:15:44 pm »
Great review! Certainly should help many.
My only issue is that I became curious about the therapy tower as i haven't seen one before. I am trying to envision sitting on the sa floor but being short, a snorkel would have to be included or i would surely drown.
«
Last Edit: August 18, 2005, 06:47:54 pm by orlandoguy
»
Logged
Alex1
Junior Member
Posts: 49
Marquis Epic
Re: My Wet Testing Observations (Parts 1-5)
«
Reply #10 on:
August 19, 2005, 09:05:36 am »
Duffman,
you should start your own review site. Your reviews are very informative in your overview and also your opinions. NICE JOB! I would really like to hear a Master Spa LS800review if you would get the chance because our opinions seem to be similar. Thanks again for sharing your info.
Logged
Duffman
Full Member
Posts: 139
Thanks for the positive feedback!
«
Reply #11 on:
August 19, 2005, 12:00:58 pm »
I really appreciate the kind responses. It is certainly gratifying and makes the effort worthwhile
When I started looking at hot tubs, the first thing I did was log onto the internet. Dedicated review sites tended to have very few contributions. Unfortunately, it seemed to me that a significantly large number of contributions fell into one of two categories.
1) Dealer claims on the superiority of their spas
2) Argumentative disputes and even ethical complaints about other dealer's comments.
My personal opinion is that most prospective buyers don't want to read that type of information. I would much rather read about owner's experiences and observations. When questions are asked of dealers, I applaud the ones that provide specific answers and opinions without making any subjective claims or accusations.
For my contributions I really wanted to provide a positive set of information that would help another spa shopper guide themselves to their ideal spa. To that end I have made every effort to stick to the following rules:
1) State all opinions in terms of specific observations and make sure to phrase them as just being an opinion.
2) Never imply a factual statement that one spa is better than another. Instead, simply list likes and dislikes for a specific spa/brand with reasonable detail. Readers can decide for themselves if those opinions help their decision making process. (i.e., never force an opinion down someone's throat)
3) Be very careful when comparing a feature between one brand of spa and another. I always try qualifying such statements with plenty of detail to ensure there is no interpretation that a blanket comparison is being made.
4) Be respectful in responses to feedback that may be interpreted as negative. Before "shooting back" it is worth taking time to try and understand the other person's position. The written word very often reads as more aggressive than it is intended. Your response should confirm your understanding of the other person's position. Also, your response should clarify your position as necessary to eliminate any misunderstandings. This will help avoid an unnecessarily critical or inappropriate argument.
5) Scrolling your mouse/screen past a rude response and ignoring it is the most effort you should allow. Such a contribution doesn't deserve your response and no one will think anything less of you. In fact, stopping potential spats before they start by ignoring them will mean less garbage for other readers to wade through.
Once again, thanks for the positive feedback.
«
Last Edit: August 19, 2005, 03:50:01 pm by Duffman
»
Logged
Duffman
Full Member
Posts: 139
Clarification on my Power Level Preferences
«
Reply #12 on:
August 19, 2005, 02:10:23 pm »
I read some really good feedback in a separate topic called "Jet Pressure for Guests" which discusses the value or need to have a spa with balanced power levels for all seats.
Since my wet test observation posts frequently touch on this topic, I feel there may have been misunderstandings regarding my position on this issue. I hope the following information provides adequate clarification
(1) For all my wet tests, the first thing I do is what I call the "Balanced Power Test". Directions for this test are: set all motors to full power, balance all diverter valves, sit in every seat, and reach a conclusion based on feel.
For me, a spa passes this test if I can get an enjoyable massage in all seats and foot jets. It fails if the power level feels very low for all of the seats and foot jets.
I have come to believe that the Balanced Power Test should be a standard for any wet test. I think it provides a spa shopper with an sense of performance that can be compared to other spas in an apples-to-apples manner.
The results of this test could certainly help someone make a better decision when considering a trade-off between price and power. Some people might decide to save money by purchasing a lower cost spa and using the diverters more. Others might prefer specially designed diverter settings. The Marquis Epic is a rather unique example of this design type which many people love. I must admit there are many cool things about it.
(2) As an engineer I don’t think it is valid to judge a spa's performance by looking at the horsepower or CFM rating of the pumps. There are too many factors that contribute to how the spa actually feels when you are sitting in it. Examples include: actual power applied at the motor during use vs. the maximum rated power advertised, diameter and quantity of the jets installed, friction resistance due to the length of plumbing lines, number of right angles in the pipes, volume of water in the spa, etc...
(3) I believe that a spa that can give good power to all seats will provide a much more intense massage when that power is diverted to one or more specific seats.
(4) I have found plenty of spas that can provide a very good massage to all seats simultanously. I have tried some that fail in this regard. Also, some of the spas I tested are designed with diverter valve restrictions and are incapable of enabling all jets simultaneously.
It is my opinion that if I am going to buy a large tub, I don't want to be "restricted" to having unpowered or underpowered seats. It is up to each shopper to determine if this is important.
Happy hunting everyone!
Duffman
«
Last Edit: August 19, 2005, 06:01:18 pm by Duffman
»
Logged
Duffman
Full Member
Posts: 139
My Wet Testing Observations (Part 6)
«
Reply #13 on:
August 19, 2005, 09:32:41 pm »
Master Spas
---------------
I saw a request for a review on the Master LS800 but was only able to wet testing the LSX. It has many of the same features as the LS800 but is a definite step up. There is a lot I like about this spa and very little I disliked. Just know that the price point for this top-of-the-line 8’ Master spa is definitely above everything else I have wet tested. Expect to pay about $10,500.
Here’s what I liked:
(a) When powering up all three motors and balancing the diverter I got an extremely intense massage experience from the seats and a decent massage from the foot and lounger jets. There are 87 jets in this spa and lots of power to drive them. However, it should be noted that the lounger and foot jets do share a dedicated diverter valve. Conclusion: The seats got an A+ in the Balanced Power Test while the lounge/foot jets got a C.
(b) Despite lots of sculpting in the 2 captain’s chairs, which I generally don’t care for, I was very comfortable in all of them. They also sculpted upper and lower armrests, similar to Arctic Spas, which is very nice.
(c) Without a doubt, the highlight of the LSX and LS2X models is the “Xtreme Therapy Seat”. It has a 6HP pump dedicated completely to it. On one side of the diverter valve you get a super-intense massage from the directed and rotating jets on your back, thighs and legs. When switching the diverter valve on this seat you are literally bombarded with 2 huge whirlpool jet spouts that are directed at angles to both sides of your ribcage. They also feel great on the lower arms and wrists as you desire. When I had those 2 jets on full for the first time I was shocked by the power. Enough said
(d) The 2nd captains chair also provided a great back massage and includes neck jets and also rotating shoulder jets that seemed fairly unique.
(e) When power is increased to the two large diameter arrays of foot jets in the bottom of the spa (15 jets in each array) you get a very intense and comfortable foot massage. These two foot jet arrays is placed for easy access from the two captain’s chairs
(f) Although you have five filter components to clean every month, I really liked Master’s water filter and mineral-process purification system. These are bromine-free spas and I didn’t notice any chemical smell at all in the spa. The technology is very similar to that used in home purification systems for drinking water, and also the upper end filter/purification systems used in commercial aquariums. Aside from reasonable use of PH and alkaline adjuster chemicals I am curious if other owners have had to use any significant amount of chemicals. You will certainly spend less on chemicals but this system is not exactly cheap. Be prepared to spend about $120 per year on filter and purification components. (2 purification canisters every 6 months at $44 each, 2 filter canisters every 18 months at $36 each, and a top mounted rectangular filter every 2-3 years at $20).
(g) Master Spas use a solid steel frame that would definitely seem to provide above average durability and support for the shell.
Here’s what I didn’t like:
(a) This is a minor issue since I think there is acceptable power to the lounge and foot jets when balancing the diverter valve. Compared to the other seats however the lounge and foot jets feel very unless you use the diverter. This is just a matter of preference and I can almost overlook it for all the power you get from the captain’s chairs. Wet test it for yourself and you’ll see what I mean.
(b) For this price range I expected a little better quality to the cover. It was not flimsy but appeared average. There is no reinforcement like those offered with a couple other spas.
(c) At the secondary captains chair on this spa, the shell includes a molded overhang covering your shoulders. This is where the two shoulder jets are located. At 5’6” my shoulders were definitely low enough that they did not rub against the overhang. However, I was low enough in the seat that the water from those jets splashed off of my shoulders and into my face. Personally I would choose to turn them off but you might love them if you are the right size for the design.
Logged
Orthofunk
Junior Member
Posts: 71
Re: My Wet Testing Observations (Parts 1-6)
«
Reply #14 on:
August 21, 2005, 07:29:31 pm »
Great reviews!!
Is there a Sundance dealer near you??
Logged
Hot Tub Forum
Re: My Wet Testing Observations (Parts 1-6)
«
Reply #14 on:
August 21, 2005, 07:29:31 pm »
Print
Pages: [
1
]
« previous
next »
Hot Tub Forum
»
Original
»
Hot Tub Forum
»
Independent Wet Test Report and Spa Review
Home
Buying Guide
Featured Products
Forums
Reviews
About
Contact
Copyright ©1998-2024, Whats The Best, Inc. All rights reserved. Site by
Take 42