Arctic Spas Anyone?

[obi wan]

I think you have to test them as you buy them standard off the show room floor. If Brand X comes with a standard 5-4" cover, and the other 3 tubs being tested, come with standard 4-3" covers, then you need to test them like that, because that is what the consumer is likely going to buy. Real world stuff.

If Consumer Reports did a study, do you think they would upgrade all the covers, all but one? I don't think so. They would probably buy the units as stock items (no upgrades), and make comparisions.  It goes without saying the tubs need to be in the same class (size, jetting, pumps...).

As for the results, yes the tub with the thickest cover is likely to win, which is saying nothing about the energy effiency of the tub itself...agreed. Perhaps the other brands should think about offering a thicker cover? I'm buying what I percieve to be the most energy efficient tub.

Now, if Arctic tested the tubs, and did not use the standard grade covers across all tubs (smaller thickness than what would come standard), then I would say that not only is it misleading, but grounds for a lawsuit.  

i must disagree with you you on the point that the test should have been done with standard covers, no matter the thickness. thats like saying your lexus goes faster than my conversion van. they are both vehicles, both have 8 cylinder engines, and both cost about $40k. its NOT apples to apples.
if the main point of the test is energy efficiency, then you use the same size/ thickness cover on ALL models. you would of course note the additional cost as needed, but as stated above, its not much on most models. that would reaaly determine the true energy usage between different models.
you know.... if your lexus was ....say $43k, and my van was only $39k,and i bought a $3k jet engine and bolted it to the roof....then I would have the faster vehicle, and still enjoy the 22" tv and the bed!!

[stabone]

 What you are saying is that all the tubs have to be built the exact same, what about the rest of the insulation, a full foam tub has more insulation on the sides of the tub.  The tubs are tested as they are sold.
  Should we use the same cover and dig out insulation or add insulation.   The tubs are built and designed different if they were all the same why would you have a test???   The cover used is our standard cover, they are part of the design.  

The problem with your van and lexus story is that the van's standard equipment does not come with a jet engine.    The tubs used where all similar in size and water capacity. (All in the same class of spas)  A van and Lexus are not.  

[Tman122]

OK so let me get this straight, the Arctic spa has a thicker cover than the rest tested so it did better on the energy usage test? Hmmm ok well that clears it up. I wonder how the others tested will fair with a cover of equal R-Value? Bet that won't get answered.

[Steve]

OK so let me get this straight, the Arctic spa has a thicker cover than the rest tested so it did better on the energy usage test? Hmmm ok well that clears it up. I wonder how the others tested will fair with a cover of equal R-Value? Bet that won't get answered.

Sorry guys, I don't buy into that line of thinking at all.

Lots of things come to mind here. First off, if you feel the spa you are selling would be that much more efficient with a thicker cover, then you owe it to your customers to sell that way. Comparisons like this must be taken the way in which the spa is sold. Period. If a 5" cover is standard equipment on a certain brand and someone else is offering a 3" with their units, this company has no right to suggest the information would be controversial as they have chosen a less expensive, less efficient cover to sell as standard equipment with their spa.

The question remains that what percentage of this factor of cover thickness makes up the operational cost difference if there is one? 5%...25%?

The only true and accurate way to compare two spas is to take two similar units in size, under the same conditions with similar jets and HP and run them as they would be sold to the consumer.

Would it cost more for manufacturers to offer a premium 4 or 5" cover as standard equipment? No doubt but at the same time, we can't punish the companies that recognize the advantages of a thicker cover and sell a product that is going to be slightly more expensive (and possibly more efficient) because of it.

Steve

[stabone]

TMAN,
 What the Hell does that even mean, and if other companies had better covers they could use them, if they were their standard covers.  I love it how you guys say that Arctic covers are over kill, and that other covers are fine, then cry like little girls about our covers being used in the test.  Stop talking out both sides of your mouth.   Have your manufactures make a cover comparable to ours or shut your pie hole.  

[stabone]

  I agree with you Steve, well said

[Steve]

I wonder how the others tested will fair with a cover of equal R-Value? Bet that won't get answered.

The answer quite simply is as soon as they are willing to step up to the plate and offer a premium cover as standard equipment with their spas Tman.

It all comes down to the mighty buck. Some see Arctic as "pricey" spas but that is also the reason that consumers need to look further than HP and jets to determine value. If you spent $300 on upgrading your cover and potentially could offer a $10 per month savings, is that value? I dunno...your cover may last 5 years and it has become less efficient over time as well. You need to weigh the facts.

Steve

[Guttboy]

If the Spa's were tested as the consumer would be able to purchase them and no  serious jet engine conversion van things were done then....let em ride!!!

What I am saying is that if it is the way that the spa is shipped to the consumer then thats the way it should be tested as Steve put.

Im siding with the Arctic guys on this one after all the debate.  If indeed the test was performed, and from the website it looks legit, by consumer purchased spa's...no rigging then it goes to Arctic.

Now with that being said....if the others want to place larger covers on their spa's and give them to the consumer then redo the test and see how it goes if ya like.

[obi wan]

now now, play nice...
apparently you didn't understand my post. allow me to clarify....
that test is for the TUBS, not the COVERS. if you use the same (approx) covers, then you will get a realistic picture of the energy usage and efficiency of the TUBS, again, not the COVERS.
using your "common sense", if i put the arctic cover on a home depot special ($1995), and put a standard 3-2" cover on an HS (any model)and then determinedthat the HS has lower energy costs, then that would mean the thinner cover is better, right???
admittedly the bolt-on rocket engine was a bit over the top, but the entire point of my post was to compare apples to apples....
heres a better car analogy....
subaru sells cars. all subarus come with all wheel drive.
chrysler sells cars. most chryslers have OPTIONAL all wheel drive, but it is not standard equip.
does this one fact make subaru a better car?
its simple marketing, selling the sizzle of a standard feature that is an upgrade for most others....
from what i have seen and read, arctic makes a very good product, and if you have one i hope you enjoy it tremendously. it comes with a better standard cover than most spas, but that can be easily remedied for not much $ when you consider that we're talking $7-9k range on the tubs.

I, however am really looking forward to my new niagra that was just delivered earlier today! electrical is almost done and will be ready for water by tomorrow afternoon.....

[Steve]

As a follow up to this, I have a couple of things I'm still unsure about.

1) Does the cover have to be 5" thick to be efficient? Can a 3" cover with better foam, a thicker polyurethane rap and better seal, offer the results of a thicker cover? Maybe we're putting far too much validity into bigger is better!

2) Has anyone ever been involved with or has witnessed an "independent study" where the company that initiates it, doesn't come out on top?

Steve

[Tman122]

Talking out of both sides of my mouth huh, well let me completly clear this up. A sales guy told me Arctic was the most energy effiecient out there. More effiecient than HS and several other brands and he had a test to prove it. I asked to see the test, he showed me. I asked if all factors were equal on the test and he said yes all tubs were factory dirrect. I asked to see the spec for the test and I never got them. So I did some research and found out the cover difference. The Arctisc was .09 cents a month more effiecient with a 5-4 tapered cover than the HS with a 3-2 tapered cover. When I asked the sales guy why there was so little insulation in the sides and how that affected energy usage during times when the motor wasn't running he  told me 80 percent of the heat loss is from the top or cover of the tub and we use a thicker cover than the other manufacturers. So I look at the results, and all the manufacturers listed in the test results offered a cover upgrade for very little money and I start to think I wonder how much better the others tubs would of been than Arctic if they had these cover upgrades, Hmmmmmm Guess I am the only one that see's this logic. But hey, if any one wants to continue to think the extra money charged for an Arctic is because it is more effiecient well go ahead. Mean time I payed 350 bucks for my second cover and made sure it was upgraded like the first one I bought, so I could have a tub more energy effiecient than an Arctic. Even though the difference is so little that it don't matter but it was never used to sell the brand I bought. Unlike the retoric that is used to sell Arctic tubs. And Stabone you for one know all about the retoric because you fell for it hook line and sinker. I remember when you bought your tub.  

[Tman122]

The answer quite simply is as soon as they are willing to step up to the plate and offer a premium cover as standard equipment with their spas Tman.

First thing my dealer asked me is if I wanted to pay a little extra and get a cover upgrade. He said here in Northern Minnesota he thinks a 5-3 taper should be standerd. And explained that 80 percent of the heat loss was from the top. He didn't come up with some bogus independent study that had results skewed by the cover r-factor,  to show me how effiecient his brand was. I'ts not standerd but it was a very cost effective upgrade. And I still dissagree with you Steve. If the playing field is not level, is it truely a victory? And besides it's not the test that burns me. Its the "What makes Sence" Our spas are more energy effiecient, "check out the independent study"

[obi wan]

The answer quite simply is as soon as they are willing to step up to the plate and offer a premium cover as standard equipment with their spas Tman.

It all comes down to the mighty buck. Some see Arctic as "pricey" spas but that is also the reason that consumers need to look further than HP and jets to determine value. If you spent $300 on upgrading your cover and potentially could offer a $10 per month savings, is that value? I dunno...your cover may last 5 years and it has become less efficient over time as well. You need to weigh the facts.

Steve

step up to the plate if i live in florida, california, nevada, arizona, and MANY other parts of the us that dont see seriously cold weather, i wouldn't need that much of a cover. now in canada, and any other cold climate, it could/would(?) be a value.
being that the actual difference seems to be VERY small (.09 cents?), i prefer a company thats gives a "good" cover as standard, but offers other covers as an upgrade, depending on my personal needs, preferences, and where i live. dont include a premium product, build it into the price, and then tell me your the best, when i can buy the same kind of cover elsewhere, and the overall cost winds up being about the same.
using borderline deceptive ad campaigns (that's what the "test" seems to be) doesn't give me that warm fuzzy feeling either.
my big issue with the whole thing boils down to this.....
(ad copy)
....at arctic spas we give you a premium 5-4" cover as standard equip, to help your power usage be as efficient as possible. this is only one of the ways arctic spas have one of the lowest energy costs in the industry. please see your dealer for more info... etc,etc...... THIS is truth in advertising....

..... arctic spas are the BEST in the industry at energy efficiency, and heres an independent test to prove it.... THIS is not true....

any questions? oh sorry.. that was the brain on drugs thing......, in a frying pan........, with bacon and hash browns on the side......, or something like that....   LOL

[Chas]

[ebirrane]

Simply put, the implication of these tests is that the tub is being tested.  When you say "tub" most people (I would guess) imagine things like the insulation of the tub, the use of the heaters to recycle power, the heater, AND the cover.
Numbers don't lie, people lie.

The problem is, these accurate numbers are being used to sell a tub inaccurately.  Why do I say this?  It probably doesn't cost that much to have a thicker cover put on your tub.  It *would* cost alot more to have your tub's internal insulation replaced.

Now, what this debate has taught me is that hot springs makes a much much much more efficient tub than arctic.  How can I say this?  Arctic has a MUCH thicker cover than hot springs in this test and only outperformed hot springs by $0.09 a MONTH.  WOW    If the internal insulation of the 2 tubs were equal, arctic's extra 2-3 inches should have made a MUCH bigger difference.

If I were a hot springs dealer, I would start quoting the Arctic study as well, and especially point out this fact.  Then point out how easy it is to leave a corner exposed on a cover, or how much HEAVIER the bigger cover is, for no real benefit over a hot spring.



Now, that's just a little tongue-in-cheek, but it is meant to show how exposing the "cover controversy" in the study could honestly change people's opinions about the tubs rated.

-Ed