pool/hot tub connected to each other

[demento]

Is it possible to have a pool and spa that are connected to each other with a very wide, but not very deep 'spillover' (see the below pic)? If so, what are the drawbacks? I like the look, but I think that maybe there's a problem with efficiency, overburdening the heater for the hot tub, etc. Anyone have something like this?

 

[kcindc]

It really depends on your equipment and plumbing set up. I am able to change my water flow so that it only circulates to/from the spa. My gas heater is sized so that it can heat up the pool, so when it is I want to heat up the spa, it only takes 15-20 minutes to go from ambient temp to 101 degrees.

 

[JasonLion]

In a setup like that one, the spa does not overflow into the pool while it is in spa mode. The system will typically have three modes, pool only, spa only, and spa overflowing into the pool. Usually you set it up to overflow into the pool for an hour a day (or if you are around to watch) and the rest of the time they don't exchange water.

 

[Richard320]

My pool and spa are at the same level, more or less. When the spa is full enough to spill, it's about 3-4" higher; even with the top of the skimmer actually. Imagine that!

My plumbing has two 3-way valves, one in suction and the other in return. Normally, about 20% of the return runs through the spa, and none of the suction. When I want to use the spa alone, I turn the valves to spa in and spa out. The heater doesn't care what it's heating; I use the pool temperature setting for everything.

I like my setup. When it's time to vacuum, I set the valves to draw from the spa and return to the pool. Then I just brush everything out of the spa and into the spa drain. No need to vacuum. Then I reverse the valves and draw 100% from the skimmer (the vacuum) and return 100% to the spa. That way I have no annoying crosscurrents and ripples. Whatever debris is in the pool stays put until I can vacuum it away. And then I just set it back to pool in, 20% spa/80% pool.

 

[demento]

Thanks, guys! So if I'm hearing everyone correctly, this means that such a setup is not only feasible, but it should also pose no significant issues/drawbacks/tradeoffs assuming that it's properly designed? What about cost of the build? Would this be more expensive, less expensive, or about the same as if I had a slightly elevated spa with a narrower spillover? Most people here have the elevated spa, but I just don't like how it looks that way.

 

[jblizzle]

I would guess the cost is roughly the same. Less engineering in that you do not have the raise the spa, but it will require more tile work.

This is really no different than any other pool/spa combo. I just has a much wider "spill-over".

On advantage for the one in the picture is the ability to have an auto-cover to cover the pool and spa. Or have it easier to pull on and off a solar cover on a reel.

 

[chiefwej]

I also have my spa at the same level as the pool. The wall that separates the two is seven feet long and the top of the wall sets at or only a fraction of an inch above the surface. It works out very well, and I like the look of it. For a water feature a fountain was plumbed into the center of the spa. A pipe can be screwed into it that just reaches the surface to operate the fountain or it can be removed. I thought that was a nice addition since there isn't a spillover feature with a surface level spa.