TFP recommendations can void equipment warranties?

[rlab]

The TFP CYA/FC recommendations make a lot of sense to me, but as a newbie planning my first pool I am worried that TFP recommendations appear to void many equipment warranties.

For example Zodiac (Australia) has the following exclusion that applies to *all* its equipment:

Maximum chlorine readings should not exceed 4ppm. Where pool water is not maintained within these parameters, Zodiac Australia will not be responsible under this express warranty for any resulting damage, including damage caused by corrosion, scaling or stress loading.

Has anyone ever found this to be an issue in practice? I guess you could just stop chlorinating for a while if you need to make a warranty claim...

 

[aussieta]

if you keep your cya around 30
your target fc is 3.5 for liquid chlorine
for salt chlorinator cya 60 target fc is 4

 

[YippeeSkippy]

I'll be honest here... if I ever had a problem needing some sort of warranty work in person and the device/pool in question had such silly requirements, you can bet your bippee that my water would meet those requirements on the day they came to do whatever work.... <cough cough>

Then I'd go back to doing it the way it should be done.

 

[ajw22]

The paragraph you quoted says nothing about voiding the warranty for replacement or repair of failed equipment due to chemistry levels. It discusses damage to pools which I think is difficult to prove or collect on regardless of water levels.

If that warranty concerns you maybe you should consider other manufacturers equipment who have more scientific based warranty terms not driven by lawyers looking to provide reasons not to honor warranties.

 

[rlab]

The paragraph you quoted says nothing about voiding the warranty for replacement or repair of failed equipment due to chemistry levels

To keep it short I didn't post the whole warranty. It *is* about the equipment, it is in the section on conditions under which a claim (on equipment) can be made.

If that warranty concerns you maybe you should consider other manufacturers equipment

That's the problem, all the big manufacturers have clauses like that. For example Pentair has this clause, again on *all* its equipment:

Pentair - Exceptions that may result in denial of a warranty claim:
...
06 Damage caused by failure to maintain water chemistry in conformity with the standards of the swimming pool industry for any length of time.

A lookup of standards from any of the industry bodies recommend 1 - 3ppm (or 2- 4ppm) FC. As is often the case with warranties nothing is set in stone, but FC levels above 4 still seem like a way that manufacturers could reject a claim.

 

[ajw22]

... a way that manufacturers could reject a claim.

We have yet to hear of any members here having a warranty claim rejected due to following TFP Recommended Levels.

 

[Katodude]

I cant believe I would ever see the day when a warranty repair guy comes to my house to fix a broken part and tests my water first. And just in case I would prescribe to what Maddie says, the day they come over my pool water will match their parameters.

 

[JamesW]

Anything damaged by poor chemistry is usually obvious.

If a service technician determines that the damage is chemistry related, they will then test the water.

If the water chemistry is way off, that will support the diagnosis.

If the chemistry is balanced, that doesn't invalidate a conclusion that chemistry is to blame.

A current test only determines what the current chemistry is, not what it was prior to the current test.

If you want to dispute the conclusion that chemistry is to blame, you would need to provide independent test results that establish how the chemistry has been maintained or reasons why the damage is not consistent with bad chemistry.