First thanks to everyone here that has contributed to the wealth of information on pool care. I've done a fair amount of reading so far and have learned so much. So I am creating a little chemical cheat sheet based on recommend levels from TFP and noticed what my pool manufacturer (Leisure Pools) recommends is vaslty different. Specifically FC, TA, and calcium. Looking at their warranty they are pretty strict on adhering to these levels (I attached a pic and info should be in my signature). Has anyone ran into this before? Sorry if this was asked before.
New pool owner in Delaware
- Thread starter Gtech145
- Start date
- Jun 13, 2017
- 450
- Pool Size
- 9600
- Surface
- Vinyl
- Chlorine
- Salt Water Generator
- SWG Type
- CircuPool RJ-45 Plus
For FC: Pool manufacturers recommendations are based on 0 (zero) CYA. TFP recommendations are based on CYA.
The other recommendations aren't really that different and overlap to some extent.
Do you need to get pool store tests in order to maintain your warranty?
The other recommendations aren't really that different and overlap to some extent.
Do you need to get pool store tests in order to maintain your warranty?
Yeah they are pretty close. The manufacturer does require pool store tests so I don't really have a choice if I want to maintain the warranty.
- Jun 13, 2017
- 450
- Pool Size
- 9600
- Surface
- Vinyl
- Chlorine
- Salt Water Generator
- SWG Type
- CircuPool RJ-45 Plus
Maybe @Texas Splash or another of the fiberglass pool owners will weigh in with their thoughts on manufacture recommendations versus TFP.
- Jun 22, 2014
- 47,949
- Pool Size
- 17888
- Surface
- Fiberglass
- Chlorine
- Salt Water Generator
- SWG Type
- CircuPool RJ-45 Plus
"G", welcome to TFP! 
Yes, stick around with us long enough and you will see/hear MANY examples of conflicting recommended levels between the pool industry, manufactures, and TFP - most significantly between the FC and CYA relationship. We have LOTS of threads about this issue. For decades, the pool industry has published very basic level recommendations in an effort to accommodate all pool types and scenarios. We know this to be poor management as pools require different levels based on their type, equipment, location, amount of sun, etc. In your location, you may get by with a moderate CYA of 30-40, while in my area, a summer CYA of 50 is almost mandatory and as low as my water can tolerate. Along with that, our staff developed the FC/CYA Levels to show owners how those two items should be balanced together to prevent algae. Notice we also separate salt pools in that equation. The pool industry as a whole doesn't make that distinction either (salt vs non-salt). It's a simple concept really, but in the pool industry, they just push one generic group of numbers and that's it. Also remember that the pool industry pushes chlorine tablets and encourages the use of various pool store chemical treatments and weekly super-shocks which are generally not required and/or can cause negative side effects to your water.
As for your warranty, just like in my case, if you don't have pool store test history the manufacture will say your warranty is null & void. Doesn't matter how poor and inconsistent that store testing is, they need proof to protect their interests. If that's a concern for you, I would recommend getting the water tested weekly or as recommended by your warranty package, but using your OWN valid TF-100 home testing to maintain daily levels. Hope that helps.
Yes, stick around with us long enough and you will see/hear MANY examples of conflicting recommended levels between the pool industry, manufactures, and TFP - most significantly between the FC and CYA relationship. We have LOTS of threads about this issue. For decades, the pool industry has published very basic level recommendations in an effort to accommodate all pool types and scenarios. We know this to be poor management as pools require different levels based on their type, equipment, location, amount of sun, etc. In your location, you may get by with a moderate CYA of 30-40, while in my area, a summer CYA of 50 is almost mandatory and as low as my water can tolerate. Along with that, our staff developed the FC/CYA Levels to show owners how those two items should be balanced together to prevent algae. Notice we also separate salt pools in that equation. The pool industry as a whole doesn't make that distinction either (salt vs non-salt). It's a simple concept really, but in the pool industry, they just push one generic group of numbers and that's it. Also remember that the pool industry pushes chlorine tablets and encourages the use of various pool store chemical treatments and weekly super-shocks which are generally not required and/or can cause negative side effects to your water.As for your warranty, just like in my case, if you don't have pool store test history the manufacture will say your warranty is null & void. Doesn't matter how poor and inconsistent that store testing is, they need proof to protect their interests. If that's a concern for you, I would recommend getting the water tested weekly or as recommended by your warranty package, but using your OWN valid TF-100 home testing to maintain daily levels. Hope that helps.
The pool industry has a one size fits all attitude. Once with in a while you'll find someone in the pool store a bit more educated but on the wrong side of the counter. Last year had some time to kill and decided to go to large pool store and browse new gadgets. More entertaining then what they had to sell was the advice they were giving mostly completely non sense. Most of the answers were go down that isle and TRY SOME OF THIS.....
Thanks for the advice guys! I'll adjust where I can to target TFP levels as close as possible to satisfy the warranty testing weekly...then use a TF-100 as recommended to maintain accurate levels daily.
I am a fellow Leisure Pool owner and have concerns about the recommendations from the company as well. I just had the pool installed last year and I received their new chemistry guidelines.
They used to recommend a CH of 350 ppm and have changed that to a very low 80-120 ppm. They recommend the pH not exceed 7.4 now as well and they used to say 7.4 to 7.6 was ideal. They say the TA must be 80-120 ppm or gel coat damage can occur. They warn that going outside of these parameters (more calcium and higher pH) has been causing whitening of the gel coat.
Last year I was keeping my TA very low as I was tired of chasing a rising pH. I did notice a haze on the gel coat in spite of all other parameters being in range. This dissapeared immediately after I raised the TA so I do believe there is something unique about their gel coat that causes this.
The levels they recommend would result in a very low CSI (about -0.8 for my pool) which I worry will cause corrosion of my copper gas heater. I also find it unrealistic to maintain a pH of 7.2 to 7.4 while keeping alkalinity at 80-120 ppm in a salt water pool, unless I install an automated acid dispenser.
I would love to hear what other Leisure pool owners have experienced.
They used to recommend a CH of 350 ppm and have changed that to a very low 80-120 ppm. They recommend the pH not exceed 7.4 now as well and they used to say 7.4 to 7.6 was ideal. They say the TA must be 80-120 ppm or gel coat damage can occur. They warn that going outside of these parameters (more calcium and higher pH) has been causing whitening of the gel coat.
Last year I was keeping my TA very low as I was tired of chasing a rising pH. I did notice a haze on the gel coat in spite of all other parameters being in range. This dissapeared immediately after I raised the TA so I do believe there is something unique about their gel coat that causes this.
The levels they recommend would result in a very low CSI (about -0.8 for my pool) which I worry will cause corrosion of my copper gas heater. I also find it unrealistic to maintain a pH of 7.2 to 7.4 while keeping alkalinity at 80-120 ppm in a salt water pool, unless I install an automated acid dispenser.
I would love to hear what other Leisure pool owners have experienced.
Can't speak for the FG parameters but your concern with the copper I see no problem with the said CSI numbers.
I've never run a CSI as low as that and I have 0.3ppm copper in my water so I think my heater must be quite susceptible. I've never added a copper containing product to the pool and my water shouldn't have any so I'm fairly certain it is coming from the heater