Is the Polaris Caretaker an option at all?

It is not. My PB had substantial problems with that product and is no longer installing it. Although I know that many people have been very happy with it there are a number of web postings discussing issues also.

An update from Paramount....

Pool Valet is their oldest design. Other than noting the heads employ a weighted system they wouldn't say anything else and my impression was it is not a preferred choice.

Cyclean is the newest system. It uses a cam sprung nozzle and they have a set cleaning pattern.

PV3 uses a retracted weight nozzle and they use a random cleaning pattern.

What the advantages or disadvantages are of each is not at all clear. One would think that the newer would be an improvement (or why bother) but they wouldn't say. I'm thinking that a pattern cleaning head might do a better job or work faster but it just a guess. I have no idea what the tradeoffs are between a cam sprung vs retracted weight head but since they used the latter on their first system I'm venturing that a cam spring might be give a more deliberate push.

Both systems are agitation systems. They use a large number of small heads. For example an 18 x 36 would use about 35 total on about 4 zones more or less.

In contrast PCC 2000 is a collection system. It uses about a third the number of heads but the flows are much higher. There are also two fixed heads near the drain. Best as I can tell this system by virtue of its higher flow rates (not clear if the pressure is higher also) moves the dirt directly rather than just lifting it up off the floor.

Again it wasn't possible to get a clear sense of how these three systems perform in relation to each other and what where the strengths and weaknesses of each design.

All cost about the same. Dealers are generally allowed to carry only one system and push that so it is very difficult to get impartial answers.

sbedelman,
Most infloor systems are custom designed specifically for your pool. When the PB sends the plan in for design, the manufacturer should be able to recommend and design the system based on the shape of the pool, spa, or any odd steps or benches in the pool. Also look at the pump recommendations for the system you are installing. Floor systems generally require a larger than normal pump HP to power the heads. Good luck.

sbedelman,
I responded to this on the TFP forum, but it occurs to me that in looking at the information on Paramounts site, I thought there was some claim that the heads used for the ?Cyclean? had a better, i.e. more gentle, turn to the nozzle, which might help with flow efficiency, but that is not going to be a strong point of any of the systems.
I did talk to someone on their tech support line, who seemed unusually frank, and who said that the variety of head types and system names was mostly to allow Paramount to be able to offer more dealers "exclusive" systems. All use the same water valves.

That is the same thing they told me. There is no difference among the systems and they only have them so dealers don't compete with each other using the same product.

As an engineer I know that all designs have trade-offs. Each technique has it's strengths and weaknesses. That they wouldn't compare their own products across product lines is an absolute first for me in my professional life and didn't fill me with confidence.

I guess most people don't investigate what they are buying and just take whatever the PB tells them to so from a marketing perspective this is good for the manufacturer and PB and I suppose it helps keeps margins high. But from my point of view I'm looking to understand how well each design works so I can choose the one best suited to my situation.

Paramount basically says the differences are gratuitous. Maybe so, but it is hard to believe there aren't any difference at all even between the agitation and collection methodology.

That they refuse to even discuss the matter has me concerned they might be way too focused on marketing over product engineering and I am seriously considering dropping any form of in-floor cleaning from the design because of this.

I just realized that it is possible to take a stab at figuring the differences between the products on our own if people who have Cyclean, PCC2000 or PV3 are willing to list their observations about how their systems are performing.

Does anyone out there have any of these systems up and running and would you be willing to write up a bit about how they are working out?

We have the PCC2000. It is almost a year old. It works well except for one dead zone where sand stays. The system does have its own pump so expect an increase in electrical costs.

SBE, remember, best is the enemy of good enough. If one of the systems works well for you, then it may not matter too much how it compares across Paramount's line. I will say, that function aside, there is an appearance issue, and I would not like to have twice the number of heads I have now, if some of the other lines indeed use that many...
The problem is, it's a build-time decision, retrofitting seems ridiculous (even though I know someone who did).

I checked with Paramount and all the systems use roughly the same amount of water, between 50 and 70 gpm at roughly 70' of head. Assuming you run them about 6 hours a day the cost isn't too bad.

Since the heads will still discharge water at even 20 gpm (although they won't do any cleaning) my idea would be do run the system at the rated pressure for the allotted time and the rest of the time at 20 psi until I reach the target for turnover. I'll then start reducing the full pressure time bit by bit until I see a falloff in cleanliness and stop. That might change depending on season and usage so I'll put one of the programmable controllers in and set it up with buttons for light/medium/heavy clean and just press the appropriate one. I might even put an "extra clean now" in so that I could press that if it needed some touch up and then it would just drop back to whatever program I had set.

Tcupp, one question for you. Are the floor jets the only returns or did they still install returns up high and use those as one of the zones?

Sbedelman-

I have a Paramount PV3 system and it has performed well. The key to making these systems work, is to follow the engineered drawing provided by Paramount for your pool design. Do not rely on the pool builder to place the heads correctly. Double check the head placement using the print after the plumber has finished the rough-in plumbing prior to gunite. Also, when the heads are installed during start-up, make sure they use the heads specified on the drawing and donÂt go from "experience". My start-up guy was going from "experience" and not using the drawing. I asked him to use the drawing and he was surprised by some of the head selections.

Aside from the performance of the system, I canÂt comment on the differences or reliability of the systems other than anecdotal comments from my PB. He indicated the spring designs did not work for him and that is why he has stayed with the PV3. He also likes the main valve that Paramount offers and mentioned he used to use Polaris and their main valves employed electronics to switch zones and these were plagued with problems. Polaris may have changed their main valve design since thenÂ..donÂt know. The Paramount main valve is a mechanical design. Again, these are anectdotal comments from my PB and are his opinions only.

Also, I read your other post regarding floor returns. This may work for some pools depending on size and complexity of the pool features. The advantage of using an engineered system such as ParamountÂs is they will split up the pool into zones which will require a smaller pump saving energy and also they will specify dedicated zones just for those hard to clean areas such as steps, beaches, grottos, etc.

If you are handy with valving and automation and like to tinker, it may be possible to design your own floor cleaning system with a few zones especially if your pool is smaller and does not have a lot of hard to clean places. Personally, IÂm an engineer also by training and IÂm handy with flow control design, hydraulics and automation but thought it was money well spent to have someone professionally design the system and provide proven hardware to do the task.

Hope this helps!

Trhought,

I think you may have misunderstood my posts regarding floor returns. Those were not intended as a replacement for an in-floor cleaning system but as an alternative or addition to placing returns hight in a pool that uses a robot for cleaning (or that you clean manually).

The idea was to foster better mixing of the water to avoid cold spots and therefore increase comfort (the primary reason) and reduce energy consumption slightly.

I just couldn't understand why it was desirable to return water, particularly heated water, to the top of the pool. My impression is it isn't and that the only reason its how its done is that either 1) that is how it has always been done or 2) it is perceived as necessary for the skimmer to work properly.

Since in the past my PB installed a number of pools with bottom returns I'll ask him if there was an issue with the latter. If not then I can't see any reason not to plumb both floor and wall returns with their own dedicated pipe to the pump and have the ability to send water either place.

sb-

I too don't see any problem with floor returns and it effect on de-stratification of pool water temps. Skimming action is more a function of skimmer throat velocity than surface water movement so no adverse effects with floor returns on skimming action either.

Yes, I did misunderstand your intention on using floor returns. Why not just have a floor system installed and get the best of both worlds (destratification in addition to pool cleaning) No more hassle with 3rd party cleaning devices!

Hope this helps!

Money mostly. The quote for a 20 x 40 pool is about $7,200. Does that sound like about the going rate?

sb-

Our PV3 was $4K in Louisiana. Installation costs are region specific and most of the cost of these systems is in labor as there is a lot of plumbing runs that need to be made for each head in each zone.

Hope this helps!

Hi Sbedelman==

Anything new you can update us on? Did you get an in-floor system and if so, which one? This choice really limits you to PBs and also you are right about different ones having different "exclusives." Reminds me of the way the mattress companies market their products . . . try to compare the same mattress for the same price . . . even if its just a different fabric choice it's not considered the same. Well, this is a much bigger investment than that.

I would like to hear from anyone else who can give more information on this topic, particularly on the PCC2000 brand from Paramount.

Also, does anyone know if you can purchase and provide to your builder or add on as an upgrade the Venturi skimmers or use other safety drains, like a channel drain with these systems if they are not included in the particular manufacturer's line?

Just reviving this thread. Anyone that can provide current cost information on these systems if you have had one built or have gotten a recent quote? How big (surface square feet) is you pool? Spa? Did your system cover benches, steps? Was it an "upgrade" from some other in-floor circulation system? How many heads? Zones?

It is best when people provide specific information to share otherwise it is not very helpful to compare building costs. To compare features of the different systems is a bit easier as you can always go to the manufacturer's websites. But there is no substitute for real life experience if you can share. Thanks.

We just completed a pool with a PCC 2000 system. Both Paramount and our PB recommended using a booster pump to run the in-floor system. I really think the only reason is to help guarantee that the system has enough pressure to keep cleaning when the pool filter starts getting clogged.

So far I have been very pleased with the results. We have a pool spa combination, a few steps and a tanning ledge. It is setup in 6 zones. We also went with the leaf catcher basket option to trap leaves coming from the main drain before they reach the main circulation pump.

The thing I've been surprised at is that very little debris is ending up in the leaf basket. 95% of all of the leaves have been caught by the skimmers. We have a couple of trees near the pool and we just went through a period of 3-4 weeks where the trees were dumping a lot of debris in the pool and the PCC 2000 was able to keep up with it.

What I think is happening is that a lot of the debris on the bottom gets pushed back up in the water column and collected by the skimmers.

I have been running the system for 3 hours per day. 1 hours in the morning, 1 at noon and 1 in the afternoon. This is plenty to keep the pool clean. For the rest of the day, I just run my main circulation pump to filter the water. It has been really nice, not having a polaris to mess with.

I think the extra cost was about $2,500 but don't quote me on that.

Also, I did a lot of research on the various systems and in my opinion, I would definitely stick with a Paramount system. However, having said that, I'm not convinced that there is really that much difference between the various Paramount systems. I tend to think its more of a marketing thing and a way to allow more pool builders to have an "exclusive" product to sell in their area.

Thanks Woodberg for the information and glad to hear you feel the system is working well for you. Congratualtions! I think you have the lowest quote for this upgrade, but you didn't mention the size of your pool and spa--and that of course is key. You did say that there were heads on your sunshelf and benches and steps. This is where some people can cut cost by not installing heads in these areas, but it seems you got the full system and if the builder followed the Paramount schematic for plumbing, size and location of heads you should have the company guarantee to stand behind its cleaning effectiveness. If you could double check to verify your information that would be helpful as my most recent quote was soOOOOOO ridiculously high I don't even want to post it because it might confuse others into thinking it is in a legitimately acceptable price range for this system.

Another important factor may be what size your builder is already using for their PVC plumbing since Paramount specifies the sizes that must be used with their system. Woodberg, do you know from you schematic what you plumbing size is? Was it the same size PVC that the builder would have used if you didn't put the in-floor system in?

Did you get dual main drains? One MDX2 and another SDX?

Thanks again to anyone who can contribute some solid information from their actual systems or recent proposals.

All the Paramounts I have seen installed in the last 5 years have been 2" plumbing except a simple 2 zone circulation system that had 1.5" lines.

Get the builder to include Paramount's winterizing plugs with the air valve in them. You will need one for each floor zone. They have a special shape that looks like a curved trapazoid that fits in each section of the dome (gear box removed) so air can be trapped to below the frost line in winter. Some inexperienced techs don't know they exist and just pull the gear box, close the lid and blow the lines and valve it closed. This is not correct and can cause freeze cracks under ground. I've cleaned up after several of these messes. No, I didn't make the mess. :-)

Paramount has some pretty easy to follow winterization instructions available on their website:
http://www.1paramount.com/products/winter.pdf

Woodberg or anyone with PCC 2000 more than 5 years

How is the system holding up? Any particular issues that have arisen now? We are getting ready to build a pool and would appreciate any advice.