COST JUSTIFICATION FOR ELECTRICALLY FUELLED, WHOLE BODY CRYO
Some time ago, we were called into a professional elite, sporting facility. They were looking to install a whole body cryotherapy chamber for their players. Due diligence and research were undertaken and several manufacturers were invited to tender. Due to the reputation and existing client base of Zimmer, we were one of the companies tendering. As part of the presentation we invited the club to visit and experience exactly what a Zimmer IceLab whole body experience felt like, which we were certain would convince our clients of the superiority of the technology. As we thought, everyone was convinced: The whole experience was better than they had enjoyed elsewhere. There were no hot and cold spots, the chambers atmosphere seemed drier. There was happily sufficient space for at 4 delegates to walk around freely within the chamber and not feel that their own personal space was compromised. On exit, all felt the euphoria typically experienced when leaving our chamber. Skin red and tingling, Lashes and brows whitened with frost, and a feeling of greater energy and ease of breathing.
We explained that in our Zimmer, electrically operated, IceLab chamber the air is controlled and flows evenly over the body via the fans that make sure air is circulating constantly; The precision German engineering guarantees that the air is maintained at a consistent temperature. Importantly, the reason why our guests could detect a noticeable and more impactful buzz from our therapy, we explained, was almost certainly down to the fact that when you chill air to subzero temperatures, you reduce molecular size of its particles. Inside there is more Oxygen by volume. However, to have any effect on the body internally, you must inhale it inside a dry chamber. Moisture will always pair with individual oxygen molecules and the body will not be able to fully utilise or benefit from it, unlike in a dry environment where you can inhale it deeply into the body and feel the effect. In terms of experience and effect, we were leading.
The final short list was determined and it was us and a nitrogen chamber. The last element was to assess costs. Not a problem we thought, since the reliability, effects, therapy delivered and applications were already considerably in our favour, all we had to do was discuss cost price and running costs. Whilst we know we are not the cheapest solution, in terms of initial purchase price, we are confident that when considered as a whole scenario, the therapy benefits (this determines the ROI in chargeable clinics) and the low running costs, more than justify the purchase of our system. We were therefore quietly confident that we would be successful, and could substantiate the cost benefits over a year. After all, who would not opt for better therapy, improved results, superior reliability, lower running costs, and, if charging for the therapy, incredibly lucrative ROI? We were surprised to loose the deal to the Nitrogen chamber. It forced us to really study cost comparisons, as we knew we had been out in the lead until then.
What we discovered shocked us.
We left the club to install the nitrogen chamber, staying in contact with them and in fact helping them with other technologies for recovery and regeneration. 2 years later the figures are in and we now feel vindicated regarding our claim that even ignoring its superiority in therapy, and results, on costs alone, our electrically powered chamber is a better option. Here are the findings and the cost justification:
In the 2 years the club have had the cryo chamber installed they have on average used it only twice per day, for a total of 90 minutes each day, 5 days per week. Operationally this meant players would be encouraged to use the chamber either before or after training, some though not all, used it both. Players who were injured, in recovery and any not training, would wait until the chamber was powered up and then go in. Not ideal as their schedule often differs. The reason the club only powered the chamber for 90 minutes per day was cost. They discovered that to fuel the chamber for only sporadic or minimum use, was too costly. In fact on average they were paying over €100K in gas annually. Below is a fuel usage summary of a typical installation of our electrically powered chamber, installed with our heat exchange option. The justification on cost saving is obvious.
FUEL CONSUMPTION AND HEAT RECOVERY OF ICELAB:
The Chamber uses 18kw of Energy in "Therapy Mode" and 8kw in "Standy-By Mode"
ASSUME 12 Hours in operation (Example taken from Medi-spa usage), and 12 hours in Stand-by The costs will be: (12 x 18 = 216kw) + (12 x 8 = 96kw) = 312kw in 24 hours. at cost of €0.145 per kw, total daily spend is €45.24 / €16,512.00 per Annum.
HEAT RECOVERY: Maximum recovery 25kw at 100%. Assume 40% achieved with 60% lost, delivers 10kw retrieved. 10kw x 24 hours WBCT is on24 x 10 = 240kw Recovered Daily. 240kw x 365 (days per year) = 87600kw. Annual Recovery at €0.145 = €12,702. Annual Spend of €16512.00 - €12,702.00 recovered gives a net cost to fuel of €3820.00 per annum.
Installing an IceLab whole Body cryo with a heat exchange device, can cost less than €4000.00 per year, be switched on and available 12 hours per day all year round, and deliver superior therapy with wide and broad benefits and be a constant and consistent benefit to the players for recovery and regeneration. Using the cryo chamber, and indeed when and how often to use it, can really be experimented with and really exploited when the chamber is in full operation mode for the duration of the time the players are in the facility. This explains why we are now being called in to exchange gas units with our superior Zimmer Electrically powered cryo chambers.