Daddy Ares

[daddyares-blog]

Mini DID Clone

We had a hell of a time trying to figure out what to call this little Genesis atomizer in the title.  In most cases, it’s a relatively simple matter of just naming the manufacturer and model names, but in the case of the mini-DID clone, it’s just not clear what either one of those names is.

Everyone, including the suppliers in China, seems to just refer to this atomizer as the “mini-DID clone,” named after the real mini-DID atomizer, built by Jim Damianidis of Metal Madness Vapors, which it clearly emulates.  Occasionally you’ll see the names given to it by American vendors, such as the “Griffin” name it was given by Discount Vapers.  We’ll just stick with calling it the mini-DID clone for the time being, for lack of a better name.

Our mini-DID clones came in metal display boxes containing the atomizer, a drip tip, a spare poly tank, enough stainless steel mesh of indeterminate grade for two wicks, and a few feet of roughly 32-gauge coil wire.  For the purposes of this review, we used the supplied materials.

The mini-DID clone is, as the name implies, very small.  The diameter of the base is about 18mm, giving it one of the smallest footprints we’ve seen on a Genesis atomizer — for reference, it has a slightly smaller base than the slanted top of a Provari or eVic, and about the same diameter of the top of the Kamry K100, pictured.

Under the cap is a standard single-wick setup, with a wick hole, an air hole, a grounding screw and a center post.  The center post is adjustable with the use of knurled nuts at the top of the post, allowing it to sit flush with any PV.  The grounding screw, and the screw present in the air hole when it arrived, are very small, with a hex socket. No hex wrench is supplied with the atomizer, and rather than go looking for one, we just used a pair of needle-nose pliers.  Hey, it worked. Don’t give us that look like you always know where you last left your hex wrenches.

The clear tank is polycarbonate, so we have to assume that harsher juices like citrus and cinnamon will eat right through it.  Thankfully, they gave us a spare to use after the first time we forget about that and throw something like Pluid in it, triggering a little plastic Chernobyl.

The cap screws on. Normally we’re not fans of that in a Genesis, as it’s not often we find screw-on caps that allow the wick hole to line up with the wick, and it also generally prevents adjusting the air hole’s position if you happen to like a stronger throat hit. While it is the case that, when screwed all the way down, the hole did not line up on our clones, a rubber O-ring that sits under the cap does provide a bit of grip on the cap and allows some adjustment, and we found it to be enough to move the cap roughly a quarter turn before it got too loose or too tight.  We had no problem with lining up the air hole, and the cap stayed in place after the adjustment.

The wick hole, as expected on an atomizer this small, as pretty tight, and required a pretty thin wick. Using the supplied mesh we had to avoid rolling the wick too tight to get it to the right diameter, but it has been wicking fairly effectively — more on that below.  We wrapped the wick with a 4/5 wrap of the mystery wire supplied with the atomizer, which gave us a 1.7 ohm coil.

Performance-wise, the mini-DID clone did fairly well.  The narrow diameter of the wick does seem to somewhat limit the amount of juice supplied to the coil, so we weren’t producing massive clouds of vapor, but vapor production was still pretty good, and flavor was excellent.

The scores:

Build Quality: 2.5

The mini-DID clone is constructed of stainless steel, and seems solid enough. The unthreaded tank could easily have been produced in glass, though we understand that this could drive the price up somewhat.  The air hole wick did not line up with the wick when fully tightened, but there is some degree of adjustability built in, via on O-ring under the cap, to allow some leeway. The use of hex screws under the cap may be a hurdle for people looking to set this device up.

Looks: 3

The mini-DID is not a particularly handsome atomizer, but it’s not ugly, either. The use of knurling at the top and bottom of the tank may be viewed by some as an eyesore; the general trend these days seems to be moving away from it.

The supplied drip dip is strikingly similar to a “traditional style” tip we obtained a while back from Super-T Manufacturing that cost us more than this atomizer did.

Flexibility: 3

The mini-DID clone is a bare-bones Genesis. There is only the option of a single wick, and a narrow one at that. However, its small size may make it more practical on some PVs than other Genesis-type devices, which are generally quite a bit larger.

Performance: 3.5

Considering the small size of the device, it performed adequately.  Vapor production was fairly average, and flavor was very good.  A larger wick hole would probably increase output, but there is little room for that in such a small device.

Price: 4.5

The mini-DID clone retails under various names for a price of anywhere from about $17.00 to $20.00.  We obtained ours from a co-op on Facebook for just over $13 each, shipped. Honestly, for all its other drawbacks, it’s hard to find a problem with that kind of price.

Overall Score: 3.3

[daddyares-blog]

The SmokTech RSST

It’s finally starting to appear on the tops of PV’s everywhere: The RBA that started more drama in more places than any other piece of hardware in recent memory.  We are, of course, talking about the SmokTech RSST, otherwise known as the AC9 clone.

The AC9 Controversy

Many who were involved in co-ops at the time, or just keeping up on gossip, will remember the shockwaves that SmokTech’s announcement of this atomizer sent through the vaping community. Riptrippers, an employee of Vapinaze, the makers of the AC9, went ballistic. Powerless to do anything directly against SmokTech, the offshore makers of the RSST, he lashed out at those preparing to buy it: the co-ops, and the managers of co-ops.  In a move that would later prompt profuse apologies from others at Vapinaze, Riptrippers threatened to sue the managers of these co-ops.  Unfortunately for him, the people he threatened knew his threats were empty, and in the end he ended up looking like a bit of a fool.

It was a move that may have cost Vapinaze some, if not all, of the sympathy they may have garnered from vapers over what truly is a blatant rip-off of their design. The SmokTech RSST features a removable cup almost identical to that of the AC9, as well as a very similar profile and finish.  It even, for a brief time prior to release, borrowed the AC9 name, though the name in marketing material was changed to RSST before units were shipped.

Differences Between the SmokTech RSST and Vapinaze AC9

The differences between the SmokTech RSST and the AC9 are few, and mostly minor.  The press-on cap of the RSST is somewhat rounder than that of the AC9, and the draw is tighter, even when the AC9 has been fitted with the optional tight draw cap, as the result of a much smaller-diameter air hole on the RSST.  The internal setup is also quite similar, with both sporting a single large wick hole, a fill hole, and a center post with a spring to hold the positive end of the coil wire in place.

Where they diverge is primarily in the materials used.  While the AC9 is constructed of thick, high-quality stainless steel, the SmokTech RSST is built from thinner metal, giving it a somewhat less sold feel. We also notice finish inconsistencies between the tank and the cap in the RSST.

The makers of the RSST also made a couple of design choices that left us baffled.  For example, the fill hole is not only quite large, but it sits at a roughly 100-degree angle from the wick hole, rather than the typical 180 degrees.  This seems to serve no real purpose, other than to cause the RSST to leak into the cap when tilted.  We are also a bit concerned over the way the adjustable center post has a sharp end, as if they used an off-the-shelf wood screw for it.  We’d be a bit reluctant to use the SmokTech RSST on mods with a brass or plated positive contact, as this point is quite likely to dig into it over time.

The Scores

Build Quality: 2.5

While mostly well-constructed (though not as well as the AC9), a few glaring flaws stand out. Particularly jarring are the strange placement of the fill hole, the overly-large drip tip socket, and the sharply-pointed center post.

Looks: 4

The SmokTech RSST certainly looks good, with its frosted tank and brushed finish. However, the finish varies somewhat between parts in our test unit.

Flexibility: 3

The SmokTech RSST is a basic single-wick Genesis atomizer with few options. However, the adjustable center post design (stolen directly, if incompletely, from the AC9) will allow it to sit flush with any atomizer, though it does not allow adjustment of coil height in the same way as the AC9.

Performance: 3.5

Performance of the SmokTech RSST was mostly typical for a Genesis atomizer. While some may appreciate the very tight draw (a stark contrast to the AC9’s default airy draw), others are going to want to take a drill to it immediately.

Price: 2.5

This atomizer is just starting to ship from SmokTech, and we can’t really be sure where prices are going to fall, though somewhere in the $40-$50 range seems likely based on co-op pricing of around $25.  Frankly, for that kind of money, we’d recommend waiting for SmokTech to correct some of the obvious flaws before spending your money on it.

Overall Score: 6.2

[daddyares-blog]

Sailing A8

The Box of Shame

Hidden away in the back of a dark closet, deep in the bowels of Vape Squad HQ, sits the Box of Shame.  It is the final resting place for co-op buys, impulse purchases, and badly considered trades that have gone horribly wrong.  On this April Fool’s Day, somewhat appropriately, a new atomizer was added to the Box of Shame: The Sailing A8 atomizer.

The Sailing A8 is a sort of Phoenix-style rebuildable atomizer with a tank. A cotton wick is strung between two posts, where a coil is wrapped, and the end tucked through a hole in the bottom of the atomizer section into a tank below.  It’s a well-tested and proven type of setup, so where did Sailing go wrong?

Garbage In, Garbage Out

In the case of the A8, it’s all about the build materials.  Specifically, it’s about the materials used for the tank, which appears to be a kind of polycarbonate.  Unfortunately, it also appears to be a very brittlekind of polycarbonate. Take a close look at the photo at the top of this article, particularly where the tank screws onto the top threads.  See those cracks? There are no less than eight of those cracks circling the top of the tank.  By all reports, we got a good one — many others who received Sailing A8′s in the same shipment have reported that their tanks were split right in half when they received them.

Normally, we try to do rather extensive testing on equipment we receive here, but frankly, we’re not going to bother with the A8.  We can tell just looking at it that it’s going to drain liquid faster than a drunk at an open bar, and we’re just not that willing to throw away good juice.

We had high hopes for the A8.  While early adopters had complained of quality issues, it was long enough ago that we’d hoped Sailing had made improvements by now.  Obviously, they have not.

The Scores

Build Quality: 0

We have given the Sailing A8 our lowest possible score when it comes to build quality.  We normally shy away from the extreme ends of the scale, but in this case we didn’t even want to put juice into the tank since it was obviously just going to leak back out.

Looks: 3.5

It’s a shame the tank on this atomizer is such an utter piece of crap, because it’s rather nice-looking. The integrated mouthpiece and slim profile give it a clean, attractive look that made us want to buy it just from the pictures of it.  However, in this case function does not come anywhere following form.

Flexibility: 3

As a rebuildable atomizer, there is some flexibility here,  You can use the built-in coil and wick, or your own, for a broad range of possible setups.

Performance: 0

While it may be unfair to score a device low on performance when we’ve never even filled the tank, in this case we feel justified.  If all your atomizer can do is sit collecting dust along with all the other junk you just refuse to ever use, we’d call that pretty rotten performance.

Price: 0

We’ve seen the Sailing A8 at U.S. retailers for around $25.  However, and this is probably to the credit of those retailers, we’re having a very hard time finding any retailers selling it right now.  It seems likely they sold, sent back, or threw away their initial stocks of this lemon and aren’t ordering them from Sailing any more.  We’ve seen a few places still carrying them overseas, however.

In any case, $25 for this steaming pile is about $25 too much.

Overall Score: 1.3

[daddyares-blog]

Dream BT804 Atomizer by Beautiful

Often referred to as a “Kayfun Clone,” the Dream 804 atomizer comes with the tank/atomizer, a plastic drip tip, and five replacement coils of approximately 2.3 to 2.6 ohms.  We found replacing the coil to be quite simple; easier than most rebuildable atomizers, making the BT804 a good choice for people new to rebuilding.

While it bears quite a bit of physical resemblance to the SvoeMesto Kayfun atomizer, this is not a true clone in the sense that, for example, the Terminator atomizer is a direct clone of the Odysseus. For example, the BT804 fills from the top, not the bottom like the Kayfun. It also has a much airier draw due to a much wider hole in the drip tip.  However, the tank and coil arrangements are otherwise quite similar.

We found the vape of the BT804 to be very impressive. Even on our lowest-grade mechanical mods, the atomizer gave off copious plumes of vapor, with very good flavor.  Judged on vape alone, the BT804 is a very impressive atomizer.

However, the atomizer does have a few major drawbacks. The first of these is the juice capacity.  For its size, it holds surprisingly little juice, not much over 1ml, due to the amount of room the metal cone takes up inside the tank. If you use one of these, be prepared to refill often.

The second, and more serious, of the BT804’s drawbacks is that ours leaked, often and in large amounts.  It actually isn’t so much of a leak, but the juice seems to constantly “sweat” from and around the air hole near the bottom of the unit. In addition to constantly having to wipe the atomizer down, this leaking also results in gurgling when the atomizer is used, and, somewhat amusingly, also often causes it to whistle when we draw from it.

The quick summary:

Build Quality: 2

The BT804 is a good-performing atomizer, but there are several flaws in the build that make it difficult to deal with. Constant leaking was a major problem with the two units we tested.

Looks: 4

This is, without question, a nice-looking atomizer.  The transparent tank sandwiched between chromed top and bottom sections give it a stylish, streamlined look.  With a 19-20mm diameter, it looks best on mods with slanted tops.

Flexibility: 3

The BT804 comes with a built-in coil of approximately 2.5 ohms, and five similar replacements.  However, it is a simple matter to create custom wick and coil combinations for higher or lower resistance.

Performance: 3.5

Vapor production and flavor of the BT804 were excellent, going far beyond what we expected from it. Even at resistances which we would normally consider too high on other atomizers, the BT804 performed admirably well. However, juice capacity of the tank is very low.

Price: 2

The BT804’s retail price seems to hover around $25.  While it has been found at other vendors for less, there are indications that the manufacturer is cracking down on retailers who sell it too cheaply, and mandating these prices.  Setting aside the fact that $25 is a somewhat high, but not completely unreasonable price, we’ve scored this lower as a result of the manufacturer’s apparent manipulation of market prices.

Overall Score: 2.9

[daddyares-blog]

AGA-T2 from Youde

Yes, we realize this ubiquitous Genesis-style atomizer has been reviewed to death, but it’s almost a requirement, if you’re going to own gennies, that this one has to be in the collection. As far as bargain-basement Genesis atomizers go, it’s the de-facto standard.

The AGA-T version 2 is a stainless steel Genesis-type atomizer, meaning that it is intended to be used with a rolled, stainless steel mesh wick, at the top of which a wire coil is placed to vaporize the juice as it is drawn up from a tank below. This is considered by many to actually be the third major revision of the AGA-T line, though other than the glass tank, it is identical to the second, usually referred to as the AGA-T+.

Other than the borosilicate tank, other differences from the original AGA-T include a press-on cap that allows throat hit adjustment by positioning the air hole, and a somewhat cleaner look as the result of the elimination of knurling on the exterior parts. Both have been mostly regarded as major improvements to this atomizer.

Like other Genesis atomizers, how well the AGA-T2 performs is going to depend mostly on the wick and coil you set it up with. The atomizer does not come with a wick and coil pre-installed, though small pieces of stainless steel mesh and resistance wire are included in a tiny packet in the box. We chose not to use those, mostly because it was not apparent what materials were used, or the specification of the mesh and wire. We opted instead for known quantities, using our own mesh and kanthal wire for testing.

We tested the AGA-T2 with two builds: one using 400 mesh and 32-gauge kanthal, for a coil resistance of approximately 2.0Ω, and a second build using 28-gauge kanthal and 400 mesh, with a resistance of .9Ω. The AGA-T2 performed very well under both configurations.  We ran into no issues with wicking or leaks, vapor production was copious, and taste was excellent.  Granted, more credit for this performance probably belongs to our own skills at setting up a Genesis than to the AGA-T2 itself, but nothing about the AGA-T2 made it particularly difficult.

It should probably be noted that many have noted a problem with hot spots at the top of the coil on the AGA-T2.  While most blame the distance from the coil to the top post, we find it far more likely to be the result of the way the top of the coil is connected between two very small nuts on the center post.  If one is not careful, it is easy to pull the wire when tightening the top nuts. This may tighten the coil at the top of the wick, ands can easily lead to the wire cutting through any oxidation layer. Doing so may result in a short, and consequently, a hot spot.  We did experience this with our 32-gauge setup, though it was not an issue with the thicker 28-gauge wire.

Other issues that have been mentioned include rough edges on the glass tanks. While these seemed to be quite common in early batches of the AGA-T2, they seem to be less common now. It seems likely that the manufacturer has responded to complaints about tank quality.

Another common complaint we’ve heard is that the tank fits loosely, causing leaks. In most cases, though, this has been caused by a misunderstanding of how to assemble the tank.  When the tank is put in place, the AGA-T2 can be tightened down by simply twisting the top cap; it will then screw down tightly onto the tank. In most cases where leaks were reported, they were the result of having tried to use the nuts on the center post to tighten things down, and yes, if you only do this the AGA-T2 will leak.  Don’t ask us how we know this; it’s a little embarrassing.

So, here are some numbers:

Build Quality: 3

Build quality of the AGA-T2 is not bad for an inexpensive Chinese import. While there have been some quality control issues, such as rough tank edges and a large degree of inconsistency in the size of the air hole, for the most part the issues have been small ones.  We would have preferred larger nuts on the center post — the nuts shipped with the AGA-T2 are extremely small, which can not only make the device harder than it needs to be to set up, but these nuts are very easy to lose.  We do not recommend setting up the AGA-T2 in a carpeted room, particularly if you don’t have any spare nuts left.

Looks: 4

The cleaner, simpler look of the AGA-T2 is regarded by many to be a vast improvement over the original AGA-T.  The simple lines and stainless steel finish will make it a good match for a wide array of PVs.

Flexibility: 4

The design of the AGA-T2 allows for a number of different configurations, though the most common will be a single mesh wick and coil. However, with two negative contact points and two holes drilled into the tank, a silica wick and even a U-wick are possible, though the performance of these alternate configurations was not tested.

Another upside for the AGA-T2 is its popularity — there are a lot of them out there. As a result, customizations such as after-market tanks, such as those offered by Bedazzle and IBTanked, are readily available.

Performance: 3.5

Performance of the AGA-T2 will primarily be a function of how the wick and coil are set up. However, this may be complicated somewhat by the AGA-T2’s tendency toward hot spots, and the draw of the unit is somewhat unpredictable due to inconsistencies in the size of the air hole.

Price: 5

At $25 to $30 retail, the AGA-T2 is, quit simply, the starter Genesis; at this time, the price to performance ratio is well-nigh unbeatable.  The popularity of this device also makes it a common target for co-ops, where the price generally seems to hover around $15.