Discontinued Vaporblunt 2.0 & VB 2.0 DLX

[TherealVaporblunt]

I think we should call the glass WT, for water tool, and not HT. Part of patenting your shit is defending your shit, and we don't need to start down a road that might lead to VXL having to be antogonistic.

trvb...I'll ask the obvious questions that are going to come up regarding the airpath. What is everything in the airpath? What grade of SS is used? What types of plastics are in the airpath? How thick is the glass in the WT? Where are both pieces made?

My agreement with VXL allows me to use HT, but I prefer not to as it may confuse the general customer. I would like to avoid HT and use WT please.

I am trying to get answers to all of those questions, but half my guys are on vacation for turkeyday. I'm waiting on responses but I know for sure all plastic is top grade and it's not even close on the melting point. We got up to 490 and I think MP is 7 or 800. I am aware of the Button problem, it will be corrected on the production units. The light blue light is a sign you've entered programming mode. It is being fixed as well as the shortinging on the stir knob so it doesn't scrape and perhaps the oil straw. I am starting to think the oil straw needs a 18mm female, what do you think?

 

[OF]

I'll be the control I won't burn in ill just happily load and go.

That should cover all the bases since Stu is, as you know, out of control.....has been for a while now.

I would like to avoid HT and use WT please.

I am starting to think the oil straw needs a 18mm female, what do you think?

Fine by me, WT it is. I'll prolly get it wrong more than anybody else, but I can sure go that way. Good to hear you're on the small issues. While I haven't got there yet, I agree a 14mm fitting might be just the call, but perhaps a male to fit the WT? Just a random thought.

OF

 

[Quetzalcoatl]

I am starting to think the oil straw needs a 18mm female, what do you think?

FWIW, I've noticed that all of the (glass) oil pieces, and the majority of the size for FC users, is 18mm. It would be nice to include an 18mm PonG piece if that's what you meant. Easier than us having to go out to buy an 18 to 14 reducer, and everyone can think "hey, they thought about giving me an 18 so I didn't have to go spend more money!"

 

[JCat]

The PonG adapter is 18mm ... Pretty sure anyways ...

 

[Buyola]

What will be the website to buy the VB 2.0? I have heard all I need I'm ready!

 

[Vapinghole]

My agreement with VXL allows me to use HT, but I prefer not to as it may confuse the general customer. I would like to avoid HT and use WT please.

I am trying to get answers to all of those questions, but half my guys are on vacation for turkeyday. I'm waiting on responses but I know for sure all plastic is top grade and it's not even close on the melting point. We got up to 490 and I think MP is 7 or 800. I am aware of the Button problem, it will be corrected on the production units. The light blue light is a sign you've entered programming mode. It is being fixed as well as the shortinging on the stir knob so it doesn't scrape and perhaps the oil straw. I am starting to think the oil straw needs a 18mm female, what do you think?

I appreciate your company's transparency. I'm keen to buy your vape based on that alone. Your candid engagement with potential customers is an impressive change from another company that just fucked me and FC.

Cheers to you, Vaporblunt!

 

[JCat]

What will be the website to buy the VB 2.0? I have heard all I need I'm ready!

Me too! I'm assuming www.thevaporblunt.com ... just waiting for the VB2 to show up on it ... (trying to capture with the emoticon how I feel every time I check the site and it's not there yet )

 

[Quetzalcoatl]

(trying to capture with the emoticon how I feel every time I check the site and it's not there yet )

I think you're looking for

 

[Buyola]

Thanks Jcat. Yeah I agree Vapinhole!

 

[Stu]

After spending a few days with the unit, I want to share some of my initial thoughts about the VaporBlunt 2.0.

First of all, this is a battery powered portable vaporizer, so no one should realistically expect "Cloud like" performance just because it comes with a water tool similar to the Cloud.

I has been my observation that the VB 2.0 uses mostly conduction to produce vapor. The heater surrounds the bowl in such a way that the produced vapor will travel in either direction ('up' or 'down') the air-path and therefore the vapor can be delivered by sweeping away from the bowl (via inhalation). I don't think there is a lot of convection going on here. I did an experiment by loading a full (~.1g) and letting it run through an entire 13-minute cycle (12:50 to auto shutoff to be exact) without hitting it. The bowl was entirely spent at the end of the cycle and I watched (not an easy thing to do, mind you) as the vapor swirled away from the VB2 continuously for almost the entire cycle.

When used with the "sip tip" and stir tool ring, you can get good extraction by hitting it gently. The vapor density is similar to the DaVinci IMO, but I flavor of the vapor to be superior with the VB 2.0 than the DaVinci. FWIW there isn't that much flavor, but the flavor that comes through has no "odd" taste to me and tasted pretty good. I am probably over sensitive to flavor, and I still don't care much for the taste of the DaVinci.

Warmup time for my unit was 1:26 to level 1, 1:41 to level 2, and 1:57 to level 3. I didn't test the higher level warmup times. In the video below you can see the warmup time, and you will also notice the issue that OF and I had spoken about regarding the "wake" button. It took me quite a few attempts in the video, but I have to say I usually get it on within the first 2 or 3 clicks, so it's not a big deal. TRVB has acknowledged the button problem, so I expect it to be resolved very soon.

The fit and finish for the most part seems very nice. My only observation - and I'll have to disagree with my good friend OF here - is that the plastic ring with stir tool, PonG, and Oil adapter did seem to have come straight from a mold injection and not really finished well. I had some difficulty threading on the PonG piece at first (took me about 5 minutes) as it just wouldn't "line up" with the male threads of the VB. Those adapters are extremely lightweight, and don't remind me of a high-end device. Of course my unit was probably rushed to get it to me, so that may have something to do with it.

The Water Tool or WT (glad we have an official name for it now) is pretty well made IMO. It's not the thickest glass in the world (obviously it's meant to be semi-portable) but it doesn't appear fragile to me at all. The showerhead has very clean and evenly-spaced slits. I'm no glass expert, but it appears to be a very well made piece. It is taller that my HT as you can see by the picture below. It stands at about 10" tall and is 1.5" diameter at its base and 1.25" diameter at the mouthpiece.

Despite my comments above about the finish quality of the PonG, it forms a surprisingly good seal with the glass pieces I tested it with (and the WT of course). I wish more vape manufacturers would incorporate glass adapters (I have a feeling they will) so I congratulate TRVB for coming up with it.

I was not able to get very thick vapor using the PonG adapter with the WT. I didn't expect that a battery powered portable to be able to milk up a piece the way a desktop unit can, but I admit that I was disappointed with how quickly the hits faded out. As you can see in the video below, the WT fills up initially with decent vapor, but notice how quickly it thins out. The heater just can't keep up with the incoming air cooling down the bowl, and since conduction takes more time to produce vapor, long milky hits that good desktop units can give should not be expected.

The battery life seemed to be very good from what I've seen so far. Last night I did 7 full 13-minute sessions and the battery level indicator still read 2 bars. I didn't time the amount of time to recharge it, but it was not a very long time, that I can say.

Overall I think it is a nice on the go unit, but I don't think I would use the WT much with it. I think it will be a nice vape to take to a concert, or on a hike. It looks like it can take a bump or two, unlike some other portables.

 

[JCat]

Hey Stu ... thanks for the review! ... still kinda' really looking for that vs. Solo comparison though as that is a good benchmark for many of us as far as how well a unit performs (despite it's flaws ... the Solo still seems to be my go-to portable)

Edit: And I'm so used to having the water cooled vapor from my Cloud, that on Thanksgiving weekend (Canadian Thanksgiving), I brought my Cloud's HT with me and my Solo to my sister's cottage and that's what I used most often ... would walk outside with the Solo and Hydratube and have a quick session before going back in. (so it seems obvious that this might fit the niche for me that my Solo doesn't quite)

 

[OF]

First of all, this is a battery powered portable vaporizer, so no one should realistically expect "Cloud like" performance just because it comes with a water tool similar to the Cloud.

I has been my observation that the VB 2.0 uses mostly conduction to produce vapor.

I did an experiment by loading a full (~.1g) and letting it run through an entire 13-minute cycle (12:50 to auto shutoff to be exact) without hitting it. The bowl was entirely spent at the end of the cycle and I watched (not an easy thing to do, mind you) as the vapor swirled away from the VB2 continuously for almost the entire cycle.

When used with the "sip tip" and stir tool ring, you can get good extraction by hitting it gently. The vapor density is similar to the DaVinci IMO, but I flavor of the vapor to be superior with the VB 2.0 than the DaVinci.

The fit and finish for the most part seems very nice. My only observation - and I'll have to disagree with my good friend OF here - is that the plastic ring with stir tool, PonG, and Oil adapter did seem to have come straight from a mold injection and not really finished well.


The battery life seemed to be very good from what I've seen so far. Last night I did 7 full 13-minute sessions and the battery level indicator still read 2 bars. I didn't time the amount of time to recharge it, but it was not a very long time, that I can say.

Basically I'm with Stu on the parts I've tried (haven't tried the WT or oil cup). I too think it's performance will be handicapped with lower power and smaller load (?) than Cloud but I too think it holds it's own against similar vapes like DV or Puffit vapor wise and it has the edge on taste I think in that it doesn't taste 'stale' to me. At least not as much. Any will work, but put them side by side and I think most guys would go with VB for taste and ease of vapor extraction.

I'm sorry I seem to have given the wrong impression about the plastic pieces. I think the material is first rate, they are a bit crude (but functional), IMO not a disqualifying point. There is both flash and some scratches, but that might not happen on production units.

I'm also very impressed with the battery life. It seems like 'two loads per bar' is a good guideline.

I too did a 'let it run and see what happens' test. I did mine a little less formally than the Brother. I loaded it up, checked the battery, thought I'd turned it off, threw it in my shirt pocket and went to make lunch figuring I'd vape it afterwards. While making lunch and sitting down to eat I kept smelling the vape, and got to thinking 'this thing smells more cold than Iolite does hot...'. Not quite. By the time I realized what I'd done, it was basically spent.

I think it's really straight conduction, no convection about it. I also think the stir knob does a bang up job of evenly roasting the goods.

It's continuing to impress me. Still got a ways to go, of course.

OF

 

[JCat]

Here's a crazy thought ... what about a PonG type adapter for where the mouthpiece goes so we could still benefit from the stir knob while using a WT.

 

[charliedontsurf]

Thanks for the great review Stu, it looks like a cool design which, like the original Vaporblunt, would benefit from greater heat retention. IME the VB v.1 was best used in a sipping-like manner where you take many small tokes which allows the heater to recover, rather than the long, slow draw which gives best results in most convection-centric vaporizers. That quirk may have transferred over to the VB2, where its water tool makes the drawback more obvious.

 

[OF]

IME the VB v.1 was best used in a sipping-like manner where you take many small tokes which allows the heater to recover, rather than the long, slow draw which gives best results in most convection-centric vaporizers.

I agree, but for a different reason. I think it's straight conduction, all the cold air drawn in is working against you (unlike convection). Like with MFLB you want enough air flow to sweep the vapor out, but want to introduce as little air to heat as possible. If you honk hard on the sucker and then try a sip the results are poor. I'm not so sure it's because the heater is cooled off (I don't think it is all that much) but the load itself gets cooled off by the air (low specific heat in the herb) and the conduction path for the heater to reheat involves going through the SS mesh which is not only a poor conductor of heat but is contacting the wall of the heater only very minorly. I think the heater wall stays more or less at the set temperature?

OF

 

[Stu]

Hey Stu ... thanks for the review! ... still kinda' really looking for that vs. Solo comparison though as that is a good benchmark for many of us as far as how well a unit performs (despite it's flaws ... the Solo still seems to be my go-to portable)

Edit: And I'm so used to having the water cooled vapor from my Cloud, that on Thanksgiving weekend (Canadian Thanksgiving), I brought my Cloud's HT with me and my Solo to my sister's cottage and that's what I used most often ... would walk outside with the Solo and Hydratube and have a quick session before going back in. (so it seems obvious that this might fit the niche for me that my Solo doesn't quite)

I still prefer the Solo for use with water toys over the VB 2.0.

 

[JCat]

Well that's good to know ... I always feel like my cheeks are going to implode with the Solo so was hopeful but now not sure ... hmmm. Might have to wait for more reviews or my impulsive spending might get the better of me ... we'll have to wait and see!!!

 

[Dreamerr]

This sounds like a pax that is not as pretty but less cleaning issues and a smaller bowl size. Does that about cut it?

 

[mmenzie]

This sounds like a pax that is not as pretty but less cleaning issues and a smaller bowl size. Does that about cut it?

good question!!!!! i would like the VB 2.0 vs PAX comparison as well

 

[OF]

good question!!!!! i would like the VB 2.0 vs PAX comparison as well

Glad to do it, PM me and I'll tell you where to send my new PAX to....

OF

 

[charliedontsurf]

This sounds like a pax that is not as pretty but less cleaning issues and a smaller bowl size. Does that about cut it?

In the best case scenario I think it's a slightly less discrete, equally Star-Treky portable which has a PonG (plastic to 18.8mm female) adapter and includes a very cool WaterTool. Again, best case, it's a little portable VXC-a-like with accompanying optional water filtration. I really find the included PonG great. The Pax, Solo and other vapes should come with similar accessories to broaden their appeal in my opinion.

But, the Pax has gained a reputation as a heavy hitter and a quality unit. It seems to have no trouble producing good vapor and even milking glass, as many videos in its thread show. I consider the Solo to have roughly equivalent performance from what I've seen of the Pax, although I have not used it personally. At this point I don't think we can say the same praise about the VB 2.0 because Stu's unit couldn't keep up with the airflow demands of filling the water tool. Heat retention seems to be an issue.

OF is not a cloud chaser by nature, and I'm guessing that might mean that he's blessed with a relatively low tolerance. I'm also guessing that this means that the aforementioned heat retention issue might never really come up for him, while it might wreck the experience for others. I think he's likely more of an Lwien (.025 purple days stems) than a SlightlyMedicated (full cloud bowls in a few hits).

Hopefully TRVB, who is a very nice guy from my own personal experience when testing the first Vapor Blunt, will let us know that Stu's unit isn't performing up to snuff, and OF might say his unit is performing heroically after a little more experimentation. If however Stu's unit is performing up to par, then I think an upgrade to heat retention might be a must for the demands of high tolerance users - who, let's face it, are going to be the majority of the interested customers - this is a 400$+ MSRP vaporizer with an included water tool.

 

[Pcpvapors]

Did the you both receive the showerhead WT? Stu I dig the review man I cannot wait to get this thing!

 

[OF]

OF is not a cloud chaser by nature, and I'm guessing that might mean that he's blessed with a relatively low tolerance. I'm also guessing that this means that the aforementioned heat retention issue might never really come up for him, while it might wreck the experience for others.

No need to guess, my tolerance is no doubt less than yours. But there's no 'blessing' about it, it's where I put it (and keep in check). This is medicine. At least to me. You take it when needed, sometimes when you don't feel like 'smoking'. To me it makes good sense not to run my tolerance up, my choice I think. Taking ever larger doses of any drug is basically against my health philosophy I guess?

As to "the aforementioned heat retention issue" if you're talking about it getting hot to hold with extended use, I tested for that and reported what I found. Otherwise, I guess I missed the issue?

Did the you both receive the showerhead WT?

Yes, I think so. That is the one I have looks like the picture.....

OF

 

[charliedontsurf]

I meant nothing negative by it OF, I should show such moderation. Sometimes I get caught up in how ridiculously delicious vaporizing can be and I enjoy the ritual of it all, so I no doubt enjoy one too many sometimes. Medicine crosses over into recreation for alot of us, including many who would look at such a high end and specialized vaporizer.

Speaking broadly, when I talk about "heat retention," I mean the ability of the vaporizing unit to keep the herbal material up to vaporizing temperature while the user is inhaling off it, to include an aggressive 30 second vapor rip that some are inclined towards. I think that heat retention is especially important in a vaporizer with an included high quality water tool, as anyone who is into that sort of thing probably also wants to see it filled with some relatively substantial amount of visible vapor.

Stu's video makes it look like the initial 1 or 2 seconds of draw off the Watertool had very decent vapor density which then diminishes, which is how my VB1 behaved. It's just how my Iolite and Wispr behaved too. It is my reserved opinion that, and only for my purposes, they were somewhat underpowered conduction-centric vaporizers which had trouble retaining enough heat to remain satisfying when exposed to the airflow of human inhalation. I found that they're best used in a sipping fashion as this helped diminish that fault. It's not really practical or desirable to "sip" at a watertool, and if the current heater can't satisfactorily milk the very tube that it ships with then a VB 2.1 might well be in order. Hopefully Stu's unit is just not performing up to snuff, and this vape is all we're hoping it is. I also don't mean to say that all my experiences with the VB1 equate to the VB2, nor that the VB1 was a bad vaporizer.

 

[JCat]

I'm considering buying one just to compare to the Solo and Pax from someone who uses those 2 as primary portables and a cloud as a primary home unit ... I'm pretty sure that puts my usage inline with what a lot of potential customers for this unit would be ...