Rebuildable Dripping Tank Atomizers (RDTAs) – Specifications
| RDTA Tank |
Diameter |
Tank Capacity |
Height |
Price |
| Wotofo Profile RDTA – Best RDTA of 2024 |
25 mm |
6.2 mL |
52.7 mm |
$ 35.95 |
| Vapefly Galaxies MTL Squonk RDTA |
22.20 mm |
2 mL |
28.50 mm (without drip tip) |
$ 22.43 |
| Thunderhead Creations Tauren Max RDTA |
25 mm |
4.5 mL |
41 mm |
|
| Vandy Vape Pyro v3 RDTA |
24 mm |
4 mL |
37 mm |
|
| Vandy Vape Mato RDTA |
24 mm |
5 mL |
44.6 mm |
|
| Steam Crave Aromamizer Ragnar RDTA |
35 mm |
18 mL 28 mL (depends on configuration) |
58 mm 75 mm (depends on configuration) |
|
How do RDTA’s Differ?
The Aromamizer series of tanks by Geek Vape popularized the term “RDTA,” making it hard to explain what an RDTA is. You see, in most cases, an RDTA is an atomizer with a tank underneath. It works almost precisely like an RDA would if its juice well was extended downwards to increase its juice-hosting capacity. That’s why, for example, the Mjolnir RDA tip-toes between the RDA and RDTA terms, since it’s first and foremost an RDA with no extra tank underneath, but it’s juice well is as large as a tank’s. Does that make it an RDA or an RDTA? The terms are somewhat blurred.
As we saw with the Aromamizer Ragnar, this family of RDTAs flips their “anatomy” upside-down. So, the phrase “they’re like RDAs with their well replaced with a tank underneath” isn’t the best way to describe them. If you look strictly at the coil chamber, you could say they all share another point, “the wicks pull the juice upwards from a well like an RDA.” But doesn’t the Kayfun type of deck do the same thing? Aren’t GTA tanks like the Siren similar in their wicking?
All this “bleeding” of features and structure from one type of tank into another makes their classification into strict groups harder. We believe this is part of the reason RDTAs aren’t as popular today. Their definition can only be somewhat vague, at best, based on individual characteristics, like:
- RDTAs are usually tanks with large coil chambers that can accommodate large coils like typical RDAs.
- RDTAs, in most cases, have a tank underneath and huge juice channels (compared to RTAs) that help with wicking.
- RDTAs used to offer as much airflow as RDAs back when most RTAs were restricted in that regard, but this has changed lately with ultra-airy RTAs.
- Their deck is usually as comfortable as an RDA’s, unlike more cramped RTAs that have to fit their deck in a coil chamber underneath a chimney, inside a tank filled with juice.
- Their deck is closer to the mouth, like an RDA.
- They can hold as much liquid as a typical RTA, if not more.
- Unlike an RTA, you can drip on them like with an RDA, but with most of them, you can’t drip as much as you would on an RDA.
- You usually install the wicks in an RDTA like on an RDA, hanging and touching the bottom of a well or in a tank.
Why Choose One Over an RDA?
RDTAs are better than RDAs as far as ease of use goes since you don’t have to continuously re-drip to vape. Unfortunately, having a deck as spacious as an RDA’s and a tank as large as an RTA’s also means that they’re the largest of the bunch, looking like giants next to typical RTAs and RDAs.
Just like if you had just dripped in an RDA, they are easier to leak than RTAs if you turn them to their side or upside-down, so you can’t carry them in your pocket. Many stuff cotton in their juice holes as a solution to this problem, but this approach chokes their wicking abilities and puts limits on their performance.
They also share another significant problem with RTAs: unlike most RDAs made almost wholly out of metal, RDTAs use glass or plastic tanks like RTAs. Those can break after a nasty drop, rendering the atomizer useless if you don’t have a spare replacement tank.
Why Choose One Over an RTA?
RDAs are known to excel in flavor and vapor production compared to RTAs, as well as being much more comfortable to build thanks to the ample space of their decks. RDTAs are no different, so they tend to offer better flavor and produce fluffier clouds compared to an RTA. Their very design and structure help them perform better for restricted lung hits and up to wide open airflow, using large coils.
It’s for the same reasons that they tend to perform worse as mouth-to-lung atomizers. MTL vaping demands restricted space in the coil chamber and very targetted and tight airflow. There are exceptions to the rule, with newer designs like the Galaxies MTL Squonk RDTA catering to the MTL crowd.
Conclusion
As we said initially, this isn’t a guide where there’s a clear winner among our choices, because they’re all different. The “top performer” changes based on what you prioritize, so the Vandy Vape Mato, that this humble writer loved, might not be your cup of tea.
If you like the smooth, different feeling mesh offers when vaping, you should pick up the Profile RDTA. As a bonus, it works with “typical” coils as well. Still, the primary reason to choose it over the alternatives is strictly its mesh support. For wire coils, we believe the other contenders fare better.
For single-coil lovers, if you like relatively restricted lung hits, look at the Mato. For more airflow and dual coils, turn to the Pyro. If you prefer mouth-to-lung vaping, your only real choice is the Vapefly Galaxies MTL Squonk – the alternatives don’t work as well with restricted airflow, nor is it as targetted to the center of small-ish coils like in Vapefly’s RDTA. Finally, the Aromamizer Ragnar isn’t an MTL atomizer, but can perform equally good in the broadest range of airflow settings than the other RTDA tanks, from (very) restricted Direct Lung hits to fully wide open. But it’s clunkier and more complicated than the other options, and a true behemoth that will look ridiculous if you don’t pair it with an equally large (and heavy) mod.According to how you prefer your vapor and the priority you give to ease-of-use and versatility, the final choice is yours. Do tell us which you chose and why, in the comments section below.
