New Generation Showdown: Darwin vs ProVari

[ClayK]

Drat... I was in the process of finalizing my written review on the same subject.... I wrote an initial Darwin writeup, but was in the process of doing a follow-up to that since some things have changed my impressions over time, especially when compared to other PVs I've been tinkering with. I put that follow-up on hold when I got my ProVari and started a writeup on that. As I was finishing that writeup, I thought it would be nice to do a side by side comparison between the two. Since you've already done that.... don't know if I'll finish it.

Suffice to say, I agree with pretty much everything you said. My only comments that deviate relate specifically to the Darwin and the arm design. It is both good and bad, at least in my opinion and for a variety of reasons. I'm still not a fan of the single point of failure, regardless of how beefy it is. The mechanics of it still make it a fulcrum/pivot point that carries with it a significant design risk that you don't see in a tube/box with a well. Combine that putting a tank mod on the Darwin isn't as fluid (aesthetics) as a tube mod with the same. Those are the reasons I'm not jumping up for joy about the design and only about that specific thing. In the area that the Darwin really shines is the quick ability to change on the fly the output. The more I play with the ProVari, the more the menu becomes easy to navigate. However, this does not overcome the fact that I actually have to navigate somewhere to accomplish something that I can achieve on the Darwin with a simple dial movement. Do I have a favorite? I think both are solid, but they each have a pro/con that need to be evaluated for individual requirements. In a lot of respects, the Darwin wins out in the pro/con matchup.

I completely agree with the fit/finish portion. The ProVari is a very good looking mod. The machining is hands down better than the Darwin.

 

[PlanetScribbles]

I'm just wondering why the battery needs to be fixed in the Darwin? I don't do stuff without user replaceable batteries.

 

[ClayK]

I'm just wondering why the battery needs to be fixed in the Darwin? I don't do stuff without user replaceable batteries.

The battery in the Darwin is user replaceable. This is a common mistake that seems to have made it's way into the forums. The battery is not proprietary either. It's a simple LiPo battery. The same type is used in RC applications and many others. There are websites that sell these cells, it's not like they are hard to find. Regardless, the longevity of a LiPo cell is probably longer than you will have the device to begin with. However, should the need arise that the battery need be replaced, it's pretty easy to solder two wires in or send it in. It's more likely that the battery will not need replacement for years.

 

[P-Dub]

I am a bit surprised that no one has made mention of one glaring drawback of the Darwin. While it may be a small issue to some it is one that should otherwise be noted for MAP tank users. It won't prevent me from getting one though as I also own a Provari and will dedicate that unit to tank use. For people who love the MAP tank and similar tanks you are not able to fully articulate the arm to the off position and place in the pocket. If you are enjoying the obvious extended battery life, it is a natural marriage of functionality and convenience to enjoy the extended juice life of a MAP tank. This is where the problem arises. They are not compatible in their function together. One must remove the tank to articulate the arm fully down and in the off position to facilitate pocket use.
Something that should be noted!

 

[Credo]

I am a bit surprised that no one has made mention of one glaring drawback of the Darwin. While it may be a small issue to some it is one that should otherwise be noted for MAP tank users. It won't prevent me from getting one though as I also own a Provari and will dedicate that unit to tank use. For people who love the MAP tank and similar tanks you are not able to fully articulate the arm to the off position and place in the pocket. If you are enjoying the obvious extended battery life, it is a natural marriage of functionality and convenience to enjoy the extended juice life of a MAP tank. This is where the problem arises. They are not compatible in their function together. One must remove the tank to articulate the arm fully down and in the off position to facilitate pocket use.
Something that should be noted!

I'd like to see a map tank fit a pocket without a PV attached to it...let alone with it....

MAP and Darwin are very compatible....you still get over 160 degress of variable-positioning on where you'd like to have your tank relative to the body of the Darwin. Extend it fully open, and it's no less pocketable than a tube mod. True, it wouldn't be turned 'off' in any of these positions, but the LCD could run for years and not drain the battery...and the likelyhood of pressing the Darwin button on accident is very low due to the shape of the thing. It'd have to be a really tight pocket to punch the button...you'd break/spill your tank long before an accidental button push occurred.

 

[JonahNM]

But if you get The Fog and an ego adapter it works like a charm on the Darwin. It's about the same length as the Darwin, it looks very nice, and holds 3.5ml of juice.

 

[Credo]

My only comments that deviate relate specifically to the Darwin and the arm design. It is both good and bad, at least in my opinion and for a variety of reasons. I'm still not a fan of the single point of failure, regardless of how beefy it is. The mechanics of it still make it a fulcrum/pivot point that carries with it a significant design risk that you don't see in a tube/box with a well. Combine that putting a tank mod on the Darwin isn't as fluid (aesthetics) as a tube mod with the same. Those are the reasons I'm not jumping up for joy about the design and only about that specific thing.

I could run my car without tires and that'd be four less 'potential failure points'....but the ride would not be as good, and among the benefits of the tires, are the fact it also keeps the rest of the car from shaking itself apart.

Shocks in a car...also another 'failure point'. I could take those out too....now we're without tires and shocks....the ride is REALLY bumpy now...and the axle and such are more prone to break from the rougher ride.

The arm actually reduces the possibility of something 'breaking' by a considerable amount.
In a tube/box mod with a well...you can also have a failure at the point the atty screws on. In fact, it's more likely to break off or bend without this such arm than with it.

Really, it's a gooseneck like feature: If it weren't for the arm...I'd probably not like the Darwin as much.

 

[Credo]

I'm just wondering why the battery needs to be fixed in the Darwin? I don't do stuff without user replaceable batteries.

Making a battery box with contact-connectors and some kind of door in the Darwin would offer little benifit other than driving the cost of production way up, adding something else to 'rattle/shake/break/loose' to the design.

You can get the battery and replace it yourself if you like. In fact, if you really wanted you might could even find a better yet compatible battery that'd fit (batteries do get a little better every year). The Darwin is not complicated to open...regular phillips head screws. The battery is soldered in, which I personally would rather have at the kinds of amps that are being dealt with in this kind of device. It makes it both safer, and better performing.

All said, unless the battery is a dud....it should last around 3 years or more. If it is a dud battery...it's most likely to fail within' the first year...and can be replaced for free at that point.

 

[ClayK]

I am a bit surprised that no one has made mention of one glaring drawback of the Darwin. While it may be a small issue to some it is one that should otherwise be noted for MAP tank users. It won't prevent me from getting one though as I also own a Provari and will dedicate that unit to tank use. For people who love the MAP tank and similar tanks you are not able to fully articulate the arm to the off position and place in the pocket. If you are enjoying the obvious extended battery life, it is a natural marriage of functionality and convenience to enjoy the extended juice life of a MAP tank. This is where the problem arises. They are not compatible in their function together. One must remove the tank to articulate the arm fully down and in the off position to facilitate pocket use.
Something that should be noted!

I run my Darwin with a MAP tank. If you want to close the arm to the off position, you need a gooseneck (TwistedTexas has one that works out well).

I could run my car without tires and that'd be four less 'failure points'....but the ride would not be as good, and among the benefits of the tires, are the fact it also keeps the rest of the car from shaking itself apart.

Shocks in a car...also another 'failure point'. I could take those out too....now we're without tires and shocks....the ride is REALLY bumpy now...and the axle and such are more prone to break from the rougher ride.

The arm actually reduces the possibility of something 'breaking' by a considerable amount.

Really, it's a gooseneck like feature: If it weren't for the arm...I'd probably not like the Darwin as much.

I take it you don't do any systems analysis or engineering work? Comparing tires and shocks to a rotating arm, is not the same thing. I pointed out the things I liked about the arm and the area that I thought was not so great. Simple theory on leverage will explain in more detail why it is a distinct failure point. Quite simply, it doesn't reduce the possibility of breaking anything, other than the arm itself. Understanding how a fulcrum works will highlight why this is a distinct and specific characteristic that is only attached to the Darwin.

Bottom line, I like the Darwin and I prefer it to other PVs. However, it's not perfect. Neither is the ProVari. Frankly, I haven't found a "perfect" PV for me yet.

 

[Credo]

I run my Darwin with a MAP tank. If you want to close the arm to the off position, you need a gooseneck (TwistedTexas has one that works out well).



I take it you don't do any systems analysis or engineering work? Comparing tires and shocks to a rotating arm, is not the same thing. I pointed out the things I liked about the arm and the area that I thought was not so great. Simple theory on leverage will explain in more detail why it is a distinct failure point. Quite simply, it doesn't reduce the possibility of breaking anything, other than the arm itself. Understanding how a fulcrum works will highlight why this is a distinct and specific characteristic that is only attached to the Darwin.

Bottom line, I like the Darwin and I prefer it to other PVs. However, it's not perfect. Neither is the ProVari. Frankly, I haven't found a "perfect" PV for me yet.

It is not meant to be the same thing, it is a relative analogy that does apply.

Drop Darwin...if it hits on or near the arm area with an atty/carto/tank attached and open, there is large chance the arm will absorb impact and swing instead of break or bend.

Same thing without the arm...the atty breaks/bends, or the connector breaks/bends.

I don't know why analysts and engineers would ignore these probabilities.
In fact, they don't....
If they did...we'd still drive cars with no tires and shocks.

 

[ClayK]

It is not meant to be the same thing, it is a relative analogy that does apply.

Drop Darwin...if it hits on or near the arm area with an atty/carto/tank attached and open, there is large chance the arm will absorb impact and swing instead of break or bend.

Same thing without the arm...the atty breaks/bends, or the connector breaks/bends.

I don't know why analysts and engineers would ignore these probabilities.
In fact, they don't....
If they did...we'd still drive cars with no tires and shocks.

Here's why I will highlight why your analogy is wrong. The "feature" is an on/off mechanism. This can be accomplished in a variety of other ways. However, the tradeoff is a risk identification of a fulcrum point where the atty arm mates with the main body. You can't debate the science on it, it's science and fact. A fulcrum or a leverage point is undeniable. Trying to debate how an item would break on impact when comparing a tube/box (anything else really) or an arm (Darwin), you would have to understand how leverage works. I'm getting the idea that you don't.

I own both a ProVari and a Darwin. In the time that I've owned the Darwin, the arm has gotten loose. Since my occupation is engineering, specifically design and sustainment, I tend to focus on these types of things. I've done my time turning wrenches and if during the course of my daily job I can reduce the amount of time that someone else has to turn a wrench to maintain or reduce the amount of support required to operate a product that I'm involved with designing or supporting, I try to impact that. Your analogy is only applicable in the sense that there is a risk tradeoff analysis portion with regards to tires/steering columns/whatever. Typically, what's done during a design phase is if the requirement can be met in another means thereby eliminating the risk or significantly reducing it, that changed design moves forward. Simply put, if the purpose of the swing arm was just as an on/off switch, that could have been accomplished by a switch or making the wheel go all the way in a direction to turn off. But, someone felt that the arm design was less of a risk, so be it. It still does not negate it as a risk though. The fact is, the risk is there and it's important to note. The swinging arm does not add a bold new feature that puts it light years ahead of the conventional competition. What does put the Darwin ahead, is the adjustable wattage and the long battery life/capacity. Those are it's core features and really what's important.

 

[garyinco]

Frankly, I haven't found a "perfect" PV for me yet.

I think I have, almost. It's my Reo Grand. If I could fit it with LiPo performance, I'd be ready for the rapture tomorrow.

 

[Credo]

The 'feature' is nearly 180 degrees of choices for position of the atty/carto while in use, so you can hold the Darwin in different ways and at different heights for comfort. The design also lets them make the central chassis a better fit for the hand, so it has yet another level of practicality.

I could care less about the on off switch....It's the gooseneck like flexibility of the arm that is a central selling point to me. Take that away, and I'd find it too long and cumbersome to use.

I have 60 lbd 200 year old doors with hand hammered brass hinges. Far less quality/percision materials than this Darwin, with far more stress and weight on them. They've opened and closed dozens of times a day for over 200 years and still going strong. Also, got little flimsy cell phones and laptops over 5 years old each. They open and close dozens of times a day...no problems with whatever this leverage thing is that you feel makes the arm a bad idea based on your engineering and physics expertise..........

 

[ClayK]

I think I have, almost. It's my Reo Grand. If I could fit it with LiPo performance, I'd be ready for the rapture tomorrow.

I love my REO Grand as well. If I could some how get my Darwin, ProVari and REO to mate.... I would truly enjoy their offpring. I like the power regulated application of the Darwin (as well as the battery), the machining (fit and finish) of the ProVari and the feed system of the REO (although fit and finish on the REO is solid as well).

 

[Credo]

The 'feature' is nearly 180 degrees of choices for position of the atty/carto while in use, so you can hold the Darwin in different ways and at different heights for comfort.

I could care less about the on off switch....It's the gooseneck like flexibility of the arm that is a central selling point to me. Take that away, and I'd find it too long and cumbersome to use.

In fact, I wish it would swing back even further...to at least 260 degrees....it's be a lefty's dream then.

 

[garyinco]

I love my REO Grand as well. If I could some how get my Darwin, ProVari and REO to mate.... I would truly enjoy their offpring. I like the power regulated application of the Darwin (as well as the battery), the machining (fit and finish) of the ProVari and the feed system of the REO (although fit and finish on the REO is solid as well).

The DarVaReo, I like it!

 

[ClayK]

The 'feature' is nearly 180 degrees of choices for position of the atty/carto while in use, so you can hold the Darwin in different ways and at different heights for comfort.

I could care less about the on off switch....It's the gooseneck like flexibility of the arm that is a central selling point to me. Take that away, and I'd find it too long and cumbersome to use.

I suppose if your arm were some how encumbered or handicapped, I can see how this would make a difference and I would agree with you. I tend to adjust my PV angle depending on the PV or the atty/feed system. Moving my physical arm 1-2" in a direction to gain comfort or position the tip instead of rotating the atty arm to a particular position isn't a game changer. To use your car analogy, power windows are a game changer since I can open and close all the windows from one central location. My voice command feature is not a game changer from the aspect of the following: by the time I've pushed a button to enable the voice link and then tell it the correct command, I could have just as easily reached to a similar location to push a button to perform the action (like turn up the heat or turn on the AC). That's about the only place it's applicable. I do find the voice input for my cell phone through my car system much more user friendly and easier. However, that's apples to oranges. The reality is it's a minor adjustment and more akin to telling the car to turn on the AC or turn off the AC, which can also be accomplished by pushing a button. Sure, the one on the steering wheel is easier to reach, but the one on the center console is also equally easy to reach. In that case, it's a preference that may be liked but not necessarily a game changer. However, dialing out on the phone requires me to get the phone, open it (maybe) and cycle through the numbers, call and then talk. Pushing a button on the steering wheel to tell it to call someone significantly reduces the steps. Now, since we are talking HFE/HSI, the benefit for you might be great, but in the big scheme of things, I'm not seeing the benefit as being a game changer. Sure, it's a neat thing, but at the risk and cost of creating a fulcrum point. Again, there is a risk-reward ratio that needs to be considered. Does the usability increase so much that it mitigates the probability of an increased risk in operational failure?

I should do a video on how loose the arm is on my Darwin.... I love the device, but not highlighting the area of concern would do an injustice to anyone else considering it without providing them all the information. If the only information that was ever released on any device only highlighted the good or the features, there would be a lot of disappointed people after getting the device. "Why didn't you notice this/that?" "Why didn't you talk about this feature or this fault?" I highlighted the area that I thought was a concern, note what I said and how I said it:

Atomizer Connection/Swing Arm
I like the concept but I don't like the application/function. The connection itself is sturdy, but a swivel point in any application is a weak point, especially when attaching an arm. This weak point becomes a fulcrum and consequently, a high-failure point (perceived). Since I don't want to punish my PV by subjecting it to stress or undue failure testing to confirm this perception, this is merely an educated opinion. Recessed well is a tested and proven design on other mods that would probably find a nice home on any future versions of the Darwin. This would eliminate the need for the arm and requirement the shifting of components internally, but could be achievable. The swing arm, however, gives the Darwin it’s unique appearance and probably it’s second most recognizable physical characteristic (the primary being the shape of the device, overall). I will note later, in the “likes” what I do like about the arm functionality and why I do like it. Again, I think this is a distinctive design feature that really sets the Darwin apart, but it does have a tradeoff.

Shape/Size/Materials
Above I commented on some things about the build that I didn't like, I'd also like to cover some things about the build that I did like. Other reviewers have commented how this PV could hammer in nails, this is an accurate assessment and I feel I would not be doing the device justice without at least mentioning it. Overall, minus the previously noted “dislikes”, I felt the build and material selection was solid. I have absolutely no fears about dropping the device, other than on the atomizer arm (as noted). It should also be noted that the swinging arm should also be considered a thing that I liked. I like feeding systems, but I also drip. Since this ritual requires a stationary platform to apply the liquid (at least without making a mess), I felt the swing arm facilitated that ritual. I can place the Darwin on its back on the desk/chair arm/lap/etc and swing the arm perpendicular and use one hand to drip. Granted, I can also do this with a tube mod or a box mod, but the greater surface and lower center of gravity due to the shape of the device make this ritual much easier than those alternatives. One of the things that I really do like about the PV is that it requires no adjustability and its maintenance requirements are pretty sparse.

So, to a degree I agree with your "it's a nice thing". I however think that it comes with a tradeoff and that tradeoff is an area that requires a user to remain vigilant. That's the only thing I've been saying all along... The only thing we can't seem to agree on is the entire theory of leverage/fulcrum as it relates to the arm. You'll just have to either experience how it's applicable on your own or read up on it. I never claimed that the arm would summarily snap off, what I did say was that it is a perceived failure point. This can be manifested in a variety of ways. Undue pressure on the arm can cause it to snap (yes, I said it here) or tear out of the body, or it can deform the metal port surrounding where the arm goes into the body (thereby causing it to wobble). Since I can personally attest to the arm wobble, it would appear that my perception on it being a weak design area is proven true. Perhaps it's a combination of the material used and design or maybe it's one of those reasons alone without the other. The fact remains, while I love my Darwin, the arm is loose and this is a direct result of either materials or leverage (the atty arm).

Does that mean I wouldn't recommend a Darwin to someone else? I would recommend it highly.

 

[Credo]

The swinging arm does not add a bold new feature that puts it light years ahead of the conventional competition. What does put the Darwin ahead, is the adjustable wattage and the long battery life/capacity. Those are it's core features and really what's important.

Probably true, but were it not for the folding arm, I wouldn't keep this thing. It would make it far less ergonomic.

Most common for me is the atty at around 90 degrees...then I can hold the Darwin more out to the side (kinda like a tooth brush, but angled more downward, and with palm away from the body). In this position I have the top of my hand nearest my body and use my index finger to push the button. Left-handed...angle is more straight down, palm inward, and I press with index finger. That angle also makes it easy to set the Darwin flat on its back when not in use (as compared to trying to balance it end up). For me, this is good for when I'm 'sitting down'. When 'standing up' I tend to like it fully extended or at a slight angle.

The arm may not be some amazing wiz bang technological advance, but the reason I bother to go on in endless debate over this because more than one person has tried to make this out to be a 'design fault' of the Darwin.

It's one of the best things about it!
Because of the arm there are more ways you can handle the device when in use...more possibilities for button operation...and the list goes on.

One could do a video for this as well....due to the arm, it's possible to use it at more angles...over or under handed...with several choices in button fingers. Fully extended like a tube mod...there's not as much flexibility.

I'd like it even more if the swing arm would go to at least 360 degrees...then you could get even more options...with both hands.

 

[ClayK]

Probably true, but were it not for the folding arm, I wouldn't keep this thing. It would make it far less ergonomic.

The arm may not be some amazing wiz bang technological advance, but the reason I bother go on in endless debate over this because more than one person has tried to make this out to be a 'design fault' of the Darwin.

It's one of the best things about it!
Because of the arm there are more ways you can handle the device when in use...more possibilities for button operation...and the list goes on.

So, you're a form over function?

 

[Credo]

So, you're a form over function?

Added more to the 'form' in an edit the earlier link #38

If being able to hold and use the device more ways, in more hand positions, is not function....I'm not sure what is.