Perforated Tubes or Ramback Elite?

[Alist]

Since I smoke ultralight, I have so far primarily stuck with Zig-Zag Light, Gambler Light and even tried a box of Top Light tubes. Since no company produces an ultralight tube, I figured the perforated tubes were my best bet.

However, I don't understand what the deal is with the filters on the tubes. The filters are AWFULLY short on all three tubes. I have noticed after smoking in these tubes, the filter is almost black. This is not the case when smoking premades and certainly isn't the case with a tube such as Ramback Elite, which has a much sturdier and longer filter. After smoking a stuffed Ramback Elite tube, the filter is just barely discolored. I am seriously thinking about switching to Ramback Elite, because the filter seems to be much higher quality.

I am interested in hearing the opinions of others regarding either perforated tubes, the severely short filters in Zig-Zag, Top & Gambler Light and particularly any opinions from those who have used the Ramback Elite.

[dz]

I dont smoke lights so take this for what its worth. But if those filters are turning black, doesnt that mean they are catching more tar and nicotine? I agree that the Rambacks are more pleasant to smoke due to the sturdier filter as they dont get soft and mushy, which I find happens on all the 15-17 mm filters. I believe the perfs also act with condensation making them a more effective design for capturing the nasty stuff. Again, I m just guessing here, and have no experience with light tubes.

[AusD]

The filter turning almost black is unusual (dark to light brown discolouration is usual), but doesn't mean it's filtering out more tar...to turn so much more black would mean it would be filtering out a hell of a lot more tar (to impossible levels), so it will be simply the particular construction and materiel the filter is made from...possibly even reacting chemically to the tar. If you are noticing this extr discolouration on the surface of the filter then that is because it's shorter and less dense than the Ramback Elite, so the tar isn't trapped as immediately (higher up inside the filter element) as with the longer, higher density filter. You will find that a denser filter traps more tar than a lighter density. That's science.

The higher density filter element won't show as much colour change on the surface as more of the tar will be trapped deeper inside and nearer the tobacco end of the filter element. If you cut open the filter after smoking through it you will see that properly.

Perforations (laser punched holes) don't make it at all "healthier" or better at filtering tar and harshness, they merely mix a little more air into the smoke to give the impresion of it being less harsh on the throat. A higher density filter will actually remove some of the harshness rather than mask it with more air. Mixing air into the smoke rather than using a heavier filtration waters down (..or airs out!) the flavour from your tobacco blend.

Hope this helps.


PS, personally I'd go straight for the Ramback Elite when I want to soften a harsher blend as, aside from everything else mentioned above, they are simply better quality tubes (materiels and construction-wise).

[dz]

I thought the perfs cool the smoke more and increase the precipitation by condensation of some of the heavier particulate matters in aerosol (tars) and water, thereby increasing filtering capability. Some researchers suggest that this might make for a "healthier" smoke due to the fact that the remaining particulates in aerosol are smaller and easier for the body to expel. This may also result in more nicotine delivered per mg of tar.

In lieu of cutting holes either by machine or laser, some manufacturers opt for porous paper to achieve the same effect. Of course dilution with air smooths the smoke out too. I agree that the Rambacks are great tubes as well. YMMV

[AusD]

I thought the perfs cool the smoke more and increase the precipitation by condensation of some of the heavier particulate matters in aerosol (tars) and water, thereby increasing filtering capability. Some researchers suggest that this might make for a "healthier" smoke due to the fact that the remaining particulates in aerosol are smaller and easier for the body to expel. This may also result in more nicotine delivered per mg of tar.

If so it seems highly unlikely that it would perform those tasks to any real degree - negligible is the word. That sounds like the kind of bumf cigarette companies say to make a product sell better, along with light tobaccos that often have been treated with so many extra chemicals that it utterly cancells out any benefits.

I personally never like perforated filters for a light smoke as it thins out the smoke by reducing the draw also. A denser filter element, i'd think, would remove more tar much more efficiently than perforations, and the Ramback Elite I find does this without giving a stiff draw like a lot of denser filter elements do.

I never kid myself that any kind of cigarette is "healthier" however, I choose a "light" tube to remove harshness from a stronger tobacco. It's still smoke in your lungs. Best to just accept that, if not stop smoking.

[dz]

If so it seems highly unlikely that it would perform those tasks to any real degree - negligible is the word. That sounds like the kind of bumf cigarette companies say to make a product sell better, along with light tobaccos that often have been treated with so many extra chemicals that it utterly cancells out any benefits.

I guess I made it sound more complicated than it really is, all it means is that the receiving end of the filter gets wet and filters more effectively. It sure seems to work too as even with 15mm filters the exiting smoke contains measurably less tar and nicotine. I believe the original poster was referring to light RYO tobaccos and not chemically concocted pre-mades. Worthy of note too is that one of the articles I paraphrased from was a Canadian health study and I doubt they have any interest in propagating any notions of a safer cigarette.

I never kid myself that any kind of cigarette is "healthier" however, I choose a "light" tube to remove harshness from a stronger tobacco. It's still smoke in your lungs. Best to just accept that, if not stop smoking.

I agree totally, and I think the term "healthier" is misleading at best. A more accurate term might be 'potentially less dangerous'. But if it makes people happier to smoke em that way, have at it. I prefer FF smokes myself, and smoke tobaccos without excess filtering. But if I did smoke lights, I d most definitely go with the Rambacks anyways. YMMV

[AusD]

Fair enough, but of course it's all down to taste. At the end of the day the best advice is simply to try each kind and decide which you prefer. One of the ways to test which filters tar best is to stuff one of each kinds of filter tube with the same tobacco, draw a full mouthful of smoke without inhaling and blow it out through a cotton wool ball. The one which causes less discolouration of the cotton wool filters more tar. Simple.

My original statement still stands however, the more visible discolouration of the filter element doesn't necessarily mean it has filtered more tar, only that the tar particles filtered out have travelled further through the filter element. This is very likely when dealing with a lower density filter as the tar gets trapped higher up inside a denser filter element.

As I said of course, I prefer the higher density filter as I don't like the thinning down of the smoke and flavour with air from the perforations. I also think that the Ramback tubes are better quality than any perforated filter tubes around.

You can, however, make your own perforations in a filter tube using a very fine needle. I have heard of little gadgets for making perforations also but don't have a clue where you can get these.

[Slap Maxwell]

If the filter density was different down the length of the filter element, your assertion that what you see at filter tip has "travelled further" (I'm assuming you to mean "travelled further relatively unimpeded" as the element length and the force of the draw would determine how far it has traveled through the element) might make sense. However, since most filter elements I have ever seen have been equally dense the entire length of the element, then any particular particulate (as it were) would likely have the ability to travel the same distance under the same drawing velocity -- especially if that distance included the smoke departing the end of the filter element and travelling into the mouth of the smoker -- so long as it doesn't hit a wall, so to speak; and that wall is a bit of filter.

This means that one would reasonably expect to see "tar" accumulation at a filter tip regardless of density (to a point, of course) so long as the medium being filtered is being drawn through it. And the amount of visible tar at the end of a filter element would depend upon the density of the filter...which is proportional to the filter's ability to function as a filter. This is true because for particulates to be removed from the smoke which is passing through, they must collide with something, thereby giving up their energy being used for travel. The more dense a filter is, the more opportunities exist for those particulates to collide with a bit of filter.... And the amount you would see at the end of travel would represent only a small amount of what was trapped closer towards the beginning of the element's length.

Long story short...more visible tar at a filter element's tip IS indicative of the filter element's ability to remove tar.

[AusD]

No, because the filter tips he was talking about were far shorter than the 20mm high-density tip on the Elite. If they had been the same length less discolouration would be seen on the very end of the tip and in general you would find a higher concentration of tar deep inside the high density tip.

Proper science needs experiments. I have just done two, and recommend them to you.

1.Take a Ramback Elite and a Ramback Prestige and smoke the same tobacco through each to the same point.

Cut open the filter elements and inside you will see a very noticeable difference. The higher density tip has much darker discolouration higher up near the tobacco end and less near the mouth end. The lower density tip has lighter discolouration higher up near the tobacco end and a similar discolouration near the mouth end.

More tar has been trapped earlier on in the high density element.

Shorten the length of either and you will see more discolouration at the mouth end.

2. Take a fine needle and punch a line of tiny perforations around the outside of the tip, just puncturing the element. After smoking and opening it up I see no real difference in tar build up to the unperforated ones.

It did, however, lighten the smoke somewhat by mixing more air into the smoke. Not to my enjoyment.

[Slap Maxwell]

Apparently the way the phrase was worded caused some bit of misunderstanding: "more visible discolouration of the filter element doesn't necessarily mean it has filtered more tar... ." A good many variables are at play (drawing style, flow, etc.) as well. I see what you meant was more visible discolouration at the filter element tip; and I can agree with that for most filter elements.