Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Systematically Improving Espresso: Insights from Mathematical Modeling and Experiment

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by simonsk8r View Post
    I can see how it would help cafes immensely, 25% less coffee used..
    I'm a whole lot more interested on how or more to the point if, it will improve whats in the cup.

    Sounds like the research was conducted by accountants, certainly not coffee lovers.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by level3ninja View Post
      I think it will slow the price increase from bean to cup. The bean price will still increase as good coffee gets harder to grow, but it will either slow the follow on effect of increased cost of a cup of coffee, or it will mean more profit for green bean distributors, rosters, and/or cafes. Given that past performance is the best indicator for future results I can't help but think it'll be the green bean distributors taking the bulk of it, roasters getting a little and cafes a tiny bit, with the farmers and end consumers seeing almost no benefit at all.

      The only way I can see it changing for the consumer is if wage growth continues to fall behind inflation then fewer people will be able to afford fewer cups of coffee, leading to pressure on the cafes to reduce costs, which will send some pressure back up the supply chain, and who knows, it might do something if the overall profit is greater with a lower margin on more product.
      Ah right, gotta admit I know very little on this side of it all, but sort of get it. Interesting isn't it, the massive flow on effect..

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Yelta View Post
        I'm a whole lot more interested on how or more to the point if, it will improve whats in the cup.

        Sounds like the research was conducted by accountants, certainly not coffee lovers.
        YES, me too mate, I'm very much the same, if it causes a detriment in the cup, may as well just switch to instant coffee in cafes.

        From what I've read it's achieved the same if not better results in the cup, and more consistency in that, but I wonder just how perfect those conditions have to be. As we know the ol perfect lab conditions vs real world dichotomy...

        It's tickled my interest as I'm a fan of progression in the coffee world. But not just for the sake of it, but to genuinely look into improving and extracting the best stuff from the bean, and more consistently. Often there are many fads and phases that were just little twists which might look like progression on the surface, so some discernment is required. But with progression there can often be trade-offs too I guess.

        Ah and Michael Cameron (barista in the project) is cerrrtainly a coffee lover :P. But whether the primary intention was to save money I'm unsure. Or whether it is a legitimate attempt at improve the quality and consistency of that quality.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by simonsk8r View Post
          But whether the primary intention was to save money I'm unsure. Or whether it is a legitimate attempt at improve the quality and consistency of that quality.
          Rest assured, the underlying motive is improving the bottom line, charge em more whilst giving less of what they are paying for, once again, we are paying more and more for less and less.
          Click image for larger version

Name:	More for less..jpg
Views:	1
Size:	9.0 KB
ID:	751376

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by BobSac View Post
            I don't know how to describe my shots other than undrinkable or dirty water.

            It took a while to dial in a grind and grind time to output anything at 6 bar, about 10-12 shots, then I tweaked to improve taste but couldn't anything remotely espresso like.

            Now that's not a bad thing if you like coffee that is closer to tea than espresso, but I couldn't achieve crema or any body/texture like an espresso.

            This type of extraction may be best suited to people who like American coffee, Nescafe, cheap pod coffee that gushes, pour over etc. where you have essentially coffee flavoured water.

            I'm not one to yuk someone's yum, I'm just saying I couldn't achieve anything that resembled an espresso using 6 bar with my setup (HX + Macap M7D).

            I'm admittedly not a fan of anything that doesn't taste like the traditional Italian espresso, full body, rich, slightly bitter with substantial crema.

            I'm only one guy with one setup that used one batch of coffee, a lot more testing could be done, I'd like to try a coffee made with this method of it does indeed taste like espresso and I'd be keen to know how it was achieved because saving money and improving taste? Who doesn't want that
            Hi BobSac,

            Thanks for the further info. My non-dialled-in experience was probably similar. I think we have to be fair to the authors - they very clearly say that the 15g/15s shots will be weak.

            It seems like the 15s shots also really clean up the bitterness, which seems pretty important to you. So the 15s shots don't sound like they're going to be great for you.

            The article doesn't really give us much to go on on what, if any, taste improvements to expect. There are some vague references to overextraction being bitterness.

            Personally, I guess for me, I'd call it a win by reference to the hardest to extract and most distinctive flavours. So like everyone in their coffee journey has had the experience of picking up a bag of something like a washed yirg and it says on the back of it "bergamot and jasmine" and you roll your eyes and say "I've never tasted that; yeah right, that's pretty fanciful." But there are lots of coffees that actually have this quality. If you cup them, you can taste it. But it's super hard to get it into an espresso. This flavour disappears super quickly at darker roast levels and longer roast times. I've found that the best way to get it is exactly with low dose, fine grind, but I haven't experimented with fast extraction times. The 15s shots that I tried weren't better in this regard; they seemed to be pretty ... bland.

            Now we need to be further fair to the authors. The 15s shots are only one part of the regime. They say they will be weaker. They say people may like more complexity. They offer two further solutions.

            There's the alternate way to get greater consistency, being the top regime in figure 6. Have you tried that? That is where you go a bit coarser so that you get a faster flow rate with a higher extraction, but you cut the shot shorter to get the same extraction. This, they point out, will be much higher in concentration, but it will be quite short. I don't know that they gave great directions on how to do it; I guess it's probably something like 15g dose, 20g yield in like ... 25s ... 20s ... really I have no idea; I'd need to look at the paper again and measure the EY. They do say it will be really short; maybe it's as low as 15g dose, 15g yield.

            Hendon et al then further say that we could try to get back the complexity of the reference shot by blending together the super short shot and the super fast shot.

            Not sure how much more I'll experiment with this; I've got a tonne of other coffee experiments on, so I might leave these to others for the moment.

            Cheers,
            Luca

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by LeroyC View Post
              Don’t forget that the primary driver here isn’t just improving flavour/quality. In fact that’s probably secondary. People like Matt Perger and Scott Rao among others have frequently spoken about the fact that they want to find a way to reliably increase espresso extraction so that coffee shops can use less coffee but still achieve at least an equal result. In many cases the result in the cup may actually be better - I’m sure we’ve all had some pretty awful, bitter coffee from cafes. The main benefit for the coffee shop is reduced cost, but there’s also a greater potential benefit of the coffee industry using less coffee. While there’s no shortage of commercial grade coffee globally we know that the specialty grades are starting to feel some pressure from changing weather and climate conditions. So it makes sense that as this market grows we look for ways to become more efficient in the use of high grade coffee, at least for the foreseeable future until someone works out how to grow high grade coffee at low altitudes (it will happen eventually). So I’d suggest that if you can and want to experiment with these parameters at home go for your life, but all other home baristas should just keep doing what they’re doing.
              G'day LeroyC

              Ironically, we have had over a decade of reducing the amount of coffee and equaling / improving the flavour with no nasty side effects. If anything, the flavour improves.

              Traditional baskets / grinders rarely manage 16% extraction ratio without turning to quinine (i.e. unacceptably bitter). A grinder with an even particle spread and VST baskets instantly boosts that to over 23+% (some, like Perger, say 25%, perhaps "under ideal conditions"). So for the same flavour whack you can use about 1/3 less coffee. When I set up cafes "post VST" I split the difference - I switched them from 20g "standard baskets" to 15g VST baskets which added about 10% more flavour and used about 25% less coffee. IMO the VSTs always had a clearer, more defined and just outright better flavour - no trade offs there.

              I was lucky enough to access a medical laser refractometer and a set of automated rapid mechanical sieves (at a 3D stainless steel medical engineering workshop) a while back and the 16% and 23% figures quoted are not only published by a few aficionados, they are the actual measurements I consistently achieved over a weekend using quite a range of different coffee gear. There was only one 16% extraction from a standard "better quality" basket (the over-rated "EQ / HQ /EP precision baskets" and "good for the time" Synesso's to be precise) that was drinkable - all the others were too bitter (and noticeably more murky in flavour). Realistically it was only the 15% extraction shots that worked consistently.

              That was also the weekend I discovered why I had never liked conical burr grinder shots - they all generated a "twin peak" particle spread with too many unwanted fines. Presumably I am sensitive to the extra bitterness compared to the flat burred Major.

              Over to VSTs: I fluked one 24% extraction (Mazzer Major) that worked. Most other 23+% shots didn't work well until we switched to sieving all the conical grinder shots - then they came up to the Major. Meanwhile the Major jumped up another 1% - not worth the expense (a mere few 10's of K's for the sieves!) and the time / effort / hassle of sieving it. Later I switched to Mahlkoenig Vario gen2s and it did bump the extraction up a "minute tad" compared to the Major. I doubt it would hit 25% extraction anyway.

              Anyway, enjoy your cuppa whatever that is. If you are running VSTs with a naked p/f and a decent grinder, you are also using less coffee to obtain your fix... a win - win.

              TampIt

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Yelta View Post
                Rest assured, the underlying motive is improving the bottom line, charge em more whilst giving less of what they are paying for, once again, we are paying more and more for less and less.
                [ATTACH=CONFIG]24943[/ATTACH]
                ... if you have decidedly said so.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Yelta View Post
                  I'm a whole lot more interested on how or more to the point if, it will improve whats in the cup.

                  Sounds like the research was conducted by accountants, certainly not coffee lovers.
                  Not sure about that Yelta, it seems Michael Cameron at St Ali Barista is part of the driving force behind this. I don't know him but I assume he's a lover of coffee. I'll be really interested to see if St Ali stakes their reputation on the quality of this approach by implementing it in the cafe. Matt Perger used to preach the use of a course grind with a nutating tamp but has now stated that he was wrong. Whilst Perger used this approach at the World Barista Championship, as far as I know St Ali never implemented it.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by ArtW View Post
                    Not sure about that Yelta, it seems Michael Cameron at St Ali Barista is part of the driving force behind this. I don't know him but I assume he's a lover of coffee. I'll be really interested to see if St Ali stakes their reputation on the quality of this approach by implementing it in the cafe. Matt Perger used to preach the use of a course grind with a nutating tamp but has now stated that he was wrong. Whilst Perger used this approach at the World Barista Championship, as far as I know St Ali never implemented it.
                    Yeah I have a feeling they may do it, they were very excited about it in the email they sent me! Haha.. But still curious as to Perger's thoughts, may have a look on Barista Hustle. Just know how big he was on as fine a grind as possible.

                    Yeah I was there in the audience when he used nutating. I think his later thoughts on nutating was moreso not only the difficulty in learning it perfectly, and being able to consistently do the same thing over and over, but also in a commercial cafe environment. Having everyone do nutating exactly the same way to get the same or similar result in espresso is a big ask, so I think he ditched it only for that reason. Otherwise he says it's an awesome technique that really does work.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Regarding bean counting, financial incentives, etc, probably worth pointing out that that would have everything running the other way. St Ali and Sensory Lab have a thriving wholesale business. Their customers dropping to 15g instead of 20g for the same beverages would presumably be a much bigger revenue loss than whatever savings they might make in their own cafes. Whether it tastes good or not, I don't think you can seriously accuse the authors of putting profit over taste. If you want to make money in your wholesale business, might not be a bad idea to "upgrade" your customers to bigger VST baskets for "free".

                      One thing that's yet to be explored is how roast interacts with all of this. If you cup a darker roast and a light roast under the same conditions, you usually end up with the darker roast tasting bitter pretty quickly and the light roast tastes good. Would be interesting to know how the long/fast shots affected dark roasts vs light roasts. Certainly more standard 15g dose/40g yield at normal flow rates might leave you with a delicious light roast shot and a very aggressive dark roast shot.
                      Last edited by luca; 26 January 2020, 09:40 PM. Reason: New last sentence, first paragraph

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        I think that they have really moved the goal posts here in this study which is interesting.

                        We are talking lower pressure at 6 bar, 30 mls I think in 7-15 seconds. The normal variation among CS people is to brew a smaller volume for an 'acceptable' time of say 25 seconds.

                        I am going to try this on the Wega although I can't change pressure. I'll need a smaller basket for my conical Robur. The Robur produces shots that tend bitter. If it works it would make espresso making easier in that a coarser grind is easier to achieve with more grinders. 15g shots in the normal pressure and time range can be finicky which is why I never bothered.

                        It has me interested enough to experiment. They are saving both time and coffee which is a double win for a commercial environment. Obviously the taste has to be good too which is subjective.
                        Last edited by wattgn; 27 January 2020, 07:50 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by wattgn View Post
                          I think that they have really moved the goal posts here in this study which is interesting.

                          We are talking lower pressure at 6 bar, 30 mls I think in 7-15 seconds. The normal variation among CS people is to brew a smaller volume for an 'acceptable' time of say 25 seconds.

                          I am going to try this on the Wega although I can't change pressure. I'll need a smaller basket for my conical Robur. The Robur produces shots that tend bitter. If it works it would make espresso making easier in that a coarser grind is easier to achieve with more grinders. 15g shots in the normal pressure and time range can be finicky which is why I never bothered.

                          It has me interested enough to experiment. They are saving both time and coffee which is a double win for a commercial environment. Obviously the taste has to be good too which is subjective.
                          Let us know how you go mate, am curious! I may try it when I get a decent roast, but I'm also unable to alter pressure, which I have a feeling may be an important factor in all this...

                          But see how ya go!

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            We need Ghostbusters!

                            Taaammmpiiit

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by wattgn View Post
                              We need Ghostbusters!

                              Taaammmpiiit
                              G'day wattgn

                              Hey, if you want me to bring the DE1 to Woodvale again for a CS meet, you only (**cough**) have to organise it at a time I am free...

                              TampIt

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by TampIt View Post
                                G'day wattgn

                                Hey, if you want me to bring the DE1 to Woodvale again for a CS meet, you only (**cough**) have to organise it at a time I am free...

                                TampIt
                                Well the DE1 is a great machine for testing stuff like this out on. I sold the Mignon and have the Atom 60 on order but tried one quick shot shorter time with the Robur to 30mls. It did make a nicer shot actually for my tastes. Without a refractometer it would be hard to know what the extraction was.

                                Another meet would be good. I will think about it.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X