# V60 Recipes



## Hairy_Hogg

Just wondering if people out there stick to a standard ratio/recipe for their V60 brews or if you ever mix it up.

I tend to go for a 12g - 200g - 2.20 which is normally around 1.8 on my Feldgrind (might adjust up or down a little on the grind to achieve 2.20) as per the Perger method, but recently I was trying some prototype roast beans and discussing the flavour in the cup with the guy who roasted them and when we discussed the flavours I was tasting versus what he was he suggested I tried his ratio of 17g - 250g in about 2.30. There was a significant (positive) difference in the cup going to his ratio that made me think about how I approach my V60's and maybe I should mix up the recipe and not just the grind.

As not many roasters advertise a V60 recipe for their beans this is obviously going to be a bit hit and miss going forwards, but I think I might ask in future when I order beans if there is a preferred V60 recipe for that specific bean.

Interested to see how others approach this, do you have a standard recipe that you stick to and just adjust the grind to achieve a specific time or do you mix it up?


----------



## MWJB

The ratio sets the target strength (17/250g = 68g/l if you hit an equivalent extraction your coffee was much stronger, if you hit a low extraction the coffee would have been maybe about the same strength, but a lower extraction changing the taste balance), brew time might vary from a very soluble bean to a less soluble bean. You could increase your dose & still use 200g of water replicate a similar effect, use more brew water when you want a bigger cupful.

200g is good weight as it is easily divisible by lots of numbers, to normalise your pour (e.g. 100g every 45 sec, 50g every 30sec, 40g every 25sec, 25g every 15sec etc.)

The recipe is more than just the brew ratio, recipes assume a good flavour balance. For me a good recipe is one that I don't have to change much to make all the beans I try taste good. I do this mostly by sticking to the same ratio & grind, just changing pour regime & brew time if necessary.


----------



## jlarkin

Sorry to add a slightly different question, was wondering this the other day. Is 200ml - or thereabouts - a better size for an 01 size v60, or would you expect that'd still be good in the 02?


----------



## jonbutler88

I use a 02 size, and I've had very nice cups of 12g -> 200ml. I probably wouldn't go any lower than that, but I never need to anyway.

My go to recipe is 18g -> 300ml, start with a ~30g bloom and stirring to ensure grounds are wet, then top up ~100g. I then do many slow pours to keep the slurry level at the same level until 2:30, with the draw down done by 3:30. Works for me, and I always get a tasty brew from it. Grind size is usually 7-8 on the EK (turkish burrs), depending on the bean.


----------



## MWJB

jonbutler88 said:


> I use a 02 size, and I've had very nice cups of 12g -> 200ml. I probably wouldn't go any lower than that, but I never need to anyway.
> 
> My go to recipe is 18g -> 300ml, start with a ~30g bloom and stirring to ensure grounds are wet, then top up ~100g. I then do many slow pours to keep the slurry level at the same level until 2:30, with the draw down done by 3:30. Works for me, and I always get a tasty brew from it. Grind size is usually 7-8 on the EK (turkish burrs), depending on the bean.


Although, these 2 recipes look somewhat different, they're pretty much the same, same ratio & a similar flow rate.


----------



## jonbutler88

Yep, that's the point right? 6g/100ml, and try to get all out in 3:30, possibly adjusted a little for smaller or larger brews.

More related to the OPs question, I guess I found a lot less need for experimentation in V60 (or brewed in general?), as the result is generally very good. Because of this I don't really have recipes, just a set of sane guidelines that I follow as closely as possible (without obsessing) each time. I tend to mess with the grind size if I want to adjust the strength, but that's about it.


----------



## Drewster

jonbutler88 said:


> ......My go to recipe is 18g -> 300ml, start with a ~30g bloom and stirring to ensure grounds are wet, then top up ~100g. I then do many slow pours to keep the slurry level at the same level until 2:30, with the draw down done by 3:30......





jonbutler88 said:


> ........ a set of sane guidelines that I follow as closely as possible (*without obsessing*) each time......


ROFPML!!

On what other forum/walk of life could those two statements be made with a straight face.....

We weigh doses on scales reading to .01 of a gram...

We time things...

We adjust pressures... & pressures...

all "without being obsessive!!!!"


----------



## PPapa

Hey, as long as you don't have a calibrated spoon, it's not obsessive.

I have difficulties explaining why I keep scales in the locker at the lab...


----------



## jonbutler88

Haha yeah, adjusted for "coffee geek" levels of obsessiveness.

I was referring to things like not having a strict pouring regiment (e.g. 50g every 30s), and not caring if the dose is 18.1g instead of 18.0 or if my pour overruns by 10s. You'll notice lots of "~" (approximately) in my post to show this. IMHO it's a nice balance between getting consistent results and being obsessive over the brewing process.


----------



## Missy

So guys, where am I going wrong? I've read this and the coffee wiki guide. I think I'm doing everything right. 15g and 200g water, 10-15g "bloom" (?) Then doing the swirly business. Then drinking what tastes spot on extraction wise, but is just "wet". Should I just admit I'm an espresso kind of girl, or is there a way to beef up the flavour without losing the taste? I'm concerned I may be missing something as the instructions here all seem to involve an option to dilute to taste...

Edited to add. It's about 2:30 from start of full pour to finish and 30secs with damp grounds


----------



## nufc1

Missy said:


> So guys, where am I going wrong? I've read this and the coffee wiki guide. I think I'm doing everything right. 15g and 200g water, 10-15g "bloom" (?) Then doing the swirly business. Then drinking what tastes spot on extraction wise, but is just "wet". Should I just admit I'm an espresso kind of girl, or is there a way to beef up the flavour without losing the taste? I'm concerned I may be missing something as the instructions here all seem to involve an option to dilute to taste...
> 
> Edited to add. It's about 2:30 from start of full pour to finish and 30secs with damp grounds


Which beans are you using Missy? Since you've been loving espresso, maybe the beans you're using are more suited to this (maybe blends or darker roasts?). In my experience, these sort of beans taste thin and watery through a pour over method such as V60. The paper filter removes much of the 'body' associated with espresso based drinks.

V60 is suited to more fruity and acidic (in a nice way) beans, maybe roasted a tad lighter than typical espresso-based beans, so the 'roasty' flavours are minimised. This allows the juicy and fruity flavours to come through


----------



## Missy

Thanks @nufc1 that could explain it! I've been using Raves mocha Java. I've got their hakuna matata coming so I will try again with those.


----------



## MWJB

Your brew ratio is fairly high (13:1), you'll need to grind pretty fine. Maybe try reducing the ratio (15:1 or 17:1?) &/or grinding finer.


----------



## Missy

When you say reduce ratio you mean add more water? I've not changed from espresso grind so it's pretty fine already.


----------



## nufc1

MWJB is correct, usually 12-13g per 200ml is what i usually go for. I also like to stir to wet all of the grounds as quickly as possible during the first 50ml water (bloom stage) to ensure a more even extraction, although I know not everyone does this. Personal preference I suppose.


----------



## Missy

So less is more? I'd assumed 15g would produce more strength than 12-13


----------



## MWJB

Missy said:


> So less is more? I'd assumed 15g would produce more strength than 12-13


Both 15:200 & 12:200 could produce exactly the same strength if the grind for 15:200 was too coarse, but the 12:200 would have a more developed flavour.

A well developed cup at 15:200 would be a pretty strong cup of filter coffee by most folks standards (outside European, Norwegian & American typical strength preferences).

If you're still at espresso grind, and it's still watery (bitter too perhaps?) your grind may be too fine and you might be getting a weak & uneven extraction? After a point grinding finer stops the cup from developing properly and extraction drops again.


----------



## Missy

No not bitter at all. That's what's strange. It tastes right, just wet.


----------



## MWJB

Missy said:


> No not bitter at all. That's what's strange. It tastes right, just wet.


Make a shot & dilute the shot to 11:1 with hot brew water & compare?

You have lost me a bit with the "wet" descriptor, do you mean weak, or sour & making you salivate?


----------



## Missy

Weak. Watery. Maybe I should find a non espresso drinking Guinea pig to tell me if they think it's weak.


----------



## MWJB

Your 13:1 brewed coffee will end up at around 11:1 in the cup, this is the strength range you are aiming for, so if you brew a good tasting shot, dilute to the same proportion (11:1) and you'll get an idea if this kind of strength is worth pursuing for you.

Even folk who enjoy espresso might find a well extracted brew at 13:1 a bit 'sturdy'.


----------



## malling

If it is watery you'll need to grind coarser, you shouldn't grind espresso fine as that is way to fine a grind for filter coffee.

Bloom should either be approximately double the grams you use or 50g in total, and then stir it like a bandit

How you want to brew it afterwords is an individual thing, but try finding a method that result in an even flat bed.

I just tend to use a constant circular pour after the 30sec bloom. For me grinds need to be entirely covered with water in the entire brewing process, if grinds get exposed it can lead to under extraction of the exposed grinds and over-extraction of the grinds constantly covered with water.


----------



## Missy

I'm almost out of beans, though it's tomorrow I'm away I think I'll try and find caffeine on the go, and try again once my hakuna matata beans land. Ill try a coarser grind and a good stir.


----------



## PPapa

Are you planning to use the Super Jolly for both espresso and V60? Changing grind settings for both will not be fun, me thinks.


----------



## Missy

PPapa said:


> Are you planning to use the Super Jolly for both espresso and V60? Changing grind settings for both will not be fun, me thinks.


Yeah that has occurred to me. I have a super rubbish thing lurking at the back of a cupboard somewhere. Or I might just give up on brewing altogether for now.


----------



## Hairy_Hogg

After suffering from a bad abyss and a course of strong antibiotics that between them seem to have screwed my taste buds up completely I am trying to recalibrate my taste buds to my V60.

@MWJB Do you advocate throwing the liquid that drops through from bloom? I have just had a couple of brews where I have done this and it certainly seems tastier.

Also MWJB, any chance of a V60 video on this thread, be interested to see you in action so to speak as the go to person for good brew information


----------



## MWJB

@Hairy_Hogg I have discarded the bloom drips in the past, if you can do it repeatably, then I see no reason why you shouldn't continue. My Aeropress brews typically have this happen. However, remove too much and you will greatly reduce mouthfeel. If you get your drip brews bang on, they will taste good without discarding the bloom drips.

I bloom with 1.5x the dose weight, stir quickly after the bloom water is added, I get less than a gram of drip through typically (13.5g dose, 20g bloom water).

I have thought a lot about doing a V60/pourover video (all the paper filter, manual drip brewers essentially work the same way) but I don't think there is a lot of value in it - there are hundreds of videos out there already & still lots of folk with issues. I am working on a manual drip method, reducing variables, but am only halfway through testing it, when I'm happy with it there will be a video (a few weeks).

It's more useful to look at individual brews than to have a video that folk then try and convert to their practice. Can you tell us your brew weights & current method & times (bloom, when & how much you pour, total brew time)? An average over a few brews would be good (plus taste assessment of course).

You shouldn't be trying to recalibrate your tastebuds to a brewer. V60 should be weaker than espresso, maybe acidity less forward, but taste of a given bean should be recognisable.


----------



## Hairy_Hogg

Sorry, when I say recalabrate my taste buds I mean nothing tastes the same any more, it is weird and I am back to the dentist in a couple of weeks time.

I was getting tasty brews before this happened about 2-3 weeks ago but with the same recipe I always used I am not getting good tasting brews anymore. I must admit I have never had a sweet brew, only tasty brews.

I tend to stick to light - medium roast beans and kept a spreedsheet of tasting notes and grinder settings per bean and method within bean type but not for brew recipes which I have now started.









This was my last two brews, the first was my original go to recipe for a 12g V60

Next will be the same pour regime with a slightly tighter grind going from 2.2 to 2

ETA: No idea why when I replaced the spreadsheet due to OCD in the post it is now in twice...


----------



## MWJB

Hairy_Hogg said:


> Sorry, when I say recalabrate my taste buds I mean nothing tastes the same any more, it is weird and I am back to the dentist in a couple of weeks time.
> 
> I was getting tasty brews before this happened about 2-3 weeks ago but with the same recipe I always used I am not getting good tasting brews anymore. I must admit I have never had a sweet brew, only tasty brews.
> 
> I tend to stick to light - medium roast beans and kept a spreedsheet of tasting notes and grinder settings per bean and method within bean type but not for brew recipes which I have now started.
> 
> View attachment 21420
> 
> 
> This was my last two brews, the first was my original go to recipe for a 12g V60


Cool, love spreadsheets.

Your brew times are on the short side...but it's a Kenyan (could be high solubility?), is the dryness a smoky, slightly sickly dryness, or more of a tannin like astringency? Under/low side of normal extractions can still be astringent, over can be more smoky...but maybe starting sweet if you have just exceeded the sweet spot.

If you exclude the 30s 25g bloom from the 2nd brew, we are looking at 1:40 brew time with reasonable flow. I'd keep recipes with a discrete bloom time (2nd row) separate from those with just pulse pours, as this will make it easier to pin down brew times.

Normally, I'd suggest stretching the brews out a bit (finer grind 2:15 for the first recipe, 2:45 for the 2nd, both +/-15sec). Maybe try that with the 2nd recipe then compare to a 25g 30sec bloom with all the remaining brew water poured in one go? See if that is sweeter, without becoming weak & strawy?


----------



## Hairy_Hogg

Agree, brew times are shorter than I am used to.

If you asked me yesterday (and over the last few weeks) I would say there was a definite chemical taste to the dryness. Only started the Kenyan yesterday, before that I was working through a kilo of Foundry Rwandan which started great before the tooth/gum problems and the antibiotics.

I would say that the dryness is more of a tannin like than smokey.

Going to try the second recipe again next with the tighter grind as per my previous post.

Should add using Volvic for the brews as SE London water is harder than Danny Dyer. Brew Water is 97. Paper are Hario Japanese. Bloom discard is after 10 seconds of stir and the discard is about 20g.

ETA: Going to stop the discard, I never used to do it and it is making this too much of a faf. Daughter just killed taste buds by making me try a homemade chocolate biscuit so next attempt will be this afternoon.


----------



## Hairy_Hogg

Latest results, not sure why the pic comes up so small though.


----------



## MWJB

Keep going a little finer, see if you can eke it out another 10-15secs.

I hope those scores aren't out of 10?


----------



## Hairy_Hogg

MWJB said:


> I hope those scores aren't out of 10?


They are out of 10


----------



## MWJB

Hairy_Hogg said:


> They are out of 10


Hopefully they're going up & staying that way


----------



## Hairy_Hogg

Early morning coffee, still not brilliant.


----------



## MWJB

Hairy_Hogg said:


> Early morning coffee, still not brilliant.
> 
> View attachment 21428


Aha! Your times are decimal? Might be easier to just record them in seconds, or have 2 columns - one for minutes, the other for seconds, multiply the minutes by 60 & add to the seconds and the spreadsheet will give you total brew time in seconds, you can also have the option to deduct bloom time for "flow time".

I think you still may be able to stretch out the time a little.

How hot is your water at pour?

Are you finishing each cup?


----------



## Hairy_Hogg

Kettle is heated on gas, turned off when I grind after wetting the paper and is 97 degrees measured with my thermapen. Heating the kettle on gas means it holds the heat quite well through the pours. Can easily convert total time to seconds.

I am drinking all but last cm in cup.


----------



## the_partisan

What is the preference vs continuous to pulse pouring? I used to do pulse pouring but now I seem to get consistently better results doing a 25g bloom, and at 30s pouring rest of the water in slowly, with a total brew time of 2:00 at grind setting F2.0. I also tried same recipe but at F1.12 which drained at 2:20, was also nice but tasted more bitter. I also tried pulse pouring [email protected]:30 and [email protected]:00 which drained at 2:35 and tasted somewhat dry and bitter and not as pleasant as the other two.

These are with light roasted Colombian beans, using Dutch filters.

Coincidentally it seems with my feldgrind after being in use for a while the grind sizes at a certain setting have changed dramatically, and I now have the settings several numbers lower than when it was brand new.


----------



## MWJB

If you stick to continuous pouring, or pulse pouring certain amounts you will be forever adjusting grind. I don't have a preference for the pour, I aim for a target brew time and adjust pour to suit, may have to adjust grind a little for 'outside the ball-park' coffees.

Your brew times don't mean a lot without weights.

Sometimes you can push through the first signs of dryness/bitterness & hit a sweetspot.


----------



## the_partisan

It was with 12g/200g, missed that information. But I never change my dose anyway. By the way, how do you calculate brew time if you're brewing 24g/400g? If I'm aiming for 2:00 including 30s bloom for 200g, should I be targeting 3:30 for 400g?


----------



## MWJB

the_partisan said:


> It was with 12g/200g, missed that information. But I never change my dose anyway. By the way, how do you calculate brew time if you're brewing 24g/400g? If I'm aiming for 2:00 including 30s bloom for 200g, should I be targeting 3:30 for 400g?


You're bloom is 25g for 30sec, you'll get a little drip through in that time, but just a few g. We'll ignore that for now. So you're left with 90seconds for the remainder of the brew. If the bed holds twice the dose weight at the end of the brew, you'll have about 176g in the cup. 176g/90sec = 1.96g/sec.

For 24:400 I wouldn't expect the brew to flow twice as fast for a similar extraction, given your technique. Maybe just a little faster, maybe 2:00-2:20 plus bloom?

This is suggested to try to normalise your larger & smaller brews...generally speaking they both look on the fast side to me, I'd be looking for more like 2:45 from the 12:200 & 4:30 for the 24:400.


----------



## the_partisan

MWJB said:


> You're bloom is 25g for 30sec, you'll get a little drip through in that time, but just a few g. We'll ignore that for now. So you're left with 90seconds for the remainder of the brew. If the bed holds twice the dose weight at the end of the brew, you'll have about 176g in the cup. 176g/90sec = 1.96g/sec.
> 
> For 24:400 I wouldn't expect the brew to flow twice as fast for a similar extraction, given your technique. Maybe just a little faster, maybe 2:00-2:20 plus bloom?
> 
> This is suggested to try to normalise your larger & smaller brews...generally speaking they both look on the fast side to me, I'd be looking for more like 2:45 from the 12:200 & 4:30 for the 24:400.


Hmm for some reason with these beans, I found the taste at 2:00-2:10 a lot nicer than at 2:45. I think to aim for similar taste at 2:45, I would need to go coarser and do pulse pouring to slow down the brew.


----------



## MWJB

If you prefer the taste at 2:00-2:10 then stay there. Stretching to 2:45 will necessitate keeping the coffee & water in contact for longer and inevitably a higher extraction, whether you do it by grind, pour, or a combination of both.

You might be looking for something different in the coffee to me, if you know how to hit what you like, keep doing it.


----------



## the_partisan

MWJB said:


> If you prefer the taste at 2:00-2:10 then stay there. Stretching to 2:45 will necessitate keeping the coffee & water in contact for longer and inevitably a higher extraction, whether you do it by grind, pour, or a combination of both.
> 
> You might be looking for something different in the coffee to me, if you know how to hit what you like, keep doing it.


Curious what's your personal recipe for V60? (Dose, Feldgrind grind setting, bloom time, pouring regime, total brew time..).

You should probably make a sticky with recipes for different brew methods, would probably be really useful for a lot of people!


----------



## MWJB

the_partisan said:


> Curious what's your personal recipe for V60? (Dose, Feldgrind grind setting, bloom time, pouring regime, total brew time..).
> 
> You should probably make a sticky with recipes for different brew methods, would probably be really useful for a lot of people!


The trouble with writing instructions is people tend to interpret them, or focus on irrational/irrelevant & minor points...they virtually never follow them.

A typical V60 recipe for me would be:

Feldgrind at 2+0 with Japanese white 02 paper.

13.2g of coffee.

220g brew water, at boil when poured into a preheated pouring kettle (use the preheat water to rinse the filter). 220g total because after the bloom 200g is easy to break down into pulses.

Bloom with 20g for 30s, stirring thoroughly as soon as bloom water is added.

Look for a total brew time of 2:40 +/-20sec

A very soluble coffee might hit 2:20 with one pour after bloom

A less soluble coffee might be 3:00 total with 4 pours of 50g every 30sec.

In between would be...in between.

Pours are dropping straight down on to the bed, not lingering in any one point too long, spiralling out to wash down walls & create a gentle spin (or one stir at the surface after final fill).

194-200g in the cup.

I stick to the same total weights each time, so after a few brews you are familiar with where you should be, not faffing about amounts & timings. E.g. familiarise yourself with the options - 2x 100g every 45sec, 4x 50g every 30sec, 6x 33g every 20sec. The pour regime is flexible.

I'm typically aiming 20.5%EY +/-0.5%, or for as much richness & sweetness as can get (this is the most critical part of what we might call the recipe - the intended result), if I overshoot (21-22%EY) and still get sweetness with maybe a little smokey dryness, then I'm still happy so long as it doesn't kill the cup (properly over-extracted coffee makes me fee ill & gives me a headache). This usually means brews are coming in nearer 3 minutes for most beans, extracting as much as I can before going over. That's what I do, whether it's right for you is up to you.

In a couple of weeks I may revise this entirely though. ;-)


----------



## Hairy_Hogg

Just tried this with some Rave Hakuna Matata beans. Tasting notes for filter (Toffee, sugary, lemon-lime, floral, melon, chocolate)

Ended up with a 186.5g of brew in the cup after a 3.01 brew time based on the 220g water, 13.2 g coffee, 2.0 on Feld (I know what you will say about grinder settings.....) with 20g + 4 x 50g approach above. Was made with Volvic, but used a 01 V60 with 01 Japanese filters not a 02 (doubt that really matters)

Tasted better than the attempts I had with this in the week (however I only use a CCD and Aeropress at work) and better than the Kenyan beans I was tasting last week. I have also noticed that overall the bad taste in my mouth has gone that I had so I am hoping this also influenced the much more positive coffee taste.

I would say it was a rich cup, with the brightness showing more as it cooled. Not really sugary. Maybe a little chocolaty but not overly so.

Definitely an improvement.


----------



## MWJB

Good news.

Your cup seems a little light (unless you are brewing with a dry, unrinsed paper filter) . Time the brew until the liquid disappears from the top of the bed. Then leave the brewer in place for 20-30sec to let drips cease, see if you can get another 10g or so (195g-ish), without adding any more brew water. There could be another 1% of your dose in that 10g which, given you will probably have a minimum of 15% in the cup worst case scenario, is a more significant increase than it sounds.


----------



## Hairy_Hogg

MWJB said:


> Good news.
> 
> Your cup seems a little light (unless you are brewing with a dry, unrinsed paper filter) . Time the brew until the liquid disappears from the top of the bed. Then leave the brewer in place for 20-30sec to let drips cease, see if you can get another 10g or so (195g-ish), without adding any more brew water. There could be another 1% of your dose in that 10g, which given you will probably have a minimum of 15% in the cup worst case scenario, is a more significant increase than it sounds.


It was a wet paper







As an aside, as I am using Volvic I tend to wet with tap water that is not boiling hot and then just use the Volvic for making the brew.

Next cup will be around 2pm to save me going caffeine mad.

ETA: Lift brewer on cessation of drips. Only managed to get an extra gram out.


----------



## the_partisan

I gave @MWJB's recipe and try 13.2g coffee ground at F2.0, 20g bloom and 2x100 pours every 30secs. The total drain was at 2:50, and the it tasted actually really nice, bit more flavourful than my previous brews at 2:00-2:10. For some reason when I did a brew before at 2:50 with pulse pouring before it tasted somewhat bitter.

How would you scale this for 2 people, since I regularly make coffee for 2? It would be 2x amount of coffee, 40g bloom, and 2x200g pours maybe?


----------



## MWJB

the_partisan said:


> How would you scale this for 2 people, since I regularly make coffee for 2? It would be 2x amount of coffee, 40g bloom, and 2x200g pours maybe?


I'd use 2x smaller cups and give them 100g each, or make 2 brews, or use a French press. 

Like I said, I stick to the same weights, but I suggest you perhaps try 26.4g:440g, Bloom with 40g for 30s, arrange pours so that brew ends around 4:40 inc. bloom time (+/-30sec).

So after bloom time...

2 pours of 200g, 85 sec apart

3 pours of 133g a minute apart.

4 pours of 100g 50sec apart.

~390-400g in the cup after drip delay.


----------



## Hairy_Hogg

196g from the Kenyans I was trying with last week so the Ecuador beans must by super soluble.



BeanCoffeeFeldGrindWaterTimeWaterTimeWaterTimeWaterTimeWaterTimeBrew TimeTotal WaterBrew WeightTasteRateRave Kenyan Thengaini AA12g2.2500 - 30s5030s1001m  1.50200Slightly fruity start, tongue dries on finish4Rave Kenyan Thengaini AA12g2.2250 - 30s5030s501m751m 30 s 2.10200Less astringent, light fruit, no sweetness5Rave Kenyan Thengaini AA12g2250 - 30s5030s501m751m 30 s 2.15200More bitter, no fruit4Rave Kenyan Thengaini AA12g1.9250 - 30s5030s501m751m 30 s 2.30200Less bitter, more body, little fruit, not sweet6Rave Kenyan Thengaini AA12g1.7250 - 30s5030s501m751m 30 s 2.70200Light fruit on first sip, brighter, more body, not sweet6.5Rave Kenyan Thengaini AA12g2200 - 30s5030s501m501m 30 s502m3.00220196Clean, bright, no bitterness, more blackcurrant8


----------



## the_partisan

MWJB said:


> I'd use 2x smaller cups and give them 100g each, or make 2 brews, or use a French press.
> 
> Like I said, I stick to the same weights, but I suggest you perhaps try 26.4g:440g, Bloom with 40g for 30s, arrange pours so that brew ends around 4:40 inc. bloom time (+/-30sec).
> 
> So after bloom time...
> 
> 2 pours of 200g, 85 sec apart
> 
> 3 pours of 133g a minute apart.
> 
> 4 pours of 100g 50sec apart.
> 
> ~390-400g in the cup after drip delay.


Thanks! What's your FP recipe incidentally? I will give that a try. I remember you steep it for 20min or so, but what grind/dose do yo use?


----------



## MWJB

the_partisan said:


> Thanks! What's your FP recipe incidentally? I will give that a try. I remember you steep it for 20min or so, but what grind/dose do yo use?


Finer than 2+0 on the Feldgrind, maybe try ~1.8? (I'm only using the Feldgrind for drip at the minute)

54g/l, big pots can take longer be stronger, leave covered until ~55-60c, don't let the plunger sit on the grounds whilst steeping (I don't fit it until the end), don't slam it into the grounds bed when you decant, hold it above the brew & pour carefully through it. Use preheated cups.


----------



## the_partisan

MWJB said:


> Finer than 2+0 on the Feldgrind, maybe try ~1.8? (I'm only using the Feldgrind for drip at the minute)
> 
> 54g/l, big pots can take longer be stronger, leave covered until ~55-60c, don't let the plunger sit on the grounds whilst steeping (I don't fit it until the end), don't slam it into the grounds bed when you decant, hold it above the brew & pour carefully through it. Use preheated cups.


I thought the general wisdom was to use higher dose for full immersion brewing, I might be wrong though. I will give this a try. What about spooning the top crust off before decanting?


----------



## Hairy_Hogg

@MWJB - If a bean is more soluble do you change the grind or add more water? TIA


----------



## MWJB

the_partisan said:


> I thought the general wisdom was to use higher dose for full immersion brewing, I might be wrong though. I will give this a try. What about spooning the top crust off before decanting?


There won't be any crust after 20 min or more. There's no "wisdom" to it, it's mechanical, you updose to get the same strength (%TDS) at, say, a 20% extraction as you would with drip, but I'm not looking for a 20% extraction with French press, more like 22-24% (1.15 to 1.25%TDS).


----------



## MWJB

Hairy_Hogg said:


> @MWJB - If a bean is more soluble do you change the grind or add more water? TIA


For drip? I don't add more water (this will make the drink weaker at a good extraction), I pour in bigger pulses (speeds up flow), if that doesn't do the job, then tweak grind as well.


----------



## Hairy_Hogg

MWJB said:


> For drip? I don't add more water (this will make the drink weaker at a good extraction), I pour in bigger pulses (speeds up flow), if that doesn't do the job, then tweak grind as well.


OK - Going to try 20 + 2 x 100 for the Ecuadors. Do you tend to tighten or loosen if larger pours do not work? (will try one thing at a time...)


----------



## MWJB

Hairy_Hogg said:


> OK - Going to try 20 + 2 x 100 for the Ecuadors. Do you tend to tighten or loosen if larger pours do not work? (will try one thing at a time...)


If larger pours (e.g. bloom then all in) are still over-extracting (sickly, smokey or pithy dryness/bitterness), loosen off grind.

Speeding up the flow should reduce extraction...whether we do it by pours or grind, or both. Whatever gets the result is good.


----------



## Hairy_Hogg

OK - 200 in the cup with 20 + 2 x 200, pour time of 2.20 (that includes drip cessation wait) - cooling now, will edit with notes



BloomPour 2Pour 3Pour 4Pour 5 BeanCoffeeFeldGrindWaterTimeWaterTimeWaterTimeWaterTimeWaterTimeBrew TimeTotal WaterBrew WeightTasteRateRave Kenyan Thengaini AA12g2.2500 - 30s5030s1001m1m 30s200Slightly fruity start, tongue dries on finish4Rave Kenyan Thengaini AA12g2.2250 - 30s5030s501m751m 30 s2m 10s200Less astringent, light fruit, no sweetness5Rave Kenyan Thengaini AA12g2250 - 30s5030s501m751m 30 s2m 15s200More bitter, no fruit4Rave Kenyan Thengaini AA12g1.9250 - 30s5030s501m751m 30 s2m 30s200Less bitter, more body, little fruit, not sweet6Rave Kenyan Thengaini AA12g1.7250 - 30s5030s501m751m 30 s2m 7200Light fruit on first sip, brighter, more body, not sweet6.5Rave Kenyan Thengaini AA13.22200 - 30s5030s501m501m 30 s502m3m220196Clean, bright, no bitterness, more blackcurrant8Rave Hakuna Matata13.22200 - 30s5030s501m501m 30 s502m3m 01s220186.5Rich, brightness more as cooled. Not sugary. Little chocolaty7Rave Hakuna Matata13.22200 - 30s5030s501m501m 30 s502m3m 30s220187Rich, brightness more as cooled. Not sugary. Little chocolaty7Rave Hakuna Matata13.22200 - 30s10030s1001m2m 20s220200V Light Floral, some lemon (bright), little chocolate7.5


----------



## MWJB

Hairy_Hogg said:


> OK - 200 in the cup with 20 + 2 x 200, pour time of 2.20 (that includes drip cessation wait) - cooling now, will edit with notes


12g dose or 13.2g for 220 water?


----------



## Hairy_Hogg

13.2g coffee - 220g water

Corrected my table (post #60) and made it a bit more obvious on final brew times


----------



## the_partisan

MWJB said:


> I'd use 2x smaller cups and give them 100g each, or make 2 brews, or use a French press.
> 
> Like I said, I stick to the same weights, but I suggest you perhaps try 26.4g:440g, Bloom with 40g for 30s, arrange pours so that brew ends around 4:40 inc. bloom time (+/-30sec).
> 
> So after bloom time...
> 
> 2 pours of 200g, 85 sec apart
> 
> 3 pours of 133g a minute apart.
> 
> 4 pours of 100g 50sec apart.
> 
> ~390-400g in the cup after drip delay.


I tried bloom 40g with 30s, and then around 100g each every 30-40s (was based more on how much water was left). It ended up at 4:10 total and tasted very nice.


----------



## StusBrews

Quick question...for each pour, are you aiming to add each specific volume of water in a set amount of time?

For example, in a 12:220 brew add 20g of bloom water in 10 secs...after 30 sec bloom add 100g of brew water in 30 secs...at 90 secs add 100g.

The quicker you add brew water during pours, the more influence gravity will have on reducing your flow rate/brew time and vice versa. I'm just wondering how you guys approach this.


----------



## MWJB

StusBrews said:


> Quick question...for each pour, are you aiming to add each specific volume of water in a set amount of time?
> 
> For example, in a 12:220 brew add 20g of bloom water in 10 secs...after 30 sec bloom add 100g of brew water in 30 secs...at 90 secs add 100g.
> 
> The quicker you add brew water during pours, the more influence gravity will have on reducing your flow rate/brew time and vice versa. I'm just wondering how you guys approach this.


I probably wouldn't brew at 12:220 as this would end up a little weak with most grinders. More like 12.5-14g dose would be more typical?

Your flow rate increases as your brew time reduces.

The way I do it (fairly predictable) is this...

Of your 220g brew water, about 25g is going to get eaten up in the brew, so that leaves about 195g of beverage. For this size beverage you might want a flow rate of 1.2 to 1.6g/sec. Let's call it 1.4 (you can't predict it with total accuracy). 195g/1.4 = 139seconds, or 2:20. Add your 20g 30sec bloom to this for 2:50 total brew time (+/-15sec. is reasonable).

I'd aim around 1.4g/sec for brews with 200-250g brew water. For 500g brews try 1.8-2.2g/sec.

Make a brew, if starting from scratch, let's start with 4 pours of 50g after the bloom. The brew will slow towards the end as liquid above the bed decreases & the bed compacts, so my rule of thumb is to divide the flow time by number of pours +1 . 139/5 = 27.9...let's live dangerously and round up to 30sec.

Now, after the bloom, we have 4 pours of 50g, 30seconds apart. This is the time you start pouring. Try and get the water in fairly quickly but also not squirting it across the bed, let it drop straight down as much as possible.

If the brew comes in much too fast, taste it anyway, right down to the bottom. You might like it as it is & that's fine, you know what you did to get there. If the cup doesn't reflect tasting notes, or lacks sweetness, grind finer or increase the number of pours (more than 6 might get a bit hectic?)

If the brew takes way too long, still taste it. If it's good, see if you can be consistent. If you want to speed up the brew use less pours &/or grind coarser.

Alternatively, gravity is going to work on 200g of brew water pretty much the same way each time, if you get that water in the brewer as quick as you can. So if your kettle is small enough to do this without burning up (I use a little travel kettle), weigh out your brew water into the kettle. Allow an extra 5-10g for evaporation (a given kettle will be pretty consistent, +/- a couple of g) so that your brew water weight in the brewer is on target. Bloom 20g as before, but for 90seconds, then as the water hits boiling again at 90seconds, dump it all quickly in the brewer (after making sure it will take that amount of water without over flowing). Still looking for a total brew time of 2:50 +/-15sec. Just use grind setting to steer flavour.


----------



## StusBrews

Thanks for the detailed reply, it is most appreciated







. My 12:220 recipe was a typo...it was meant to be 13.2:220 to represent a 60g per L ratio.

So yesterday evening and this morning I started to put your methods into practice, getting the water in a quick as possible and I have been able to start narrowing in on the suggested flow rate.

Using a 13.2:220 recipe and Volvic water heated to a rolling boil, my results from two brews so far are as follows:

Coffee from Rave = Ethiopian Yirgacheffe G1 Natural Gutiti

Tasting Notes = Blueberries, Tropical fruits and floral aromas abound

Brew attempt 1 (1 + 8 on a Feldgrind)

- Final Beverage Weight = 195g

- Brew Time = 2:33 excluding 30 bloom time (flow rate 1.27 g/sec)

- Tasting Notes = Drying on back of tongue, sharp, unpleasant acidity

Brew attempt 2 (1 + 10 on a Feldgrind)

- Final Beverage Weight =195g

- Brew Time = 2:21 excluding 30 bloom time (flow rate 1.38 g/sec)

- Tasting Notes = Tropical fruits coming through, sweeter, body improved but lacking a bit of clarity and balance overall

Definitely some room for a bit of improvement on my next brew.


----------



## MWJB

StusBrews said:


> Thanks for the detailed reply, it is most appreciated
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . My 12:220 recipe was a typo...it was meant to be 13.2:220 to represent a 60g per L ratio.
> 
> So yesterday evening and this morning I started to put your methods into practice, getting the water in a quick as possible and I have been able to start narrowing in on the suggested flow rate.
> 
> Using a 13.2:220 recipe and Volvic water heated to a rolling boil, my results from two brews so far are as follows:
> 
> Coffee from Rave = Ethiopian Yirgacheffe G1 Natural Gutiti
> 
> Tasting Notes = Blueberries, Tropical fruits and floral aromas abound
> 
> Brew attempt 1 (1 + 8 on a Feldgrind)
> 
> - Final Beverage Weight = 195g
> 
> - Brew Time = 2:33 excluding 30 bloom time (flow rate 1.27 g/sec)
> 
> - Tasting Notes = Drying on back of tongue, sharp, unpleasant acidity
> 
> Brew attempt 2 (1 + 10 on a Feldgrind)
> 
> - Final Beverage Weight =195g
> 
> - Brew Time = 2:21 excluding 30 bloom time (flow rate 1.38 g/sec)
> 
> - Tasting Notes = Tropical fruits coming through, sweeter, body improved but lacking a bit of clarity and balance overall
> 
> Definitely some room for a bit of improvement on my next brew.


Bloom for 90 seconds, not 30, if getting the water in as quick as possible, otherwise the grounds will float and you'll get low/uneven extraction.


----------



## the_partisan

I'm curious to understand how blooming time affects extraction.

I recently got some medium roast beans (=I think they count as "more" soluble), and my usual recipe of [email protected] + 20g/30s bloom + 100g every 30sec for a total of 220g for scandi style roasts did not work well at all. The coffee seemed to drain very quick and tasted quite bitter.

Next I increased my bloom time to 60sec, and then pour the rest all at once, with all the other parameters being the same. This gave me a much better tasting cup. The coffee also seemed to drain slower even though I was pouring quick. Unfortunately I forgot to write down the times, but I think the second cup drained around 2:30 or so.


----------



## MWJB

the_partisan said:


> I'm curious to understand how blooming time affects extraction.
> 
> I recently got some medium roast beans (=I think they count as "more" soluble), and my usual recipe of [email protected] + 20g/30s bloom + 100g every 30sec for a total of 220g for scandi style roasts did not work well at all. The coffee seemed to drain very quick and tasted quite bitter.
> 
> Next I increased my bloom time to 60sec, and then pour the rest all at once, with all the other parameters being the same. This gave me a much better tasting cup. The coffee also seemed to drain slower even though I was pouring quick. Unfortunately I forgot to write down the times, but I think the second cup drained around 2:30 or so.


Depends on how you are approaching the brew. If you are pulse pouring in a few pulses, then blooming for say 30sec may not have any significant effect. You could just add the first pulse & stir the grounds to prewet. E.g. no specific bloom & 4 pours of 55g every 25-30sec vs 30sec bloom with 20g then 4 pours of 50g every 30sec.

If you are going to add the bulk of the brew water in one go, then dry grounds will float & be bobbing around on/in the slurry, rather than settled in the bed with water efficiently washing them out. Here, I'd suggest a little static bloom time to get the coffee wetted, so that it sinks fairly quickly and can be extracted by the flowing liquid.

For a long bloom time, the coffee will be well wetted and may lose buoyancy pretty much straight away, flow through the bed will speed up, so overall brew time may not change greatly, you'll just have a longer bloom, with correspondingly faster flow during extraction.

In your example 100g every 30seconds sounds a bit fast for such big pours, I'd space them more like 45-50seconds apart? But for a very light roast I'd probably be looking at more like 4 or more pours at that setting, maybe 50g every 30sec, or 33g every 20sec?


----------



## the_partisan

With the thicker "dutch" filters, I have been getting much better results by stretching brew time at 3:10-3:15 range. This is with a setting of 2.2-2.4 with Feldgrind and 13.2g dose, 220g water, with 20g bloom + 50g pours every 30s. It could also just be the beans of course, but they are tasting a lot sweeter at this time range.

Does anyone have the same experience with the same filters?


----------



## MWJB

Your brew time seems in the typical range of times for those weights & a bloom, whichever filter you use. It's the grind setting that is the driver (e.g. you are coarser with the Dutch paper than you might need to be with Japanese, for a similar brew time).


----------



## the_partisan

MWJB said:


> Your brew time seems in the typical range of times for those weights & a bloom, whichever filter you use. It's the grind setting that is the driver (e.g. you are coarser with the Dutch paper than you might need to be with Japanese, for a similar brew time).


Wouldn't it be the case though if you have same brew time, but coarser grind, you would be extracting less? So if you have 2:20 brew with Japanese filter and 2:20 brew with Dutch filter, they would taste quite different due to the difference in grind size?


----------



## MWJB

the_partisan said:


> Wouldn't it be the case though if you have same brew time, but coarser grind, you would be extracting less? So if you have 2:20 brew with Japanese filter and 2:20 brew with Dutch filter, they would taste quite different due to the difference in grind size?


Well, not really, because the grind size is normalising the flow & brew time with respect to each of the filters & their weave.

I would expect 2:20 brews to taste different & extract differently to 3:15 brews, but I would expect less deviation between the 2:20 brews (& within the group of 3:15 brews) using both papers, but different grind (same coffee, same pour regime). You can hit the same EY & strength at very different grind sizes, but this happens in a relatively narrow window of time for a given recipe.

This is based on observations of a couple of hundred brews (dose, water & timing recorded), over a hundred of which with EY measurements.

It's the amount of water that flows through the bed, in a given time (assuming reasonable technique) that dictates extraction. The grind, in turn, influences the time.


----------



## the_partisan

MWJB said:


> Well, not really, because the grind size is normalising the flow & brew time with respect to each of the filters & their weave.
> 
> I would expect 2:20 brews to taste different & extract differently to 3:15 brews, but I would expect less deviation between the 2:20 brews (& within the group of 3:15 brews) using both papers, but different grind (same coffee, same pour regime). You can hit the same EY & strength at very different grind sizes, but this happens in a relatively narrow window of time for a given recipe.
> 
> This is based on observations of a couple of hundred brews (dose, water & timing recorded), over a hundred of which with EY measurements.
> 
> It's the amount of water that flows through the bed, in a given time (assuming reasonable technique) that dictates extraction. The grind, in turn, influences the time.


Interesting! So your conclusion is that the most important thing is the brew time, and the affect of grind size is not so huge given same timings.

So if you would adjust your pour technique to get, say a 2:30 extraction time with F1.8 and likewise with F2.4, they would be quite close extraction (and taste..) wise?


----------



## MWJB

the_partisan said:


> Interesting! So your conclusion is that the most important thing is the brew time, and the affect of grind size is not so huge given same timings.
> 
> So if you would adjust your pour technique to get, say a 2:30 extraction time with F1.8 and likewise with F2.4, they would be quite close extraction (and taste..) wise?


Yeah, within reason and a typical deviation in overall brew time. Look at it this way, the rate at which the beverage lands in the cup is related to extraction, but the grind size is more related to the weight of water above the bed & how the grind size interacts with the porosity of the filter paper (tighter weave can handle a finer grind without clogging, more open weave needs a coarser grind to stop clogging).


----------



## skippy

I have a 03 v60 for making multiple cups but I'm looking to get a smaller one for brewing single mugs. Is the 01 or 02 size better for doing a 300ml mug?


----------



## MWJB

Why not keep using the 03?

The 01 doesn't hold as much liquid so it might restrict your pouring options (e.g. necessitate more pulses). I'd go for the 02 if you are dead set on buying another.


----------



## skippy

I could, ive just seen some people saying it effects the pouring when you are further away from the coffee. If thats not much of an issue then I will stick with the 03.


----------



## the_partisan

I recently ran out of the new Dutch filters and started using the Japanese 02 filters. I had found quite a nice sweet spot with the old ones, but with the new ones I'm struggling to replicate the same flavour from the old filters. The coffee is either tasting sour or bitter. Not undrinkable, but nowhere as nice as the old filters. I have tried a range of brewing times from 2:00 to 2:40, what could be going wrong? Is it uneven extraction? I had to move my grind to 1.8 from 2.0 on the feldgrind since the coffee is flowing a lot faster now. My weights are 13.2g coffee / 220g water, and I bloom with 20g for 30s.

Last brew for example was at 2:25 with 3 equal pours after blooming, and tasted bitter when warm but turned sour when the coffee cooled down.


----------



## MWJB

I'd aim more like 3:00 average total brew time for that recipe, try 6 equal pours of 33-34g, 20sec apart after the bloom? Sounds like you are borderline under?

Evenness will be more related to efficient wetting at the start & evenly covering the bed with the pour.


----------



## the_partisan

MWJB said:


> I'd aim more like 3:00 average total brew time for that recipe, try 6 equal pours of 33-34g, 20sec apart after the bloom? Sounds like you are borderline under?
> 
> Evenness will be more related to efficient wetting at the start & evenly covering the bed with the pour.


I tried 4x50, and it ended up at 3:00, which got rid of the sourness, but the bitterness was still there, like a slightly burnt taste? I will try maybe taking the grind to 2.0 and try doing 4x pours again. I'm suspecting maybe I'm agitating the brew too much during the pour?


----------



## MWJB

Slightly burnt taste sounds like you're just getting in the box, more pours or finer, going coarser will drop you back to more sour.

I know I said 3:00 but that's an average, do a few brews and see what the average time is...a very light roast might need longer.


----------



## the_partisan

MWJB said:


> Slightly burnt taste sounds like you're just getting in the box, more pours or finer, going coarser will drop you back to more sour.
> 
> I know I said 3:00 but that's an average, do a few brews and see what the average time is...a very light roast might need longer.


Did another one with 6 pours, which ended up at 3:30 and tasted a lot better! The best one I've done with the new filters yet.

Could really taste the flavours of the beans, but maybe still not 100% developed and had a really long, sweet aftertaste. These beans are indeed a very light roast (https://roast.com/product/ken2/). I always get confused when coffee taste bitter, I think it's over, but actually it seems it's under. How do you know when it's truly over? I should really save up for a refractometer, to learn more about the actual extraction vs taste.

And I remember you saying, the main thing with V60 that affect taste is the brew time, and grind / pouring method are only effective to change the total brew time?


----------



## MWJB

the_partisan said:


> I always get confused when coffee taste bitter, I think it's over, but actually it seems it's under. How do you know when it's truly over? I should really save up for a refractometer, to learn more about the actual extraction vs taste.
> 
> And I remember you saying, the main thing with V60 that affect taste is the brew time, and grind / pouring method are only effective to change the total brew time?


The shift in coffee flavour, as extraction rises isn't always as linear as acidic>sweet>bitter. Between high acidity & the big sweet spot there is often a stage of, like you said, a burnt/woody/carbony dryness where sweetness seems to have dropped off compared to lower extractions. At this point many will assume that they are heading into over-extraction, but if you push through it, you can hit the big hump. Terminal overextraction isn't just dry/bitter/astringent, it is often smokey/sickly/cloying, sometimes the surface of the coffee will appear more scummy than usual, it may smell more caramelly too. As long as I hit that ripe fruit sweetness I don't mind hints of being/heading over, but a properly over cup will affect my taste for hours & makes me feel a little unwell.

A refractometer helps you analyse brew by brew & clearly shows where you are & might aim next. You can do the same thing by taste alone, if you can hit the big hump (like I said, a lot will shy away at the first hints of dryness). It's more likely you'll need to do more brews working by taste & build up a picture based on averages. That average may shift based on how soluble the coffee is, the more soluble the quicker the brew, for the same recipe.

Yes, for a typical slow pour method, with a gooseneck kettle, brew time (well, flow rate from the dripper to cup/carafe) vs taste, is the best guide to hitting a good extraction...to be honest, I can't actually think of another parameter we can share that will have any real bearing (assuming sticking to same ratio & brew weights).


----------



## the_partisan

Thanks a lot. One thing I seem to have picked up though, is that it's easier to tell if coffee is under/over when it's colder. A coffee that's underextracted can taste bitter when hot but then quickly turn quite sour when it cools down. Does that sound right?

I'll probably eventually get a refractometer, but seems cheaper to just learn how to taste better.


----------



## MWJB

Yes, tasting it as it cools can be informative, also what can be exciting acidity/brightness, with some sweetness when hot, can become sour when cooled.

With a VST refractometer, 3 brews and you should be in the box. Do a consistent test brew across a bunch of coffees & average out the results and you may end up with a method that keeps you in the box for the vast majority of brews & just needs minor tweaking. Wasted coffee, dumped bags because you thought you just didn't like that coffee & cups you don't enjoy still cost money.


----------



## the_partisan

I also tried brewing double the amount, which ended up at around 5:45 and tasted quite ok, though not as nice as the single brew. I guess scaling 3:30 (inc 30s bloom) to 2x the amount should be more like 6:30? I think you use the g/sec flow as the main thing that affects extraction?

Incidentially, what's the ideal EY "box" for you? Or does it depend on the bean?


----------



## MWJB

the_partisan said:


> I also tried brewing double the amount, which ended up at around 5:45 and tasted quite ok, though not as nice as the single brew. I guess scaling 3:30 (inc 30s bloom) to 2x the amount should be more like 6:30? I think you use the g/sec flow as the main thing that affects extraction?
> 
> Incidentially, what's the ideal EY "box" for you? Or does it depend on the bean?


For double the amount, the brew has to drain faster in terms of g/sec. but the brew will still take a bit longer. So for 26.4:440g I'd be looking for around 1.5-1.8g/sec? As your amounts get bigger, your pulses get bigger for the same no. of pours & so do the intervals, so 6 pulses would be 66/7g per pulse after bloom, 35sec apart, 4:30-4:40 total brew time? This is a suggestion only, I don't change brew sizes because it affects too many parameters to track on the fly. I do 2 small brews for 2 cups.

For ~200g of finished coffee I aim 1.3-1.4g/sec., for a 30g:500g brew & ~440g finished coffee I'd aim 2g/sec. You're in between & aiming a tad slower. My rule of thumb is, as brew size doubles, multiply "g/sec" by ~1.4

For drip brews I aim 20.5% average, you're more likely to drop into under-extraction so I aim a little higher than "the middle" of the 18-22% box, yes different coffees might taste good at different EYs, but usually fall 18-22% +/-0.5%. Most, I seem to prefer between 19.5 & 22%, some are fine at 18%, others taste heading over at 21%+, absolute best cups for me are often 20.5-22% though. Whether this is totally down to "the coffee", or down to the evenness of each extraction, I can't say.

Once you know where you are, you can fine tune grind/pour, your method should be consistent enough that ~95% of brews fall within +/-2% EY. E.g. yesterday I did 4 brews with the same coffee, 1x Hario V60 & V60 paper, 1x Hario V60 & Chemex paper, 1x Chemex with V60 paper, 1x Chemex with Chemex paper, all else the same in terms of method, EY was +/-0.75% (1.5% span & that's including slightly different outputs from the brewers).


----------



## the_partisan

I was listening to a talk by Scott Rao and he was saying that at same extraction ratio, the coffee that is coarser ground tastes better and will have less bitter taste due to less fines. (see:





 , around 31:30). Has anybody tested this? If true, it sounds like it would be better to do lots of pulse pours at a as coarse grind as possible.


----------



## MWJB

the_partisan said:


> I was listening to a talk by Scott Rao and he was saying that at same extraction ratio, the coffee that is coarser ground tastes better and will have less bitter taste due to less fines. (see:


He actually says at the same extraction "yield", rather than ratio (which could be confused with brew ratio). He has made more coffee than I will see in a lifetime, I doubt very much that he would say this without testing it first. As grinders are set coarser, typically their distribution tends to improve...if you can brew at that grind setting & still hit desired extraction yield.

For V60 & 1-2 cup brewing, you might find a very soluble Kenyan, or Rwandan might need lots of very tiny pours to hit a good extraction, at a coarse grind...things can get a bit hectic if you are pouring more often than every 20sec or so.


----------



## the_partisan

I gave this a try, hitting the same flow rate/brew time with 2.0 at feldgrind compared to 1.8, which is 1.1-1.2g/s for the very light roast coffee I have. It indeed had less bitterness but still quite sweet. I don't have a refractometer though so can't confirm the extraction yields.. so not very scientific, but I definitely prefer the 2.0 one.


----------



## the_partisan

Is there any preference over Hario 01 cone vs Hario 02 for doing single brews? Is the 01 cone narrower, which would make the bed higher, which in turn would allow using a coarser grind / fewer pours to achieve same extraction?


----------



## MWJB

They're the same angle cone, a smaller cone let's you get the kettle spout closer to the bed if pulse pouring (possibly using coarser grind), a larger cone holds more liquid if pouring in bigger pulses (possibly using finer grind).

For single brews I wouldn't be bothered which I used.


----------



## the_partisan

I find @MWJB 's recipe works quite well : https://markwjburness.wordpress.com/2016/09/04/hario-v60-recipe-for-1-mug-200g-lightmedium-filter-roasts/ , though I use 250g/15g but same number of pours and roughly same time. I end up usually between 3:00 and 3:15.

I would like to hear a recipe that works well with 30g/500g. I usually aim for around 4:00 , but I don't get the consistency I get with single brews. The coffee bed is higher so the water travels slower through it, but without a refractometer I can't really figure out what time will hit the spot. I've head some really great tasting brews at 4:10, but also some that didn't taste great at the same brew time.


----------



## MWJB

the_partisan said:


> I would like to hear a recipe that works well with 30g/500g. I usually aim for around 4:00 , but I don't get the consistency I get with single brews. The coffee bed is higher so the water travels slower through it, but without a refractometer I can't really figure out what time will hit the spot. I've head some really great tasting brews at 4:10, but also some that didn't taste great at the same brew time.


This is not a brew quantity that I make very often, but...

The water will travel through the bed faster (nearer to 2g/sec), it's just that there is more of it, so brew time is extended.

Is this at the same grind setting as for the smaller brews?

Still 6 pours after bloom, if so how far apart?

Are the brews that don't taste great just lacking sweetness, or are they getting sickly/caramelly/cloying/woody/smokey?

My gut feeling is that 4:00 may be a bit on the quick side, but I could be wrong.


----------



## the_partisan

MWJB said:


> This is not a brew quantity that I make very often, but...
> 
> The water will travel through the bed faster (nearer to 2g/sec), it's just that there is more of it, so brew time is extended.
> 
> Is this at the same grind setting as for the smaller brews?
> 
> Still 6 pours after bloom, if so how far apart?
> 
> Are the brews that don't taste great just lacking sweetness, or are they getting sickly/caramelly/cloying/woody/smokey?
> 
> My gut feeling is that 4:00 may be a bit on the quick side, but I could be wrong.


They generally tend to taste flatter, and lacking the sweetness / flavour I get with single brews. I did have some really nice brews, but it's not as consistent. The coffee bed is higher as well, so water is in touch with coffee longer too. So brew time shouldn't be quite double, but maybe 1.5x?

I try to do the same amount of pours. If you fancy you can try brewing your beans at double the amounts, and see where it ends up in the refractometer at compared to the single ones at various times?


----------



## MWJB

the_partisan said:


> They generally tend to taste flatter, and lacking the sweetness / flavour I get with single brews. I did have some really nice brews, but it's not as consistent. The coffee bed is higher as well, so water is in touch with coffee longer too. So brew time shouldn't be quite double, but maybe 1.5x?
> 
> I try to do the same amount of pours. If you fancy you can try brewing your beans at double the amounts, and see where it ends up in the refractometer at compared to the single ones at various times?


Yeah in the region of x1.4-ish?

6 pours (75g each) with a 50g bloom might be spaced at 35sec? If that's too quick maybe try going 8 pours (bloom 60g, pours of 55g every 25sec?

Ha ha, sorry, I'm afraid at this point I don't fancy it much. That recipe for 1 mug took, 10 different coffees, 2 different grinders & about a month (excluding the previous exercises that culminated in it)...plus a few exploratory brews.

Next brew weight I'm interested in is 53g:880g.


----------



## the_partisan

No worries, you've been very helpful with your recipes and advice







Is that for a V02 or V03? That would be interesting for me as well when I have a lot of guests over.


----------



## MWJB

So far I'm using the 02, early days though


----------



## the_partisan

BTW with your recipe, I usually see a film of oil on the top of the coffee, if I don't mix it with a spoon afterwards , maybe that's something you want to add to the recipe?


----------



## MWJB

the_partisan said:


> BTW with your recipe, I usually see a film of oil on the top of the coffee, if I don't mix it with a spoon afterwards , maybe that's something you want to add to the recipe?


I have noticed this too, but not with every brew...not sure what it is down to (maybe some early extract dripping into the cup & lipids cooling into a crust, prior to next pulse? Maybe just slightly increased NDS in the cup through higher bed agitation compared to a more fill & drain style brew?), it doesn't seem to impact on the cup quality though?


----------



## the_partisan

MWJB said:


> I have noticed this too, but not with every brew...not sure what it is down to (maybe some early extract dripping into the cup & lipids cooling into a crust, prior to next pulse? Maybe just slightly increased NDS in the cup through higher bed agitation compared to a more fill & drain style brew?), it doesn't seem to impact on the cup quality though?


No, the cup taste fine, but it doesn't look very clean visually, which some might find detracting. Mixing the brew well seems to get rid of it, for the most part though.

What extraction yields are you hitting with your recipe? I have been using the 2+0 setting on my Feldgrind for this.


----------



## MWJB

I have been using a Rhino (6 clicks out) & a Zassenhaus Panama (first setting that gives free rotation of the burrs, slightest rub when careless).

Brews average 20.0%EY. Nothing lower than 18.2%EY (a light roasted natural process was the only bean to drop below 19%EY so far), nothing higher than 20.6%EY.


----------



## the_partisan

MWJB said:


> I have been using a Rhino (6 clicks out) & a Zassenhaus Panama (first setting that gives free rotation of the burrs, slightest rub when careless).
> 
> Brews average 20.0%EY. Nothing lower than 18.2%EY (a light roasted natural process was the only bean to drop below 19%EY so far), nothing higher than 20.6%EY.


OK, thanks. What about rinsing the filter paper? You don't mentioned that in your recipe, so I was wondering if it affects the flavour or not?


----------



## MWJB

the_partisan said:


> OK, thanks. What about rinsing the filter paper? You don't mentioned that in your recipe, so I was wondering if it affects the flavour or not?


I don't bother rinsing white papers for Filtropa, Kalita Wave, nor V60. If the paper affects the taste, change to a different paper (I did some A/B testing with brews).


----------



## the_partisan

MWJB said:


> I don't bother rinsing white papers for Filtropa, Kalita Wave, nor V60. If the paper affects the taste, change to a different paper (I did some A/B testing with brews).


That's interesting, since pretty much all recipes/guides out there suggest rinsing.


----------



## MWJB

the_partisan said:


> That's interesting, since pretty much all recipes/guides out there suggest rinsing.


Monkey see, monkey do. ;-)


----------



## the_partisan

MWJB said:


> Monkey see, monkey do. ;-)


Indeed I tried without rinsing and didn't notice any papery taste or anything similar. Maybe it's different with the unbleached filters.


----------



## martinierius

Most - not all - unbleached filters have a taste of their own...


----------



## the_partisan

MWJB said:


> I have been using a Rhino (6 clicks out) & a Zassenhaus Panama (first setting that gives free rotation of the burrs, slightest rub when careless).
> 
> Brews average 20.0%EY. Nothing lower than 18.2%EY (a light roasted natural process was the only bean to drop below 19%EY so far), nothing higher than 20.6%EY.


Do you taste any difference between the grinders at the same EY?


----------



## MWJB

the_partisan said:


> Do you taste any difference between the grinders at the same EY?


Very slight preference for the Rhino, but I couldn't say it was significant, the Rhino did display a lower SDev over 10 brews & same 10 coffees, compared to the Zass Panama, Rhino brews spanning 1.7%EY, Panama 2.4%EY...but it would take a lot more brews to see if that was maintained (+/- 0.35%EY isn't a big deal anyway). For day to day purposes, allowing for deviations in brew I'd pretty much say they performed the same, Panama is quicker to grind, but a bit more faff due to the ill fitting catch cup (drops off if not held in place, grounds sit on the lip of the cup & drop out when removing the cup).


----------



## the_partisan

BTW I'm finding that I get more along the lines of 180g of brewed beverage rather than ~200g using your recipe, I think this is because the filter itself absorbs some water, if I don't rinse / pre-wet it.


----------



## MWJB

the_partisan said:


> BTW I'm finding that I get more along the lines of 180g of brewed beverage rather than ~200g using your recipe, I think this is because the filter itself absorbs some water, if I don't rinse / pre-wet it.


Maybe leave it to drip longer? I don'r pre wet the V60 filters, even if you use Chemex filters you'd still be 190g or more. That missing ~20g is important in terms of extraction.


----------



## julesjules

the_partisan said:


> That's interesting, since pretty much all recipes/guides out there suggest rinsing.


Even if there isn't a papery taste to rinse away, warming up the v60 vessel before brewing seems to be a good idea intuitively.


----------



## MWJB

julesjules said:


> Even if there isn't a papery taste to rinse away, warming up the v60 vessel before brewing seems to be a good idea intuitively.


Makes no difference, brew with boiling water, if your extractions are low grind finer/slow the pours. Preheat the pouring kettle if not used to heat the water directly.

Rinsing & preheating just wastes time & water, maybe worth it with a big one-piece brewer & very thick paper (Chemex)?


----------



## julesjules

MWJB said:


> Makes no difference, brew with boiling water, if your extractions are low grind finer/slow the pours. Preheat the pouring kettle if not used to heat the water directly.
> 
> Rinsing & preheating just wastes time & water, maybe worth it with a big one-piece brewer & very thick paper (Chemex)?


My brew temp drops so dramatically in the v60 anyway, and so I've been wondering why I use an arbitrarily defined 94 degrees Celsius..

Extractions are good (usually on the high side), but using boiling water makes sense to reduce waste and the number of steps so I'll give it a go.


----------



## antonivnk

Using mixed technique of Perger/Rao methods. However I still encounter a problem with degasation - usually I start my brew with 2 parts of boiling water to 1 part coffee for 30-40 sec bloom with agitation (10 sec, not so vigorous) in pre-wetted filter and even at 2 min of brew time I see some bubbles. Sometimes puck has channels (1-2). Also lifting and taping a filter after final pour release some bubbles. Overall taste is good, but I suppose that eliminating all "dry pockets" will make the cup even better. Any thoughts?


----------



## MWJB

What are your brew weights & total time? You might be too fine, or not digging deep enough when stirring the bloom?


----------



## antonivnk

18/300 or 20/330 3 min +/- 15 sec, feldgrind 1+10


----------



## MWJB

That's finer than I'd use, a bit faster too (but maybe your coffee is more soluble)? If you go coarser (better for wetting at the start) you can slow the brew (still aiming for your good tasting target) by pulsing the pours.


----------



## antonivnk

Hm, I thought that I'm on slower side. Brewing with small pours stretches time up to 4 min - tastewise it's too much.

I've tried 1+12 and puck was not to consistent, if it means. So, I should try 1 step coarser with more pours? What timing would be normal for 18/300 brew (icl bloom)?


----------



## MWJB

You can tweak the time to a smaller average interval than 30sec. You can brew with different number of pulses to do this.

If your coffee is light/medium roast aim around 3:45 to 4:00 with a 40sec bloom, keep to the same bloom time otherwise flitting between 30 & 40sec is already giving you a 10sec difference if everything else is the same. I think you should be looking to be more than 1 step coarser, maybe more in the region of 2+2 or 2+4?

If the taste is sweet but too intense, use less coffee.

You did say that you were using a Perger/Rao method, both have advocated different methods over the years, can you be more specific about what you are actually doing?


----------



## MWJB

Here is the lowest common denominator, most universal V60 method (not saying the 'best') for 1 cup/mug brews (9g to 18g dose):

Bloom 25g & stir straight away, make sure to dig deep into the bed.

00:30 add another 25g.

00:45 add another 25g and add 25g every 15seconds until you hit your brew water weight.

For a 13.5:225g brew aim 3:00 +/-10sec brew time. Bigger brew will take longer, everything being equal, smaller brews shorter.

If you think you are under-extracting, make a bigger brew at the same ratio and see if it improves.

If you think you are over-extracting, make a smaller brew at the same ratio and see if it improves.

If a couple of brews at the new brew size are repeatably good & you want a bigger brew, go coarser & aim for the same flavour at the larger brew size. Conversely, if your bigger brew tastes good but is too much for you/your favourite cup, grind finer & reduce brew size.

All assumes 60g/L and doses that equate to brew water weights ending in "25".

+/-3g on the dose & +/-50g brew water should be enough to make a noticeable difference.

This will equate to a grind at the coarsest end of what is feasible for the brew size you are making.

It's not the most relaxing/faff free way to make a pourover, but after a few goes 25g every 15sec is quite manageable. Pour gently, just let the water drop onto the bed, don't 'hose' the bed.


----------



## hippy_dude

antonivnk said:


> Hm, I thought that I'm on slower side. Brewing with small pours stretches time up to 4 min - tastewise it's too much.
> 
> I've tried 1+12 and puck was not to consistent, if it means. So, I should try 1 step coarser with more pours? What timing would be normal for 18/300 brew (icl bloom)?


Not sure if this is of any help, but I currently use the 'Mister Barista' app on my android phone (not sure if it's on iDevices) and it has a really good selection of brew methods along with the timer's for each individual step of the process. It really had allowed me to stick to methods rigidly in order to perfect my grind size etc.


----------



## antonivnk

MWJB said:


> You did say that you were using a Perger/Rao method, both have advocated different methods over the years, can you be more specific about what you are actually doing?


Here is my usual recipe for 18/300

1. Bloom for 40sec with 40gr of boiling water with 10sec stir with a plastic spoon

2. Add 100gr water at 40 sec (normal speed - spiral pour)

3. Add 80gr water at 1:10 sec

4. Add 80gr water at 1:40 sec

5. Giving a quick swirl to the filter to wash sides

6. Lifting and taping the filter for even bed

Finish at 3min

Medium/light roast, African beans, 1+10 on feldgrind, water from Perger's recipe

I have better results with this grind setting than my first experiments with coarser settings like 2+2. Now I would like to polish my technique, like avoiding channels and gas. So I'll try a little coarser grind with more smaller pours.


----------



## MWJB

30sec between pours, for a brew this size, might be a bit close together. For a more even split across the brew time 40sec between pours might be better?

As the brew gets bigger you can stretch out the time between pours (for the same number of pours & proportion of total brew water).


----------



## antonivnk

What do you think about steps 5 & 6 in my method? It was mentioned by Rao, here is an example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jopwfCGxj10. I'm doing it clockwise with lift&tap afterwards.


----------



## MWJB

It was a surprise to Scott when he was shown that at first. 

Step 5: With V60 I can get a gentle spin going with the last couple of pours & this washes down the filter walls, but I do use this trick to wash down the filter walls with Kalita Wave, Chemex & Kalita Uno, as not so easy to get a spin going.

Step 6: I don't generally do this as I get an even bed anyway, if it works for you carry on  If I'm aiming to get say 197g out of the brewer and I'm only seeing 192/193g at the end of the draw down, I often give the cone a tap or two to encourage the last few g out of it.


----------



## the_partisan

[duplicate]


----------



## the_partisan

The last few gs that drop out are pretty transparent and "watery" so they're just there to dilute/balance the brew. If you try tasting it last few g on its own they don't actually taste nice.

I doubt the final tap would have any effect, especially if you're already doing several small pours (which in my experience works well with V60). If you're doing just a single pour then doing it right after the pour might help with making the bed flat.

Tasting different stages of extraction is quite interesting, the WBC winner last year did exactly that (http://www.baristamagazine.com/standing-shoulders-brewing-giant/), but I haven't tried it myself.


----------



## MWJB

the_partisan said:


> The last few gs that drop out are pretty transparent and "watery" so they're just there to dilute/balance the brew. If you try tasting it last few g on its own they don't actually taste nice.
> 
> I doubt the final tap would have any effect, especially if you're already doing several small pours (which in my experience works well with V60). If you're doing just a single pour then doing it right after the pour might help with making the bed flat.
> 
> Tasting different stages of extraction is quite interesting, the WBC winner last year did exactly that (http://www.baristamagazine.com/standing-shoulders-brewing-giant/), but I haven't tried it myself.


You don't drink any portion of the brew in isolation, if you do none of it tastes spectacular on it's own. Yes the last few g are watery and bitter but they are still coffee (maybe 0.5 to 0.7%TDS & you can't tell concentration of isolated segments by colour/viscosity), but they bring up the beverage mass without greatly affecting %TDS concentration, so if 2 beverages are similar %TDS and one weighs 5g less (at 200g datum) that 5g represents 0.5%EY. Hitting a consistent output weight means more consistent brewing.


----------



## the_partisan

Noticed that Tim Wendelboe uploaded a quite nice no non-sense video for V60/Filter brewing and he hits most of the really important points:


----------



## antonivnk

I'm wondering why almost nobody stirring the bloom at Brewers Cup?


----------



## Mrboots2u

antonivnk said:


> I'm wondering why almost nobody stirring the bloom at Brewers Cup?


Recipes and techniques can go in trends . Stir / don't stir . Pick a recipe try it see what makes tasty for you and you can repeat .


----------



## antonivnk

Here is stream from recent WBC championship: http://www.worldcoffeeevents.org/budapest/

As I mentioned before, almost nobody stirring V60 bloom. Another trend is long center pour and short brewing time (about 2 min).

Any thoughts? Of course they are all brewing nano lots of exceptional beans, mostly geisha.


----------



## Mrboots2u

Along with aeropress perhaps the trend is pre hump nom brews again . These comps people are looking for something novel or to reinvent the wheel . This isn't a bad thing at all but it's just worth bearing in mind . Especially since they are all using geisha beans that us mere mortals will never get near.


----------



## MWJB

antonivnk said:


> Here is stream from recent WBC championship: http://www.worldcoffeeevents.org/budapest/
> 
> As I mentioned before, almost nobody stirring V60 bloom. Another trend is long center pour and short brewing time (about 2 min).
> 
> Any thoughts? Of course they are all brewing nano lots of exceptional beans, mostly geisha.


You're taking one or two aspects of brewing & overlooking many others. To be in context you maybe need to consider solubility, grind distribution (brew time) & consistency. Without watching over 8 hours of footage, can you tell us the details & how they placed?

Remember, most home brewers aren't practising for days with the same coffee over & over, we get a bag, maybe a handful of brews from that bag before we're onto something else, so we need a more flexible, middle of the road method to start with (which you can tailor for a specific coffee if needed). A lot of us are using small conical burrs (wider distribution than commercial filter/bulk grinders). We're also often making one brew at a a time, not 3 whilst trying to give a presentation, all within 10min. So, if you're consistent enough, you might be able to drop an aspect, in favour of not going over time.

You can measure consistency of extraction for stirred bloom/vs not. Matt Perger won a World Brewers Cup with a stir of the bloom & a 2:40 brew for 11.9g coffee to 200g water.

In several runs of tests of V60 brews (well over 100 brews in total), 13.5 to 225g, mid box extractions, with a conical hand grinder, take 3:00-3:10 on average with production roast coffees. At the quicker end these were under 2:30.


----------



## MWJB

So first V60 brew from 15th: 20:300g, no stir of slurry, 6 pours, in spirals, 2:40 quoted brew time, dripper removed at ~3:20.

more to follow...


----------



## antonivnk

Here is quick summary of winning brewer's recipe: "For his winning routine, Wang opted to brew with a cold ceramic Hario V60, noting that the thick ceramic promoted "temperature stability" and the non-warmed brewer "enhances the intensity of [his] coffee." Using 15 grams of coffee to 250ml of 92°C water (197.6°F)-a 16.667:1 ratio-the Taiwanese champion began with a 30 second bloom before pouring the remaining water into the center of his V60s for a two-minute total brew time. The end result was a total of 220ml coffee for each of the judges."

As far as I know, some of participants using hand grinders like Knock or Comandante.

My point is why so many web guides and enthusiast's methods recommends stir and puring with agitation, while it's not so popular according to champ's technique (which a more simple). I think that stir and active agitation on pours clogging filter with fines. However, I've heard that natural processed coffee's are better with stir.


----------



## MWJB

Clogging, stirring - If you stir, you have to grind a little coarser as it extracts more, all else being equal.


----------



## Elcee

One cannot assume that just because a competitor does an action it must be good practice.

For any given set of actions a competitor does some may help the performance, some may hinder and some may have no effect.

It is possible that some of the practices they did actually made the coffee worse but that does not mean it was bad.

One must also consider how the external validity or how applicable a practice. Just because it works in one scenario doesn't mean it will work for another.


----------



## MWJB

antonivnk said:


> Here is quick summary of winning brewer's recipe: "For his winning routine, Wang opted to brew with a cold ceramic Hario V60, noting that the thick ceramic promoted "temperature stability" and the non-warmed brewer "enhances the intensity of [his] coffee." Using 15 grams of coffee to 250ml of 92°C water (197.6°F)-a 16.667:1 ratio-the Taiwanese champion began with a 30 second bloom before pouring the remaining water into the center of his V60s for a two-minute total brew time. The end result was a total of 220ml coffee for each of the judges."
> 
> As far as I know, some of participants using hand grinders like Knock or Comandante.
> 
> My point is why so many web guides and enthusiast's methods recommends stir and puring with agitation, while it's not so popular according to champ's technique (which a more simple). I think that stir and active agitation on pours clogging filter with fines. However, I've heard that natural processed coffee's are better with stir.


Agitation from pouring with a kettle is inevitable, it's just a case of how much. If you disperse the pour through a screen you'll see the difference in the slurry - completely crystal clear brew water sitting on the bed.

He started with spirals at the pre infusion & at the pour, then switched to a centre pour due to his fine grind (for mouthfeel) & minimising agitation (3 previous competitors all poured in spirals). If you have too much agitation then you can see (scummy look to surface of the cup) & taste the effect of too many undissolved particles in the cup, it can flatten off the brew.

About a 21% extraction, so, yeah a quick brew when considering the universe, but obviously not too quick.

We tend to talk about brews merely in ratio & time, but hitting a specific target takes a lot more factors.

Watch it here...Wang's presentation starts at ~2hours...

http://www.worldcoffeeevents.org/budapest/

If you don't want to stir, don't & be happy. I do stir V60s, but not Kalita Uno, Brewista steeping brewer used for drip (just give these a shake), nor my bigger Chemex brews (to keep agitation & sediment down) & can get 8/10 V60 brews with the same coffee in a cluster that's smaller than my VST II specified precision, so I see no need to deviate from that.


----------



## Step21

Follow the instructions on these internet how to's and you'll end up mostly with a mud pie slurry bed and a muddled taste. Agitation or how to achieve the optimal agitation via pouring is not discussed.

I use a screen for pouring to cut down on agitation, you see clear water sitting above the bed not with no silt. I've been playing with a final pour without the screen just to get a little more body in the brew with good results. I wait till the water drains and then ever so softly dribble the last of the water over it. Notice that even this low agitation causes little puffs of silt to rise, so just think what agressive pouring does.

Perhaps this style of pouring makes up in some part for not having an uber grinder and uber beans that the competitors have?

Give us their beans and I'm sure many of us on here would make a darn tasty brew!


----------



## MWJB

Step21 said:


> Perhaps this style of pouring makes up in some part for not having an uber grinder and uber beans that the competitors have?
> 
> Give us their beans and I'm sure many of us on here would make a darn tasty brew!


Of the dozen V60 routines I watched, the most obvious trends were Jamison Savage, Finca Deborah, Panama Gesha & little brown glass jars for holding the grounds after grinding.  Must have been giving the judges deja vu 

FWIW the Polish champ indeed used a hand grinder, pulse poured in spirals for 3:30 total brew time (20:300g).


----------



## the_partisan

Does everyone still rinse their filters? I've stopped rinsing filters for Kalita at least, and besides slightly more retained water (LRR ~3.3 vs ~3.0, or about 4g), I haven't noticed any bad flavours at all. I typically aim for a 215-220g brew out of 15g of coffee, so I pour 260g instead of 250g.


----------



## MWJB

I don't rinse white Kalita, V60, Filtropa, Melitta basket papers.


----------



## IggyK

What would you suggest would be a starting point for brewing Ethiopian beans (V60) roasted medium/dark with floral and cinnamon flavours and spice notes "meant to be a delicate cup according to Pact" I assume less strength

Nice-ish coffee but is there truth to achieve the flavours.


----------



## MWJB

IggyK said:


> What would you suggest would be a starting point for brewing Ethiopian beans (V60) roasted medium/dark with floral and cinnamon flavours and spice notes "meant to be a delicate cup according to Pact" I assume less strength
> 
> Nice-ish coffee but is there truth to achieve the flavours.


13.5g coffee, 225g brew water.

0:00 Bloom with water at a rolling boil, pour gently, quick gentle stir digging down into bed (taking care not tear paper). 15-20g should do it.

0:30 start adding up to 50g, water should drop straight down from kettle spout, spirals covering whole bed, pour takes about 10sec.

0:50 Start adding up to 85g as above.

1:10 Start adding up to 120g

1:30 Start adding up to 155g

1:50 Start adding up to 190g

2:10 Start adding up to 225g, all in by 2:25.

3:10 or thereabouts (Ethiopians can take longer than average to brew, so don't panic if you go over 3:30, taste & decide what you need to do), dry bed of coffee.

3:40-4:00 remove brewer from cup.

If brews are consistently bitter & smokey (make a few to determine an average), grind coarser or add 67-70g every 40sec.

If brews are weak & under-ripe, grind finer or Bloom 25g & add 25g every 15sec after bloom


----------



## Step21

the_partisan said:


> Does everyone still rinse their filters? I've stopped rinsing filters for Kalita at least, and besides slightly more retained water (LRR ~3.3 vs ~3.0, or about 4g), I haven't noticed any bad flavours at all. I typically aim for a 215-220g brew out of 15g of coffee, so I pour 260g instead of 250g.


I rinse them not because they need rinsed (except Chemex which does) but i'm heating up the brewer anyway. I find with the Brewista smart dripper the basket filters like Kalita Wave 185's open up and settle nicely when wet and make an easy job of loading the coffee. I really don't like to lose that extra 2ml!


----------



## Step21

MWJB said:


> 13.5g coffee, 225g brew water.
> 
> 0:00 Bloom with water at a rolling boil, pour gently, quick gentle stir digging down into bed (taking care not tear paper). 15-20g should do it.
> 
> 0:30 start adding up to 50g, water should drop straight down from kettle spout, spirals covering whole bed, pour takes about 10sec.
> 
> 0:50 Start adding up to 85g as above.
> 
> 1:10 Start adding up to 120g
> 
> 1:30 Start adding up to 155g
> 
> 1:50 Start adding up to 190g
> 
> 2:10 Start adding up to 225g, all in by 2:25.
> 
> 3:10 or thereabouts (Ethiopians can take longer than average to brew, so don't panic if you go over 3:30, taste & decide what you need to do), dry bed of coffee.
> 
> 3:40-4:00 remove brewer from cup.
> 
> If brews are consistently bitter & smokey (make a few to determine an average), grind coarser or add 67-70g every 40sec.
> 
> If brews are weak & under-ripe, grind finer or Bloom 25g & add 25g every 15sec after bloom


That just about covers it!


----------



## the_partisan

MWJB said:


> I don't rinse white Kalita, V60, Filtropa, Melitta basket papers.


I meant if people were still doing it in WBC. I didn't really watch any of the presentations, but some of you might have.


----------



## MWJB

the_partisan said:


> I meant if people were still doing it in WBC. I didn't really watch any of the presentations, but some of you might have.


Sorry, yes, I think all but one of the v60 brewers I watched (12 in all) rinsed their papers.


----------



## Morningfuel

Thought I'd add my current one as it's a bit weird...

I previously had 12g coffee - 25g bloom 30 seconds, then made up to 80g for 30 seconds then 40g every 30 seconds. Total brew time was about 2 minutes 45 seconds (when the bed was cleared). Coffee ground at 6 clicks on a Rhinowares.

Changed papers from a brown one with three oles at the bottom to Hario Dutch white papers with no holes at the bottom and everything went a bit weird, with the brew times being massively longer. After much help from MJWB (thanks!) I've finally gotten a decent coffee from it with the following recipe.

12g coffee, 200g water. 20g bloom for 30 seconds then made up to 50g for 15 seconds. Then 25g added every 15 seconds. Total brew time is 3 minutes 45 seconds. Coffee ground at 9 clicks on Rhinowares grinder (I thought I was happy with 8, then tried 9 again and it was definitely a bit sweeter and had less smokeyness).

I don't know if this is maybe a bad batch of papers, or whether they usually slow down this much, or whether the old brown papers drained unusually fast? But trying a variety of beans through both has definitely narrowed the paper down to being the only variable.

Given the choice, I'd like to go back as it drained a minute quicker so got me my coffee a minute quicker, but the papers did need rinsing sooooooo....


----------



## Morningfuel

I just tried something much more extreme, just to satisfy curiosity.

I set my rhinowares (which is soon to be replaced as it's starting to wear at the handle and slips a lot!) to a whopping 15 clicks.

Previously with brown filters with a few holes in the bottom I was using 6 clicks and extracting over about 2 minutes 45 seconds. Since changing papers to hario dutch, I've used 9 clicks for a coarser grind and a little and often pour regime.

Using 15 clicks (boulder city!) And 40g every 30 seconds it *still* took over 4 minutes to finish (generates a lot of fines) but the coffee is very different - sweeter, not as "present". Not sure I prefer it, but it's nice. I may tighten another click or two and see what that gives as it's lacking in strength - or perhaps the little and often regime will help there.

So there you go. A weird one - just goes to show it's worth experimenting. I feel like the variables are coming together in my head, and that there is more to it than simply aiming for a time.


----------



## MWJB

Morningfuel said:


> I just tried something much more extreme, just to satisfy curiosity.
> 
> I set my rhinowares (which is soon to be replaced as it's starting to wear at the handle and slips a lot!) to a whopping 15 clicks.
> 
> Previously with brown filters with a few holes in the bottom I was using 6 clicks and extracting over about 2 minutes 45 seconds. Since changing papers to hario dutch, I've used 9 clicks for a coarser grind and a little and often pour regime.
> 
> Using 15 clicks (boulder city!) And 40g every 30 seconds it *still* took over 4 minutes to finish (generates a lot of fines) but the coffee is very different - sweeter, not as "present". Not sure I prefer it, but it's nice. I may tighten another click or two and see what that gives as it's lacking in strength - or perhaps the little and often regime will help there.
> 
> So there you go. A weird one - just goes to show it's worth experimenting. I feel like the variables are coming together in my head, and that there is more to it than simply aiming for a time.


Grind setting is the primary driver of extraction. Time is a guide if you have no other method of measuring extraction. For a V60 with Japanese papers +/-15 seconds will normally cover 2/3 of your brews, considering all of them then some may land +/- 45 seconds. The slower the brew drains (for the same extraction), the wider the variation in brew time, my Brewista brews can be +/-60seconds for 2/3 the brews and still as consistent in extraction as the V60. A wide deviation on time for the same deviation on extraction just makes life easier.

So time needs to be considered with respect to a given scenario/brewer/paper, rather than just to drip/brew ratio/weights. You have to build a picture with a bunch of times, comparing a time from one scenario to a time with another scenario is like taking a little snapshots, of individual trees, we want to see the whole forest 

If your brew is lacking in strength, then you have changed the extraction.

Coarse grinds look like they are more inconsistent as particles size goes from 0 to small for a fine grind, but still starts at 0 (to big) for a coarse grind, so wherever you have coarser particles, it visually looks more uneven. If your extraction is ball-park & similar strength, tastes good, you probably haven't made a big change to the ratio of boulders & fines (outliers).


----------



## MWJB

This example may help explain, compare Brewista to V60...feel free to make a copy...

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/18d9L9J_4YeHHiz8257JZ-2-W-CJaaAqYRCP-YOs4650/edit?usp=sharing


----------



## Morningfuel

MWJB said:


> Grind setting is the primary driver of extraction. Time is a guide if you have no other method of measuring extraction. For a V60 with Japanese papers +/-15 seconds will normally cover 2/3 of your brews, considering all of them then some may land +/- 45 seconds. The slower the brew drains (for the same extraction), the wider the variation in brew time, my Brewista brews can be +/-60seconds for 2/3 the brews and still as consistent in extraction as the V60. A wide deviation on time for the same deviation on extraction just makes life easier.
> 
> So time needs to be considered with respect to a given scenario/brewer/paper, rather than just to drip/brew ratio/weights. You have to build a picture with a bunch of times, comparing a time from one scenario to a time with another scenario is like taking a little snapshots, of individual trees, we want to see the whole forest
> 
> If your brew is lacking in strength, then you have changed the extraction.
> 
> Coarse grinds look like they are more inconsistent as particles size goes from 0 to small for a fine grind, but still starts at 0 (to big) for a coarse grind, so wherever you have coarser particles, it visually looks more uneven. If your extraction is ball-park & similar strength, tastes good, you probably haven't made a big change to the ratio of boulders & fines (outliers).


As ever, your advice is extremely welcome.

It was more an experiment - the drain time was similar (over 4 minutes, I'm definitely going to try to find faster papers for convenience) but the flavour was very different. Less extracted for sure.

Interesting though - good analogy re trees. It amazes me you got me a great extraction based on amateur information over the internet...


----------



## MWJB

Morningfuel said:


> Interesting though - good analogy re trees. It amazes me you got me a great extraction based on amateur information over the internet...


It's probably easier to troubleshoot drip than anything else, gravity working on a given weight of water over a given weight of coffee, likely has the least deviation universally.


----------



## the_partisan

Scott Rao has just posted a video for his V60 recipe:


----------



## supertom44

*Recipe from video (see end of video):*


Rinse filter

Add 22g coffee

Add 60/70g water

Stir gently

Wait 30 seconds (around 45 seconds total time.)

Add 300g water

Stir once around the top gently

@1:45 Shake/Swirl V60 2-3 times

Drain

Enjoy


----------



## the_partisan

supertom44 said:


> *Recipe from video (see end of video):*
> 
> 
> Rinse filter
> 
> Add 22g coffee
> 
> Add 60/70g water
> 
> Stir gently
> 
> Wait 30 seconds (around 45 seconds total time.)
> 
> Add 300g water
> 
> Stir once around the top gently
> 
> @1:45 Shake/Swirl V60 2-3 times
> 
> Drain
> 
> Enjoy


He was using 20g coffee to 340g water, poured all at once. There is also a related blog post and the discussions there are quite interesting as well: https://www.scottrao.com/blog/2017/9/14/v60-video

Has anyone given this method a try?


----------



## MWJB

the_partisan said:


> He was using 20g coffee to 340g water, poured all at once. There is also a related blog post and the discussions there are quite interesting as well: https://www.scottrao.com/blog/2017/9/14/v60-video
> 
> Has anyone given this method a try?


Yes, sort of, but not with V60 & with smaller brew weights. Bonavita immersion brewer with valve shut during the 45s bloom, 13.5 to 225g, same grind as I use for V60 with 6 pours after bloom (Feldgrind 2+6). Only done a few, but working out OK so far.


----------



## WillS

In the video the ratios were 22g to 360g. I was wondering if anyone has tried with a Feldgrind and can report on grind settings?


----------



## salty

WillS said:


> In the video the ratios were 22g to 360g. I was wondering if anyone has tried with a Feldgrind and can report on grind settings?


I'm using 2+6 and getting good results


----------



## Step21

I gave it a try V60 using my Biarro AltoAir holder 13/225 water. Ok ish, I found it worked better in the Bonavita as @MWJB

One thing that is noticeable was that if I didn't do the swirl of the brewer at 1m45 hard enough, then the brew comes through too fast and underextracted. The swirl seems to stall the flow.

I can't see the point of the 3 times coffee weight bloom. At least half of it runs off before the coffee is properly wet. Might be worth discarding it. Haven't tried it with a normal bloom (normally I'd use 20g water for 13g coffee - I don't like to see any more than a couple of drips come through during bloom)

Not a convert.


----------



## the_partisan

Step21 said:


> I gave it a try V60 using my Biarro AltoAir holder 13/225 water. Ok ish, I found it worked better in the Bonavita as @MWJB
> 
> One thing that is noticeable was that if I didn't do the swirl of the brewer at 1m45 hard enough, then the brew comes through too fast and underextracted. The swirl seems to stall the flow.
> 
> I can't see the point of the 3 times coffee weight bloom. At least half of it runs off before the coffee is properly wet. Might be worth discarding it. Haven't tried it with a normal bloom (normally I'd use 20g water for 13g coffee - I don't like to see any more than a couple of drips come through during bloom)
> 
> Not a convert.


He does say to use 20-22g coffee using this recipe. 13g might be a too little shallow bed depth to hold back water properly..

I tried a few times with 18g/300g and also had underextraction a few times where the water seemed to drain quickly. Other times the result was really good. I'm not sure yet what caused faster drawdown with same grind setting.


----------



## MWJB

the_partisan said:


> He does say to use 20-22g coffee using this recipe. 13g might be a too little shallow bed depth to hold back water properly...


Sure, hence why pulsing for the smaller brews to draw out brew time. When I ground fine enough to do a single pour with 13.5 g in V60, my extractions were typically on the low side, less consistent & tasted uneven. The thing is my cups/mugs are 7-8oz, so I have little desire to brew with a 20g+ dose.

Just tried switching from the Bonavita to a Melitta without valve, EY so far seems on par using the Rao method, but as @Step21 found, I'm not sure the big bloom works as well with smaller brews (which Scott states he doesn't do) without holding back the bloom drips, as they taste a bit uneven...maybe bigger brews circumvent this?


----------



## WillS

Wow, seems very coarse! How long is your brew time Salty? I'm using the suggested smaller recipe of 20G to 330G. Currently brewing a Kenyan from Square Mile and I'm already down to 1.4 on the Feldgrind which is way finer than yours. Brew drains in just over 2.30. I'm not so confident with my taste buds, but I would say it doesn't taste amazing, but at the same time it doesn't taste either sour or bitter. I'm going to try finer, maybe 1.2 in the morning. I started around the setting of 2 and it just seemed way too fast.


----------



## MWJB

WillS said:


> Wow, seems very coarse! How long is your brew time Salty? I'm using the suggested smaller recipe of 20G to 330G. Currently brewing a Kenyan from Square Mile and I'm already down to 1.4 on the Feldgrind which is way finer than yours. Brew drains in just over 2.30. I'm not so confident with my taste buds, but I would say it doesn't taste amazing, but at the same time it doesn't taste either sour or bitter. I'm going to try finer, maybe 1.2 in the morning. I started around the setting of 2 and it just seemed way too fast.


1.4 are you sure, this is espresso territory.


----------



## salty

WillS said:


> Wow, seems very coarse! How long is your brew time Salty? I'm using the suggested smaller recipe of 20G to 330G. Currently brewing a Kenyan from Square Mile and I'm already down to 1.4 on the Feldgrind which is way finer than yours. Brew drains in just over 2.30. I'm not so confident with my taste buds, but I would say it doesn't taste amazing, but at the same time it doesn't taste either sour or bitter. I'm going to try finer, maybe 1.2 in the morning. I started around the setting of 2 and it just seemed way too fast.


Around 3:10 mark +/- 10 secs Japanese filters - no tabs


----------



## WillS

MWJB said:


> 1.4 are you sure, this is espresso territory.


I think I'm sure







. It does seem very fine, but like I said when I started around 2 it just drained super fast (around 2 mins) so I've just been going finer. I'm using VCF-02-100W papers. Unless my grinder is not set up correctly. Maybe I need to take it apart and start again with the set up?


----------



## MWJB

WillS said:


> I think I'm sure
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . It does seem very fine, but like I said when I started around 2 it just drained super fast (around 2 mins) so I've just been going finer. I'm using VCF-02-100W papers. Unless my grinder is not set up correctly. Maybe I need to take it apart and start again with the set up?


I wouldn't start by taking the grinder apart.

Turn a few turns, adjust finer, a few turns adjust finer...& so on until you have the inner burr pretty much flush with the outer and you just start to feel rub. How many turns is that from your current setting?


----------



## WillS

I feel like my grinder setting is actually Ok. I was at 1.4 and it took one and a quarter turns to get to touching. Then I went back out to 2 and made another brew. This time I tried another coffee, an Ethiopian from Square Mile. Same result, a fast drain. 330G drained in 1 minute and 54. I really don't see how with a setting of 2.6 it can take over 3 minutes to drain! I also took a photo of my grounds. Scott Rao said aim for a grind size like sand and mine seems bigger than that so it only seems logical for me to go finer.


----------



## salty

This is a picture of the September LSOL by Craft House. 15g/250g Scott Rao recipe but with 45 sec/30g bloom. 2+6 on the feldgrind. Total time to drawdown 3:26


----------



## MWJB

WillS said:


> I feel like my grinder setting is actually Ok. I was at 1.4 and it took one and a quarter turns to get to touching. Then I went back out to 2 and made another brew. This time I tried another coffee, an Ethiopian from Square Mile. Same result, a fast drain. 330G drained in 1 minute and 54. I really don't see how with a setting of 2.6 it can take over 3 minutes to drain! I also took a photo of my grounds. Scott Rao said aim for a grind size like sand and mine seems bigger than that so it only seems logical for me to go finer.


So your burrs just begin to touch at "0"? At what point do they jam up?

There's a lot of chaff in your photo for a grind seting of "2+0".


----------



## Elcee

WillS said:


> I feel like my grinder setting is actually Ok. I was at 1.4 and it took one and a quarter turns to get to touching. Then I went back out to 2 and made another brew. This time I tried another coffee, an Ethiopian from Square Mile. Same result, a fast drain. 330G drained in 1 minute and 54. I really don't see how with a setting of 2.6 it can take over 3 minutes to drain! I also took a photo of my grounds. Scott Rao said aim for a grind size like sand and mine seems bigger than that so it only seems logical for me to go finer.


How did those brews taste? Its normal for drain time to vary from brew to brew and bean to bean. Anecdotally I've had brews that took over 4 mins to drain and and some close to 2 mins which all tasted good.


----------



## fluffles

the_partisan said:


> He does say to use 20-22g coffee using this recipe. 13g might be a too little shallow bed depth to hold back water properly..
> 
> I tried a few times with 18g/300g and also had underextraction a few times where the water seemed to drain quickly. Other times the result was really good. I'm not sure yet what caused faster drawdown with same grind setting.


Couldn't you just grind a bit finer? I seem to be OK with 15g brews and 3x bloom weight, I find if I use much less water then not all the grounds feel properly wet when I'm stirring


----------



## WillS

Maybe I'm not understanding how to set the grinder. I cannot go any further clockwise than this picture...









Then for 2 I am turning anti clockwise 360 degrees twice. Is that 2?


----------



## MWJB

WillS said:


> Maybe I'm not understanding how to set the grinder. I cannot go any further clockwise than this picture...
> 
> Then for 2 I am turning anti clockwise 360 degrees twice. Is that 2?


Yes, 2 rotations anti-clockwise would be "2". At what point do you stop feeling the rub between the burrs?

The number of rotations may be arbitrary (though Felds do seem consistent from other comments), it's the gap between the burrs that is the key.


----------



## WillS

Do you mean if I back off from the maximum when do I feel like it turns freely? If so then as per my pic if I go anti-clockwise until the number 2 is central then it is moving freely.


----------



## Step21

What setting was the photo you posted? It looks fairly coarse to me.


----------



## Step21

fluffles said:


> Couldn't you just grind a bit finer? I seem to be OK with 15g brews and 3x bloom weight, I find if I use much less water then not all the grounds feel properly wet when I'm stirring


I find the comparison when blooming in the Bonavita (valve shut) interesting. If I bloom 3x coffee weight, give it a swirl then after about 1 min all the water is absorbed by the grounds like a sponge. This is properly wet though it looks like solid wet sand. Not soggy.

Do the same with a V60 and by the time you pour and get the spoon in a fair bit of water has run through so the coffee is not absorbing as much water whether you stir it or not. I can't see how it is as effective.

The Perger "stir like a bandit" method uses 4x water in the bloom. Presumably the stirring is important with these two methods?


----------



## MWJB

WillS said:


> Do you mean if I back off from the maximum when do I feel like it turns freely? If so then as per my pic if I go anti-clockwise until the number 2 is central then it is moving freely.


If I remember right, this point was about "8" on mine? Anyone else?


----------



## fluffles

Step21 said:


> I find the comparison when blooming in the Bonavita (valve shut) interesting. If I bloom 3x coffee weight, give it a swirl then after about 1 min all the water is absorbed by the grounds like a sponge. This is properly wet though it looks like solid wet sand. Not soggy.
> 
> Do the same with a V60 and by the time you pour and get the spoon in a fair bit of water has run through so the coffee is not absorbing as much water whether you stir it or not. I can't see how it is as effective.
> 
> The Perger "stir like a bandit" method uses 4x water in the bloom. Presumably the stirring is important with these two methods?


Yeah you inevitably get some drip through on the V60, which will be of lower extraction than if it were held in the brewer as with the Bonavita. This doesn't necessarily matter though if your grind is correct for your given brewer and method - discarding the drip through as has been suggested makes no sense to me, as you don't drink this in isolation. I suppose it's possible that the Bonavita could hit a given extraction with a coarser grind due to this.


----------



## MWJB

fluffles said:


> Yeah you inevitably get some drip through on the V60, which will be of lower extraction than if it were held in the brewer as with the Bonavita. This doesn't necessarily matter though if your grind is correct for your given brewer and method - discarding the drip through as has been suggested makes no sense to me, as you don't drink this in isolation. I suppose it's possible that the Bonavita could hit a given extraction with a coarser grind due to this.


Brews with a Bonavita & a Melitta are extracting pretty much the same for me, all about 19%, same coffee, recipe & grind.


----------



## Step21

So, if the V60 bloom is less efficient and the 1st pour has a lower TDS than the Bonavita (just guessing) then maybe later on in the brew the V60 TDS is higher due to grinds that were not optimally wet at the start contributing more at the middle/end of the brew?


----------



## salty

MWJB said:


> If I remember right, this point was about "8" on mine? Anyone else?


On 0 I'm locked. At 2 it will move but the burrs are still in contact - you can hear them. Only when I back off to 9 are the burrs completely free and silent


----------



## the_partisan

I was given some beans roasted a fair bit darker than I usually drink. Some naturally processed coffee from India. I tried brewing them first time today, and although my measurement says EY 19.5%, it just tasted burnt and not much flavour or sweetness. The brew also drained very fast, 1:50 including a 45s bloom using Rao's method and using the Japanese filters. Is there a way to get better taste out of this style beans?


----------



## the_partisan

For those using Scott's method of single pour with V60, what kind of brew times are you getting? There seems to be quite a big difference in Japanese vs Dutch filters. With Japanese filters and using 15:250 coffee:water, my brew seems to finish before 2:00 and I'm struggling to hit more than 19-19.5% extraction even with a quite fine grind. Maybe this method will probably work better in larger amounts, i.e. 22:360 or so?

Still trying to nail this method down. Higher temperature seems to help to get more crisp flavours, but I haven't been able to be as consistent as I was when doing multiple pours and this method seems less forgiving.


----------



## Elcee

the_partisan said:


> For those using Scott's method of single pour with V60, what kind of brew times are you getting? There seems to be quite a big difference in Japanese vs Dutch filters. With Japanese filters and using 15:250 coffee:water, my brew seems to finish before 2:00 and I'm struggling to hit more than 19-19.5% extraction even with a quite fine grind. Maybe this method will probably work better in larger amounts, i.e. 22:360 or so?
> 
> Still trying to nail this method down. Higher temperature seems to help to get more crisp flavours, but I haven't been able to be as consistent as I was when doing multiple pours and this method seems less forgiving.


Do you think there is any merit to pouring the first quarter or third of the water, swirling and tapping the brewer then resuming pouring to give the bed a chance to settle?

I've been getting tasty brews (dunno what extraction percentage) with brew times ranging from around 2.5 to 3 mins with some stretching to 3.5 mins plus depending on the beans.


----------



## salty

the_partisan said:


> For those using Scott's method of single pour with V60, what kind of brew times are you getting? There seems to be quite a big difference in Japanese vs Dutch filters. With Japanese filters and using 15:250 coffee:water, my brew seems to finish before 2:00 and I'm struggling to hit more than 19-19.5% extraction even with a quite fine grind. Maybe this method will probably work better in larger amounts, i.e. 22:360 or so?
> 
> Still trying to nail this method down. Higher temperature seems to help to get more crisp flavours, but I haven't been able to be as consistent as I was when doing multiple pours and this method seems less forgiving.


Using the Crafthouse LSOL 15/250g I've been getting drawdowns around 3:30 (feldgrind 2+6) and 5:00 (feld 2+0) and good, tasty coffee using Japanese unbleached papers without tabs. I follow the Rao recipe except bloom with 30g. So spin stir after pour and wobble at 1:45. Bed is always nice and even


----------



## the_partisan

salty said:


> Using the Crafthouse LSOL 15/250g I've been getting drawdowns around 3:30 (feldgrind 2+6) and 5:00 (feld 2+0) and good, tasty coffee using Japanese unbleached papers without tabs. I follow the Rao recipe except bloom with 30g. So spin stir after pour and wobble at 1:45. Bed is always nice and even


My papers are of the bleached variety, I guess there's a difference between these two. With the Dutch papers using even coarser grinder than now, I was getting drawdown at around 3:00.


----------



## Hairy_Hogg

Interested to know the how much difference in settings between single pour and pulse pour for a V60 people have on their Feldgrinds, for example if you pulse pour and your go to setting is 2+4 would you go -4 from that setting for a single pour (+bloom) brew to 2+0?


----------



## MWJB

Hairy_Hogg said:


> Interested to know the how much difference in settings between single pour and pulse pour for a V60 people have on their Feldgrinds, for example if you pulse pour and your go to setting is 2+4 would you go -4 from that setting for a single pour (+bloom) brew to 2+0?


I'm too lazy to keep changing grind setting all the time & note different settings for each brewer (more margin for mistakes, I'm easily flummoxed). How about dialling in the Kalita 185 for a single pour after bloom, then adjusting the V60 method to use the same grind (at a guess might be 2-3 pours for same brew weights)? Sorry, not the answer to what you're asking & I guess it's just as easy to keep to the same regime across brewers & change grind accordingly, as long as all are consistent.


----------



## Scotford

I've gotten out of the habit of over complicating things recently and have been generally brewing 16:265. 50g bloom water all in within 10 sec, stir to saturate for 5 secs and sit until 45 sec. Then the entire rest of brew water in within a further 30 seconds and a Rao spin and drop tap to settle. I see 90% of my brews finishing within 3:00 and 3:30.


----------



## the_partisan

I tried with different beans and a slightly finer grind, and extraction went way up (22%) and draw down seemed was as well (between 2:30-3:00).

Vario's micro/macro settings also really annoy me. One macro move isn't quite equivalent to full range of micro settings. So if you are at 4A and you move to 3Z, you are actually grinding coarser. Looking forward to my Kruve to figure out how much micro equals one macro jump.


----------



## Cirya

I've lately got rid of all precise regimes during my manual filter brews including ceramic v60 and Blue Bottle flat bottom. Just one continuous very slow spiraling pour so the water drizzles chaotically on the coffee bed from the tip of the spout. No bloom or anything just one continuous pour. 250g of water takes usually around 2:30-2:40 to pour and the Hario brew finishes around 3:20-3:40 with 15g/250g ratio and tabless bleached Japan papers. Blue Bottle dripper takes a bit longer with bleached Kalita 185 papers and slightly coarser grind. I have no idea about the EY% or other values but the coffee tastes very balanced with nice clarity across the board.

I believe that one reason why this works for me is that the water bed seems to absorb most of the kinetic energy of the water droplets so that there is very little agitation especially in the end of the brew. The water bed is actually completely see-through for the last minute or so. Also the brew water probably cools down significantly during the long pour time although I start just off boil. Now these things would probably make no difference with a good grinder but as my good old Wilfa doesn't produce the most uniform particle size anymore, I believe this gentle extraction prevents the massive amount of fines from over-extracting. There might be something similar here to the aeropress dispersion screen technique I saw somewhere.

For quite a long time I happily used the Perger method scaled to 15g/250g with ridiculous precision but still lacked consistency from time to time. Then I stopped stirring the brew slurry in the beginning, which didn't actually help. After that I changed to continuous pour after the bloom and started to stretch the pour time as long as I could. Now I don't even wait for the bloom anymore and I'm drinking the best coffee I've had in a long time with this grinder. Such a weird hobby this is..


----------



## Fyoosh

After only drinking handbrews in coffee shops for the past few years, I've recently started to brew some V60s at home. The many over extracted cups I made yesterday spurred me to join the forum, read and learn some more. My pouring technique needs practice, I end up with a lot of grounds up the side of the filter every time.

After watching Scott Rao's method I'm going to give that a try and see if I can get closer to an even extraction.

Looking forward to reading through this thread from start to finish


----------



## Mrboots2u

Fyoosh said:


> After only drinking handbrews in coffee shops for the past few years, I've recently started to brew some V60s at home. The many over extracted cups I made yesterday spurred me to join the forum, read and learn some more. My pouring technique needs practice, I end up with a lot of grounds up the side of the filter every time.
> 
> After watching Scott Rao's method I'm going to give that a try and see if I can get closer to an even extraction.
> 
> Looking forward to reading through this thread from start to finish


Don't be afraid to pour more around the edges , and create a spin.


----------



## Phobic

there are lots of different techniques out there, to begin with just pick 1 and stick to it, that way you can concentrate on eliminating all other factors which might be contributing to over extraction like how fine you're grinding the beans.

you mention grinds up the side of the filter, this in itself might not be an issue, take a look at this useful thread to get some tips on some common problems https://coffeeforums.co.uk/showthread.php?37416&p=487569#post487569

if you find that you're kicking up lots of grinds as you're pouring if might be that you're trying to do it from too high up, get the spout closer to the grounds. Are you using a goose neck kettle? if not that will be a big help for controlling the flow of water.

let us know your set up and we can help you out


----------



## Hairy_Hogg

Scotford said:


> I've gotten out of the habit of over complicating things recently and have been generally brewing 16:265. 50g bloom water all in within 10 sec, stir to saturate for 5 secs and sit until 45 sec. Then the entire rest of brew water in within a further 30 seconds and a Rao spin and drop tap to settle. I see 90% of my brews finishing within 3:00 and 3:30.


Same here, removed the pulse pours and go for either 14:250 or 21:375 bloom for 40 seconds then all in with 50 seconds (for the larger drink), tap then spin with another spin when the brew is 50% down the paper. Went for this after having a coffee at the Foundry Coffee cafe and then seeing their recipe here. Much more consistency (and tastiness) since adopting this method, just took a few brews to work out tighter grind needed for single pours.


----------



## Fyoosh

Thanks. I'm using a hario V60 size 02, only making a 250ml or 300ml cup so not sure if a 01 size would be better? I have the paper filters with the tabs on. I'm using 15g/250ml or 18g/300ml.

I'm using a hario pouring kettle too, I hadn't considered that I might be pouring from too high and kicking up the grinds so I'll try pouring closer.

I'll watch my pour and report back.

As a side note, I'm interested to try a water filter to see how that affects the taste too. I've been using tap water straight off the boil.


----------



## Neilbdavies

Hi relatively new to this but after a little help?

Started with a V60 in a coffee shop

Started with a V60 at home

Failry quickly realised I couldn't make a consistent cup

Bought scales and started to time my pours

12grms of coffee, 40 sec bloom then a steady pour until I get to 2mins and brews finishes around 2:30/3:00 mins

did this with a number of coffees and enjoyed my coffees

confidence growing and learning

bought a number of coffees from Rave to try them out

Used my mix on Rave Signature blend and lovely coffees

Now trying my mix on rave espresso blend and it's not so nice

My issue is I can't tell if it's because it's a little sour or a little bitter

What I'm struggling with is, I thought if I'm around 2:30/3 mins consistently regardless of the bean I use then my grind on the Hario must be correct? Is that correct? If it is then what's the next step to ty to alter the taste of the coffee?

thanks neil


----------



## the_partisan

12g coffee to how much water? Could you post pics of your slurry after drawndown? Which grinder are you using?

Espresso blends in V60 might not always taste great, it might taste a bit on the roasty/woody side..


----------



## Neilbdavies

260 of water using hario skerton


----------



## MWJB

Neilbdavies said:


> 260 of water using hario skerton.


260g of water is probably too much for 12g of coffee, try more like 190g (lighter roasts) to 210g (darker roasts).

Looks like you are pouring too much in the centre, don't be afraid to pour around the edges of the bed to wash down the filter walls, or to give the surface of the brew a little stir, or a swirl of the brewer when all water has been added.


----------



## Neilbdavies

Hi I pour around the walls as I steady pour the well is just once I stop pouring and let it drain through.

the 260 is so I use as an Americanism coffee but I'll try the measures you suggest.

regarding the times and the grind if I'm getting the pour completeing in around 3 mins is the grind correct?


----------



## MWJB

Neilbdavies said:


> Hi I pour around the walls as I steady pour the well is just once I stop pouring and let it drain through.
> 
> the 260 is so I use as an Americanism coffee but I'll try the measures you suggest.
> 
> regarding the times and the grind if I'm getting the pour completeing in around 3 mins is the grind correct?


I don't see how 12g to 260g equates to an American coffee?

How many pulses are you pouring? If you are dribbling water in for a full 3 in, it makes it hard to see what your flow rate is, If you have a known weight of water above th bed at certain intervals, this is easier to see...as yet. I don't know if your grind is correct, you cab draw it out to more than 3mi & it be correct, or pour it all in 20sec & be correct too.


----------



## Rhys

Watched how a V60 was made at Cup North, and I do mine the same now. 18g coffee and 300g water. 50g bloom and then a continuous pour. Lift up and swill round then tap on the stand. Tastes good to me.


----------



## the_partisan

Your coffee bed is uneven so you probably have uneven extraction. With 12g coffee, try pouring 30g of boiling water, and quickly stir the grounds with a small spoon. Wait 30sec, then pour the rest in about 20-30 seconds, getting the grounds off the walls as necessary. After you have finished pouring give the Hario a gentle swirl to settle all the grounds at the bottom.


----------



## Neilbdavies

> [/
> 
> Watched how a V60 was made at Cup North, and I do mine the same now. 18g coffee and 300g water. 50g bloom and then a continuous pour. Lift up and swill round then tap on the stand. Tastes good to me.
> 
> Only way to learn is I'll try a coffee following each piece of advice but isn't 18 grams a really strong coffee
> 
> QUOTE]


----------



## MWJB

Neilbdavies said:


> [/
> 
> Watched how a V60 was made at Cup North, and I do mine the same now. 18g coffee and 300g water. 50g bloom and then a continuous pour. Lift up and swill round then tap on the stand. Tastes good to me.
> 
> Only way to learn is I'll try a coffee following each piece of advice but isn't 18 grams a really strong coffee
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> 
> 
> 18g to 300g is 60g/L, a middle of the road brew ratio for drip brewing in Europe. It is the same as 12g to 200g (6g coffee dose/100g of brew water), an 18g dose & 300g water just makes a bigger drink.
Click to expand...


----------



## the_partisan

> Watched how a V60 was made at Cup North, and I do mine the same now. 18g coffee and 300g water. 50g bloom and then a continuous pour. Lift up and swill round then tap on the stand. Tastes good to me.
> 
> Only way to learn is I'll try a coffee following each piece of advice but isn't 18 grams a really strong coffee


It's about as much coffee as it would be in a typical double espresso shot. Strength and dosage are two different things. Strength more describes how concentrated your beverage is rather than the absolute amount of coffee in it. A 18g in/36g out double espresso and your 18g V60 brew would have the same dosage but very different strengths.


----------



## Rhys

the_partisan said:


> It's about as much coffee as it would be in a typical double espresso shot. Strength and dosage are two different things. Strength more describes how concentrated your beverage is rather than the absolute amount of coffee in it. A 18g in/36g out double espresso and your 18g V60 brew would have the same dosage but very different strengths.


Ah, but if you tip the 36g espresso into a mug and add 264g of water would the strength be similar? ie an Americano/Long black. Just a thought..


----------



## IggyK

Neilbdavies said:


> [/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Watched how a V60 was made at Cup North, and I do mine the same now. 18g coffee and 300g water. 50g bloom and then a continuous pour. Lift up and swill round then tap on the stand. Tastes good to me.
> 
> Only way to learn is I'll try a coffee following each piece of advice but isn't 18 grams a really strong coffee
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just a bit quicker way to waste your beans, I used to use 18 but now just stick to 15/250.
Click to expand...


----------



## the_partisan

Rhys said:


> Ah, but if you tip the 36g espresso into a mug and add 264g of water would the strength be similar? ie an Americano/Long black. Just a thought..


Typically with 300g brew, you don't get 300g out.. more like 250g maybe? You'd probably need something between 1:6 or 1:7 dilution to reach same strength as normal brewed coffee.


----------



## Neilbdavies

> coffee bed is uneven so you probably have uneven extraction. With 12g coffee, try pouring 30g of boiling water, and quickly stir the grounds with a small spoon. Wait 30sec, then pour the rest in about 20-30 seconds, getting the grounds off the walls as necessary. After you have finished pouring give the Hario a gentle swirl to settle all the grounds at the bottom


followed the above and found the coffee sour, turned the hario down 2 notches on the grind and tried again and coffee is good; sourness has gone. Pleased with myself as following some of the feedback and whatnot do with a sour coffee has helped. Happy with the coffee now but Presuming it's worth going down another notch on the grinder just to experiment and see what the change in the taste is?


----------



## Fyoosh

Phobic said:


> there are lots of different techniques out there, to begin with just pick 1 and stick to it, that way you can concentrate on eliminating all other factors which might be contributing to over extraction like how fine you're grinding the beans.
> 
> you mention grinds up the side of the filter, this in itself might not be an issue, take a look at this useful thread to get some tips on some common problems https://coffeeforums.co.uk/showthread.php?37416&p=487569#post487569
> 
> if you find that you're kicking up lots of grinds as you're pouring if might be that you're trying to do it from too high up, get the spout closer to the grounds. Are you using a goose neck kettle? if not that will be a big help for controlling the flow of water.
> 
> let us know your set up and we can help you out


Changed from using the thicker hario filters with the tab, to the thinner tabless ones today, the difference is huge. Drawdown is much faster and it seems easier to create a spin from pouring.

Trying out the Rao spin at the end too and I'm getting a much flatter bed without the high and dry grounds.


----------



## the_partisan

I have some beans which tasted great when cupping them, but when brewed with V60 (with same grind size) they don't have the complexity and taste mostly flat and a little astringent and drying. The extraction and the TDS seems about right (1.35/20.3%), but I'm not sure what's causing this? I brewed it with Rao's method, using a single pour for 15g/250g..

I tried coarsening the grind, and it was mostly same flavour but just thinner.


----------



## MWJB

the_partisan said:


> I have some beans which tasted great when cupping them, but when brewed with V60 (with same grind size) they don't have the complexity and taste mostly flat and a little astringent and drying. The extraction and the TDS seems about right (1.35/20.3%), but I'm not sure what's causing this? I brewed it with Rao's method, using a single pour for 15g/250g..
> 
> I tried coarsening the grind, and it was mostly same flavour but just thinner.


What was your cupping recipe?


----------



## the_partisan

MWJB said:


> What was your cupping recipe?


11g/180g, break crust after 4min, and taste after another 8min or so. It was the same grind as the drip.


----------



## MWJB

the_partisan said:


> 11g/180g, break crust after 4min, and taste after another 8min or so. It was the same grind as the drip.


Long shot, but try brewing at 65g/L, or a little higher, & ~1.20%TDS+ in the cup.


----------



## the_partisan

MWJB said:


> Long shot, but try brewing at 65g/L, or a little higher, & ~1.20%TDS+ in the cup.


Wouldn't that be quite low EY? like 16%?

I also did an Aeropress brew now, 12g/200g, same grind size as drip, inverted, break crust and let it steep for ~12 min and the result was nice too, very similar to the cupping.. Good sweetness and orange notes.

I tried to measure the TDS but without a syringe filter results are not very precise, but it was around 1.15-1.17.


----------



## MWJB

the_partisan said:


> Wouldn't that be quite low EY? like 16%?
> 
> I also did an Aeropress brew now, 12g/200g, same grind size as drip, inverted, break crust and let it steep for ~12 min and the result was nice too, very similar to the cupping.. Good sweetness and orange notes.
> 
> I tried to measure the TDS but without a syringe filter results are not very precise, but it was around 1.15-1.17.


Coffees on the low side of solubility can taste OK around 17%EY. What is it, Costa Rican?


----------



## the_partisan

MWJB said:


> Coffees on the low side of solubility can taste OK around 17%EY. What is it, Costa Rican?


It is a washed Colombian, Yellow Caturra. I'm not sure why I'm struggling to make a decent V60. Maybe the astringent / dry flavours are due to channeling or uneven extraction? When I go coarser I seem to lose the sweetness as well and it just tasted thinner, but not really any better. I had a similar experience with the Has Bean El Salvador WBC beans too. They were much better as Aeropress.

With low solubility, I typically end up with much lower TDS at my typical grind size (5F on Vario).


----------



## MWJB

You may not need to go coarser, maybe just up the brew ratio & let the smaller brew water/beverage weight drop the EY, but lift the TDS (over what you'd get at 60g/L)?


----------



## the_partisan

Doesn't Aeropress produce a weaker beverage though? Curious what your reasoning is. Will give this a try tomorrow.


----------



## Mrboots2u

the_partisan said:


> Doesn't Aeropress produce a weaker beverage though? Curious what your reasoning is. Will give this a try tomorrow.


Strong / Weak functions of brew ratio used..... Percieved mouthfeel etc will be down to the filters ( what gets through what doesnt ) or brew method ( immersion , pour over etc ) in any brew type .

TDS isnt a measure of strength per se...


----------



## MWJB

the_partisan said:


> Doesn't Aeropress produce a weaker beverage though? Curious what your reasoning is. Will give this a try tomorrow.


You make the weaker beverage . The Aeropress just sits there being filled up, drained, tipped up & down.

My Aeropress brews at 55g/L are 1.3%TDS after 20-30min (fine grind). 60g/L brews are 1.28%TDS after 5mins hybrid steep/drip brew (at same grind as V60).

My reasoning is that the cupping & Aeropress you made were likely somewhere around 1.20%TDS, to get this kind of strength at a similar dose to beverage ratio means ~200g in the cup from a 15g dose. So, no more than 230g brew water.

Just going coarser, staying at 15:250, will drop the V60 extraction from 20%EY, but your strength will also drop to around 1.10%TDS & less small particles will add to the thinner mouthfeel.


----------



## the_partisan

MWJB said:


> You make the weaker beverage . The Aeropress just sits there being filled up, drained, tipped up & down.
> 
> My Aeropress brews at 55g/L are 1.3%TDS after 20-30min (fine grind). 60g/L brews are 1.28%TDS after 5mins hybrid steep/drip brew (at same grind as V60).
> 
> My reasoning is that the cupping & Aeropress you made were likely somewhere around 1.20%TDS, to get this kind of strength at a similar dose to beverage ratio means ~200g in the cup from a 15g dose. So, no more than 230g brew water.
> 
> Just going coarser, staying at 15:250, will drop the V60 extraction from 20%EY, but your strength will also drop to around 1.10%TDS & less small particles will add to the thinner mouthfeel.


The 15:250 brew with the coarser grind was actually 1.29% TDS and 218g in the cup, giving 19.5% EY. Aeropress at 60g/L with ~1.20% TDS should be still around 20-21% EY if I'm not mistaken? So updosing would actually bring my EY down..

Incidentially the color of the brew is much lighter with the Aeropress, but that's because of the oils maybe rather than strength?


----------



## MWJB

the_partisan said:


> The 15:250 brew with the coarser grind was actually 1.29% TDS and 218g in the cup, giving 19.5% EY. Aeropress at 60g/L with ~1.20% TDS should be still around 20-21% EY if I'm not mistaken? So updosing would actually bring my EY down..


Exactly. If 19.5% & 20.3% feel like they are pushing the coffee too far, aim lower, but up the brew ratio to bolster the strength.

Drip and immersion EY are calculated differently, the strength & body in the cup won't be the same for 20% EY (presumably why you suggested Aeropress would be weaker?).


----------



## the_partisan

Yeah 20% EY drip vs 20% EY immersion I guess isn't quite the same flavour wise. Scott Rao had a blog post regarding this.

So I think I will need to use less water(230g) and also coarsen the grind a little more to get to ~1.2% TDS at 65g/L..

BTW I'm a bit confused with the statement: "My reasoning is that the cupping & Aeropress you made were likely somewhere around 1.20%TDS, to get this kind of strength at a similar dose to beverage ratio means ~200g in the cup from a 15g dose. So, no more than 230g brew water."

since my Aeropress was 12g dose, not 15g.


----------



## Elcee

the_partisan said:


> Yeah 20% EY drip vs 20% EY immersion I guess isn't quite the same flavour wise. Scott Rao had a blog post regarding this.
> 
> So I think I will need to use less water(230g) and also coarsen the grind a little more to get to ~1.2% TDS at 65g/L..
> 
> BTW I'm a bit confused with the statement: "My reasoning is that the cupping & Aeropress you made were likely somewhere around 1.20%TDS, to get this kind of strength at a similar dose to beverage ratio means ~200g in the cup from a 15g dose. So, no more than 230g brew water."
> 
> since my Aeropress was 12g dose, not 15g.


Just curious, have you tried splitting up the pour with the v60 instead of a single continuous pour?


----------



## the_partisan

Elcee said:


> Just curious, have you tried splitting up the pour with the v60 instead of a single continuous pour?


Not yet.

Today I did another brew with my last Kalita filter using wave instead with same grind, using a very slow single pour and this was much better. Still fairly high extraction (20.5%).

I haven't done many V60s in a while and I guess my recipe / grind size is off..


----------



## MWJB

the_partisan said:


> Not yet.
> 
> Today I did another brew with my last Kalita filter using wave instead with same grind, using a very slow single pour and this was much better. Still fairly high extraction (20.5%).
> 
> I haven't done many V60s in a while and I guess my recipe / grind size is off..


Then maybe the level of extraction isn't the issue?

The Wave is pretty self regulating in terms of flow/extraction, whereas I've not often had good/consistent results with one big pour in a V60 (though I don't have a flat burr grinder, nor do I brew as big a brew as Scott's recipe of ~20g dose) & if I don't regulate the V60 by splitting up the pours, my brews don't taste as even.


----------



## Fyoosh

MWJB said:


> Then maybe the level of extraction isn't the issue?
> 
> The Wave is pretty self regulating in terms of flow/extraction, whereas I've not often had good/consistent results with one big pour in a V60 (though I don't have a flat burr grinder, nor do I brew as big a brew as Scott's recipe of ~20g dose) & if I don't regulate the V60 by splitting up the pours, my brews don't taste as even.


This is interesting. I've been reading a lot of Scott Rao lately. I currently make a 250ml V60, with a 40ml bloom for 45 seconds and then one pour.

Curious to know if you were making a 15g/250 V60, how you would split the pours?


----------



## MWJB

Fyoosh said:


> This is interesting. I've been reading a lot of Scott Rao lately. I currently make a 250ml V60, with a 40ml bloom for 45 seconds and then one pour.
> 
> Curious to know if you were making a 15g/250 V60, how you would split the pours?


I wouldn't make a 15:250g because I mostly drink out of cups that only hold around 210g 

Whilst 15:250 is easy to remember, I'd tend to try and leave myself with a post bloom water weight that is easily divisible by as many factors as possible. Say, either 210g or 240g...plus 2x dose weight for total brew water. So 14.5g, bloom with 30g, leaving 210g, or 16.5g dose, 35g bloom, leaving 240g.

The other thing to bear in mind is that the number of pours is just a means to an end & works in conjunction with grind size.

So, personally, I'd brew with either 14.5 or 15g of dose, bloom with 30 or 40g of water 30s, then divide the remaining 210g by 6 pours of 35g every 20 sec at the grind size I use (Feldgrind at 2+6, LidoE at 19). Aiming for dry bed around 3:10-3:15 +/- 15sec.

If I used a slightly coarser grind I'd just add 25g every 15 sec after a 30s bloom.

If I went finer, I might do 3 pours of 70g every 40sec, or 4 pours of 55g (adjust bloom as appropriate) every 30sec.

The reason I choose 6 pours for V60 is that I use different brewers & I know that if I stick to the same grind & brew weights, that will work with V60, then 3 pours every 40sec will work with Kalita 185 etc. If I brewed with one pour in a V60, then switched to Kalita 185 & back, I'd be forever changing grind. If I only had v60, I'd be less concerned with 6 pours & just use what gave me most consistently tasty & repeatable extractions.

By the way, you missed the bit where Scott said he doesn't brew with much less than 22g in V60


----------



## the_partisan

Breaking the pour up seems to have worked. I did about 6 pours I think and got a quite nice brew, though forgot to weigh the beverage, TDS was 1.35% though.

I think for single pour to work the best you need either deeper coffee bed than with 15g, or quite fine & even grind, otherwise it just channels through the bed causing astringency, especially with the thin Japanese filters I have now.


----------



## the_partisan

I'm curious how the Melitta 102 compares to V60 for ease of use and in terms of recipes?


----------



## MWJB

the_partisan said:


> I'm curious how the Melitta 102 compares to V60 for ease of use and in terms of recipes?


You can grind fine, long bloom & dump all brew water in one go...but I suspect this will be a little more variable than controlled pours with a gooseneck.

With a gooseneck, at the moment I'm blooming 25g with a stir & leave 30s. Then either 2 pours of 100g 30s apart, or 3 pours of ~65g 20s apart (almost continuous pour in practice). Swirl at 1:45. Average brew time is ~3:00 til dry bed. Same grind setting as for V60 with 6 pours.

In its favour, I can pick up filter papers at the supermarket (Rombouts brand). I'm using the ceramic version, genuine Melitta with just 1 drain hole. Dripping stops a lot sooner than v60 after dry bed.


----------



## the_partisan

MWJB said:


> You can grind fine, long bloom & dump all brew water in one go...but I suspect this will be a little more variable than controlled pours with a gooseneck.
> 
> With a gooseneck, at the moment I'm blooming 25g with a stir & leave 30s. Then either 2 pours of 100g 30s apart, or 3 pours of ~65g 20s apart (almost continuous pour in practice). Swirl at 1:45. Average brew time is ~3:00 til dry bed. Same grind setting as for V60 with 6 pours.
> 
> In its favour, I can pick up filter papers at the supermarket (Rombouts brand). I'm using the ceramic version, genuine Melitta with just 1 drain hole. Dripping stops a lot sooner than v60 after dry bed.


It seems like it should have slower flow rate than V60 (smaller hole), but still not flat bottom and cheaper filters. What makes V60 superior and much more expensive?


----------



## MWJB

I don't think the V60 is superior, just different. It might be possible to utilise a wider range of grinds for the same brew weights & regulate by pour, compared to Melitta? But this could be true also of the Melitta style brewers with additional drain holes.

V60 is a much more recent design & probably had/was desirable to be noticeably different to the existing brewers.


----------



## the_partisan

One important metric that's often overlooked seems to be beverage:dose ratio, which is beverage out / dose, similar to how you would measure espresso ratios. This seems to differ depending on how much liquid the beans hold back, if you're rinsing the filter, brewer type and your pouring method. However it seems like it would be much more consistent to aim for a specific beverage:dose ratio and adjust your brew water : dose ratio (i.e. how much water you pour) accordingly.

I looked at a history of my brews and the bev:dose ratio seems to range between 14:1 to 15:1. I seem to prefer the brews which are closer to 15:1.


----------



## Elcee

One advantage dividing the brew into several pours has is that the flow rate seems more even. I often find that the flow rate is faster at the start of the brew and slower at the end. I wonder if this is a problem for methods which add a lot of water quickly as the first half of the brew flows too quickly.


----------



## MWJB

Elcee said:


> One advantage dividing the brew into several pours has is that the flow rate seems more even. I often find that the flow rate is faster at the start of the brew and slower at the end. I wonder if this is a problem for methods which add a lot of water quickly as the first half of the brew flows too quickly.


I don't think so, assuming extraction is comparable. The concentration of the brews with a lot of water added quickly doesn't swing so much (weaker at the start than pulsed, stronger at the end), whereas you get a bigger jump from the first pulse (very strong) to the last (weaker than average) with a lot of pulses. At the end of the day, there's not a lot of difference.

Dividing up the pour can make brew times more consistent, but that doesn't necessarily make extractions more consistent.


----------



## MWJB

the_partisan said:


> It seems like it should have slower flow rate than V60 (smaller hole).


Indeed. At same grind setting & brew weights, 30s bloom, I'm getting all the water into the Melitta by 1:30, compared to 2:25 for the V60. So for a similar flow rate out & extraction, I can add the water almost twice as fast for Melitta.


----------



## StusBrews

Hey All,

I ran out of Kalita papers and have been getting acquainted with the V60 again. Been getting some really good results with a recipe inspired by a coffee shop I went to Prague recently.

Ratio is 14-15g to 250g water. I change the dose depending on what beans I am using.

Water just off boil. Grind is 2+2 on the Feldgrind

0:00 - 50g water in with a quick stir to wet all the grounds and bloom for 1 min

1:00 - continuous pour down the middle whilst stirring the grounds aiming to finish pouring 200g at the 1:45 mark

1:45 - spiral pour the remaining 50g water aiming to finish the pour at the 2:00 mark

2:00 - quick wiggle of the brewer and a couple of taps down onto the carafe (or mug) to settle the grounds

Brew should finish around the 3:30 to 4:00 mark.

The part that inspired this recipe was when the barista in the coffee shop I went to was continuously stirring the grounds whilst adding the brew water. I wasn't convinced this would end in a tasty cup, but I was wrong.

I love this recipe as I don't have to worry about my pouring technique!


----------



## 9bar-ista

What beans are you using this recipe with? I'm surprised that the cup isn't over-extracted with such a fine grind and continuous stirring/agitation.


----------



## StusBrews

9bar-ista said:


> What beans are you using this recipe with? I'm surprised that the cup isn't over-extracted with such a fine grind and continuous stirring/agitation.


I had the exact same thought as you when I saw the barista making the brew, but surprisingly it wasn't at all.

I'm using light roast for filter. Have used Kenyan, Ethiopian and a Panama Geisha so far and all have tasted great. Those that felt a little strong, I would just dose less and those that are more soluble I would just grind coarser. I would say that a dark roast wouldn't do so well with this recipe.


----------



## Zephyp

A general question.

If you were given a fresh bag of light/medium beans that you've never tried before, what is your starting point and what do you adjust first? Do you have a certain grind size and water temperature that you always start with? And if you adjust something, do you start with grind size or temperature? Or both? I'm trying to be a bit more systematic to my brews by using the same technique every time and only adjust one parameter at the time.


----------



## Mrboots2u

Zephyp said:


> A general question.
> 
> If you were given a fresh bag of light/medium beans that you've never tried before, what is your starting point and what do you adjust first? Do you have a certain grind size and water temperature that you always start with? And if you adjust something, do you start with grind size or temperature? Or both? I'm trying to be a bit more systematic to my brews by using the same technique every time and only adjust one parameter at the time.


I am a heathen , I dont play with water temp, i don't even have a water temp kettle, I pre heat a gooseneck then add boiling water to it and start pouring.

So for me I Have a general go to grind setting , and then i look at the bean or origin and make a guess .

I know I will be alone in this proabably but i think moving temp 1 or 2 degrees isnt worth it when you can change extraction by pour regime and or grind size.


----------



## MWJB

Zephyp said:


> A general question.
> 
> If you were given a fresh bag of light/medium beans that you've never tried before, what is your starting point and what do you adjust first? Do you have a certain grind size and water temperature that you always start with? And if you adjust something, do you start with grind size or temperature? Or both? I'm trying to be a bit more systematic to my brews by using the same technique every time and only adjust one parameter at the time.


I keep grind, brew weights, pour regime & temp (boiling at bloom for smaller brews) the same.

Dialling in a new/different grinder, I only adjust grind setting.

When dialled in, if I want to tweak a certain coffee's extraction I tweak pour regime.

I'd suggest start at 14g dose.

Bloom 30g, stir (just a few quick strokes) & leave until 00:30

0:30 add up to 65g total, in spirals covering the whole of the bed, water must drop straight down from kettle spout (no 'hosing' in an arc). Each actual pour takes ~10sec.

0:50 add up to 100g total as above.

1:10 add up to 135g "  "

1:30 add up to 170g " "

1:50 add up to 205g " "

2:10 add up to 240g...the last 2 pours should have established a gentle spin.

When last water is in, swirl gently.

Look for a dry bed around 3:10 (+/-15s), then let drip for about 40s. African coffees may take longer. Don't adjust grind for every different coffee, nor to get times to match to the second. Only adjust grind to correct the flavour & after a couple of brews at the same setting to ensure you're not making little, one-off errors.

If I want to extract a particular coffee higher, (or if a certain grinder is too much hard work too grind some beans & I want to use a coarser setting), I might bloom as above then pour 25g every 15s, or even 20g every 20s.

If I want to extract less I might bloom as above & pour 50g every 30s.

What grinder are you using?


----------



## Zephyp

Mrboots2u said:


> I am a heathen , I dont play with water temp, i don't even have a water temp kettle, I pre heat a gooseneck then add boiling water to it and start pouring.
> 
> So for me I Have a general go to grind setting , and then i look at the bean or origin and make a guess .
> 
> I know I will be alone in this proabably but i think moving temp 1 or 2 degrees isnt worth it when you can change extraction by pour regime and or grind size.


I used to only use water off boil, read about people using everything from 80 to 100C, started experimenting myself, but now I'm pretty much back to the old style of always going off boil. I agree that a it seems unlike for a degree or two to matter, and that other factors will affect each brew more than a degree can do.

I also did a test once on temperature, and using a V60 01, water off boil, the temperature in the slurry was at highest 92C after a second pour and from there just went down.



MWJB said:


> I keep grind, brew weights, pour regime & temp (boiling at bloom for smaller brews) the same.
> 
> Dialling in a new/different grinder, I only adjust grind setting.
> 
> When dialled in, if I want to tweak a certain coffee's extraction I tweak pour regime.
> 
> I'd suggest start at 14g dose.
> 
> Bloom 30g, stir (just a few quick strokes) & leave until 00:30
> 
> 0:30 add up to 65g total, in spirals covering the whole of the bed, water must drop straight down from kettle spout (no 'hosing' in an arc).
> 
> 0:50 add up to 100g total as above.
> 
> 1:10 add up to 135g " "
> 
> 1:30 add up to 170g " "
> 
> 1:50 add up to 205g " "
> 
> 2:10 add up to 240g...the last 2 pours should have established a gentle spin.
> 
> When last water is in, swirl gently.
> 
> Look for a dry bed around 3:10 (+/-15s), then let drip for about 40s. African coffees may take longer. Don't adjust grind for every different coffee, nor to get times to match to the second. Only adjust grind to correct the flavour & after a couple of brews at the same setting to ensure you're not making little, one-off errors.
> 
> If I want to extract a particular coffee higher, (or if a certain grinder is too much hard work too grind some beans & I want to use a coarser setting), I might bloom as above then pour 25g every 15s, or even 20g every 20s.
> 
> If I want to extract less I might bloom as above & pour 50g every 30s.
> 
> What grinder are you using?


Thank you for an informative reply.

I've been trying different methods, but somehow always ended up with continous ones. 18/300, 2x weight for bloom with a stir, then continous from 0:30 to around 1:30. Drawdown somewhere between 2:30-3:00, depending on the bean. I did make my first cup ever with a V60 using a 5-6 pour method that I found in here I believe, and it came out pretty good, but I was mostly focused on the difference in taste from the Kalita that I'd been using a couple of years.

I will give your method a try next time. My last brew with an Ethiopian drew down at 2:30 and I was thinking about going finer since it tasted a bit on the sour side. I'm currently at work, where I got a Lido 3 and bonavita gooseneck. At home I got a Comandante C40 MK3 and Kalita gooseneck. My Lido setting is usually around 6-10 notches from true zero. On the MK3 I've been going between 25 to 35 clicks from fully closed. My last bag was a Yirgacheffe that I really had trouble dialing in. I got a bit closer in the end with water off boil and 30-32 clicks, but I never really found a good balance. It came out either sour or bitter.

Very interesting that you use the pouring regime to adjust your brews.


----------



## MWJB

Zephyp said:


> Very interesting that you use the pouring regime to adjust your brews.


I have a few different brewers & switch between them a lot, I find a grind setting (my Lido E has been set on 19 marks from zero for over a year?) that works across them & adjust the pour to normalise (with same brew weights). If I had to adjust grind every time I switched brewer, or coffee, I'd lose consistency...& probably the will to live too


----------



## Zephyp

MWJB said:


> I have a few different brewers & switch between them a lot, I find a grind setting (my Lido E has been set on 19 marks from zero for over a year?) that works across them & adjust the pour to normalise (with same brew weights). If I had to adjust grind every time I switched brewer, or coffee, I'd lose consistency...& probably the will to live too


Does pouring with different timings change the total brew time, resulting in the different results?


----------



## MWJB

Zephyp said:


> Does pouring with different timings change the total brew time, resulting in the different results?


Brew time can vary within a normal tolerance & not be an issue. But, generally, for the same brew weights, brewer, filter paper - brew times will be fairly consistent irrespective of number of pours....unless your pours are so small & widely spaced that there is significant dead time with no flow. E.g. my last 73 V60s, mostly 6 pours, but a few 8 pours & bunch of different grinders were all between 2:41 & 3:27, or +/-12sec for about 2/3 of them.

If you pour all the water in one quick pour, then the deviation in brew time will be biggest, because the time between last pour & dry bed is the biggest variable in brew time.


----------



## Zephyp

Thanks again! I'm looking forward to trying.

What size V60 does everyone use, relative to the amount you brew? I've got a 01 and 02 plastic and tried a bit of each, currently using 01. I read in your Wiki entry on V60:



> "01" filter cones are typically aimed at brewing smaller cups (120ml to 195ml) & use correspondingly smaller doses of grinds (10g to 12g).


I usually brew with doses around 15/250 to 21/350 for myself. If I want to brew for more than one person, I brew twice rather than double the dose. Should I be using the 02 instead? I see the hole in the bottom is larger on the 02, so I was thinking there's got to be some difference between the two, even if the filters can be used in either.


----------



## Step21

For the volumes you mention I'd definitely use the 02 size. I use 02 size for 13/225


----------



## Mrboots2u

I brew 13.5> 225 with a 1 cup ..

God I am a heathen it seems


----------



## Zephyp

MWJB said:


> I have a few different brewers & switch between them a lot, I find a grind setting (my Lido E has been set on 19 marks from zero for over a year?) that works across them & adjust the pour to normalise (with same brew weights). If I had to adjust grind every time I switched brewer, or coffee, I'd lose consistency...& probably the will to live too


I've been trying a bit of everything at once and really lost track of my brews recently. Changing grind, temperature, dripper, technique. It became a real mess. The more I read about coffee, the more I read that people suggest changing a lot of variables that ultimately end up affecting the same stuff. I really like your idea of keeping grind size the same and use pour regime to adjust to taste, just what I needed now. Keep temperature at off boil, same dripper, same grind, adjust with pouring regime.









I'm starting to get the idea of using pour regime to adjust, but how would you suggest I dial in my grinders? I understand that you can use pour regime rather than grind size to adjust from one bag to the next, or between different volumes, but how do I decide on grind size? I might be going a bit off topic for this V60 thread. Maybe there's an existing thread or article that explains it?



Step21 said:


> For the volumes you mention I'd definitely use the 02 size. I use 02 size for 13/225


Alright. Do you find that the same brews on a 01 and 02 come out differently? Is the size of the bottom hole why you don't use the 01 for anything above? I've seen people making arguments for the 01 since you get closer to the surface of the dripper with the kettle. I didn't get close to the top edge with the 01 today with 18/300, so it can't be that the 01 is overflowing.

I didn't have time to study recipes too much before lunch today, so I took MWJB's recipe and haphazardly upped the pour amounts. I can live with 50ml less coffee, so I'll go for the 14/240 recipe tomorrow. Will be on the 01 though, since it's all I got here at the moment. I will figure out how to change pouring regime by volume, so I'm able to brew good coffee with anything from 14 to 24g of coffee.

Coffee: Tim Wendelboe's Hunkute organic, Ethiopian Heirloom, Dalle, Sidamo, Ethiopia.

18/300, Lido 3 at 6 notches from zero (8-9 from true zero IIRC).

Water off boil, V60 01, pre-wet filter.

0:00 Bloom to 35g, stir

0:30 pour to 80g (+45g)

0:50 pour to 120g (+40g)

1:10 pour to 150g (+30g)

1:30 pour to 200g (+50g)

1:50 pour to 250g (+50g)

2:10 pour to 300g (+50g)

Dry bed at 3:25, let it drip to 4:00.

It definitely came out better than my brews with continous from 0:30 to 1:30. It was closer to a balanced brew and I got more of the tasty notes. The pour amounts got a bit weird since I didn't calculate it out. I see that making a Google Sheet to record brews in is very useful, like MWJB's.

Btw. Is there anything to gain from calculating/measuring TDS and EY? Will the numbers tell me anything and can I adjust something based on them, or should I adjust to taste?


----------



## MWJB

Zephyp said:


> I understand that you can use pour regime rather than grind size to adjust from one bag to the next, or between different volumes, but how do I decide on grind size? I might be going a bit off topic for this V60 thread. Maybe there's an existing thread or article that explains it?.


Well, my drip grind for 1 mug brews has ~13% passing through a Kruve 400 sieve. Using a wire mesh sieve this seems to equate to ~800um average grind size. Without using time vs weights as a rough guide, sifting with a known sieve size & design is probably the best way. I would think about the largest brew you are likely to regularly make, dial in the grinder for that & pour regime, then adjust smaller brews to work with that same grind size (more pulses).



Zephyp said:


> Alright. Do you find that the same brews on a 01 and 02 come out differently? Is the size of the bottom hole why you don't use the 01 for anything above? I've seen people making arguments for the 01 since you get closer to the surface of the dripper with the kettle. I didn't get close to the top edge with the 01 today with 18/300, so it can't be that the 01 is overflowing.


I think you can make pretty much the same brew with either, yes, the 01 allows you to get closer to the bed, maybe this will cause 02 brews at the same method to run a little faster, but I mix up 01 & 02 brews and they dovetail. Both are pretty much unrestricted with respect to the centre hole. The 02 just allows you to add larger quantities of brew water in one go, should you want to.



Zephyp said:


> The pour amounts got a bit weird since I didn't calculate it out. I see that making a Google Sheet to record brews in is very useful, like MWJB's.


I also have a sheet to help calculate pour regime, save a copy before overwriting please. For 18:300 I'd probably aim for 1.3-1.4 g/sec. "Dwell ratio" ~1.5 (you can fine tune this based on real brew times). Enter values in the yellow cells only (this is just a suggested example, I don't make 18:300g brews). https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1li6VGSNE3Pv5QQL0M3ap9xF_Qnf-RikKglOgEVSpijQ/edit?usp=sharing

Also see here for a few recipes that are tried & tested: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/19wh3-dVP5PCvg7DaEPp4iWynaPSJ3yGOmEylpKTmUos/edit?usp=sharing



Zephyp said:


> Btw. Is there anything to gain from calculating/measuring TDS and EY? Will the numbers tell me anything and can I adjust something based on them, or should I adjust to taste?


You can't really calculate actual TDS, you can target a projected range but that is pretty much dictated by brew ratio, beverage mass & assuming a reasonable extraction. Measuring TDS & using the software to back calculate EY helps to see which aspects drive the brew & help consistency (hint, it is maintaining dose & brew water weights, allowing the brewer to drip out). For example, a 60g/L brew in a Kalita Wave will be a bit stronger at 20% extraction than the same weights in a V60 (but not so much difference that you necessarily need to adjust), for V60 +/- 10-15sec might be a realistic tolerance for brew times, but you may still see

Coffee tastes the way it does because of origin, processing, roasting, water used to brew & extraction...so even if your brewing is stunningly consistent, your taste preference will still have margin to swing because of the variables that precede the brew process. If I get a coffee that is roasted outside of my preference, I can't change that, I might switch to gentler extraction method to limit extraction (French press?) & go a tad lower on ratio, to reduce intensity if darker than I'd like. Really, we're assuming the coffee is well produced & well roasted, the numbers tell us whether we are hitting a reasonable efficiency of extraction/flavour balance & not dropping out into unusually weak, or strong cups. Look at the broader picture, regarding the numbers, rather than cup to cup (though you can tweak cup to cup if you know what you want to change).

In short, whether you use time, EY, or offerings to the woodland spirits to come up with your brew recipes...you always evaluate by taste as well.


----------



## Zephyp

New day, new brew. Working 12+ hours a day, I found I need those 250ml a day, so I went with 18:300 again, with your recipe, MWJB.









18/300

Flow rate: 1.345

Bloom: 0:00 50g

Pour 1: 0:30 100g

Pour 2: 1:00 150g

Pour 3: 1:30 200g

Pour 4: 2:00 250g

Pour 5: 2:30 300g

Drawdown: 3:55

Pretty good cup, getting more acidity. Perhaps a little bitter at the end of a sip, but better than I've brewed in quite a while. I might leave the grinder where it's at now until I get the Kruve and can dial it in on the 13% 400μm. I can always adjust pour regime to manipulate things. Unfortunately I missed an order window, so it won't ship until after Feb. 26th due to Chinese New Year. They really know how to celebrate new years down there if things stop for two weeks.

Also, thank you for the V60 recipes sheet, that's a good sheet to work with. I'll look around for pour regimes people use with 18/300. I'm starting to see why you use doses that add up to whole numbers. This is actually the sheet I used on my very first V60 brew. The cup that made me switch from Kalita to V60. For some reason I never tried it again, though it was a great cup. Oh well, I'm back on track now it seems.


----------



## J_Fo

@MWJB I pretty much always use the 14.5 to 240 recipe you gave me when i joined a couple of months ago (if it ain't broke...)

That's 30g bloom for 30 secs, then 35g every 20 secs, flat bed around 3 minutes.

How would you adjust it to make 2 cups worth in an 02 size v60?


----------



## MWJB

Jon_Foster said:


> @MWJB I pretty much always use the 14.5 to 240 recipe you gave me when i joined a couple of months ago (if it ain't broke...)
> 
> That's 30g bloom for 30 secs, then 35g every 20 secs, flat bed around 3 minutes.
> 
> How would you adjust it to make 2 cups worth in an 02 size v60?


I would aim for 1.8 to 2.0 g/sec flow rate. So about 220sec plus bloom (30s) about 4:10 total brew time? Sorry, I don't make brews that big, so might take a bit of trial & error to sort pulse size & timing.


----------



## J_Fo

MWJB said:


> I would aim for 1.8 to 2.0 g/sec flow rate. So about 220sec plus bloom (30s) about 5:10 total brew time? Sorry, I don't make brews that big, so might take a bit of trial & error to sort pulse size & timing.


Oh please don't apologise, your help has been invaluable!

I've not made bigger brews yet, I just make 2 little ones so I can keep practicing my technique (and in honesty I just really enjoy the process so making 2 batches is twice the fun







) but thought it'd be good to know anyway...

Out of interest when you say 1.8/2g per sec flow rate do you mean for double brews or just in general?


----------



## MWJB

Jon_Foster said:


> Out of interest when you say 1.8/2g per sec flow rate do you mean for double brews or just in general?


I mean specifically for 30g:500g brews.

Smaller brews can flow slower (but will be shorter in total time), but bigger brews with deeper beds need to have the coffee flow faster to avoid over-extraction.


----------



## J_Fo

Ah excellent, thanks again Mark


----------



## Zephyp

Made a cup:

14/240

0:00 - 30g (bloom with stir)

0:30 - 65g

0:50 - 100g

1:10 - 135g

1:30 - 170g

1:50 - 205g

2:10 - 240g

Drawdown 3:15. Dripper removed at 4:00.

The cup feel more nuanced and really good. It's easier to distinguish the tastes, whereas my recent brews has been a bit difficult to deciffer, being maybe both sour and bitter.

I can probably improve my pouring technique a little on the bloom. I think I'm generally a bit quick with too big rate and too much stuff ends up in the server. It's pretty different to the 3xdose for bloom I'm used to. How many seconds to you spend to pour the bloom and how much water do you normally expect to fall into the cup/server for a 14/240 brew? I know many buy flow restrictors for their kettles, is that something which could be useful to pour more consistently? I know there are ones for my Bonavita kettle. Not sure about the Kalita kettle, but I find that easier to pour in a smaller stream with.

In the recipe spreadsheet there are two sheets for V60. One called 'Universal' and one called '1 mug 6 pours'. In the universal one the info says that pulse size is always 25g and intervals are always 15 seconds. I noticed when changing the brew water, that the sheet doesn't change anything since the weight pulse amount is a direct input of 25, rather than being calculated from the brew water. This also means that the pour numbers and timings don't change. The headline says it's for 150 to 300g brew water recipes, but it's not automatic. I don't quite understand the concept and how you are meant to use to to calculate brews of different size. A 300g brew water recipe with 15s/25g would reach 300g after 3:15 with that regime.

On the other sheet, weight per pour is automatically calculated based on the number of pours and brew water. Ie. more water with same number of pours means more weight per pour and more pours with same water means less weight per pour. Mark's sheet seems to work much the same way as the second sheet.

@Mark: How do I set up your sheet as a starting point with 14/240 (or 14.4/240 for 60g/l)? I tried putting in 240, 30g bloom weight. 1.28 g/sec and 6 pours, where I got got pour #1 at 00:25. Do I just do the first pour after 25s or is there some part I'm missing? Would be nice to have a starting point in the sheet that I can keep track of when changing stuff.


----------



## MWJB

Zephyp said:


> The cup feel more nuanced and really good. It's easier to distinguish the tastes, whereas my recent brews has been a bit difficult to deciffer, being maybe both sour and bitter.


Good news! 



Zephyp said:


> How many seconds to you spend to pour the bloom and how much water do you normally expect to fall into the cup/server for a 14/240 brew? I know many buy flow restrictors for their kettles, is that something which could be useful to pour more consistently? I know there are ones for my Bonavita kettle. Not sure about the Kalita kettle, but I find that easier to pour in a smaller stream with.


I pour the bloom gently, I'd guess I have poured the bloom & stirred by 0:20, for 14g dose 30g bloom maybe 10-15g dripped into the cup by 0:30?

I use an unrestricted Buono. I don't overfill it, maybe 350g water tops for that brew size? This helps control the pour & lets the water drop down from the spout. I also have Tiamo kettle with a narrower gooseneck, with these you have to pour more slowly otherwise the water jets out in an arc.



Zephyp said:


> In the recipe spreadsheet there are two sheets for V60. One called 'Universal' and one called '1 mug 6 pours'. In the universal one the info says that pulse size is always 25g and intervals are always 15 seconds. I noticed when changing the brew water, that the sheet doesn't change anything since the weight pulse amount is a direct input of 25, rather than being calculated from the brew water. This also means that the pour numbers and timings don't change. The headline says it's for 150 to 300g brew water recipes, but it's not automatic. I don't quite understand the concept and how you are meant to use to to calculate brews of different size. A 300g brew water recipe with 15s/25g would reach 300g after 3:15 with that regime.


Well it's more like a 'lowest common denominator recipe' if you start adjusting stuff your pours may drift from 25g every 15s. The idea being that you don't keep to a constant grind for differing brew sizes. You keep the pouring the same, but make smaller or larger brews to steer extraction at a given grind size (grind size is not specified there, so we don't know what the grinder is set for). It wouldn't be a problem if you added the last water at 3:15 with a 18:300 brew, for it to taste good & extract well, you'd be at a coarser grind than you would for a 12:200g brew (I tend to leave the "Universal" Google sheet set on 12:200g as this is most likely to work with the same grind setting as for the 13.5g:225g recipes on the other tabs).

So, a starting point might be 15g:250g. If it's under extracted, try 18:300g. If it's over, try 12:200g or 9g to 150g. If changing the brew size doesn't swing it (say your 9:150g brews are over-extracted) adjust grind.



Zephyp said:


> On the other sheet, weight per pour is automatically calculated based on the number of pours and brew water. Ie. more water with same number of pours means more weight per pour and more pours with same water means less weight per pour. Mark's sheet seems to work much the same way as the second sheet.
> 
> @Mark: How do I set up your sheet as a starting point with 14/240 (or 14.4/240 for 60g/l)? I tried putting in 240, 30g bloom weight. 1.28 g/sec and 6 pours, where I got got pour #1 at 00:25. Do I just do the first pour after 25s or is there some part I'm missing? Would be nice to have a starting point in the sheet that I can keep track of when changing stuff.


For 14.4g @ 60g/L set flow rate to 1.3 & 'Dwell to pour ratio' to 2.0. this will give 6 pours of 35g with a 20s interval (it'll automatically assume 20s bloom, as it's more intuitive to keep intervals uniform. 25s intervals might be a bit challenging? If you'd rather shade in the bloom time cell yellow & input a fixed 30s bloom, feel free to do so.

EDIT: I have changed the bloom to a fixed 30s.


----------



## Zephyp

I noticed you were tinkering in your spreadsheet, thank you for the update. I tried copy-paste, but found just making a copy of the entire sheet into mine works better. For some reason some cells don't work with copy-paste.

I've been reading through parts of your blog, which has a lot of great information, nuggets of brewing and theories. Recommended to anyone interested in brewing coffee. One thing that caught my attention was the post using an Aeropress and metal filter to brew a Kalita 185. I've thought about this myself from time to time, but never actually tried it. My first idea was to use a shower screen of some sort, but I never thought about using an AP metal filter like this. I've got a couple of APs and two metal filters, so this is something to try. I won't be able to try until I get back home in a week or so, but I will test it on the V60.

I think it's a very interesting concept for two reasons:

1. A potentially better cup because of how the water is distributed on the bed.

2. Better consistency from cup to cup since your pouring technique will have less of an influence. If you wanted, you could even make some kind of arrangement where you can regulate flow rate to avoid the pouring alltogether. Not sure if that would make much of a difference if you use the screen in the first place and pour with a gooseneck, and keeping the temperature high enough might be an issue.

Both reasons are in my opinion more than valid for trying this out. One thing people do find difficult with a V60 is consistency, which largely is due to technique.


----------



## MWJB

Zephyp said:


> I noticed you were tinkering in your spreadsheet, thank you for the update. I tried copy-paste, but found just making a copy of the entire sheet into mine works better. For some reason some cells don't work with copy-paste.
> 
> I've been reading through parts of your blog, which has a lot of great information, nuggets of brewing and theories. Recommended to anyone interested in brewing coffee. One thing that caught my attention was the post using an Aeropress and metal filter to brew a Kalita 185. I've thought about this myself from time to time, but never actually tried it. My first idea was to use a shower screen of some sort, but I never thought about using an AP metal filter like this. I've got a couple of APs and two metal filters, so this is something to try. I won't be able to try until I get back home in a week or so, but I will test it on the V60.
> 
> I think it's a very interesting concept for two reasons:
> 
> 1. A potentially better cup because of how the water is distributed on the bed.
> 
> 2. Better consistency from cup to cup since your pouring technique will have less of an influence. If you wanted, you could even make some kind of arrangement where you can regulate flow rate to avoid the pouring alltogether. Not sure if that would make much of a difference if you use the screen in the first place and pour with a gooseneck, and keeping the temperature high enough might be an issue.
> 
> Both reasons are in my opinion more than valid for trying this out. One thing people do find difficult with a V60 is consistency, which largely is due to technique.


Thanks for the kind words.

You'll likely need to grind quite a bit finer (than if pouring straight with a gooseneck) if trying the AP/dispersion trick with the V60.

Doing this with the Kalita seemed to mostly help with keeping fine silt out of the bed (less agitation), which doesn't seem to be as much of an issue with V60 (no reason not to try & improve though).

Honestly, when you get the knack of pouring with a kettle, it's pretty consistent - over-agitating & silty brews are probably the bigger pitfall. I think that a reason for lack of consistency with V60 is people trying to brew with varying weights & grinds, and/or switching between disparate pour methods (there's rarely any explanation with recipes as to why there are so many/few pours & how that relates to grind size - finer = fewer & bigger pours, coarser = smaller & more frequent pours).


----------



## Zephyp

MWJB said:


> Thanks for the kind words.
> 
> You'll likely need to grind quite a bit finer (than if pouring straight with a gooseneck) if trying the AP/dispersion trick with the V60.
> 
> Doing this with the Kalita seemed to mostly help with keeping fine silt out of the bed (less agitation), which doesn't seem to be as much of an issue with V60 (no reason not to try & improve though).


I see. Do you mean that your experience with V60 is that agitation is less significant, or that you achieve less agitation through pouring on it compared to Kalita? In the citation below, you point out over-agitating and siltyness being pitfalls.



MWJB said:


> Honestly, when you get the knack of pouring with a kettle, it's pretty consistent - over-agitating & silty brews are probably the bigger pitfall. I think that a reason for lack of consistency with V60 is people trying to brew with varying weights & grinds, and/or switching between disparate pour methods (there's rarely any explanation with recipes as to why there are so many/few pours & how that relates to grind size - finer = fewer & bigger pours, coarser = smaller & more frequent pours).


I can imagine it being easier to adjust with pour regime than grind and temperature, and my experience so far is that this seems correct. I haven't ventured into experimentation on pulses and pulse weight, but it's an easy variable to adjust.

An improved taste was my primary interest in the method, and when I see you still using the method for Kalita, there must be something to it.

You nailed me on that second line. It's been fairly good earlier, but I sometimes get completely lost on what to do. I always use 60g/L, but have been trying different grind size, temperature, amounts and even drippers. I have wondered many times if there isn't an easy way to do it. I agree on your thoughts on the lack of explanations of various recipes. While on the subject, have you tried the 4:6 method which got a lot of talk after Tetsu Kasuya won the 2016 World Brewers Cup? It's closer to your methods by dividing the water into more pours, in contrast to fi. Rao's video with a single pour after bloom, also so quick it's essentially a dump-and-run.

Advice found on the Internet:

"Bitter brew? Grind coarser."

"Bitter brew? Use lower water temperature."

"Bitter brew? Use a higher dose."

"Bitter brew? Pour different."

If all of these variables effectively regulate the same properties of the brew, it seems a lot more reasonable to reduce the experimentation variables to the lowest number possible. Which is essentially what you've done.









In your V60 guide, you mention tasting the top of the brewed cup with a teaspoon before stirring. Is this something you still do? The thread is from 2012 and you used a continous pour, so I realize you do stuff differently today.

I've started to copy ideas on various details of the brew in a Google document to gather useful info at one place. Finding info in different threads, sheets and blog entries, I got to collect it so I can find it again. I'm sorry if I sometimes ask the same questions twice.

This from a post on page 26:



MWJB said:


> If I want to extract a particular coffee higher, (or if a certain grinder is too much hard work too grind some beans & I want to use a coarser setting), I might bloom as above then pour 25g every 15s, or even 20g every 20s.
> 
> If I want to extract less I might bloom as above & pour 50g every 30s.


How often do you deviate from your standard pour regime? Once the grinder is dialled in and you get a good cup, do you often make smaller changes to the pour regime to extract more or less?

Say you got a cup that's slightly bitter with your standard recipe, you increase the pour amount and reduce your number of pours? And if it's slightly sour you decrease the pour amount and increase number of pour? All brews with the same setup and beans, but different pour regime having roughly the same total brew time.


----------



## MWJB

Zephyp said:


> I see. Do you mean that your experience with V60 is that agitation is less significant, or that you achieve less agitation through pouring on it compared to Kalita? In the citation below, you point out over-agitating and siltyness being pitfalls.


Phew, that's quite a bunch of Q's, I'll tackle them one by one...

I can brew V60s (stirred bloom, all spiral pours, stir at surface at fill - a fair bit of agitation) & see visible, floating particles, but they don't seem to have too much of an adverse effect on flavour. If I make the same sized brew at the same grind with a Kalita 185 with half the number of spiral pours & stirring I can get pruney-er flavours coming through, so I shake the bed after bloom to wet & only pour spirals for bloom & 1st pour, swirl at fill. This suggests to me that the V60 is more tolerant of agitation, perhaps the shallower bed of the Kalita is more susceptible to flushing silt through.


----------



## MWJB

Zephyp said:


> While on the subject, have you tried the 4:6 method which got a lot of talk after Tetsu Kasuya won the 2016 World Brewers Cup? It's closer to your methods by dividing the water into more pours, in contrast to fi. Rao's video with a single pour after bloom, also so quick it's essentially a dump-and-run.


I haven't tried Testsu Kasaya's method. Scott Rao's method is suggested for larger brews than I typically make. My method is based around the fact that my regular cups hold ~200g of coffee, not much more & that I change coffees a lot with sometimes 1 or two brews of a certain coffee on one brewer. In this scenario (as opposed to a café), I want to pick up a bag of coffee, grind, brew & achieve a ball-park, tasty cup. I have the option to tweak if I want, but I'm not intending to waste cups & beans dialling in each brewer, or coffee to a unique grind setting.

I also make "dump-&-run" brews (sometimes with just a regular spout, compact kettle) at finer grinds, I don't think there is right/wrong pouring method in terms of number & size of pours. I do test each method I use for consistency across a range of coffees (but similar roast levels), as long as I get consistently extracted, generally tasty coffee, without constant fiddling with grinder settings, I'm happy.

I do like to experiment, I'm always thinking how I can improve, but I want to choose when I am experimenting (occasionally) & when I am brewing (day to day, enjoyment of coffee).


----------



## MWJB

Zephyp said:


> In your V60 guide, you mention tasting the top of the brewed cup with a teaspoon before stirring. Is this something you still do? The thread is from 2012 and you used a continous pour, so I realize you do stuff differently today.


It probably is worth giving the brew a stir when doing this, to break up stratification in the cup. I just made a cup this morning with a fine grind & continuous pour, so yes I still do that. The point of the exercise you quote was to aim slightly stronger & a little under-extracted, so that if you determine the cup is under extracted you have leeway to pulse little more water through to correct. On the other hand, if extracted OK, just strong, you can dilute slightly with brew water to correct strength.

I'm not sure whether the pour is continuous or not is that relevant, it' more that if you trying to stretch out a brew, it's easier to stay on target by breaking up into targeted weights & intervals.


----------



## MWJB

Zephyp said:


> How often do you deviate from your standard pour regime? Once the grinder is dialled in and you get a good cup, do you often make smaller changes to the pour regime to extract more or less?
> 
> Say you got a cup that's slightly bitter with your standard recipe, you increase the pour amount and reduce your number of pours? And if it's slightly sour you decrease the pour amount and increase number of pour? All brews with the same setup and beans, but different pour regime having roughly the same total brew time.


In practice, I pretty much always stick to the same pour regime for 1 mug brews. I would need to be sure the bitterness was due specifically due to over-extraction (smokey, sickly, drying) & not due to low side of normal extraction (woody, carbony). In fact if the cup is generally sweet, with just hints of over-extraction creeping in the final sips, I might not feel the need to do anything if still enjoyable. This seems more likely with African coffees & they can be quite delicious close to the edge (around 22%EY).

I don't get cups, brewed to tested recipe, dropping into under-extraction. Maybe because of the roast they might, quite deliberately have notes of tart fruit - if I don't like it I don't change the brew method, I mix my brew water to have a little more bicarbonate to mute the acidity.

Once you are dialled in, your cups should very rarely swing as wide as 4% EY span, the vast majority will fall in a span of 3% to 3.5% EY, if the upper end of that is 22-22.5% you may not have a problem. I don't feel every coffee needs to be syrupy sweet, nor every cup needs to have bright acidity, I'm quite happy for them lay where they fall within the bounds of normal, if tasty there. Different origins may have different levels of soluble content, a Cost Rican might not benefit from being pushed to 22%, a Kenyan might need a bizarrely coarse grind to hit 18% extraction. I'm expecting them to have different characteristics, I'm not setting out to skew that by banging square pegs into round holes, I'm open to the idea that differences in extraction are part of their character, like origin, process & roast.

Roughly the same total brew time, for my 1 mug V60s, might be +/-25sec, (for some brewers it might be +/-90s) at widest, more likely +/-15sec of 2/3 of brews. This equates to a flow rate (as determined by my google sheet calcs) of 1.1g/sec to 1.5g/sec. If I look at the slowest brew (3:27) I have 20.4%EY, the fastest (2:41) is 19%EY. There are higher extractions interspersed between these times.

Coffee is more varied in flavour than it is in extractability. Extractability is more closely related to coffee & water weights (at the same grind), than it is to time. Time is a useful guide, but only as a broad range & with respect to known brewer/method, but most of the time it is the only handy guide people have.


----------



## Zephyp

Thank you as always for great replies. I probably want to try to develop the method for 18/300 brews, since they are my usual brew amount. Having a go-to for 200g and one for 300g would be perfect.

I sometimes find it difficult not to experiment since I don't know what could've been. I brew a good cup, but I'm never sure if it could be improved significantly or not. I don't think my palate is particularly great, something I've found with other beverages, like wine and whisky. I love to drink it and try new bottles, but I'm pretty bad at distinguishing between them and pick out details and notes. That's one reason I get myself into trouble making coffee, not being able to notice what's in the cup and where I want to go, which results in just trying various changes and see what happens. Not having any scientific ways to categorize and analyze the various brews means its up to my palate. You seem to use EY to systemize your brews and find trends that are repeatable.

Mixing your own water has always sounded interesting, but I get really good tap water here in Norway, so it's not something I've pursued. If I get more free time at hand some day maybe. I've made the same brew at different places in Norway, and I notice the difference in taste of water. The brews I make in Oslo (largest city in Norway) are better tasting than the ones I make in a fjord on a farm that get water directly from a well. The water in itself taste better there, but the brews are a bit different. This could be because my brews are dialled in for the water I got in Oslo, and I could maybe achieve a better taste by tuning it for the mountain water. Making your own water sounds tantalizing since it's repeatable and the same every time. At work I only use bottled water.

Today's 18/300 was pretty acidic, but I don't think it was under-extracted. It reminded me of the intensity of an espresso, though obivously not as strong. The Hunkute bag is almost empty, so I look forward to try the next one.


----------



## MWJB

Zephyp said:


> Mixing your own water has always sounded interesting, but I get really good tap water here in Norway, so it's not something I've pursued. If I get more free time at hand some day maybe. I've made the same brew at different places in Norway, and I notice the difference in taste of water. The brews I make in Oslo (largest city in Norway) are better tasting than the ones I make in a fjord on a farm that get water directly from a well. The water in itself taste better there, but the brews are a bit different. This could be because my brews are dialled in for the water I got in Oslo, and I could maybe achieve a better taste by tuning it for the mountain water. Making your own water sounds tantalizing since it's repeatable and the same every time. At work I only use bottled water.
> 
> Today's 18/300 was pretty acidic, but I don't think it was under-extracted. It reminded me of the intensity of an espresso, though obivously not as strong. The Hunkute bag is almost empty, so I look forward to try the next one.


Oslo water is unusual in that it has high bicarbonate/alkalinity compared to hardness (due to seawater ingress, usually hardness is a little higher than alkalinity). I don't make my own water, I usually brew with very soft water (Deeside from Scotland), if I want to tame the acidity I add 1 part Nestle Pure Life to 5 parts Deeside. This doesn't make it 'Oslo' water, but it is heading more that way & I have used this mix with good results for Tim Wendelboe roasts.

Whilst water changes the taste of coffee, I'm not sure how you would go about brewing to different water (roasting is likely more critical), extractions will be impossible to separate by EY & say a water gave you overly bright coffee, pushing the extraction may not help?


----------



## Step21

My variable is the coffee. Most days I brew 3 different coffees, so if I start tinkering with recipes/methods it leads down a rabbit hole.

I know my methods will produce a good cup to my satisfaction given a decent roast. Coffee will move as it ages. It will still taste similar but one day the acidity for example may be more or less pronounced or sharper than the previous day. So there is a danger you see this as a flaw in your method and you are back tinkering again.


----------



## the_partisan

I tend to prefer slightly less brew ratio i.e 57g/L, you can give this a try, I find it opens the coffee up a bit more. For less soluble coffees you can updose and for more solubles you can dose even less.

Yes refractometer is a big investment but also great help. Doing cupping at home or another foolproof method (such as immersion methods) might help you to tune your palate, it's a quite good way to get the flavour notes of a bean and then you can try to match it when brewing drip.


----------



## Zephyp

How much would have to spend on a decent refractometer? I see many suggesting it doesn't do anything your palate can't do, but I see EY and TDS mentioned in a lot of posts, so it must have some value.


----------



## MWJB

Your palate tastes, but if the taste isn't to your liking what next? 'Bitter = over-extraction' isn't reliable as bitterness can be for different reasons. EY is an objective measure of brew efficiency & consistency, it's not a tasting machine, you always taste. You might use scales & know your weights, or a timer to measure brew time - these things don't taste coffee either, but they're still very useful tools.

https://www.hasbean.co.uk/collections/vst/products/vst-lab-iii


----------



## StusBrews

A refractometer will also not provide a measurement of even extraction. Your Extraction Yield numbers might be spot on, but you could have over extracted one part of the coffee bed/grounds and under extracted the other part. The Net result can be within your EY target, but the extraction will have been uneven. This is where your taste buds come in









I had the chance to borrow a refractometer for a couple of months. But to be honest, it didn't help me improve taste. All of my improvements in taste have come from improving grind quality, water quality, brew technique and buying good quality coffee beans.


----------



## Step21

But there is no guessing whether it is over or under extracted, which not everyone's palate can reliably detect. It's objective. Palates tend to be subjective.

Once you know where you are you are better informed about which changes to try to adjust.

After you have dialled in your method you don't really need it much but I found it very helpful to getting there. If I decide to experiment with a new brewer or a new method on an existing brewer or change the water or.......... it comes in very handy


----------



## Zephyp

Not trusting my own palate is one reason I looked into it. It's quite an investment though, so probably not on the table for now. Especially if it's not something you use much after dialling in a method initially. You could get a pretty good electric grinder for that money.

Opened a new bag today from Wendelboe. Nacimiento of pacas, from El Cielito, Santa Barbara, Honduras, washed. With the 18/300 method this one also came out quite acidic. Not bad tasting, but more acidity than I would've expected, sometimes tasting more sour. Notes says red berries, chocolate and cherries. I haven't dialled in my grinder and the previous Ethiopian drew down around the expected time for the pour regime, but being Ethiopian I might've expected it to draw down slower. Wish I had the Kruve to see where the grind is at now, but if I were to adjust something, I would go finer. I might brew a 14/240 first to see how it comes out.


----------



## MWJB

Zephyp said:


> It's quite an investment though, so probably not on the table for now. Especially if it's not something you use much after dialling in a method initially. You could get a pretty good electric grinder for that money.


I use mine most days, hitting good extractions once in a while isn't really of much benefit, I find it most useful for seeing general trends & checking that a recipe is consistent. Yes, it's a relatively big outlay, but for paper filtered drip it only costs you a couple of AA batteries every few months from thereon in.

That pretty good electric grinder still needs dialing in and the variables start with what you do with the grinds it produces (over which the grinder has no control).


----------



## MWJB

Zephyp said:


> I've been reading through parts of your blog, which has a lot of great information, nuggets of brewing and theories. Recommended to anyone interested in brewing coffee. One thing that caught my attention was the post using an Aeropress and metal filter to brew a Kalita 185. I've thought about this myself from time to time, but never actually tried it. My first idea was to use a shower screen of some sort, but I never thought about using an AP metal filter like this. I've got a couple of APs and two metal filters, so this is something to try. I won't be able to try until I get back home in a week or so, but I will test it on the V60.


Tried this with 14:230g V60 for a couple of brews at my regular grind setting (for 6 pours with a kettle), bloom 30g/30s with gooseneck as usual then 25g every 20s via the AP. Clarity, but oddly a bit of sandy texture too in last sips. Still very good, but going finer & fewer pours might be the ticket?


----------



## Zephyp

Thanks. You mentioned going finer might be needed earlier. How long did it take compared to pouring directly with the kettle?

I tried going two notches finer with a 12/200 brew tonight, going from 6 to 4 on Lido 3 (0 is 3 notches coarser than true zero. I should put some new marks on it on true zero). More bitterness coming through, a bit much I think, and lacking sweetness, like it did at 6. Some sweetness started coming through as it cooled down, but it's not balanced enough. Calculator calculated 2:44 drawdown. Actual drawdown was 3:10. At 6 notches it was decidedly acidic, while 4 notches I found it had gone too far the other way. Either my palate is way off, or small changes makes a big difference. Pouring could affect things, but I think I'm fairly consistent, and the brews at 6 seemed pretty consistently acidic.

I only had 12g left of the Ethiopian bag, but I'll stick with other doses on the new bag.


----------



## MWJB

Zephyp said:


> Thanks. You mentioned going finer might be needed earlier. How long did it take compared to pouring directly with the kettle?.


Typical, ball-park time of 3:14.


----------



## ashcroc

Zephyp said:


> Thanks. You mentioned going finer might be needed earlier. How long did it take compared to pouring directly with the kettle?
> 
> I tried going two notches finer with a 12/200 brew tonight, going from 6 to 4 on Lido 3 (0 is 3 notches coarser than true zero. I should put some new marks on it on true zero). More bitterness coming through, a bit much I think, and lacking sweetness, like it did at 6. Some sweetness started coming through as it cooled down, but it's not balanced enough. Calculator calculated 2:44 drawdown. Actual drawdown was 3:10. At 6 notches it was decidedly acidic, while 4 notches I found it had gone too far the other way. Either my palate is way off, or small changes makes a big difference. Pouring could affect things, but I think I'm fairly consistent, and the brews at 6 seemed pretty consistently acidic.
> 
> I only had 12g left of the Ethiopian bag, but I'll stick with other doses on the new bag.


What's it taste like on 5?


----------



## Zephyp

ashcroc said:


> What's it taste like on 5?


14.4/240. Honduras. Drawdown 3:00. 5 notches.

Back to acidic, not finding any sweetness. I've been wondering if this bottled water is causing trouble. Unfortunately it's the only bottled water available. I can try water the produced on the rig just to see what happens. They say it's not very rich in minerals and stuff, but worst case scenario it's a ruined cup. I think we got distilled water here, so maybe I should try making my own one day.

Edit: Plant water (from tap) didn't improve anything. Tasted somewhat muted, dull and not very nice, though still with some acidity. This is difficult.


----------



## Zephyp

I'm sorry if I'm spamming this thread. If there's somewhere else to think aloud, I'd be happy to hop along that way.

I might have gone the wrong way with the grind. 6 was acidic, 5 was acidic, 4 was bitter (if my palate is correct, though I'm starting to believe it's not as straight forward as too acidic = go finer and too bitter = go coarser). After reading a bit about the comparison of Lido 3 and E, I decided to try a +10 setting. Some suggested a 1.5 ratio between the two and I made some rough calculations which found a 2.05. The dimensions of the two grinders are the same, but the E has more threads. I was told by an E user that the settings ring fell off after 4 turns + 10 notches, and mine fell off at 36 notches. This will of course vary a bit and isn't completely accurate, but it gave a ratio of 74/36 = 2.05. With this assumption, my setting on the Lido 3 for Mark's recipe would be around 9 notches, compared to his 19.

Since each grinder of the same model can be different, these are of course mostly ballpark numbers. Since Mark uses 19 on his E, I wanted to find a somewhat equivalent on my Lido 3 since I use the same recipe. Would be easier if I had a Kruve, but it probably won't arrive for a few weeks.

The brew with 10 was definitely more pleasant than the previous ones, but a bit weak, quick finish, muted, most likely under-extracted. The last drops as it had cooled quite down tasted a bit nutty, which is probably the first time in some time where I've actually tasted something besides acidic and bitter. The grind looked pretty coarse and drawdown was at 2:46, so I expected as much. The best brews with this method has been the ones I did with a 6, so tomorrow I'll try 8 or 9. I've now stopped changing too much stuff. I'm doing 14.4/240 with the 6 pour every time. I understand that a 18/300 might need a different pour regime, but if I can find a good spot for 14.4/240, that's a great start.

I notice that a few settings difference won't necessarily show on the brewtime, maybe due to differences in pouring. As I'm changing grind settings, I don't see the differences in brewtime to be of any use really when inside a span of +/- 20s. Once the grind size is fixed, the brew times will be more interesting on the same bean and dose as it will better reflect the technique.

I slowly feel like I'm grasping things and how exctraction can be controlled. I see why recipes can use very different grind sizes and produce good cups, and why many find it difficult to dial in their brews. You find a recipe using "medium" grind or "medium plus" grind, usually ground on a different grinder than yours. I'm sure the cups they produced with the recipe are great, but with everyone using different grinders and grind settings, grinders of the same model not even being the same, it's very much a stroke of luck if you produce a good cup with any recipe found online. If the stars align and your grind size happen to match the technique they brew with, you get a great cup. For everyone where this isn't true, they're left disappointed and claiming the recipe is garbage. Then you got users suddenly finding the holy grail of recipes, posting it online and everyone testing it having very different results. I don't feel like anyone has been able to explain this very well until I came here. There's too much magic and mystery out there I think. I really like Mark's explanation of how you can produce the same cups with different grind sizes through controlling the pour regime. Using a sieve to control grind size is a great start. If everyone had a refractometer, it would probably get even easier, but that's not very realistic. Most comments I've seen on the Kruve is that it doesn't tell you more than your palate does, but it does something pretty important, which is giving you objectivity. If your Lido E produces 13% above 400μm at setting 19, that's a fact that won't change. If my Lido 3 did the same at setting 8, that's also a fact that won't change, and it means I can compare my Lido 3 to Mark's Lido E. This of course works between grinders of different brands of course, though with some possible variations on the amounts (+/- 2%), but according to Mark's testing, it works pretty well on the grinders he's tested.

If you are able to find that 13%/400μm setting and also use the same dose, temperature and recipe, you are probably pretty close to a great cup.

I think the manual for my grinder said something like 4-10 as a good setting range for drip. That's a HUGE range and there's no way you'll brew a cup at 4 the same way as 10 and get good results. "Drip" of course means V60, Kalita, Chemex etc., where people often use different settings, but my point is that the recommended ranges are pretty large. And they should probably be, since there are so many different recipes out there.

All of this is why I like the idea of using a sieve to dial in grinders. If you got 5 different users with 5 different versions of a Lido, they can pretty much find the same grind size if they do some sieve testing. They can still find some minor differences, but if all 5 dial their grinders for a 13% pass through a 400μm after two minutes of shaking, they should be pretty equal. Once you are there, those 5 grinders should produce pretty similar cups if you use the same recipe and pour regime. A sieve is objective, it's a way to establish a grind size based on measurable parameters. If you are able to combine grinders dialled in the same way and the same recipes, I think that's a very good place to start. I look forward to seeing where my Comandante MK3 and Lido 3 ends up on the test and what cups they produce with the same recipes.

All recipes should probably be accompanied by objective grind size measurements.

Until I get my Kruve, I'll have to try getting there through testing, but if I were to take a guess at where my Lido 3 produced 13% at 400μm, I would say around 7-9. I had some decent cups at 6, but also some not too good, which can be because of technique and the fact I was juggling around different brew amounts and pour regimes. I like to imagine there being a perfect grind setting for the pour regime I'm using now (the one Mark initially proposed) and if you are able to dial the grinder in for that spot, most brews will end up in a span slightly above and below the sweetspot. Some will hit the bullseye, some will be a bit above and below, but if you use the same technique and variables each time, you should never get a terrible cup.

First two photos are from setting 3. Drawdown 3:10. Wasn't particularly good.

















Last three are from setting 10. Drawdown 2:46. Most likely too coarse for the pour regime, but better tasting than setting 3-5.


----------



## stassinari

Super interesting stuff! Great thread!


----------



## Zephyp

Indeed it is. I'm back home with my MK3, trying to find my way to better cups. The Kruve is shipped, but won't be here for a while. I'm now making every cup with 14.4/240 and the same pour regime to have some consistency, while adjusting grind. Last on the MK3 was 26. Decent cup, but some undesirable parts. I've tried up to 34, but it got worse that way.

I'm starting to see the value in a refractometer. This coffeee rabbit hole keeps getting deeper for me, but there's always something dragging me to improving. The biggest struggle is making good cups every day and being able to go from Kenya to Honduras without having to spend half the bag to dial in. My GF says I'll buy the refractometer one day, I suspect she's right. I read a bit about the Atago vs VST debate and while tempting, I not sure if I'd buy an Atago. I could try it and sell it if I wasn't happy, but I'd probably be second guessing it. My recent testing is pretty good indication that it's difficult to dial in purely based on taste. The refractometer would give objective data on where my brew is going, and if I can have it for many years, that could mean a lot more good cups. Another point is that as beans age, you might want to adjust something to compensate. It's small changes, but I imagine being easier with a refractometer.

My GF likes to brew with AP, but without a scale for water and timer. The brew takes whatever time it takes, from 2 to 4 minutes. Grind on a Wilfa. Yesterday's brew she made was pretty good and balanced. Then you got me, with all the gadgets and and recipes, chasing something better. I like the cup the AP produces, but those best cups I've made with V60 are too good to give up.

I'll make a video of a brew one day. @Mark I think I've that you weren't too keen on making videos since there a thousands out there, but I think it would be a nice addition to your recipe. I find value in watching videos, even if they just do what the recipe says.


----------



## MWJB




----------



## the_partisan

I've been trying 15g V60 with 2 pours using flow restrictor, but I can never seem get as great results like with Kalita using same pour. Even if extraction seems OK at 20-21%, I get a lot astringency, probably due to channeling or some other issue? I did try coarsening up the grind quite a bit and then it was better, with EY at ~19.5%, but then it's not as sweet although still better. Seems you really need to break up the pours if you are using

My Moccamaster on the hand with 27g brews are just great, with a lot of clarity. I made a couple of V60 brews with 27g and those seem to readily extract a lot better without much bitterness, but then again I would use Moccamaster if I wanted to make that much coffee.


----------



## Zephyp

I finally got around to try the Aeropress-with-metal-filter-over-V60 method. First time I forgot to add the AP to the weight before blooming, so I tared the scale after bloom and told myself to remember not to add up to 240g. Of course I did and it got pretty watery. I also put the AP straight on top of the V60 01, and realized during brewing that the bottom of the AP filter holder was probably submerged slightly in the bed. Don't know if it matters or if it could actually help in delivering the water without disturbing the bed.

Second attempt went better. I closed the grinder 6 clicks from my kettle setting, but it was maybe a bit much, as the drawdown happened at 4:10. The final drops took considerably longer than when pouring with a kettle and the water over the grounds was completely clear. While it wasn't the best brew, I thought it had some hints at more clarity. That time I used a V60 02 and raised it a bit above the dripper with a couple of sticks so I could see what was going on.

I got two metal filters for the AP. One sold by Tim Wendelboe, marked "Made by SSW Japan" and one IMS filter 62, Superfine 15. The TW filter worked somewhat alone, the IMS did not, but one on top of the other gave pretty good distribution.

I found a shop selling the VST in town too, so I'll be getting it one of these days.


----------



## Benjijames28

I started brewing with a v60 for first time today, had two attempts using a size 1 v60 and. Feldgrind grinder, and fresh beans from foundry roasters, with water at 97 degrees from a bonavita kettle.

Attempt 1

15g coffee ground at 1:11 on feldgrind

240g water

Took 4 minutes 17 seconds and I ended up with a mushy looking pile of grounds. Tasted... Ok I suppose.

Attempt 2

15g coffee ground at 2:00 on feldgrind

240g water

Took 4 minutes 5 seconds and I ended up with a mushy looking pile of grounds. Tasted... Ok I suppose.

Seems to be taking too long to filter that amount of water. I'm using the settings suggested with feldgrind for v60. Tomorrow I was going to go much courser.

Any suggestions?


----------



## MWJB

Benjijames28 said:


> I started brewing with a v60 for first time today, had two attempts using a size 1 v60 and. Feldgrind grinder, and fresh beans from foundry roasters, with water at 97 degrees from a bonavita kettle.
> 
> Attempt 1
> 
> 15g coffee ground at 1:11 on feldgrind
> 
> 240g water
> 
> Took 4 minutes 17 seconds and I ended up with a mushy looking pile of grounds. Tasted... Ok I suppose.
> 
> Attempt 2
> 
> 15g coffee ground at 2:00 on feldgrind
> 
> 240g water
> 
> Took 4 minutes 5 seconds and I ended up with a mushy looking pile of grounds. Tasted... Ok I suppose.
> 
> Seems to be taking too long to filter that amount of water. I'm using the settings suggested with feldgrind for v60. Tomorrow I was going to go much courser.
> 
> Any suggestions?


Go coarser. What's your pour method?


----------



## Benjijames28

MWJB said:


> Go coarser. What's your pour method?


I covered the grounds with around 30g, stired with spoon, left until 30 seconds on timer. Then just tried to add bit by bit in circles until I got to 240g on scales.


----------



## MWJB

Benjijames28 said:


> I covered the grounds with around 30g, stired with spoon, left until 30 seconds on timer. Then just tried to add bit by bit in circles until I got to 240g on scales.


OK, but this doesn't tell us much about your pour rate, or dwell time after the pours end.

Set the grinder to 2+6. Bloom 30g then add 35g every 20s, each pour takes 10s, last water in by 2:20-2:25. What do you get?


----------



## Benjijames28

MWJB said:


> OK, but this doesn't tell us much about your pour rate, or dwell time after the pours end.
> 
> Set the grinder to 2+6. Bloom 30g then add 35g every 20s, each pour takes 10s, last water in by 2:20-2:25. What do you get?


I will give it a try tomorrow.

Ive literally made 2 pour overs in my entire life, I'm sure I will learn all about this pour rate, dwell time stuff.


----------



## Stevie

I don't really go by flow rate/brew time in my shop. We simply use the scott rao method, and dial it in by taste, so we know what number on our grinder we use for that particular coffee.


----------



## Benjijames28

Ok well I really made the grind courser today. 3:0 on the feldgrind. If anything it was either spot on for the recipe I was following or it was draining too fast.

12g coffee

200g water

50g water every 30 seconds

Finished draining around 2:30

The coffee was nice anyway. I don't think I've had an undrinkable coffee from the v60, even the one that took 4 minutes was ok.


----------



## StusBrews

I find I can get different drain times with the same grind and pour regime. If I spiral pour vs a straight pour down the middle then I find drain times are longer. I suspect this is either due to fines clogging the filter or compaction of the coffee bed.


----------



## MWJB

StusBrews said:


> I find I can get different drain times with the same grind and pour regime. If I spiral pour vs a straight pour down the middle then I find drain times are longer. I suspect this is either due to fines clogging the filter or compaction of the coffee bed.


If you pour straight down the middle you are continually agitating the bulk/deepest part of the bed, which will effectively then be shallower, hence less resistance & faster brew time. If you don't swirl, tap, or stir at the end you'll get a latter bed with spiral, and a pit with centre pour.

I would say spiral vs centre pour would be a different regime. Pulsed spirals are a way to brew with coarser grinds, by slowing down the flow.


----------



## StusBrews

MWJB said:


> If you pour straight down the middle you are continually agitating the bulk/deepest part of the bed, which will effectively then be shallower, hence less resistance & faster brew time. If you don't swirl, tap, or stir at the end you'll get a latter bed with spiral, and a pit with centre pour.
> 
> I would say spiral vs centre pour would be a different regime. Pulsed spirals are a way to brew with coarser grinds, by slowing down the flow.


Ah ok...by pour regime, I was meaning bloom plus a number of pulse pours a certain intervals.

Would you say that spiral vs straight pour also applies to the Kalita Wave? I also noticed that spiral drains slower.


----------



## MWJB

StusBrews said:


> Ah ok...by pour regime, I was meaning bloom plus a number of pulse pours a certain intervals.
> 
> Would you say that spiral vs straight pour also applies to the Kalita Wave? I also noticed that spiral drains slower.


Yes, I would. For the Wave I cover the whole bed with the bloom (& give the brewer a shake), I generally then do 3 pours of 65/70g for a 1 mug brew (as opposed to 6 spiral pours of 35g at the same grind for V60) and only the first one is a spiral, the remaining 2 go straight down the middle so as not to flush too many small particles out of the bed (even if you don't over-extract you can still pick up siltiness & bitterness from these getting in the cup).

The v60 bed is deeper & seems to tolerate more churning up, the Wave has more surface area and seem more susceptible to silt...at the same grind, brew ratio, they both make good cups, you just need to have more weight above the Wave bed at any one time to normalise extraction.

If brewing with a fine grind in either, I pour straight down the middle with both & use a regular kettle with the Wave/Melitta.

So I'd say where you pour is as important as how much & when.


----------



## GaryG

Just used the Scott rao method and my word. I got such a sweeter cup than I have using my older method.

So much simpler too.

Result.


----------



## Benjijames28

GaryG said:


> Just used the Scott rao method and my word. I got such a sweeter cup than I have using my older method.
> 
> So much simpler too.
> 
> Result.


I am just getting into my pour overs and saw a video about this, will defo give it a try at some point.


----------



## Donegali

Rather than starting a new thread, thought it would be best to post here.

It is now my turn to struggle with the V60. So far I have tried 3 methods, the Scott Rao method, Tim Wendelboes and some other random method I found on Youtube.

My problem is purely down to the time it takes to complete, I have gone coarser and coarser until I am up at the French Press setting on my grinder. The coffee is starting to to taste watered down, but each drain is taking at least 4-4.5 minutes, if not longer. Is it possible to 'airlock' the V60 as it really slows down after the last pour?

Edit: I have found out I'm using the Dutch filters, I though I'd ordered the Japanese ones.


----------



## fede_luppi

It will drain much faster with the brown filters. I was in a similar situation and contacted Baratza (I have a Vario), which suggested grinding finer, as probably the fines produced when grinding coarse were clogging the drain.



Donegali said:


> Rather than starting a new thread, thought it would be best to post here.
> 
> It is now my turn to struggle with the V60. So far I have tried 3 methods, the Scott Rao method, Tim Wendelboes and some other random method I found on Youtube.
> 
> My problem is purely down to the time it takes to complete, I have gone coarser and coarser until I am up at the French Press setting on my grinder. The coffee is starting to to taste watered down, but each drain is taking at least 4-4.5 minutes, if not longer. Is it possible to 'airlock' the V60 as it really slows down after the last pour?
> 
> Edit: I have found out I'm using the Dutch filters, I though I'd ordered the Japanese ones.


----------



## MWJB

Donegali said:


> Rather than starting a new thread, thought it would be best to post here.
> 
> It is now my turn to struggle with the V60. So far I have tried 3 methods, the Scott Rao method, Tim Wendelboes and some other random method I found on Youtube.
> 
> My problem is purely down to the time it takes to complete, I have gone coarser and coarser until I am up at the French Press setting on my grinder. The coffee is starting to to taste watered down, but each drain is taking at least 4-4.5 minutes, if not longer. Is it possible to 'airlock' the V60 as it really slows down after the last pour?
> 
> Edit: I have found out I'm using the Dutch filters, I though I'd ordered the Japanese ones.


If the coffee is tasting unusually weak, then you are likely too coarse. Change the grind size to steer the flavour, not the time (time will fall in to normal range for that brew size & filter paper).

The Japanese papers should brew faster, the white ones won't need rinsing (brown will)


----------



## Mrboots2u

Donegali said:


> Rather than starting a new thread, thought it would be best to post here.
> 
> It is now my turn to struggle with the V60. So far I have tried 3 methods, the Scott Rao method, Tim Wendelboes and some other random method I found on Youtube.
> 
> My problem is purely down to the time it takes to complete, I have gone coarser and coarser until I am up at the French Press setting on my grinder. The coffee is starting to to taste watered down, but each drain is taking at least 4-4.5 minutes, if not longer. Is it possible to 'airlock' the V60 as it really slows down after the last pour?
> 
> Edit: I have found out I'm using the Dutch filters, I though I'd ordered the Japanese ones.


Where any of the brews with any of the methods making tasty drinks ?


----------



## Donegali

I seem to have had one cup that tasted unusually weak, I have not replicated this taste since despite grinding even coarser. The first brew I ever did was quite tasty, however it gave me a 'funny' head which to me means I over extracted.

I have settled at 15g coffee (14.8g once ground) to 250gm water as this works perfectly for 1 mug. 30-50g water for the bloom, quick stir; at 45 secs, I add another 100g, followed by 1 circular stir (as per Scott Rao); at 1:30 another 100g of water followed by a Scott Rao wiggle at 1:45. Each pour takes between 10-15 secs, starting in the middle followed by concentric circles to the outside.

Today, I bit the bullet and adjusted my grinder to the coarsest setting and the taste has improved greatly, not far off the flavour I had when testing it at the roasters but a little watery, so will try going 1 click finer next time. However, I still get the problem where the last 30-40g of water does not drain and at 5:00 I throw what's left in the bin.

With regards to the papers, I have the white ones from Amazon, made in the Netherlands and have tried mixing it up with pre-wetting and using straight away, it still clogs up.


----------



## MWJB

I'm not sure how you are getting 100g of water in there in less than 15 seconds? If you are pouring hard & the water is in an arc, you might be flushing the fine particles into the paper. Let the water drop straight down from the kettle spout.

Scott Rao doesn't have a recipe for 15g:250g.

What grinder do you have? A 5min brew at the coarsest setting sounds a little odd. Your drinks will be more consistent when let the bed drain out under gravity.


----------



## Donegali

MWJB said:


> I'm not sure how you are getting 100g of water in there in less than 15 seconds? If you are pouring hard & the water is in an arc, you might be flushing the fine particles into the paper. Let the water drop straight down from the kettle spout.


You might well have sussed it there. Checked your video and I pour a lot faster than you do. I will copy your recipe in the morning and let you know how I get on. Will I get similar results without using a Kruve and upping the ratios to 15/250?



> Scott Rao doesn't have a recipe for 15g:250g.


No, but I thought I might be able to incorporate some of his technique in other ratios.



> What grinder do you have? A 5min brew at the coarsest setting sounds a little odd. Your drinks will be more consistent when let the bed drain out under gravity.


I use a Wilfa Svart. As I preferred brewed coffee over espresso it made sense and Tim Hoffmann rated it so I thought I couldn't go wrong.


----------



## MWJB

Donegali said:


> You might well have sussed it there. Checked your video and I pour a lot faster than you do. I will copy your recipe in the morning and let you know how I get on. Will I get similar results without using a Kruve and upping the ratios to 15/250?.


I don't find 250g to be a very intuitive water weight to use, in terms of having easy to remember intervals. Try 14.5:240g it's only a little less than 250g

0:00 30g bloom

0:30 pour to 65g total

0:50 100g total

1:10 135g total

1:30 170g total

1:50 205g total

2:10 240g total.

Let the brewer drain out & let it drip for a bit.

The Wilfa should work fine.

I only used the Kruve to calibrate the grind, not to remove any fraction of the grind, so yes you can achieve the same thing with some experimentation, but your times might be a little longer with the Dutch paper. Don't fret over that, change setting to change the taste & let the time fall as it does when the taste is good.


----------



## Donegali

First attempt this morning, but with the grind set at filter, the water dribbling out, time to dry bed 6:03. Taste is much better .

Will update through the morning as I try coarser grinds.

2nd: Grinder French Press; 5:36 to dry bed. Flavour starting to come through even more. Slightly bitter towards the end though.

3rd: 1 click coarser than before; 4:24 to dry bed. Interestingly this tasted slightly bitter at the start but got tastier as it cooled. I didn't jiggle this one.

4th: Same coarseness; 5:56 to dry bed. Taste as above. I gave this one a quick stir.


----------



## the_partisan

If I remember correctly with Wilfa I was doing pour overs between the Filter and the Aeropress setting, around the letter "R" of the Aeropress for 13.5g to 15g. With so long drain times either you're stirring too much in the beginning clogging the filter or you are not pouring gently enough I think. You might also have the thicker filters.

Try doing 4 or 6 pours, and try to pour gently, without hosing down the bed. If you pour too fast it can cause too much turbulence in the bed. I think MWJB had a nice video showing V60 pouring









Rao's method seems to work better with at least 18-20g of coffee, so you have a deeper bed and its easier to extract from it with a single pour.


----------



## MWJB

Donegali said:


> 3rd: 1 click coarser than before; 4:24 to dry bed. Interestingly this tasted slightly bitter at the start but got tastier as it cooled. I didn't jiggle this one.
> 
> 4th: Same coarseness; 5:56 to dry bed. Taste as above. I gave this one a quick stir.


1:30 between 2 brews, same coffee, same grind seems an awful lot (I only have 47s difference between the last 75 V60, 6 pour brews I made). What did you stir & when?

How much water do you have in the kettle? If it's very full it will be hard to pour gently at the start. I have about 300g or so in mine.


----------



## Donegali

the_partisan said:


> If I remember correctly with Wilfa I was doing pour overs between the Filter and the Aeropress setting, around the letter "R" of the Aeropress for 13.5g to 15g. With so long drain times either you're stirring too much in the beginning clogging the filter or you are not pouring gently enough I think. You might also have the thicker filters.


I'm fairly sure I have the thicker papers, but they specifically said 'Made in Japan' on the Amazon link but when I received them, had 'Made in Netherlands' on the actual package. I'm currently coarser than the French Press setting on the Svart. I have to say I wish they would have just numbered the clicks as well as/instead of the writing. I do give it a good stir at the beginning so will try leaving that out because something seems to be clogging somewhere.



> Try doing 4 or 6 pours, and try to pour gently, without hosing down the bed. If you pour too fast it can cause too much turbulence in the bed. I think MWJB had a nice video showing V60 pouring


I'm following MWJB's recipe above and having watched his video another 3-4 times am fairly certain I'm pouring at about the same speed now, I was definitely pouring faster previously! I've got to say Mark has been such a great help with all my coffee problems so far, so if you're reading this Mark, thank you, and thank you to everyone else that has helped.



> Rao's method seems to work better with at least 18-20g of coffee, so you have a deeper bed and its easier to extract from it with a single pour.


I have stopped trying Rao's method as 360g water is just a weird amount to me. Too much for 1 mug, not enough for 2.


----------



## Donegali

MWJB said:


> 1:30 between 2 brews, same coffee, same grind seems an awful lot (I only have 47s difference between the last 75 V60, 6 pour brews I made). What did you stir & when?
> 
> How much water do you have in the kettle? If it's very full it will be hard to pour gently at the start. I have about 300g or so in mine.


I normally have about 300g water in the kettle pre-boil, but on the last one had 330g as it was the last of the water in the bottle. I did my usual stir during the bloom, but added a stir to the water above the bed on the last attempt. My pour speed normally works out that I have 3-6 secs before your recipe calls for another pour.


----------



## Donegali

Ok, tried a different coffee today, and set it on a much finer setting, still following MWJB's method and dry bed was 4:03 which seems a lot more reasonable. Flavour was on point. Roast was a lot darker and from Winchester Coffee Roasters.

I also had a chat with the roaster for the original coffee and explained my problems, he suggested to set it at least to French Press grind or coarser and also to use much cooler water, about 85c so will try again tomorrow with his roast.


----------



## Donegali

Ok, so I pretty much gave up with the V60 as nothing seemed to be working, but did some more research on the issues of clogging the filter. It looks Hario changed supplier at some point and numerous people have had the same problem, the filters from the Netherlands were causing clogging.

Although they appear to have resolved the issue with a new batch, I phoned Hario Uk to ask which were the Japanese filter papers on their website. 5 packets arrived today. First cup, too fine a grind and over extracted but dry bed in 3:05. Second cup, spot on, and dry bed at 2:31. Bed was perfectly flat, and no clogging with a quick stir and wiggle at the end. I now feel brave enough to try out making more than a single mug.

So, if you're experiencing the same problem as I have, might be worth trying to change the filter paper!


----------



## ken0062

Where is the best place to get the Japanese filters at the moment for a reasonable price, recently bought the dutch ones by mistake and not getting on with them.

Will these direct from amazon get me the japanese filters or is it not guaranteed, dont really want to buy 5 packs just to get the P&P down.


----------



## Jony

I these ones. yes same link

https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B001U7EOYA/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o05_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1


----------



## ashcroc

Check them when you get them. Sure I read about someone getting sent the dutch ones instead of japanese from amazon.


----------



## J_Fo

In my experience the ones in the loose packaging above are always Japanese made, whereas the ones in the pack linked to below are the ones made in Holland.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Coffee-Dripper-Filters-Sheets-Measuring/dp/B01MDNIGQI/ref=mp_s_a_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1533365681&sr=8-6&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_FMwebp_QL65&keywords=hario+v60+filter+papers+02


----------



## Hairy_Hogg

Just to confuse matters I am currently using ones made in Japan (says on the packet) but these now have tabs....


----------



## Donegali

I was making a single cup brew with my V60 the other day and forgot to start the timer. Not knowing the amount of time it had left I started doing a continuous pour and have to say I was quite impressed. Trying to replicate it a few other times, I settled on 30 sec bloom with a continuous spiral pour (more of a dribble) for a full minute and again was surprised at the taste and consistency of the brew. This is now my go to method for a single cup 15g coffee and 250g water. @MWJB I don't know what it is, I have a mental block with coffee and water has to be in 250g increments despite you trying to teach me otherwise!!


----------



## MWJB

Donegali said:


> I was making a single cup brew with my V60 the other day and forgot to start the timer. Not knowing the amount of time it had left I started doing a continuous pour and have to say I was quite impressed. Trying to replicate it a few other times, I settled on 30 sec bloom with a continuous spiral pour (more of a dribble) for a full minute and again was surprised at the taste and consistency of the brew. This is now my go to method for a single cup 15g coffee and 250g water. @MWJB I don't know what it is, I have a mental block with coffee and water has to be in 250g increments despite you trying to teach me otherwise!!


You can do 250g, 240g, 260g, whatever...it won't make any difference for that kind of range, at the same ratio & grind. I just aim to have easily divisible brew water, after bloom, for the remainder of the brew.

I don't really understand 'continuous pour', or what it denotes as being different compared to pulses (which can also be poured continuously, with weight checked at intervals - e.g. 220g over a minute is the same as 55g every 15sec, which to me is easier to be consistent with because I don't find myself having to dump 40g or whatever on to the bed at 55sec to meet 1 min pour time). Pouring at an average of 3.7g/sec is 3.7g/sec either way & consistent.

The rate at which you pour has little bearing on the result, unless you can tie it in with grind & total brew time. E.g. if you bloomed for 30s then poured over 1:00 and your brews ended at 1:40 average, they would taste very different to the same pour regime at a finer grind, with the same grinder, with all brews averaging 2:40 total.


----------



## Donegali

MWJB said:


> You can do 250g, 240g, 260g, whatever...it won't make any difference for that kind of range, at the same ratio & grind. I just aim to have easily divisible brew water, after bloom, for the remainder of the brew.
> 
> I don't really understand 'continuous pour', or what it denotes as being different compared to pulses (which can also be poured continuously, with weight checked at intervals - e.g. 220g over a minute is the same as 55g every 15sec, which to me is easier to be consistent with because I don't find myself having to dump 40g or whatever on to the bed at 55sec to meet 1 min pour time). Pouring at an average of 3.7g/sec is 3.7g/sec either way & consistent.
> 
> The rate at which you pour has little bearing on the result, unless you can tie it in with grind & total brew time. E.g. if you bloomed for 30s then poured over 1:00 and your brews ended at 1:40 average, they would taste very different to the same pour regime at a finer grind, with the same grinder, with all brews averaging 2:40 total.


You are quite right, I can't see what the differences between a pulse technique or a continuous pour would be either. I guess if anything, I found that I seem to pour better continuously, than in pulses as it ensures I don't pour too 'vigorously'. So I thought I'd share it in case others found it easier.

As for my last comment, I realised about my mental block as I was typing up the post, had a chuckle and thought I'd share it with you in case it amused you as well!


----------



## zacho

Anyone got their hands on the new Tetsu Kasuya edition of the V60? I'm struggling to lower the overall brew time. The Tetsu recipe recommends a brew time of 3:30 which i'm usually able to achieve using the regular V60 but with this new Tetsu Kasuya edition i'm moving between 5:00 and 6:45.


----------



## Mrboots2u

zacho said:


> Anyone got their hands on the new Tetsu Kasuya edition of the V60? I'm struggling to lower the overall brew time. The Tetsu recipe recommends a brew time of 3:30 which i'm usually able to achieve using the regular V60 but with this new Tetsu Kasuya edition i'm moving between 5:00 and 6:45.


Without knowing your dose and pour regime itss hard to tell,

Same filters?

Grind coarser or change the pour regime are the two way to speed up a brew.


----------



## Mrboots2u

Oh its the automated brewer.....god knows then

But same principles apply , dose , grind , pour regime


----------



## zacho

Mrboots2u said:


> Oh its the automated brewer.....god knows then
> 
> But same principles apply , dose , grind , pour regime


It's the Tetsu 4,6 method that he used to win the 2016 World Brewers Cup. 20g dose, 300ml water. 50-70-60-60-60

https://kurasu.kyoto/blogs/kurasu-journal/2016-world-brewers-cup-champion-tetsu-kasuya

Also it's not an automated brewer. It's a special version of the V60 created in collaboration with him.

https://www.hario.jp/pickup_kasuyamodel/KDC.html


----------



## Mrboots2u

zacho said:


> It's the Tetsu 4,6 method that he used to win the 2016 World Brewers Cup. 20g dose, 300ml water. 50-70-60-60-60
> 
> https://kurasu.kyoto/blogs/kurasu-journal/2016-world-brewers-cup-champion-tetsu-kasuya
> 
> Also it's not an automated brewer. It's a special version of the V60 created in collaboration with him.
> 
> https://www.hario.jp/pickup_kasuyamodel/KDC.html


AH ok

yeah ive seen this method, Its like any pouring regime really , if it doesnt work in getting tasty drinks change it.

He is essentially saying that extractions happens with the 40% and the rest dilutes. Not strictly true but hey.

He won so his drinks must be tasty ..


----------



## Scotford

#ReboilingTheBrewWaterOfLateAndPushingEYSignificantly

^^^ this


----------



## MWJB

Scotford said:


> #ReboilingTheBrewWaterOfLateAndPushingEYSignificantly
> 
> ^^^ this


#SeemsUnlikely


----------



## MWJB

Unlike espresso, it's easy to over-extract drip brews, there's no problem in averaging over 22%EY without reboiling the kettle...though I'm not sure why anyone would want to do this.


----------



## Scotford

MWJB said:


> Unlike espresso, it's easy to over-extract drip brews, there's no problem in averaging over 22%EY without reboiling the kettle...though I'm not sure why anyone would want to do this.


Reboiling is great when you have a crap grinder and want to hit lower brew times and a coarser distribution spread.


----------



## MWJB

Scotford said:


> Reboiling is great when you have a crap grinder and want to hit lower brew times and a coarser distribution spread.


Other than a typical blade grinder, I'm not sure what a crap grinder would be beyond having no gap to limit upper particle size? There are even blade grinders that have comparable distributions to burr grinders.

If a grinder has a wider distribution, it has this at any temp, or am I misunderstanding?


----------



## Scotford

MWJB said:


> Other than a typical blade grinder, I'm not sure what a crap grinder would be beyond having no gap to limit upper particle size? There are even blade grinders that have comparable distributions to burr grinders.
> 
> If a grinder has a wider distribution, it has this at any temp, or am I misunderstanding?


Heat has a positive effect on extraction and a slightly uneven spread generally is affected positively by a 'hotter the better' approach.


----------



## MWJB

Scotford said:


> Heat has a positive effect on extraction and a slightly uneven spread generally is affected positively by a 'hotter the better' approach.


What would be an uneven spread, quantify it.

Heat makes coffee more soluble, hotter would make it all more soluble, but no more/less even.

You can always grind finer, fine enough to over-extract with one boil of the kettle & bloom straight away. If you're intentionally letting the water cool after boiling, I don't know why anyone would do this.


----------



## Scotford

MWJB said:


> What would be an uneven spread, quantify it.
> 
> Heat makes coffee more soluble, hotter would make it all more soluble, but no more/less even.
> 
> You can always grind finer, fine enough to over-extract with one boil of the kettle & bloom straight away. If you're intentionally letting the water cool after boiling, I don't know why anyone would do this.


Bigger particles, higher temp, more soluble, higher extraction.

I always sift out everything under 600 for pourovers.

Grind coarser, bigger particles, higher temp, quicker extraction.


----------



## MWJB

Scotford said:


> Bigger particles, higher temp, more soluble, higher extraction.
> 
> I always sift out everything under 600 for pourovers.
> 
> Grind coarser, bigger particles, higher temp, quicker extraction.


Bigger particles usually means lower and or slower extraction. Usually, finer (than coarsest possible to extract in the box) grind makes for the higher extractions, which you can bump up further by sifting out the largest particles.

How high are these "higher extractions" (averaged over a bunch of different origins, not just for the odd African coffee)? Some data on the brew recipe & EY's would be very interesting to see.

Lack of sub-600 will speed up the flow, compared to leaving them in, plus the grind is coarser already (faster flow). Sifting the grind isn't a better grind distribution, it's a skewed grind distribution because no grinder can grind without making sub-600 particles. I'm not saying it never works, or cannot work, it can (I sometimes sift out


----------



## Scotford

MWJB said:


> I'm not saying it never works, or cannot work, it can


It certainly can, as I'm getting better results than ever before. Even on a battered old Encore with chipped burrs.


----------



## Zephyp

Has anyone changed their recipes, grind or pour regimes after switching to tabbed V60 filters? The pack I just got had tabs and the drawdown time has increased. Coffee still taste good so I'm not sure how much different it made in the cup. I might try comparing one with and one without tab.


----------



## the_partisan

I just had a very acidic V60 brew, I brewed the same beans on Moccamaster before and it was fine. The V60 actually came out at a higher EY (21%) compared to Moccamaster (19.5%) but it was so acidic that made stomach comfortable. Is this is a roast issue or something to do with temperature, or too high extraction? I didn't detect any astringency which easily happens on the Moccamaster when grinding too fine.

The beans are La Cabra's Costa Rica Herbazu Honey processed. I actually cupped the coffee earlier (9g/150g - #9 on grinder) and tasted just great.

This was the recipe I used:

#12 on EK43 S (on Moccamaster I use #14, but double amount of coffee+water)

15g coffee, 250g water just off boil

40g bloom

0:40 fill up to 150g

1:30 fill up to 250g

It drained at 5:00 (a very long drawdown..)


----------



## Mrboots2u

Higher EY doesn't always mean more tasty. There is a ceiling for most coffees.

The coffee says "vibrant acidity " as a note , so more extraction perhaps had pushed that note to where you find it unpleasant.


----------



## MWJB

the_partisan said:


> I just had a very acidic V60 brew, I brewed the same beans on Moccamaster before and it was fine. The V60 actually came out at a higher EY (21%) compared to Moccamaster (19.5%) but it was so acidic that made stomach comfortable. Is this is a roast issue or something to do with temperature, or too high extraction? I didn't detect any astringency which easily happens on the Moccamaster when grinding too fine.
> 
> The beans are La Cabra's Costa Rica Herbazu Honey processed. I actually cupped the coffee earlier (9g/150g - #9 on grinder) and tasted just great.
> 
> This was the recipe I used:
> 
> #12 on EK43 S (on Moccamaster I use #14, but double amount of coffee+water)
> 
> 15g coffee, 250g water just off boil
> 
> 40g bloom
> 
> 0:40 fill up to 150g
> 
> 1:30 fill up to 250g
> 
> It drained at 5:00 (a very long drawdown..)


If it tasted OK on the MM it's probably not a roast issue. 21% is high for a CR honey, I think you went too fine (could be EY, could be silt, or both). I don't think that the drawdown is very illuminating, the bigger the pulse you pour, the higher the variability in brew time.


----------



## the_partisan

I did another brew, #14 on grinder, and 1x40g bloom + 4x50g pours 30 sec apart. This drained at 4:00 and EY 20% and was spot on and delicious.

I never seem to get good results doing only one or two pours with V60.


----------



## Mrboots2u

the_partisan said:


> I did another brew, #14 on grinder, and 1x40g bloom + 4x50g pours 30 sec apart. This drained at 4:00 and EY 20% and was spot on and delicious.
> 
> I never seem to get good results doing only one or two pours with V60.


There you go... higher EY isnt always tasty ...


----------



## The Systemic Kid

the_partisan said:


> I did another brew, #14 on grinder, and 1x40g bloom + 4x50g pours 30 sec apart. This drained at 4:00 and EY 20% and was spot on and delicious.


I always calibrate pour over methods to hit 20% EY or very slightly under unless I'm doing long steeps a la Sowden. More often than not this gets the best balance between body and flavour notes. Above 20%, flavour notes - especially when they are delicate and fleeting - disappear at the expense of body.


----------



## MWJB

The Systemic Kid said:


> I always calibrate pour over methods to hit 20% EY or very slightly under unless I'm doing long steeps a la Sowden. More often than not this gets the best balance between body and flavour notes. Above 20%, flavour notes - especially when they are delicate and fleeting - disappear at the expense of body.


Kenyans & some other Africans can often taste good around 21% or more. Brazils, CR, El Salvador & Panama might be hard to get much over 19%.

I tend to aim for an average, with a medium drip grind, of around 20% for drip then let the origins fall where they fall. Very, very few brews will be below 18%, or over 22% if you are consistent.

If I'm using a particularly coarse grind, then they might only cover a span of 17-20% and not taste any the worse for it.

I think more important than aiming a % here or there, is getting a grind setting & method locked in, then not futzing with it unless something is really awry. I go months without changing grind setting.

The amount of available solubles in different origins varies & it's almost impossible to brew to +/-1%EY without continual changes.


----------



## Zephyp

the_partisan said:


> I did another brew, #14 on grinder, and 1x40g bloom + 4x50g pours 30 sec apart. This drained at 4:00 and EY 20% and was spot on and delicious.
> 
> I never seem to get good results doing only one or two pours with V60.


I think what recipe works depends on other variables. With one grind setting, six pours might work better since it increases the brew time. On a finer setting the six pours might be too much, and 2-3 works better. Sticking with either one grind setting or one recipe is probably a good idea. I've seen more suggest keeping the grind the same rather than recipe, but I have no doubt those using the same recipe and making smaller adjustments in grind setting makes any worse brews.

Filter type, beans and type of grinder is also part of the equation.


----------



## MWJB

Zephyp said:


> I think what recipe works depends on other variables. With one grind setting, six pours might work better since it increases the brew time. On a finer setting the six pours might be too much, and 2-3 works better. Sticking with either one grind setting or one recipe is probably a good idea. I've seen more suggest keeping the grind the same rather than recipe, but I have no doubt those using the same recipe and making smaller adjustments in grind setting makes any worse brews.
> 
> Filter type, beans and type of grinder is also part of the equation.


Grind size & number of pours dovetail, so yes, a finer grind can work with fewer pours and a very coarse grind with more. So for a given recipe, a guide needs to be given as to the grind size, beyond "looks like...".

When you're happy with a filter, why would you change it, other than to throw a spanner in the works?

Bean type isn't really a factor for 90+% of beans, just the very few super-soluble/insoluble, handful of bags per year?


----------



## Zephyp

MWJB said:


> Grind size & number of pours dovetail, so yes, a finer grind can work with fewer pours and a very coarse grind with more. So for a given recipe, a guide needs to be given as to the grind size, beyond "looks like...".
> 
> When you're happy with a filter, why would you change it, other than to throw a spanner in the works?
> 
> Bean type isn't really a factor for 90+% of beans, just the very few super-soluble/insoluble, handful of bags per year?


I didn't mean you should change the filter, but when looking up recipes online, you often don't know if the person you are copying is using a non-bleached, bleached un-tabbed or bleached tabbed filter. And if you got a tabbed or even shrink-wrapped and they got a non-bleached, it can make a difference to the results you are getting.

Yeah, I suppose the type of beans don't matter too much most of the time.


----------



## Zephyp

I wanted to share a recent experience with my V60. This isn't news and especially Mark has suggested it many times, but there's always something about doing it yourself.

I've been pretty happy with my brews recently, the C40 grinder sitting steady around 30 clicks. Last week I bo2a couple of Ethiopian naturals from Tim Wendelboe, but wasn't too happy with the brews. I've understood that my taste buds aren't the best guideline since I find it difficult to tell underextracted from over, especially when you are close to balanced. If anything, I thought the first brews were bitter and the few with a finer grind were sour.

One time I tried grinding two clicks finer, but those didn't help. The brew times has been on the shorter side of the range where I usually get good cups, with a dry bed around 2:50-3:05. I decided to try changing the pour regime. I didn't know if I should change the target pour time (when the last pour is made) or just the amount on each pour and intervals, so I ended up free-pouring it. I added closer to 25g per pour rather than 35g and ended up with dry beds over 3:30.

The results were much better. The bitterness (maybe) was gone and I started tasting something sweet and fruity.

My takeaway is (as it was when I started using a refractometer and measured EY with different grind sizes) that the balance is found in a fairly small area and you don't have to do much to go too far either way. Just pouring in a way that extended the brew time a little resulted in a very different cup.

It falls in line with my observations about recipes and ways to brew. That there are many different variables affecting the cup, and if you don't know exactly what is going on, the good cups come from random luck when the variables happen to line up. I think for many, the difficulty lies in first finding a nice and balanced cup and then know what to do when the same method doesn't work one day. And maybe that it's approached "wrong" by adjusting grind and water temperature, sending you off into another chase for a decent brew. I know it's been a story for me many times.


----------



## garethuk

@Zephyp that's interesting I might give it a go. What amount of coffee you were using and what was the total weight of water added?


----------



## Zephyp

garethuk said:


> @Zephyp that's interesting I might give it a go. What amount of coffee you were using and what was the total weight of water added?


 I was using my standard recipe:

14.4g dose, 240g water. It's usually 30g bloom, then 35g every 20 seconds until the last pour at 2:10 to 240g.


----------



## the_partisan

Likely it was something to do with the coffee rather than how you brewed it. Most roasters are all over the place with Ethiopians and naturals particularly can be tricky. Often I also find the beans become more and more forgiving to brew as they get a little less fresh.


----------



## Mrboots2u

the_partisan said:


> Likely it was something to do with the coffee rather than how you brewed it. Most roasters are all over the place with Ethiopians and naturals particularly can be tricky. Often I also find the beans become more and more forgiving to brew as they get a little less fresh.


 That Wendelboe , he knows nowt about coffee, was their first natural though but would think they know a thing or too about coffee.


----------



## MWJB

Mrboots2u said:


> That Wendelboe , he knows nowt about coffee, was their first natural though but would think they know a thing or too about coffee.


 Sure, but what they know is balanced with what they like, he often talks about flirting with under-extraction. For me Ethiopians can be anywhere from the least soluble to the most, even from the same roaster, doesn't seem to be so much of a swing with most other origins.


----------



## the_partisan

Mrboots2u said:


> That Wendelboe , he knows nowt about coffee, was their first natural though but would think they know a thing or too about coffee.


 Sure Wendelboe is usually fairly consistent as they work with a small set of producers though I don't find them always the most interesting. As you said this is a new coffee for them?

Not sure why but a lot of roasters struggle with Ethiopians , probably due to large variance in beans or something else? I just went through a fairly meh bag from another roaster myself.

If you have good green coffee and roasted well it seems to taste pretty good within a larger window, I don't think the tasty area is that small that you have to keep chasing it by modifying parameters.


----------



## Mrboots2u

the_partisan said:


> Sure Wendelboe is usually fairly consistent as they work with a small set of producers though I don't find them always the most interesting. As you said this is a new coffee for them?
> 
> Not sure why but a lot of roasters struggle with Ethiopians , probably due to large variance in beans or something else? I just went through a fairly meh bag from another roaster myself.
> 
> If you have good green coffee and roasted well it seems to taste pretty good within a larger window, I don't think the tasty area is that small that you have to keep chasing it by modifying parameters.


 It depends how wide your tasty area is I suppose. Will be different for each of us.


----------



## Zephyp

the_partisan said:


> Likely it was something to do with the coffee rather than how you brewed it. Most roasters are all over the place with Ethiopians and naturals particularly can be tricky. Often I also find the beans become more and more forgiving to brew as they get a little less fresh.


 I can't say anything about the roast, but it's still like that. I tried a standard brew yesterday and the undesirable taste returned. A brew later the same day with longer brew time was better.

I got the tip from Mark, so I should think it hold some truth. The difference was at least significant.

Some beans seems more forgiving than others, but I don't know how easy it is to classify such things. There are so many variables, maybe personal taste being the most difficult to put into numbers.

I like Wendelboe, but the most interesting beans hasn't come from them for me. They are consistent with good quality, but rarely the most exciting beans. I've tried many other roasteries and their bad/uninteresting roasts are worse than TW's. Higher highs and lower lows. It's so disappointing when I buy a bag that seems interesting, but I don't get anything out of it. I like to believe I've had enough experience now to be able to bring out what's there, but when I get through 250g and remain underwhelmed, it could be the roast.


----------



## the_partisan

I've brewed three bags in the last two weeks, two were delicious when brewed using same parameters (Koppi - Colombia El Sapo and April - Kenya Gathuiruini AA), and one was rather poor (Andersen & Mailard - Ethiopia Sidamo). You could see a lot of beans had very off colors or had different sizes, I guess this plays a role in creating lot of undesirable flavours.

In general though with V60 stretching the brew out seems like a good idea to even things out. Another option is to have a deeper bed (i.e. 20-22g) which can be more forgiving and extracts more readily.


----------



## Zephyp

James Hoffmann shares the recipe that he likes best:


----------



## Step21

Gave this a go after digging out my plastic 01 cone and Japanese paper for a 13.5/225g brew of a Brazilian washed catuai that I have been roasting recently. I was a bit sceptical due to the amount of swirling on show but it turned out to be a very nice brew. This is a typical Brazilian with a sweet nutty body and low acidity.

Comparing it to my usual method (Dutch filter, Biarro Alto filter holder) same grind setting, minimal agitation there's very little tastewise to distinguish between the brews. A tad more mouthfeel (more visible oils on the surface) and a little more red berry flavour, possibility more rounded but less clean brew. I would guess a slightly higher extraction but will measure it next time.

Hoffman method drains at 2:20 compared to 3:15 with the Dutch filter.


----------



## the_partisan

It seems to overcomplicate things, I don't think all this swirling / stirring promote "even extraction" as claimed. If you're using a reasonable grind size (not too fine that water can't get through properly and not too coarse that there isn't much flavour in the cup) and a reasonable recipe (60-65g/L, say 4-6 pours, 20-30 sec each) you really don't need to do any manual intervention. I don't even rinse my filters anymore as I've yet to taste the mythical paper taste. Given the last few bags of coffee I've been dealing with, it's far more likely that the roaster screwed up..


----------



## MWJB

I'm unlikely to give this a go very often simply because I don't make such big brews, but I'm not a fan of changing grind size. If the method is that sensitive to grind size, then you must often be starting with the wrong one. 30g per brew and 8 brews per bag, I don't like the idea of those strike rates.


----------



## the_partisan

Also I think this will require a fairly porous coffee - if I remember Square Mile's roasts were pretty well developed. In a lighter roast / more dense coffee with that much stirring / shaking and 30g, it's possible that you'll end up with a clogged filter/bed? In general I like to pour very gently and straight in the middle in the "dilution" phase of the brew (i.e. last two pours) to still get a good flow rate, prevent silt and clogging. There isn't really much extraction happening by that point. Most of these videos seem to treat drip extraction as a linear process but it's pretty far from that.


----------



## Step21

Just tried it with another coffee in the plastic 01 brewer. This time a very light roast. It came through in 1:55 this time compared to 3:10 by my usual method - but it's another very good brew.

I don't see the problem with it. No need to change grind size for me and it's just my normal single cup brew size 13.5/225.

I'm surprised given that normally I go for minimal agitation. I've only got a few of the Japanese 01 filters left but I should be able to compare a few more coffees.


----------



## Zephyp

I got a pretty good brew with the method yesterday, but I found out after that I didn't quite follow the directions. I added a 30s wait in the middle of it and got a 3:03 dry bed. Today I got it right, had a dry bed at 2:45 and a brew that I would classify as drinkable, but nothing more.

Hoffmann's method might work better for larger brews than I usually do, and when you align grind and everything else, I have no doubt it makes good coffee. How consistent it is over time and different beans, I don't know, but I don't plan on switching method.



Step21 said:


> Just tried it with another coffee in the plastic 01 brewer. This time a very light roast. It came through in 1:55 this time compared to 3:10 by my usual method - but it's another very good brew.
> 
> I don't see the problem with it. No need to change grind size for me and it's just my normal single cup brew size 13.5/225.
> 
> I'm surprised given that normally I go for minimal agitation. I've only got a few of the Japanese 01 filters left but I should be able to compare a few more coffees.


 Your usual method brews in 3:10, but you got a very good brew with a 1:55 brew with the same grind size? I wouldn't imagine that. Or did you mean 2:55?


----------



## The Systemic Kid

Tried this using Chemex. Usual method takes around three and a half minutes. Following Hoffman's technique pushed this up to five and a half minutes. Tellingly, however, the coffee came in with an extraction yield of 20.72% - bang on the money. Will give it a go with V 60 and see how that pans out.


----------



## Step21

Zephyp said:


> Your usual method brews in 3:10, but you got a very good brew with a 1:55 brew with the same grind size? I wouldn't imagine that. Or did you mean 2:55?


 For that particular coffee yes.

However, my usual method involves a Dutch 02 filter held in a Biarro Alto filter holder so it's not really very comparable with using a Hario plastic 01 cone and Japanese paper.

I have to admit to being surprised myself so far.

I'm wondering if it something to do with 60% of the volume matching the top of the filter paper.


----------



## MWJB

Zephyp said:


> Your usual method brews in 3:10, but you got a very good brew with a 1:55 brew with the same grind size? I wouldn't imagine that. Or did you mean 2:55?


 Just tried a scaled down Hoffmann Ultimate Turbo-on Steroids (AKA Rao method) and it took 2:05 for a 20.4%EY. Quite a bit shorter than I'd expect from bloom & 6 pours, which isn't a surprise because I'd still be starting the last pour at 2:00)


----------



## MWJB

MWJB said:


> Just tried a scaled down Hoffmann Ultimate Turbo-on Steroids (AKA Rao method) and it took 2:05 for a 20.4%EY. Quite a bit shorter than I'd expect from bloom & 6 pours, which isn't a surprise because I'd still be starting the last pour at 2:00)


 So a 2nd V60 of same coffee, grind, water. Both 182g in the cup. Latter cup was no rinse of paper, 13.5g dose - bloom 13g stir & leave until 20s, then 33g every 20s up to 213g total, mostly in spirals, last 2 down middle. 2:24 dry bed, 21%EY.

Hoffmann scaled down (admittedly not his demonstrated brew) was silty, oily, citrus pithy. If I had been served this cup, I would have suggested it needed a coarser grind. Couldn't finish the cup, the worst brew I have had from this coffee (including work Clever brews with N surrey tap water). Actually ended 2:09, not 2:05 as stated earlier.

My usual method was 21% EY, but cleaner, no pithiness, despite being no lower in EY? Comparable in preference to the typical brews I have had over the last week (8/9).

It's only 2 brews, so I'll make another 18 (9 via each method). In both cases a slight nudge coarser would probably help.


----------



## catpuccino

Used some time this morning to try a few scales down brews with this method (21/350g), unfortunately a few rough brews as it's a dramatic grind size adjustment for me coming from using 4:6 on my current coffee...need a couple more runs to make any conclusions. One thing I did do already was the swirl during the bloom, I've found that very effective and less troublesome than excavating with a spoon.


----------



## MWJB

MWJB said:


> Just tried a scaled down Hoffmann Ultimate Turbo-on Steroids (AKA Rao method) and it took 2:05 for a 20.4%EY. Quite a bit shorter than I'd expect from bloom & 6 pours, which isn't a surprise because I'd still be starting the last pour at 2:00)





MWJB said:


> So a 2nd V60 of same coffee, grind, water. Both 182g in the cup. Latter cup was no rinse of paper, 13.5g dose - bloom 13g stir & leave until 20s, then 33g every 20s up to 213g total, mostly in spirals, last 2 down middle. 2:24 dry bed, 21%EY.
> 
> Hoffmann scaled down (admittedly not his demonstrated brew) was silty, oily, citrus pithy. If I had been served this cup, I would have suggested it needed a coarser grind. Couldn't finish the cup, the worst brew I have had from this coffee (including work Clever brews with N surrey tap water). Actually ended 2:09, not 2:05 as stated earlier.
> 
> My usual method was 21% EY, but cleaner, no pithiness, despite being no lower in EY? Comparable in preference to the typical brews I have had over the last week (8/9).
> 
> It's only 2 brews, so I'll make another 18 (9 via each method). In both cases a slight nudge coarser would probably help.


 So I've now done 10 brews each, scaled down Hoffmann method (Bloom with twice dose weight, swirl, leave 45s, 60% in by 1:15, all in by 1:45, stir clockwise, then anticlockwise ,swirl. Note, this is not verbatim method from his video - he makes 30:500g brews, but I have 7oz coffee cups & tend to just make 1 cup at a time) vs my usual method, I preferred the results from my usual method. No big surprise there, put it down to confirmation bias if you like, but a few things stand out to me.

Rinsing the white Japanese paper filters had no apparent benefit.

The flatness of the bed at end of brew showed no advantage in preference, or extraction yield. Mine were either slighty dished, or had little divot/sink hole in them.

There was no time saving with the Hoffmann method, even if you discount the time spent rinsing the filters. In terms of brew times the Hoffmann method took an average of 9s less, but std dev was 10s, so there was considerable overlap.

There was no advantage in perceived 'evenness of extraction'. On a few occasions I felt the Hoffmann style brews were siltier. EYs overlapped, but to get these brews cleaner would mean grinding coarser, which in turn would drop EY. If the pulse poured brews were cleaner and at least as high in EY, this logically suggests the pulsed brews (in this limited scenario) can achieve a more even extraction, not less. (FWIW as no one ever presents any data on extraction evenness, it's not something I generally recognise to exist in the absence of catastrophic & obvious channelling, or some other malfunction that is clearly otherwise identifiable).

Neither method showed an objective advantage in EY, or actual brew time. Log of brews is here, each pair used a different bean, but same grinder & setting, same water for each pair https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10OpYMq1zos3bQs0Bl4-ooa6U-BtxjbKwot7oYfqQej4/edit?usp=sharing


----------



## J_Fo

Thanks for this 

I switch between your method, the Hoffman method and the 4/6 method so this is all really interesting to me.

I see that you mostly had your Lido set at .75, do you know where that would be roughly on a Feldgrind? I typicallly have mine around 2:4 but go a bit coarser for the 4/6 method.


----------



## MWJB

On a V1 Feldgrind (14pt scale), I'd suggest around 2+6 (can't make a suggestion for the later Felds with a 12pt adjustment scale, other than maybe 'about two and a half turns'?)

This might give a little less at 400 Kruve (12-13%), but the Lido1 seems to have a slightly wider distribution.


----------



## Donegali

Little bit late to the Hoffmann Ultimate technique discussion, but I now use it as my go to morning brew. Using a Thermos King thermal cup with a capacity of 470ml, this works out perfectly. Personally I found it didn't scale down particularly well, but could be down to grind size. As I am quite strict with my coffee intake I only usually get 2 chances to alter the grind size per day, so I still use MWJB's method for smaller brews at the weekends. Overall I have found it very consistent and have the technique down to (almost) perfection. I can't measure my extraction or any of that but it tastes pretty damn good every time, no matter what beans I have tried. (Currently loving Rwanda Gitwe Natural beans from Moonroast Coffee in Alresford, bliss.)


----------



## Breezy

Using the 4:6 method should you be aiming for a final drawdown at 3:30?

and if the bed is dry before the 45 second interval start the next pour earlier?


----------



## catpuccino

Breezy said:


> Using the 4:6 method should you be aiming for a final drawdown at 3:30?
> 
> and if the bed is dry before the 45 second interval start the next pour earlier?


 I used the 4:6 method for about a year, I've moved away now but I do think it works well despite the pseudo-science :classic_ninja: .

You shouldn't aim for a certain time, though I will say most of my brews (different beans most weeks) did end in the 3:20-3:40 range. Adjust to taste though, not a target time.

Depends what you mean by dry, I'd say my experience was the first 2-3 pours that the bed appeared dry (but still draining) about 10 seconds before the 45 second interval. As the bed gets more saturated throughout the brew this changes. I always waited for the 45 seconds to be up, I think this is the way you're meant to do it but more importantly for me it just removed a variable by doing so.


----------



## Breezy

Interesting what brew method are you using now?


----------



## Leslie M.

Hi there,

I've tried the recipe suggested by Maxicoffee which make a nice cup, well balanced in theory:

15g coffee + 250g water ==> infusion 3 to 4 minutes ==> 2 cups of 12.5cl

The quality of your water and its temperature or your coffee are keys. Each coffee deserves it own recipe.


----------



## MWJB

Leslie M. said:


> Hi there,
> 
> I've tried the recipe suggested by Maxicoffee which make a nice cup, well balanced in theory:
> 
> 15g coffee + 250g water ==> infusion 3 to 4 minutes ==> 2 cups of 12.5cl
> 
> The quality of your water and its temperature or your coffee are keys. Each coffee deserves it own recipe.


 Good news, but if every coffee deserves its own recipe, how do you know which recipe to use & how much coffee do you waste failing to deliver that recipe?

I generally use the same recipe always - grind for best & representative taste of the coffee, with that brewer.


----------



## Leslie M.

MWJB said:


> Good news, but if every coffee deserves its own recipe, how do you know which recipe to use & how much coffee do you waste failing to deliver that recipe?
> 
> I generally use the same recipe always - grind for best & representative taste of the coffee, with that brewer.


 Just start with a standard recipe you like and then you can adjust the variables (quantity of coffee, blooming time, water temperature...) and take notes of your recipes.

You will "waste" coffee but you'll find the perfect recipe, for you.

It's like cooking or baking.


----------



## MWJB

Leslie M. said:


> Just start with a standard recipe you like and then you can adjust the variables (quantity of coffee, blooming time, water temperature...) and take notes of your recipes.
> 
> You will "waste" coffee but you'll find the perfect recipe, for you.
> 
> It's like cooking or baking.


 If you like the standard recipe (whatever that is?), it must be because it achieves a good result (that is what a recipe does). So, why mess with it?

Bloom time & temperature aren't really variables, V60 loses heat quickly & with boiling water at bloom you'll be just fine. Quantity of coffee, assuming you are brewing at typical ratios say 1:16 to 1:18, won't impact on anything other than concentration. For brews up to 15:250g a stir of the bloom then adding water at 20s works fine, go longer if you want but it's not going to make a significant difference to extraction.

Yes, it's like cooking, you have a process where you apply heat to a known mass of produce for a known time. I don't want to be repeatedly eating someone's undercooked roast chicken, or rice because they are ignoring common sense & hunting for a perfect recipe for them. Sure, we all have preferences but with some foods the difference between raw/cooked/overcooked is pretty clear & universal.


----------



## Step21

Standard recipes become standard precisely because they work across a broad range of coffees.

To get perfection you have to think outside of that a la brewers cup contestants.

Here's one on a Gina which you can try out now on a Hario switch (V60 which works like a Clever)

17g coffee/ 220g water , V60 grind. Close valve and bloom with 80C water for 45 sec, open valve and pour 100g with 95C water. At 1:45 close valve and pour 75g with 80C water. Open valve at 2:30 to drain.

Some folks have too much time on their hands.

And no, I've never tried it. I don't have that much time or coffee to waste.


----------



## ashcroc

Step21 said:


> Standard recipes become standard precisely because they work across a broad range of coffees.
> To get perfection you have to think outside of that a la brewers cup contestants.
> Here's one on a Gina which you can try out now on a Hario switch (V60 which works like a Clever)
> 17g coffee/ 220g water , V60 grind. Close valve and bloom with 80C water for 45 sec, open valve and pour 100g with 95C water. At 1:45 close valve and pour 75g with 80C water. Open valve at 2:30 to drain.
> Some folks have too much time on their hands.
> And no, I've never tried it. I don't have that much time or coffee to waste.


Immersion brews are moving the goalposts no?


----------



## MWJB

ashcroc said:


> Immersion brews are moving the goalposts no?


 In what way?

V60 weren't previously able to make immersion brews, but with the switch the possibility now exists...that said I don't know why you would. Using the switch to ensure full wetting during bloom seems like a good idea though (then drip brew as normal).


----------



## the_partisan

Step21 said:


> 17g coffee/ 220g water , V60 grind. Close valve and bloom with 80C water for 45 sec, open valve and pour 100g with 95C water. At 1:45 close valve and pour 75g with 80C water. Open valve at 2:30 to drain.


 Those kind of recipes seem to a way to get quite low extraction on a V60. Some coffees can taste interesting at 13-14% EY. Ditto with Aeropress recipes which use 80C water with 30g coffee and only ~180g output. I'm assuming quite low EY since at almost 80g/L ratio I really doubt they're hitting the 18-22% range which would give a pretty high TDS.


----------



## Step21

At no point is all the water in contact with all the water, so it's still drip.

I think the Hario switch is way overpriced at £50. I can do this with my Bonavita brewer or you could use a Clever.

I find it hard to understand why you would want to open and close the valve several times during the brew never mind the changes in brew temperature.

I was just pointing out the extremes of the "perfect recipe". Personally, with drip I just do the same thing every time. Slightly different techniques depending on the brewer.


----------



## Step21

Single pour V60. I have tried this before with little success but...

Early days with this and need more data but so far 3 different coffees with very good results. Doubt that there is anything new here and chances are that it will prove to be inconsistent.

Extremely simple. I'm using approx 13.5g/225 water on a plastic 01 with tabbed Japanese bleached papers and gooseneck kettle just off boil. Grind is a little finer than my normal. 1.6 on a Hausgrind.

Bloom approx 2 times the coffee so circa 25g.

At 30s pour slowly directly down centre. No deviation. A small clear circle appears centrally through the bloom. Then gradually but slowly widen it to maybe a 2p coin size.. At some point ( when I lose the will to resist but around 150ml poured) pour a few quick outward circles over the darker floating coffee toward the perimeter to sink it then return to centre pour. Dry flat bed at 2 min 30 approx though one was 2:10. A little dark circle on the filter perimeter at the point all water was added. But of no significance. Certainly not the mudcaked sidewalls of "riding the bloom".

I'm getting a nicely balanced cup, sweet and fruity, no dryness which I find can appear with V60. Less oils on top and a cleaner cup. Less variance in the cup taste wise from top to bottom. Often I find a lot of initial acidity with the cup sweetening progressively down. I've not refractometered any results yet.

Could just be my sublime roasting of course? (aye right!) But there seems to be something in it worth investigating.

There seems to be a lot of hypothesis around central v concentric pouring. I have tended toward the concentric.

But I have noticed with the Kalita 155 that I get better cups with a completely central pour after initial concentric pouring.

My previous fails with single pour V60 were concentric.

Hypothesis seems to be concentric provides agitation. Maybe too much? Need some central to balance?


----------



## MWJB

Hi Stephen,

By what sort of time are you getting the last of the water in the brewer?


----------



## Step21

MWJB said:


> Hi Stephen,
> 
> By what sort of time are you getting the last of the water in the brewer?


 I will have to come back to you on that as I haven't been paying attention to the time until the end. So I don't know if that has been consistent never mind an actual time. Pretty crucial obviously.

Today's brew drained really quickly after all water was added much quicker than the other two coffees. I'd guess 1 min 55 ish.

I have seen the Japanese barista Tetsaya? do something like this but his pour was really fast. Probably finer grind and odd brew ratio.


----------



## MWJB

Step21 said:


> I will have to come back to you on that as I haven't been paying attention to the time until the end. So I don't know if that has been consistent never mind an actual time. Pretty crucial obviously.
> 
> Today's brew drained really quickly after all water was added much quicker than the other two coffees. I'd guess 1 min 55 ish.
> 
> I have seen the Japanese barista Tetsaya? do something like this but his pour was really fast. Probably finer grind and odd brew ratio.


 I've done single, central pours (all in by 50-70s after bloom) with a very fine grind, as you note the centre pour keeps disturbance down & can mitigate silty cups, or at least keep silt tolerable with a very fine grind. It does seem tricky to keep the pour rate much above 4g/sec without hosing with a Buono.

In all the testing & measuring I have done, it seems to me that consistent extraction follows a consistent pour rate closer than flow rate/total brew time.

Yes, I saw a video of that too (Tetsaya), but he didn't seem happy with the result in that one.


----------



## the_partisan

It seems like in a V60 with 10-15g, a fast, single pour is typically not enough to reach 18-22% EY unless you do some manual agitation (stirring, swirling etc). The finer the grind you have it seems like more likely you'll get channeling in drip brews.

It does sound a little like your extractions are on the lower end with this method (i. e. no oils), likely around 17% or so which can taste OK, but usually with a rather short finish?


----------



## Step21

the_partisan said:


> It seems like in a V60 with 10-15g, a fast, single pour is typically not enough to reach 18-22% EY unless you do some manual agitation (stirring, swirling etc). The finer the grind you have it seems like more likely you'll get channeling in drip brews.
> 
> It does sound a little like your extractions are on the lower end with this method (i. e. no oils), likely around 17% or so which can taste OK, but usually with a rather short finish?


 My grind setting here is not a whole lot finer than my normal 1 turn and 6 o clock / normal 1 turn and 7.5 on the Hausgrind. I'd guess 2.0/2.1 on a Feldgrind.

Today's brew came in at 18% EY. TDS 1.23% for 196g output, 13.42g dose. I do tend to like filter brews in the 18/19% range.

Typically because I was paying more attention my pour was too slow - all in at 2:05 dry bed 2:20. Slurry had a central divot and there was more oils on the surface. Not as good as previously but still tasty. 7/9 territory. Less clarity, less homogeneous. More like my usual V60 increasing in sweetness/ intensity down the cup. Still sweet and fruity but body a tad weak. Finish wasn't short. Fruit flavours not distinct.

I may try a finer grind. But it seems worth gathering more data to see if I can nail down some consistency. Of course it may well prove as inconsistently consistent as any other V60 method. I have been inclining towards the Kalita 155 lately but sometimes the V60 really makes the fruit notes sing a little more.


----------



## Step21

MWJB said:


> In all the testing & measuring I have done, it seems to me that consistent extraction follows a consistent pour rate closer than flow rate/total brew time.


 This is a very important point. When the flow rate is inconsistent so is the resulting brew.

What I'm finding with the single pour emphasises this. My target is now to get all the water in by 1:45. Best/cleanest cups seem to come from keeping a steady central pour until at least 150g or 2/3 is in before any concentric pour toward the perimeter to sink the coffee floating in the bloom. Then resume central pour until the end. Quick shake to settle and drain. Flat bed.

I tried another coffee (Ethiopian Yirg) this morning. 13.52/225 195 out TDS 1.31 18.9% EY. Very clean and consistent from top to bottom. Excellent flavour separation.


----------



## the_partisan

If you have to pour so slowly that you are only finished pouring at 1:45 (assuming 30 second bloom), that's gives only 2.6g/second flow (195/75), wouldn't it be easier to pour in stages?


----------



## MWJB

Step21 said:


> This is a very important point. When the flow rate is inconsistent so is the resulting brew.
> 
> What I'm finding with the single pour emphasises this. My target is now to get all the water in by 1:45. Best/cleanest cups seem to come from keeping a steady central pour until at least 150g or 2/3 is in before any concentric pour toward the perimeter to sink the coffee floating in the bloom. Then resume central pour until the end. Quick shake to settle and drain. Flat bed.
> 
> I tried another coffee (Ethiopian Yirg) this morning. 13.52/225 195 out TDS 1.31 18.9% EY. Very clean and consistent from top to bottom. Excellent flavour separation.


 Aha! I missed the bit about 'quick shake to settle the bed' when I had a go earlier.

Feldgrind v1 at 2+0, 30s bloom with 20g, all in by 1:40, total brew time 1:52. Not a flat bed (my error, but given the bed will only be flat for the last 20-30s of the brew, I'm unsure as to what difference it will make - I've typically not seen any benefit to flat beds thus far). 19.8%EY, ball-park for this coffee. Bright, but not particularly clean. I'll go a tad coarser.

I'll try again later with the shake at fill.

I guess one of my problems when people talk about single pour/pulse pour (I don't really see a difference other than pulse pours slow down the pour rate) is that, if you're trying to get say 200g of water in the brewer in 75s, it's tricky to do that with no idea of what your rate of pour should be, without suddenly having to speed up/slow down, if you're under/overshooting as you approach the target fill time.

To that end, I'm going to aim for 25g/10sec whilst pouring continuously, all water in at 1:50.


----------



## Step21

the_partisan said:


> If you have to pour so slowly that you are only finished pouring at 1:45 (assuming 30 second bloom), that's gives only 2.6g/second flow (195/75), wouldn't it be easier to pour in stages?


 Not really sure of your point. Why would it be easier?


----------



## Step21

MWJB said:


> Aha! I missed the bit about 'quick shake to settle the bed' when I had a go earlier.
> 
> Feldgrind v1 at 2+0, 30s bloom with 20g, all in by 1:40, total brew time 1:52. Not a flat bed (my error, but given the bed will only be flat for the last 20-30s of the brew, I'm unsure as to what difference it will make - I've typically not seen any benefit to flat beds thus far). 19.8%EY, ball-park for this coffee. Bright, but not particularly clean. I'll go a tad coarser.
> 
> I'll try again later with the shake at fill.
> 
> I guess one of my problems when people talk about single pour/pulse pour (I don't really see a difference other than pulse pours slow down the pour rate) is that, if you're trying to get say 200g of water in the brewer in 75s, it's tricky to do that with no idea of what your rate of pour should be, without suddenly having to speed up/slow down, if you're under/overshooting as you approach the target fill time.
> 
> To that end, I'm going to aim for 25g/10sec whilst pouring continuously, all water in at 1:50.


 The shake bit is just something I tend to do. Probably does nothing other than give a more pleasing finish to the slurry.

The problem with this method is as you say is working out how fast to pour evenly to hit a target weight and time. I've just been going by feel.


----------



## the_partisan

I meant that if the goal of doing just a single pour is to reduce "active time" then having to pour continuously at a very slow rate for more than a minute doesn't seem very comfortable or more convenient than say doing 4 or 5 pours 20 sec apart.


----------



## Step21

the_partisan said:


> I meant that if the goal of doing just a single pour is to reduce "active time" then having to pour continuously at a very slow rate for more than a minute doesn't seem very comfortable or more convenient than say doing 4 or 5 pours 20 sec apart.


 Right, I follow you now.

The goal of a single pour is the same as any other. Tasty coffee. I'm just experimenting really. Previously I've never had any single pour success. I'm curious to know why this seems to work for me. Random chance or is there a repeatable method.

Intuitively, it seems easier to me. With multiple pours is the flow rate not potentially more uneven? Due to having more starts/stops. Obviously if the kettle was heavy some fatigue might kick in if pouring for a long time.

It would also be interesting for me to see how a multiple central pour works out. I'd assume some more extraction and longer brew time.


----------



## MWJB

Step21 said:


> Right, I follow you now.
> 
> The goal of a single pour is the same as any other. Tasty coffee. I'm just experimenting really. Previously I've never had any single pour success. I'm curious to know why this seems to work for me. Random chance or is there a repeatable method.
> 
> Intuitively, it seems easier to me. With multiple pours is the flow rate not potentially more uneven? Due to having more starts/stops. Obviously if the kettle was heavy some fatigue might kick in if pouring for a long time.
> 
> It would also be interesting for me to see how a multiple central pour works out. I'd assume some more extraction and longer brew time.


 Just tried again, 2+2 on Feld V1, 25g/10s but I slowed up a bit (unintentionally, as the kettle got lighter) and ended up with 209g in the brewer at 1:53 & just went with that. Little shake, dry bed at 2:03.19.5%EY

Much better cup than the previous one, still a little filmy silt-wise but not off-putting. On par with my good cups via my usual method & grind. I'll certainly do a few more of these. 

The goal of the pour, whether continuous or not, is to be consistent. Even if you have little pauses, it's still easier for me to be consistent, when you consider the average over the whole pour. E.g. as I mentioned the kettle gets lighter as you pour and you have to keep tipping more aggressively to maintain the same rate. With my typical method I pour 33g every 10s, wait 10s, then next 33g to start with...as the brew progresses, the last 2x33g pours (in the centre) take pretty much the full 20s. If 6 pours was inconsistent it would show up in wide EY scatter/poor flavour?

My V60 02 at 6 pours, is all centre pours, as is my Kalita wave method (after the initial pour). This is more about limiting disturbance & not flushing silt into the cup (bittering, but not extraction related), rather than attributing a taste balance/extraction attribute to a given number of pours. I don't think such a thing exists if you normalise grind & extraction - I have done brews at 1+10 on the Feldgrind v1 - long bloom & all water in within 10s (not with V60 though, but with Kalita Wave & Melitta - V60 isn't self-regulating enough for this to work) vs coarser grinds & 20g poured every 20s (you need to make all these spirals because the grind is so coarse pouring in one spot will allow the water to piss through without touching the rest of the dose).

I didn't see a clear advantage to one or the other, or anywhere in between. If you want less silt in the cup though, brewing as coarse as you can to still get a decent extraction is the thing to do...but it won't be a single, quick pour for a 1 mug brew.

Over 300x, 1 mug brews with various brewers & grinders, poured with a gooseneck, I've had tasty cups at 0.57g/s flow rate (out of the brewer) up to 2g/s & brew times from 2:14 to 6:00. The average total brew time though is ~3:00 with 30s bloom & a 1.3g/s flow rate out of the brewer.

In short, I don't think there's a silver bullet for a given brew size & single/pulsed/centre/spiral method...it's a balance of grind size vs silt ruining the cup. One reason I stick so much to the 6 pour 1 mug V60 method is that the grind size allows me to switch brewers/brew sizes and normalise brews by only adjusting the pour regime, so if I run out of filter papers for one brewer, I don't start from scratch, faffing with grind & timings.

As brews get bigger, at the same grind, you can speed up the pour and it becomes pretty much continuous & mostly down the middle...that would really be how I'd determine my default grind setting - a big V60 might pour at ~4g/sec continuous (or just with brief pauses early on), then keep that setting when dialled & increase pulses to slow the rate for smaller brews.

Also, I have noticed with very fast pours, they don't always relate to much faster brews - e.g. (tiny sample so don't read too much into it) using Hoffmann's method for 30:500g pour rate is 7.3g/sec in and might be 3.6g/s flow out, but slowing the pour to 3.8g/s in resulted only resulted in a 7 second difference in brew time & 3.3g/s out...but tasted much better, I guess because the flow is less aggressive & the beverage less silty.

Final thought (about time too) V60 brewing isn't really about uber extraction consistency - they should all be tested & consistent to 95/100 falling within/equal to +/-2%EY (or +/-0.9%EY over 10 brews with different coffees), otherwise you're just wetting grounds & making cups of brown liquid. It's more about managing silt for best flavour.


----------



## Step21

I don't have brew scales with a timer so find it difficult to keep an eye on the stopclock and weight at the same time.

My latest attempt (different coffee) was a little fast - all water in by 1:25 and dry bed at 1:50. EY 17.5% but another clean and very tasty cup. If I were blind tasting I would not have a clue the EY was lower.

Is there a correlation here between flow rate and extraction? Faster pour less extraction? For same grind.


----------



## MWJB

Step21 said:


> I don't have brew scales with a timer so find it difficult to keep an eye on the stopclock and weight at the same time.
> 
> My latest attempt (different coffee) was a little fast - all water in by 1:25 and dry bed at 1:50. EY 17.5% but another clean and very tasty cup. If I were blind tasting I would not have a clue the EY was lower.
> 
> Is there a correlation here between flow rate and extraction? Faster pour less extraction? For same grind.


 I guess, if you get more water in the brewer & in contact with the coffee, the initial phase will be more dilute, then the greater weight of water means higher flow & less contact time.

Probably a fair bit of overlap before this becomes very apparent.

I've only had one set of scales with a timer, I found them impossible to track. I mostly watch the scales & briefly glance the timer.


----------



## the_partisan

Not a single pour, but I've had some good brews with V60 using a pretty fine grind, doing 2x100g pours without any bloom, using 12g coffee, but again on the quite lower end of the EY spectrum. I think a lot of coffees can actually taste very nice and balanced on this end. Like here:


----------



## MWJB

MWJB said:


> I guess, if you get more water in the brewer & in contact with the coffee, the initial phase will be more dilute, then the greater weight of water means higher flow & less contact time.
> 
> Probably a fair bit of overlap before this becomes very apparent.
> 
> I've only had one set of scales with a timer, I found them impossible to track. I mostly watch the scales & briefly glance the timer.


 I just had a look at my 15 slowest & 15 fastest flowing brews (300 total, mix of brewers, all drip, with a bloom/prewet phase, all 13.5 dose & averaging 184-185g out).

15 slowest had an avg pour rate of 2.8g/s & flow out after bloom of 0.8g/s, EY of 20.1%, liking score of 7.6/9 (which for me is typical range).

15 fastest had an avg pour rate of 3.6g/s & flow out after bloom of 2.0g/s, EY of 19.5%, liking score of 6.3/9 (which is low).

I don't think the EY accounts for the difference in preference, to me, it seems like the faster flow, combined with grinds a little on the finer side (slowest flow brews used grinds a little coarser) had more impact?


----------



## the_partisan

I just made a brew using V60 and Patrik's 2x100g method. 12g ground at #10.5 at EK43S, 96C water. First pour of 100g in 10 sec and then second pour of 100g at 1:10.

Got 172g out, 1.39% TDS, 20% EY. A washed Ethiopian from Nomad and tasted pretty much spot on. As Patrik says, there is a large hole after the first pour, but after the second pour, I got a flat bed. No other stirring or intervention.


----------



## Step21

the_partisan said:


> I just made a brew using V60 and Patrik's 2x100g method. 12g ground at #10.5 at EK43S, 96C water. First pour of 100g in 10 sec and then second pour of 100g at 1:10.
> 
> Got 172g out, 1.39% TDS, 20% EY. A washed Ethiopian from Nomad and tasted pretty much spot on. As Patrik says, there is a large hole after the first pour, but after the second pour, I got a flat bed. No other stirring or intervention.


 How would you generalise that grind size? How much finer than your normal?


----------



## the_partisan

Step21 said:


> How would you generalise that grind size? How much finer than your normal?


 It's not exceptionally fine (i.e. I use #6 for Aeropress), but slightly finer than I would use when doing 4-5 pours. You can try with the setting you are using for the single continuous pour.


----------



## MWJB

the_partisan said:


> I just made a brew using V60 and Patrik's 2x100g method. 12g ground at #10.5 at EK43S, 96C water. First pour of 100g in 10 sec and then second pour of 100g at 1:10.
> 
> Got 172g out, 1.39% TDS, 20% EY. A washed Ethiopian from Nomad and tasted pretty much spot on. As Patrik says, there is a large hole after the first pour, but after the second pour, I got a flat bed. No other stirring or intervention.


 Just had a go at this with a Feld V1 at 2+2. Whilst I couldn't quite get 105g in within 10s, more like 12-13, danger of overflowing the brewer with 01 papers, it produced a very tasty & clean cup.

13.5g:210g water, off boil.

Dry bed at 1:54

179g at 1.43%TDS.


----------



## the_partisan

Second brew with same beans, I used slightly coarser grind (#11). 172g out, 1.35% TDS so ~19.5% EY again, think I slightly preferred this brew as it was bit cleaner. Drain time was 3:00 or so, but I have feeling it can be quite variable with this method. Next I will try with some fresh, more developed beans, but I think it might be quite a challenge with this method.


----------



## MWJB

Same beans, same grind, bloom & quick stir & 6 pours, first 2 pours as spiral, rest down middle, at about 146g in the level began to drop, so a quick pour round the edge then rest in middle, dry bed at 2:54. I poured more down the middle than usual to try and reign in EY with the finer grind & to keep silt down. Still a very nice cup even though 1.57%TDS at 180g out. Shade of dryness in just the very last sip. Rich, balanced, not as bright & clean as PRK/April method, different, but I couldn't say better/worse unless there's something you're particularly after. About as far as I'd want to take extraction. for this coffee.

I think next, I'll combine my approach with @Step21 pour at an average ~2.5g/s, but break it up into 4x50g/20s intervals (as I find it easier to track pour rate like that). First pour after bloom in a spiral, rest down middle.


----------



## Step21

My attempt at the April method using a Kalita 185 filter inside the Bonavita immersion brewer gave a TDS 1.40% for 164g out approx 19.1 EY.

I was afraid of overfilling the 01 V60 and thought the above was a closer match to the April video.

I found it difficult to get the 100g in 10 sec, probably nearer 15. First pour drained with a large crater, second pour stalled ( Ethiopian washed might have something to do with this) and dry bed at 4:15. Very little liquid drained in the last 2 min. I did go one setting finer.

The cup was clean, rich but variable. Some sips sweet others with sharp acidity.

I will give this a few experiments. Might work well in an 02 filter in the Biarro Alto.

I'm finding my single pour V60 more consistent after aiming for 90g in the brewer by 1 min - seems to keep me on track for 225 in by 1:50 give or take a few seconds. Extraction averaging around 18.5% with the same grind 1+6 on Hausgrind.


----------



## MWJB

Step21 said:


> My attempt at the April method using a Kalita 185 filter inside the Bonavita immersion brewer gave a TDS 1.40% for 164g out approx 19.1 EY.
> 
> I was afraid of overfilling the 01 V60 and thought the above was a closer match to the April video.
> 
> I found it difficult to get the 100g in 10 sec, probably nearer 15. First pour drained with a large crater, second pour stalled ( Ethiopian washed might have something to do with this) and dry bed at 4:15. Very little liquid drained in the last 2 min. I did go one setting finer.
> 
> The cup was clean, rich but variable. Some sips sweet others with sharp acidity.
> 
> I will give this a few experiments. Might work well in an 02 filter in the Biarro Alto.
> 
> I'm finding my single pour V60 more consistent after aiming for 90g in the brewer by 1 min - seems to keep me on track for 225 in by 1:50 give or take a few seconds. Extraction averaging around 18.5% with the same grind 1+6 on Hausgrind.


 Hi Stephen,

Are you stirring your bloom at all? Even with a spiral around 150g in & shake at end I'm getting brews with a bit of a lip of dry coffee around the top of the filter? Might be the gassy coffee I have at the minute.

The April method should be fine with a V60 01 & an 02 paper, it's not likely to overflow the brewer, I was Just in danger of having the slurry overflow the paper.


----------



## MWJB

MWJB said:


> Hi Stephen,
> 
> Are you stirring your bloom at all? Even with a spiral around 150g in & shake at end I'm getting brews with a bit of a lip of dry coffee around the top of the filter? Might be the gassy coffee I have at the minute.


 Answered my own question, just tried another with a stirred bloom & still got the lip around the filter paper.

4x50g at 20s intervals, 1st was a spiral, 183g out at 1.33%TDS. Clean, less bright than the April style brews, tasty, but I'd like to push it on just a tad.


----------



## Step21

Yes. I get a dry lip and don't stir but it's pretty negligible.


----------



## HBLP

Just tried April's method on my Finca Divina Providencia Pacamara Natural (Fjord Coffee), and I have to say I'm very impressed. Bright, much cleaner than usual bloom + single pour methods, sweeter finish to the cup with no astringency and best of all incredibly simple to brew.

I have no TDS meter or so, and currently use a regular (non-gooseneck) kettle to brew. I've got a fair bit of experience with Rao/Hoffmann etc style methods, no experience with multi pours (struggle too much with my kettle to do them consistently), but this method might just become my regular.


----------



## Step21

My second try of the April method was with a Dutch 02 V60 filter in the Biarro Alto filter holder.

I managed to get the 100g in 10 sec - surprisingly hard to do.

A different coffee 20.15% EY 1.43 TDS 170g out dry bed 3 minutes exactly.

A very clean cup - why is this method so clean when the pours are so aggressive?

A decent and very representative cup - not as sweet as I'd like but it is a more developed roast than my usual filter.


----------



## MWJB

I think the first pour just does a great job of getting everything wet, then the second has an easier time of washing out the coffee. The pours are quick, so less time agitating, less silt flushed out. Overall the flow rate seems to be nominal, around 1.5g/s, despite the fast pours.

Fast pouring isn't new, before the uptake of goosenecks & slow controlled pouring (last 15-20yrs?) advice was to pour all the boiling water in one fast dump. George Howell's brew guides for Chemex has had 3 quick, but wide spaced, pours for years & years.


----------



## Fez

> On 11/11/2019 at 20:45, the_partisan said:
> 
> Not a single pour, but I've had some good brews with V60 using a pretty fine grind, doing 2x100g pours without any bloom, using 12g coffee, but again on the quite lower end of the EY spectrum. I think a lot of coffees can actually taste very nice and balanced on this end. Like here:


 I've only started experimenting with a v60 recently and have had extremely mixed results with no consistency and no amazing cups. They've either been ok or bad. It doesn't help much that I've changed beans a few times and keep trying other methods. Will give this one a go tomorrow morning and report back as it seems to be the easiest one I've come across so far


----------



## Cooffe

Fez said:


> I've only started experimenting with a v60 recently and have had extremely mixed results with no consistency and no amazing cups. They've either been ok or bad. It doesn't help much that I've changed beans a few times and keep trying other methods. Will give this one a go tomorrow morning and report back as it seems to be the easiest one I've come across so far


 I think you and I have both struggled with this (I guess as we both got one of those pour over things)! But I have had a decent amount of success on the following one:

1:16 ratio of coffee:water

Bloom for 3x weight of coffee for 1 min

Next pour fill up to 40% total weight (of water, ie if you used 30g coffee, you'd fill it to 192g, 90g of which is your bloom).

Wait for water to be just at the top of the bed and then do 3 more even pours for the remaining 60% (with 30g coffee this would be 96g each remaining pour).

All in all it should take about 4:30 to 5 min mark, I've had some reliably decent results ?


----------



## MWJB

Fez said:


> I've only started experimenting with a v60 recently and have had extremely mixed results with no consistency and no amazing cups. They've either been ok or bad. It doesn't help much that I've changed beans a few times and keep trying other methods. Will give this one a go tomorrow morning and report back as it seems to be the easiest one I've come across so far


 Trying other methods, without normalising grind, will cause inconsistency. Changing beans won't so much. You should be able to make good cups with the same method, grind & different beans.


----------



## MWJB

Cooffe said:


> I think you and I have both struggled with this (I guess as we both got one of those pour over things)! But I have had a decent amount of success on the following one:
> 
> 1:16 ratio of coffee:water
> 
> Bloom for 3x weight of coffee for 1 min
> 
> Next pour fill up to 40% total weight (of water, ie if you used 30g coffee, you'd fill it to 192g, 90g of which is your bloom).
> 
> Wait for water to be just at the top of the bed and then do 3 more even pours for the remaining 60% (with 30g coffee this would be 96g each remaining pour).
> 
> All in all it should take about 4:30 to 5 min mark, I've had some reliably decent results ?


 1:16 sets strength at target extraction, it's the ratio I generally use but it's not a guide to any other aspect of the brew.

You need to state the pour rate (timings of these pours), not the total brew time (which will wander depending on bean).

You also need to give a guide to rough grind size, one that people can work with. Otherwise the method is just too open ended to be useful. I can't take this information & know that I'm brewing the same cup as you.

Some reliably decent results seems a bit vague, either it's reliable or not (a consistently high liking score &/or objective data).

People have been making drip coffee for over 100yrs, the idea that it's somehow hit & miss/subject to whims of woodland spirits is a bit peculiar


----------



## Fez

MWJB said:


> Trying other methods, without normalising grind, will cause inconsistency. Changing beans won't so much. You should be able to make good cups with the same method, grind & different beans.


 You're right - I think a something that further adds to the problem is that I've never made more than 1 cup in a day, in fact it's usually spread out as in 2-3 cups a week at most.

Maybe I should pull the plug on my espresso machine this weekend and just stick to the v60


----------



## Fez

Cooffe said:


> I think you and I have both struggled with this (I guess as we both got one of those pour over things)! But I have had a decent amount of success on the following one:
> 
> 1:16 ratio of coffee:water
> 
> Bloom for 3x weight of coffee for 1 min
> 
> Next pour fill up to 40% total weight (of water, ie if you used 30g coffee, you'd fill it to 192g, 90g of which is your bloom).
> 
> Wait for water to be just at the top of the bed and then do 3 more even pours for the remaining 60% (with 30g coffee this would be 96g each remaining pour).
> 
> All in all it should take about 4:30 to 5 min mark, I've had some reliably decent results ?


 I gave up on that brewista as I got the 8 cup version and making 1 cup in there with a massive chemex filter just didn't work. So I ordered a v60 a couple of days later ?


----------



## MWJB

Fez said:


> You're right - I think a something that further adds to the problem is that I've never made more than 1 cup in a day, in fact it's usually spread out as in 2-3 cups a week at most.
> 
> Maybe I should pull the plug on my espresso machine this weekend and just stick to the v60


 Sure, but try and avoid getting into a frenzy...space the cups out, put some thought into what was mainly wrong with the last cup (weak & thin, vs overpowering/smoky/powdery/bitter) before making just a grind adjustment, then having another go. Shouldn't take much more than 3-4 cups to get dialled in.


----------



## J_Fo

Going to try the April method this morning, a couple of things I can't work out from the vid (and apologies if it's in the thread, I've looked but I can't see it...) is at roughly what time do you get a dry bed after the first pour? In fact do you get a dry bed at after the first pour? And how quick is the second pour? On the vid it looks like about 15 seconds but I'm aware that sometimes with editing the times on a video can be a bit misleading!

Cheers guys 

Update: Well I was hot to trot so I went for it (still interested on people's thoughts re my questions though) 

12g in at 2.2 on the Feldgrind and added 100g of water in 10 seconds, ended up with a cone like bed of coffee with a big divot in it, drained through at exactly 1 minute 10, added another 100 over about 10/15 seconds, dry bed at 2.10.

Really enjoyed making this brew, in my limited experience it feels like it's breaking all the rules 

Just letting it cool down now, will report back.


----------



## the_partisan

You can expect to get a dry bed and I think Patrik states that in the video. Timing really depends on bean/grind size I think. Typically I get it around 0:45-0:50 or so using this method. Both pours are meant to be done within 10 seconds, but it can be tricky to pour that quickly so I think something like 10-15 is reasonable.

Most of the so called "rules" are based on rather unproven theories which seem to have flawed assumptions and are taken as fact without any questioning. At least that's what my intuition says.


----------



## MWJB

Jon_Foster said:


> Really enjoyed making this brew, in my limited experience it feels like it's breaking all the rules


 That's because a lot of people talk about unnecessarily complex & confounding aspects, then treat them like rules. The rules are simple & have always been the same - grind the coffee to a size that allows you to pour the water over it, in a consistent & repeatable way, that makes nice tasting coffee.


----------



## J_Fo

Thanks guys, a delicious brew from this, very clean and it really brought out the characteristics of the coffee. I'll be doing more of these!


----------



## Nick1881

So I decided to pick up a V60, I got the 01 size and papers. I don't have a gooseneck kettle though. I had a little go today with pretty much no idea what I was doing, didn't taste too bad though.

Any idea what sort of number I should be set to on the Niche?

Recommendations for a kettle? I have an induction hob, would probably prefer electric.

Any videos I should watch to make a start?

Thanks


----------



## MWJB

Try winding the Niche out to the calibration mark.

Bloom & stir 20g

0:30 pour up to 50g total

0:50 pour up to 85g total

1:10 pour up to 120g total

1:30 pour up to 155g total

1:50 pour up to 190g total

2:10 pour up to 225g total.

If a bit bitter/silty, try a nudge coarser and/or pouring pours 5 & 6 straight down the middle instead of spirals.


----------



## Nick1881

Thanks very much @MWJB I will have another go later this week.

Really need to get a kettle though, I'm ashamed to say I dispensed water from my Bianca into a milk jug to pour over ?


----------



## MWJB

Nick1881 said:


> Thanks very much @MWJB I will have another go later this week.
> 
> Really need to get a kettle though, I'm ashamed to say I dispensed water from my Bianca into a milk jug to pour over ?


 Maybe try filling the milk jug from a regular kettle at full boil in the meantime.


----------



## Step21

MWJB said:


> I think the first pour just does a great job of getting everything wet, then the second has an easier time of washing out the coffee. The pours are quick, so less time agitating, less silt flushed out. Overall the flow rate seems to be nominal, around 1.5g/s, despite the fast pours.
> 
> Fast pouring isn't new, before the uptake of goosenecks & slow controlled pouring (last 15-20yrs?) advice was to pour all the boiling water in one fast dump. George Howell's brew guides for Chemex has had 3 quick, but wide spaced, pours for years & years.


 I've been playing around with combining the April method into a 3 pour. The problem I'm finding with the 2 pour April method and V60 is that it is almost too clean and lacks intensity, the lower body notes are subdued and it's not as sweet as I'd like.

So I've tried some 3 pour brews 13.5 ish/225 with pours of 75g at 0, 50 secs and 1:40 in a plastic 01 cone dry bed at 2:15/20. Third pour is a central pour on a dry bed.

My initial observations are that the brews are sweeter and more intense with EY slightly higher 0.5%. However this introduces a dryness to the finish at the same time.

I tried a third pour via a tea strainer and this really boosted the sweetness markedly and was in other respects similar to the 2 pour April. Lacking a little intensity, no dryness.

I also tried a third central pour (kettle) after about half the second pour had drained. This gave a significantly lower EY 18.1 to the previous one 19.4% (same coffee/grind). Strangely, this tasted "stronger" a more intensity/body notes but again introduces dryness to the finish (less than a third pour on a dry bed).

So it seems that the third pour whilst introducing more sweetness and intensity is washing through some undesirables at the same time.


----------



## MWJB

Step21 said:


> I've been playing around with combining the April method into a 3 pour. The problem I'm finding with the 2 pour April method and V60 is that it is almost too clean and lacks intensity, the lower body notes are subdued and it's not as sweet as I'd like.
> 
> So I've tried some 3 pour brews 13.5 ish/225 with pours of 75g at 0, 50 secs and 1:40 in a plastic 01 cone dry bed at 2:15/20. Third pour is a central pour on a dry bed.
> 
> My initial observations are that the brews are sweeter and more intense with EY slightly higher 0.5%. However this introduces a dryness to the finish at the same time.
> 
> I tried a third pour via a tea strainer and this really boosted the sweetness markedly and was in other respects similar to the 2 pour April. Lacking a little intensity, no dryness.
> 
> I also tried a third central pour (kettle) after about half the second pour had drained. This gave a significantly lower EY 18.1 to the previous one 19.4% (same coffee/grind). Strangely, this tasted "stronger" a more intensity/body notes but again introduces dryness to the finish (less than a third pour on a dry bed).
> 
> So it seems that the third pour whilst introducing more sweetness and intensity is washing through some undesirables at the same time.


 Cool.

Actual strength (concentration) & flavour intensity is a bit tricky, a low side of normal EY, lacking sweetness & a bit drier can come accross as more intense, despite being less concentrated.

If you don't need the additional 0.5%EY how about going a tad coarser, will also help reduce dryness from silt.

Maybe finishing the 2nd pour in the middle too? I don't generally do centre pours unless there is some liquid above the bed already.

Pouring in the centre & keeping it there with the water dropping straight down, takes more time to pour than using spirals, I think it's a toss up between which is doing the most harm - a more aggressive spiral, or a gentler but longer, drawn out centre pour.


----------



## the_partisan

I had another very good brew using 12g + 2x100g pours, but I extend the pours slightly to a little over 10secs to avoid hosing the bed too much. I'm not completely sure the method would scale well to larger brews. For 15g I think doing 3 pours (30g+120+100g) is slightly better. In the end it doesn't matter *that* much how you pour and how much you swirl/shake/stir if you marry the grind size and flow rate together, regardless of what so called experts say


----------



## Step21

I'm preferring 3 pours to 2 for 12 or 13.5g brews.

The problem with the third pour is the silt. This might be mitigated by a coarser grind or perhaps it is somewhat grinder related ? Would a more uniform grind like an EK be less susceptible? At the moment I'm using my standard V60 grind setting rather on the finer one I was trying with the single pour.

My work around at the moment is to do the majority of the third pour via a tea strainer and switch to the kettle for the last 20g. This mitigates the silt/dryness and seems to add some intensity. The third pour increases sweetness in the brews I'm making so far. Need to make a few more now to see if it's consistent.

I doubt it makes a huge difference if the pours are 10 secs or 15.


----------



## MWJB

Why not just carry on with the tea strainer? Sounds like a good fix rather than a workaround so much - less disturbance at the end of the brew?

If you're at 60g/L, you could up the ratio a little to 63/64g/L to just increase intensity, if you have the sweetness you need? With some very flavourful coffees I might be happy with brews over 1.15%, but with most seem to get at the minute I tend to prefer them over 1.30%, more like 1.4%, or at least it reduces the odds of getting an otherwise good cup, that could have benefitted from another 0.15%TDS. or so.


----------



## Step21

MWJB said:


> Why not just carry on with the tea strainer? Sounds like a good fix rather than a workaround so much - less disturbance at the end of the brew?
> 
> If you're at 60g/L, you could up the ratio a little to 63/64g/L to just increase intensity, if you have the sweetness you need? With some very flavourful coffees I might be happy with brews over 1.15%, but with most seem to get at the minute I tend to prefer them over 1.30%, more like 1.4%, or at least it reduces the odds of getting an otherwise good cup, that could have benefitted from another 0.15%TDS. or so.


 Thanks Mark, that's a very sensible approach.

My brew this morning was a more developed roast than my usual filter ( an espresso Omni type for the Robot). Using 60g/l , 3 pours of 75g ( tea strainer on last pour except for final 25g) it gave TDS 1.23% EY 18%. So on the low side. But it was a very sweet coffee with a lot of caramel/ nuttiness (Brazilian) so it didn't seem weak. But I can see lighter coffees probably needing a TDS boost either from dose or finer grind. Tune it to the coffee.

I'm really liking this method for simplicity and it seems pretty consistent so far.


----------



## the_partisan

PRK has another video about his brewing approach, and I don't mind it even though he is obviously not going for some scientific approach. At least it's a lot more accessible than the likes of Rao, Perger/Barista Hustle or Gagne who just seem to mostly repeat each other over and over and make brewing seem very complicated.


----------



## MWJB

the_partisan said:


> PRK has another video about his brewing approach, and I don't mind it even though he is obviously not going for some scientific approach. At least it's a lot more accessible than the likes of Rao, Perger/Barista Hustle or Gagne who just seem to mostly repeat each other over and over and make brewing seem very complicated.


 I real like PRK's '2 fast pour' method with V60 02 13.5g:215g, works for me well, better than a scaled down Rao/Hoffmann/Perger type brew (though none of the latter actually suggest brewing by the cup like I generally do). I've started using it at work, in place of 3 mug Chemex brews. But today, I woke up and realised I have no V60 papers at home so used a Kalita Uno, coarser grind, 11 pours of 20g every 20s - a good, representative cup was the result. After a minute/minute & a half there was only 80-120g in the brewer...you wouldn't have had a normal extraction had I stopped there, it wasn't mostly done/extracted (so also agree with PRK that generalisations are dangerous).

But frankly, I wish the whole lot of them would pipe down on matters like:

'This method gives the most even extraction' - no one seems to have the facility or method to determine this, Rao, Perger & Hoffman have all said cuppings give the most even extractions, but cuppings give lower extractions, which are logically less even if any particle extracts fully. What cuppings don't have is flow, so small particles drop out of your skimmed cup (a larger proportion of which does not get consumed), whereas they pass through the filter into a drip brew and are a stark contrast to the low background of non-dissolved particles. Drip brews do have a bigger difference in concentration of output from the brewer from start to finish, but that isn't less even an extraction, it's a more stratified extract. The clearly uneven extractions I have had have all had an obvious cause, like way too fine a grind, or very localised wetting.

'Flow rates' - so much overlap, they're not identifiable unless you really nail down brew size, grind & pour rate.

'Flat beds vs cones' - swings & roundabouts, that even out if you make enough brews on both - if you're sure one is better then you're unlikely to pursue the least favourite.

Anything that starts with "most people say", is a straw man - people have been drip brewing for 100 years & many approaches have worked (bloom/no bloom, all in/pulse pour, etc.)

If you have a method that works (and there is a large spectrum here), great, share it, share what you know but maybe keep what you think to yourself, because it's only going to trip you up.

I do also agree with PRK that it's probably better to make several small brews, rather than scale up. But that's got nothing to do with extraction, or extraction evenness as far as I can tell. All that I have noticed when making one cup brews vs 3 cup brews, is that the bigger brews & bigger beds are more prone to producing siltier cups. The extraction might be normal, but you can taste & feel the silt more easily in non-ideal big brews. There's also the risk that if a big brew isn't shared out evenly, you end up with a bias towards one of the more/less stratified portions of the brew. Extraction & evenness, as long as your brews are ball-park, are not the biggest obstacles to a tasty cup, silt is (well actually, well roasted filter coffee is, but that's a whole other hornet's nest).

Flat bottom, vs cone, vs truncated cone - no preference as far as I can tell. If someone else is making the brews, you wouldn't be able to differentiate.

Fine grind vs coarse grind - fine grinds more prone to silty, can have a more syrupy body, coarse grinds tend to be brighter and go woody at the higher end of extraction (which may be about a % less, on average, than fine/medium brews, but they don't necessarily taste any worse). There is a whole, wide, range in the middle where things generally can work.

What matters is being consistent with dose, ratio and pour. Sanity checking your method (EY is useful, but definitely keeping a record of preference scores, then troubleshooting when that average drops/falls short). Identify the grind that works with your method.

It's like everyone has a bit of a jigsaw, Rao might have lots of pieces of sky, PRK might have lots pieces of sand...each is sure that the picture is either blue or brown, but the picture is the landscape, it's blue & brown when seen as a whole.

Drip brewing isn't hard, I know this because I can do it and I'm not a genius, or a superman, or a robot. It takes about the same amount of care as any other kind of brewing, if you're new to the concepts, pouring everything into a pot/cup & waiting can be an attractive alternative, but ultimately you still need to observe grind & weights.

Well, that's what I think...I'm sure it will eventually trip me up too


----------



## MWJB

MWJB said:


> Double post


----------



## the_partisan

PRK has another video where he is using a similar approach for a 20g/300g brew: 100g initial pour, 100g at :30 and another 100g at 1:00

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/aprilcoffee/april-brewer/posts/2699464

I tried this using the Origami brewer and was relatively OK, but maybe not as clean as I'd like. I would probably go for 18g instead and a touch coarser grind.


----------



## J_Fo

I've been going 15g/250ml using the April method, volvic at 94°, feld at 2-2; still using just 2 pours, 10 seconds each, second pour when the bed is dry (around 1 minute 10 seconds) dry bed after second pour at around 2 minutes. Leave for 15/20 minutes before drinking.

I don't have a refractometer so I can't give any data based feedback but tastes great to me! Very clean and really brings out the unique profile of the bean.


----------



## MWJB

Jon_Foster said:


> I've been going 15g/250ml using the Alex method, volvic at 94°, feld at 2-2; still using just 2 pours, 10 seconds each, second pour when the bed is dry (around 1 minute 10 seconds) dry bed after second pour at around 2 minutes. Leave for 15/20 minutes before drinking.
> 
> I don't have a refractometer so I can't give any data based feedback but tastes great to me! Very clean and really brings out the unique profile of the bean.


 April method?


----------



## J_Fo

MWJB said:


> April method? ?


 That's why you should never post before you've had a coffee  Cheers man, corrected


----------



## MrWarhol

Jon_Foster said:


> That's why you should never post before you've had a coffee  Cheers man, corrected


 Ah, I use the April method too. Not the Alex method...

Good to hear others recommendations in doing so. Cheers!


----------



## KingoftheHeath

Have people seen this compass before?


----------



## MWJB

KingoftheHeath said:


> Have people seen this compass before?
> 
> View attachment 34556


 Yes, indeed.

There's not really many circumstances where you use more/less coffee, if you brew around 1:16 that will simplify things.

It only really mentions grinding finer/coarser, changing pulse size is also a good way to extract more. Changing brew time needs quite a big change to make a significant difference and 15s here or there won't tell you any thing. Changing grind size for a given grinder & brew size isn't something you necessarily need to do very often, but grind size is the most critical aspect (combined with pour regime, as the two dovetail).

It's best really to start with a known good method, stick to a brew size and tweak from there.

Powdery & dusty don't have much to do with extraction, these are more likely too fine a grind & can be a problem at normal/low extractions.

Bitter/dry can also happen at a range of extractions, over-extraction is certainly possible with drip brewing (more so than with other methods) but it's relatively rare and the bitterness is more like smoke/bitter hops.


----------



## the_partisan

It's more misleading/confusing information from Barista Hustle/Perger that makes everything seem more complicated than it should be. In my opinion it's a terrible method to dial in drip brews. Several things here could just as well be due to roast/green as well, so you'll be dialling in forever if you follow this "compass".

Using more/less coffee to dial in is only really useful if you are using a brewer without so much control over pulsing / pouring (i.e. automated brewers).

I would say the simplest way to dial in is to stick with a tried and true recipe, for example starting with 60g/L (or more, which is fine as well) and doing 5 or 6 pours every 25 seconds. Start with a grind on the coarser side, and if it tastes very watery/thin go a little finer until you get a cup that shows all the flavours of the bean you're working with. Even if it's thin you should be able to start picking up some of the nicer tasting notes. If it's tasting bad no matter what then likely it's a bad roast or green (happens more often than you'd think, even with big name roasters).


----------



## indraastra

First of all, I want to thank everyone who has contributed to this veritable treasure trove of a thread. I've read through all 19 pages and I can't even begin to explain the mollifying effect it's had after months of trying to dial in my V60 brews through dispiriting cycles of overcomplication and then oversimplification, fueled by bland or bitter cups of coffee with a heaping dose of self-doubt (and of course a swirl for more even dissatisfaction). It's encouraging to see the patience, level-headedness, and lack of dogmatism on display here, and I appreciate that many unsubstantiated "rules of thumb" have been called into question, some of which I have been nursing my own suspicions about being overfitted to the recipes/methods of the people promoting them.

Laterly, I've been feeling that many brew "recipes" are magic of a very fragile sort - make the slightest deviation and everything comes crashing down. (Or perhaps I just have terrible/inconsistent technique? There's the self-doubt again.) I've gravitated toward recipes that promise simplicity AND consistency (Perger, Rao, Hoffman, Kasuya, etc.) but I've been failing to nail even those, and it's rarely been obvious to me what direction to go in after a failed brew, and the recipes themselves don't provide much guidance aside from the general "bitter -> coarser, sour -> finer" mantra. Unfortunately I don't have a refractometer so my taste buds are all I have to go on, and many times I end up tasting sour notes at first and bitter notes as it cools, which leaves me confounded and agitated at the end of it 

Anyway, having gone through nearly a whole bag of beans (Myanmar Ywanga from Square Mile) trying to dial in Matt Perger's method to no avail, I decided to switch to MWJB's 13.5/225g 6-pour method because it seemed to provide a more robust framework for tailoring your brew to different situations (larger batch, different beans, alternate method, etc.) and experiences (under/over extraction). While I don't necessarily need all this flexibility at the moment, I wanted to have a sounder basis for calibration and experimentation.

On to my question! I made my first brew with this method (13.5/225g, 97deg. Volvic, plastic V60 02, untabbed bleached filters, C40 grinder 27 clicks), which finished dripping at 2:50. Before tasting, my first instinct was to grind finer to fall within the 3:10 +- 15sec window. After tasting, I'm still puzzling over whether the coffee is over or under extracted, as the sourness I initially tasted didn't come across as pleasant acidity, but the lingering bitterness of the finish wasn't particularly pleasant either? I went back through the thread and found this tip:



MWJB said:


> If a bit bitter/silty, try a nudge coarser and/or pouring pours 5 & 6 straight down the middle instead of spirals.


 Is this still what you would suggest given the final time being on the short side and the sourness I was tasting?


----------



## MWJB

indraastra said:


> On to my question! I made my first brew with this method (13.5/225g, 97deg. Volvic, plastic V60 02, untabbed bleached filters, C40 grinder 27 clicks), which finished dripping at 2:50. Before tasting, my first instinct was to grind finer to fall within the 3:10 +- 15sec window. After tasting, I'm still puzzling over whether the coffee is over or under extracted, as the sourness I initially tasted didn't come across as pleasant acidity, but the lingering bitterness of the finish wasn't particularly pleasant either? I went back through the thread and found this tip:
> 
> Is this still what you would suggest given the final time being on the short side and the sourness I was tasting?


 How would you describe the sourness? Bright/clean like say a sour plum, or thick & pithy like citrus pith?

Was the bitterness woody/charred with a powdery texture?

Or, was it smokey/hoppy/caramelly sickly? Are they all displaying this?

Time to visible dry bed, let it drip for 30-40s after you see this.

The 02 cone has a higher drop from the kettle spout than if you were to brew into an 01 cone, so you don't need to agitate the bed so much with the pour. So, for the 02 I'd bloom with a quick stir, start the first pulse after bloom as a spiral, then pour the rest straight down the middle, water dropping straight down from the spout.. Maybe a few (literally 2 or 3) outside pours if it looks like the edges are not getting their share of water.

Don't worry so much about whether brews are over/under, they can be 'spot on' extraction wise and still not be great if you kick up too much silt with the pouring. Sourness like unripe fruit, with weakness is most likely under, if the sourness is more like citrus pith & has mouthfeel/texture on your tongue, then that is likely too much silt getting into the cup (this can happen at normal/higher extraction). Over-extraction is a distinctive smokey, bitter hop like bitterness, can be a little caramelly/sickly, masking clarity - even if you grind a little too fine, this isn't going to be present in every cup.

You can do this without a refractometer, just avoid the pitfall of assuming all bitterness is caused by over-extraction. A refractometer just makes ball-park dial in quicker because you keep grinding finer based on the low EY, even if you detect some kind of bitterness.


----------



## indraastra

MWJB said:


> How would you describe the sourness? Bright/clean like say a sour plum, or thick & pithy like citrus pith?


 Hmm, I'm not confident enough to reply based solely on memory now, but I'll pay closer attention next time.



MWJB said:


> Was the bitterness woody/charred with a powdery texture?


 Yes, "charred" and "powdery" are spot on because my (perhaps overwrought) mental image was that my tongue had been coated with ash, but that only manifested in the aftertaste. In contrast, I got a similar taste from a Costa Rican coffee from Square Mile while sipping and even during a cupping, but during the same cupping this Burmese coffee had a very pleasant sweetness that I could only replicate once on my first brew, and never again thereafter.



MWJB said:


> Time to visible dry bed, let it drip for 30-40s after you see this.


 I wasn't in the habit of doing this before but I did follow your advice for this brew. It's possible this helped with the "thinner" taste I was getting before.



MWJB said:


> The 02 cone has a higher drop from the kettle spout than if you were to brew into an 01 cone, so you don't need to agitate the bed so much with the pour. So, for the 02 I'd bloom with a quick stir, start the first pulse after bloom as a spiral, then pour the rest straight down the middle, water dropping straight down from the spout.. Maybe a few (literally 2 or 3) outside pours if it looks like the edges are not getting their share of water.


 This reminds me that I did sort of botch the bloom. After pouring ~15g, by the time I got my spoon to the bed, I found it to not be very stirrable (rather like trying to stir moist dirt), so the end result was a lumpy mound that didn't completely flatten out by the end of the brew regime. After that, I poured each 35g pour continuously for 10s in a spiral.

I can definitely believe that I'm getting too much silt in the cup that might be muddying the flavor, leading me to incorrectly think of it as overextracted. Since I didn't detect the hoppy/caramelly notes you mention, I'll try to adjust my pouring to be down the middle and see if that results in a cleaner cup. Switching from tabbed to untabbed filters has had a big positive impact on brew clarity, but it still seems like a wild goose chase most days.

Unfortunately, I'm out of these beans - switching methods at the end of the bag was a bit of a hail mary - but I've got another bag that I enjoyed during cupping that I'm eager to try this new regime on. Thanks for your advice!


----------



## MWJB

Bloom - 15g should be enough, if it drains straight through you may be pouring too hard. If blooming with 20-25g is easier, then do this, but make sure you end up with 50g total at the end of pour #1, then 35g/sec thereafter. You don't really need to drench the bed at bloom, the pulse pouring will ensure it all sees brew water.

Powdery/charred - OK, ease off on agitation/spirals whilst pouring. Hopefully this will allow you to grind a little finer. Don't be afraid to up the dose a tad too, making the brew a little more concentrated can help mitigate the off flavours from being quite so dominant. Adding another gram to the dose with 225g brew water won't impact extraction.

Keep us posted on how you get on.


----------



## indraastra

Thanks, I'll try for more controlled pours tomorrow and let you know how it goes. In relation to "pulse pouring", I wanted to ask for some clarification on whether that means pulsing within a pour (i.e. if pouring 35g then starting/stopping occasionally to reach that 35g), or whether a pulse refers to a round of pouring itself (i.e. 6 rounds = 6 pulses).


----------



## MWJB

6 rounds of 35g, at 10s per continuous pour, each of the 6 pours/pulses starting 20s apart (might slow down towards the end as kettle level gets lower, last pour might take almost full 20s).


----------



## the_partisan

If you want to taste overextraction, removing the V60 before it's 100% drained to another cup and let it drip there, and it should have a rather smoky / burnt rubbery taste. You can also try smelling the spent bed. Keep in mind that coffee itself can change over time as it oxidises and the flavour profile can change significantly. Some hold up quite good, some don't.

I find the simplest way is to do 5 equal pours, no stirring or other intervention. The last pour is straight into middle, the others are gentle spirals. Combined with a coarse grind, this should give a fairly clean brew. Unfortunately I'm not familiar with Comandante, but I've heard some people use 30 to 32 clicks or there abouts.


----------



## indraastra

Thanks for the tip on tasting overextraction, @the_partisan. I'll give that a shot with my next brew.

So it turned out I had exactly 13.5g of beans left from the batch I mentioned in my last post, and despite it being well past my coffee cutoff, I decided to give it another go with @MWJB's followup suggestions. I had a very curious experience I'd like to share, but first here are some before/after pictures in case they help.

Bloom - I poured out 15g more gently than last time, but by the time I'd set my kettle down the water had been completely absorbed by the grounds! I distinctly remember my spoon going *chik* as I tried to dig in and stir. This threw me off so badly that I almost didn't recover in time to add 35g for the first pour. I was expecting the water to kind of pool and froth on top, but that didn't happen at all here, nor did it drip through immediately. It just seemed to get eaten up.

Pours - I did 6x35g pours, spiraling only on the first pour and doing center pours for the rest. This went more or less as planned.

Drawdown - Completed by 2:40, which was even quicker than last time (2:50), possibly due to less agitation?

Tasting - The flavor was initially brighter (more on the fruity side, less on the pithy side) and less silty but still left a kind of dark, puckering/astringent feeling on the tongue afterward. (Smoky might apply here.)

Overall, I do feel like this was an improvement over the last cup in terms of clarity, but I still feel like I'm doing something wrong with the bloom and I'm not sure if I should adjust the grind for next time.

I've also heard that 28-31 clicks (currently sitting at 26) is the right zone for the Comandante but was getting bland cups of coffee with the 1/2-pour methods. I can give it a shot with this 6-pour method but I'd be worried about getting even shorter brew times.


----------



## MWJB

OK, try coarser.

Stop going coarser if the brews get too unripe.

2:40 isn't necessarily a problem, 02 brews will run a tad faster than 01 brews (all else being equal).

Don't put so much faith in brew time, you need to do a whole bunch of brews with your grinder & same method to establish an average, and that can still fall +/-25s (for instance) if you do enough brews. My last V60 02 was 2:22 with a 20s bloom & Kenyan, the extraction was high side of normal. Same method can give a low side of normal extraction at 3:20 with a less soluble coffee.

I doubt you are doing anything wrong with the bloom, it's just not that critical, if you were brewing with 210g, you could pour just 6 straight pulses of 35g as long as you got everything wet with the 1st pour. I use the bloom as an excess, to top up to desired total brew water weight - after deciding on intuitive pour amounts, as much as anything. E.g. my '37.5 times tables' aren't that good, but adding 35 to 50, 120, 155 etc isn't too hard 

Lately, I use 33g pours & a bloom ending in a '3', so that the same pattern repeats through each 100g.

23, 56, 90, 123, 156, 190, 223.


----------



## the_partisan

Bed looks fine but it's hard to say much from pics. Does the coffee look clean and transparent? What coffee are you using? Are you using good water? (Bad water can mute flavours somewhat). Maybe it's well past its prime? I don't find the bloom amount makes much of a difference, it's no different than other pours. The April method with 2x100 pours gives just as good cups. Seems to be an artifact of very dark roasts (by todays standards, quite common back in the day?)


----------



## the_partisan

I've had some good luck scaling April method to slightly larger brews - for 18-20g/300g, it works quite nicely to do 3x100g pours, each 40-45 sec apart.


----------



## indraastra

the_partisan said:


> Bed looks fine but it's hard to say much from pics. Does the coffee look clean and transparent? What coffee are you using? Are you using good water? (Bad water can mute flavours somewhat). Maybe it's well past its prime? I don't find the bloom amount makes much of a difference, it's no different than other pours. The April method with 2x100 pours gives just as good cups.


 Thanks for taking a look. The coffee has been coming out looking and tasting cleaner since switching from tabbed filters to untabbed ones (both Japanese-made, and bleached) but I do still taste muddiness every now and then (sometimes only in the aftertaste). Since I started posting in this thread, I've had a few bags of Square Mile coffee, roasted on 2019-12-11, and have used only bottled water from Volvic.

I'm on my third cup of the day already (which makes typing this out all the more difficult) but I have some good news to share from the Western front 

Setup: I'm on a new bag, Rwandan from Square Mile (roasted 2019-12-11)

First cup: (MWJB) 13.5g coffee, 15g bloom, 6x spiraling pours of 35g/pour. I ground coarser than last time (30 clicks now, 26 before) and time to a dry bed was 3:00, which I let drip/drain until ~3:30. Flavor and clarity were good, not silty despite spiraling on all pours, so overall I was reasonably happy with this cup.

Second cup: (April) 12g coffee, 2x pours, 100g/pour. I ground finer (26 clicks) and time to dry bed was ~2:30, but the end result was woody and tamarind-y, which made me think it was still too coarse.

Third cup: (April) Same setup, but ground finer yet (24 clicks). Time to dry bed was ~2:45 this time. Each sip had a complexity I hadn't experienced before, and I think it's the first time I've experienced what people call "juiciness", which I suppose is a clean acidity? I think this might be my best cup of coffee yet!

I did swirl that third cup at one point out of habit and got a bitter, mouth-puckering sip of coffee, which leads me to believe I'm still getting a lot of silt out at the end. I'm not sure if I want to tweak anything from here, or just see if I can repeatably produce good cups with the April method.


----------



## MWJB

indraastra said:


> 6 pours of 35g/pour. I ground coarser than last time (30 clicks now, 26 before) and time to a dry bed was 3:00, which I let drip/drain until ~3:30. Flavor and clarity were good, not silty despite spiraling on all pours, so overall I was reasonably happy with this cup.


 Why spiralling pours with an 02? Spiral with the first one only, occasional & very infrequent spirals if you see a dry wall around the bed.

The 01 has a smaller drop/less aggressive pour from the kettle, so spirals work fine with that.


----------



## indraastra

Ah, sorry, I missed that it was your general guidance for 02 and not just for that particular brew. I'll give that a try next time.


----------



## indraastra

A few brews later (all with the 6-pour method on an 02) I still seem to be getting "challenging" brews out. Here are the results I've logged so far (smaller # of clicks = finer grind on C40)

- spiral on all pours, 30 clicks, 3:01 brew time: good flavor and clarity good but some siltiness/muddiness at end (suggestion was not to spiral on all pours)

- spiral on first pour, 30 clicks, 2:35 brew time: overwhelmingly sour

- spiral on first pour, 28 clicks, 2:40 brew time: very flat, not much complexity

In other news, I bought an 01 to bring with me on a trip, so I broke it out thinking I could go "by the book" (light spiraling on all pours) to understand what I might be doing wrong.

- [switched to 01] spiral on all pours, 30 clicks, 2:40 brew time: still flat, with bitter aftertaste

- spiral on all pours, 24 clicks, 2:50: muddy charred flavor with lingering bitterness, some acidity but no sweetness (overextracted?)

- spiral on all pours, 34 clicks, 2:35: completely flat, no complexity, sweetness or acidity (underextracted?)

So, I'm now combing through all of this trying to recap what I've learned, and I think I know what grind settings not to venture beyond (< 24 or > 34), but I'm not sure how to home in on what I will actually like from here.

Some broader questions:



Is the distinction between sourness and acidity subjective, i.e. based around personal preference?


How do you feel about "grind bracketing" (going, say, {-2, 0, +2} clicks from current grind setting) as a way to dial in?


Is it worth playing with # of pours or qty instead of grind?


How would I diagnose if grind consistency is an issue? (I don't have Kruve filters but I do have sieves for baking...)


----------



## the_partisan

1. You can mostly ignore brew time - it doesn't seem to have a strong correlation with flavour
2. Focus on only changing grind size and no other changes to your recipe and amounts/filters etc, stick to the 6 equal pours method. I do spirals for first 4 and then the last two gently in the middle. Probably around grind size of 28-30 sounds right , for this method?

Are you able to try another coffee, if you're struggling this one. It's more than likely a bad roast, if it tastes flat no matter what.


----------



## Step21

Re the juicy/sourness/acidity part of your query

If you bite a piece of ripe fruit you will sense juiciness on the palate. A juicy brew will trigger a similar response. Hold in the mouth and sense it.

Everyone has a different tolerance to acidity. Eating a tart lemon or kiwi say will give you sourness, eat a ripe kiwi and the background sweetness transforms the sense of the acidity as something pleasant.

You need a similar background sweetness in your brew in a similar way otherwise it's just sour.

Is this square mile roast a filter or Omni roast? I'm not familiar with them but I don't think they do very light roasts? It would be useful to try another coffee from another roaster as a comparison to see if you experience the same issues.

As far as grind goes I use a single grind setting for each brew method. The only time I would change it is for an extremely soluble Kenyan or a very low extractor (which is rare). The trick is getting to that point.

Sometimes it seems like we can go round in circles trying this and that. Go back to your best tasting brew - you had a couple I think? Make some more the same or make very slight alterations to them and run a few different coffees in that way to see if there is correlation. Changing every brew gets confusing and frustrating.

What water temperature are you using? I go straight off the boil. Whatever you use keep it constant. Good luck!


----------



## MWJB

indraastra said:


> Some broader questions:
> 
> 
> 
> Is the distinction between sourness and acidity subjective, i.e. based around personal preference?
> 
> 
> How do you feel about "grind bracketing" (going, say, {-2, 0, +2} clicks from current grind setting) as a way to dial in?
> 
> 
> Is it worth playing with # of pours or qty instead of grind?
> 
> 
> How would I diagnose if grind consistency is an issue? (I don't have Kruve filters but I do have sieves for baking...)


 Yes, there is some personal preference on how much acidity is pleasing & interesting & how much is tart/sour. We have to assume yours & our tastes are fairly normal. I'd say, stop describing it in these terms, "flat" doesn't mean much to me, could have a couple of causes. Try giving a numerical score, like 5 (like a lot), 4 (like a little), 3 (neither)...you could hit 2 or 3 nice brews, at similar extractions, but they still might vary a bit in balance.

(The coffee you mentioned earlier quotes yellow plum as a note, this suggests a little sourness is to b expected?)

Sure, grind & # of pours dovetail, so if you need to push extraction on pulse 30g or 25g instead of 35g. Alternatively try 40g, or bloom & 4x 50g if you think you need to reign it in, but stick to the same grind size.

Grind consistency would be an issue if your grinder was obviously & significantly broken. You can make tasty V60s with some blade grinders. Any inconsistency will be coming from elsewhere.


----------



## MWJB

indraastra said:


> A few brews later (all with the 6-pour method on an 02) I still seem to be getting "challenging" brews out. Here are the results I've logged so far (smaller # of clicks = finer grind on C40)
> 
> - spiral on all pours, 30 clicks, 3:01 brew time: good flavor and clarity good but some siltiness/muddiness at end (suggestion was not to spiral on all pours)
> 
> - spiral on first pour, 30 clicks, 2:35 brew time: overwhelmingly sour
> 
> - spiral on first pour, 28 clicks, 2:40 brew time: very flat, not much complexity
> 
> In other news, I bought an 01 to bring with me on a trip, so I broke it out thinking I could go "by the book" (light spiraling on all pours) to understand what I might be doing wrong.
> 
> - [switched to 01] spiral on all pours, 30 clicks, 2:40 brew time: still flat, with bitter aftertaste
> 
> - spiral on all pours, 24 clicks, 2:50: muddy charred flavor with lingering bitterness, some acidity but no sweetness (overextracted?)
> 
> - spiral on all pours, 34 clicks, 2:35: completely flat, no complexity, sweetness or acidity (underextracted?)
> 
> So, I'm now combing through all of this trying to recap what I've learned, and I think I know what grind settings not to venture beyond (< 24 or > 34), but I'm not sure how to home in on what I will actually like from here.


 On average your brews are on the quick side, assuming a 30s bloom & 225g poured.

24-34 seems a very large swing in grind size selection (+/-17%)? As a comparison the range I'd use for my Feld would be 2+4 (32) to 2+8 (36), or +/-6%. (don't know how the settings compare to your grinder, nor what kind of interval 1 click is on the Commandante, but the range of settings seems unusual).

I'd go back to 30 or thereabouts, maybe +/-2 clicks, 01, all spirals except 5 & 6 & report back. In fact I'd probably go 28 and pour very gently.

A video of the pouring would be helpful too.

As to what you like, that's going to be based on the beans, what you're doing at this stage is establishing a repeatable process for brewing, really you need a selection of beans, 2 or 3 types to start with? Hopefully you'll get a better result from this coffee, but you can't fix something that may have happened before it arrived with you, by brewing.


----------



## indraastra

Step21 said:


> Is this square mile roast a filter or Omni roast? I'm not familiar with them but I don't think they do very light roasts? It would be useful to try another coffee from another roaster as a comparison to see if you experience the same issues.


 It's not super obvious from the bag itself, but it came as part of their a 4x250g Christmas gift box specifically for filter coffee. You may be right about the kinds of roasts they do - I'm still "settling in" to the UK in that sense and have yet to find a go-to choice of roaster. On that note, I just received my first Dog & Hat subscription coffee and am excited to try out different local roasters and hopefully find one that fits my tastes.

Thanks for the tips on differentiating sourness and acidity! I have been feeling a bit like I'm going in circles, or spinning my wheels, or circling the drain, depending on my coffee mood that day ? I went back to the April method since that's given me the best results so far and figured it would be a good starting point. I finished off the rest of the Square Mile bag using slight variations on that - grind size mainly but also pouring speed - and found that I was actually pretty happy with my cups for being sweet, punchy (juicy?), and not too one-note (that's what I meant by "flat" earlier). I would still like to figure out what I'm doing wrong with MWJB's method but I'm glad to have found a go-to at last.


----------



## indraastra

MWJB said:


> Try giving a numerical score, like 5 (like a lot), 4 (like a little), 3 (neither)...you could hit 2 or 3 nice brews, at similar extractions, but they still might vary a bit in balance.


 That does make a lot of sense. I haven't been as quantitative about tasting as I have been about tuning variables, but this would make things much easier to analyze after collecting some data.



MWJB said:


> Grind consistency would be an issue if your grinder was obviously & significantly broken. You can make tasty V60s with some blade grinders. Any inconsistency will be coming from elsewhere.


 It's only a few months old and I'd hate to blame my tools, so that's good to know 



MWJB said:


> I'd go back to 30 or thereabouts, maybe +/-2 clicks, 01, all spirals except 5 & 6 & report back. In fact I'd probably go 28 and pour very gently.


 After finishing the previous Square Mile bag and getting some good results with the April method, I decided to revisit this method with some of the tweaks you suggested, although I kind of ended up kind of conflating the ones from the previous post and this one. I did: 30 clicks, 01, all spirals but 3x70g pours instead of 6x35. Unfortunately I got distracted after the final pour and didn't note down the brew time, but it was at least 3 minutes, and actually came out quite nice and balanced in comparison to the April method for the same beans (ground finer at 24 clicks).


----------



## Zephyp

I had a mistake turning good today. Was doing my normal 240/15, 6 pours after bloom, a Kenyan. I got distracted after I'd added 135g and the brew was left for about a minute. All the water had drained and to make up for it I added the rest of the water in one pour. I didn't notice the dry bed time, but I'd guess somewhere between 3:30-4:00.

The cup wasn't perfect, but had some more clarity and acidity than the rest I've made. Last one I measured with a normal brew was around 21.50 EY. DD has been around 3:15-3:30.

With my error, did I extract more? Less? If I wanted to make a proper brew going that way, would changing the number of pours be the way to go? I've been keeping my C40 at 25 clicks for some time now.


----------



## Neo

Anyone ever find that the 1st brew after you open a bag of beans is almost always the best and full of flavours, then it just goes down hill rather quickly?
Some beans fair better but the intensity of flavour still suffers

The beans are fresh, stored in the shade away from the sun... It could be normal but I thought I should ask just in case


----------



## MWJB

Neo said:


> Anyone ever find that the 1st brew after you open a bag of beans is almost always the best and full of flavours, then it just goes down hill rather quickly?
> Some beans fair better but the intensity of flavour still suffers
> 
> The beans are fresh, stored in the shade away from the sun... It could be normal but I thought I should ask just in case


 No, not found this.

If anything they improve with time (up to maybe 4 weeks, if they last that long).

It's your grind setting, or brew regime that's not delivering.


----------



## Neo

MWJB said:


> No, not found this.
> 
> If anything they improve with time (up to maybe 4 weeks, if they last that long).
> 
> It's your grind setting, or brew regime that's not delivering.


 Might be the regime but I try not to mess with it too much and adjust with grind settings only - doesn't always work however


----------



## MWJB

Neo said:


> Might be the regime but I try not to mess with it too much and adjust with grind settings only - doesn't always work however


 Once dialled in, you shouldn't need to keep adjusting grind setting, maybe just tiny adjustments. Even then, little adjustments to regime, rather than grind, should keep you on target.

If you're experiencing the same thing with all the bans you try, then it probably is time to mess with regime. What are you currently doing (e.g. last brew)?


----------



## Step21

Neo said:


> Anyone ever find that the 1st brew after you open a bag of beans is almost always the best and full of flavours, then it just goes down hill rather quickly?
> Some beans fair better but the intensity of flavour still suffers
> 
> The beans are fresh, stored in the shade away from the sun... It could be normal but I thought I should ask just in case


 How long are you resting the beans?

When I first started roasting I would brew next day and often found the vibrancy of the first brew unequalled thereafter. Noticed that also quite a few times with beans from roasters that were really fresh. There tended to be a dip thereafter while the beans settled and then improved again about a week later.

Now I tend to rest them 7-10 days and don't really notice much variation.

Another part of it might be due to never having tasted the bean before and that first impression can often be the strongest.


----------



## Neo

MWJB said:


> Once dialled in, you shouldn't need to keep adjusting grind setting, maybe just tiny adjustments. Even then, little adjustments to regime, rather than grind, should keep you on target.
> 
> If you're experiencing the same thing with all the bans you try, then it probably is time to mess with regime. What are you currently doing (e.g. last brew)?


 I am using james hoffman's v60 recipe on a v01
so 15g - 250ml
off boil water so usually 98'C (I tried lower temp and I find extraction works better at high temp as expected)
0 sec: 40ml - 40s blooming + stir the slurry
Add to 150ml by 1:10
Add to 250ml by 1:40
Draw down usually last till 3min -3:30

It's not as if they are ..bad coffee
Imagine if the first cup hits all the right notes, and then it slowly drifts but moving grind size didn't help much (feld2)
I know I shouldn't blame the equipment but obviously I don't really know how consistent from grind to grind it is - adding onto my technique could vary a bit depending on ,i don't know, mood



Step21 said:


> How long are you resting the beans?
> 
> When I first started roasting I would brew next day and often found the vibrancy of the first brew unequalled thereafter. Noticed that also quite a few times with beans from roasters that were really fresh. There tended to be a dip thereafter while the beans settled and then improved again about a week later.
> 
> Now I tend to rest them 7-10 days and don't really notice much variation.
> 
> Another part of it might be due to never having tasted the bean before and that first impression can often be the strongest.


 Usually if I buy from crankhouse or foundry, they get to me with in 3-7 days of roasting
I did consider the psychological factor but that means my brain is really blocking it out which seems far fetched - my technique is more likely to be the problem
I accept that some flavours evaporate quickly - but I always thought it should be a matter of weeks?
Or perhaps because with the initial cups everything is in the bag and concentrated, whatever I do I get a lot of the flavours and then technical error becomes the dominant factor again


----------



## MWJB

Neo said:


> I am using james hoffman's v60 recipe on a v01
> so 15g - 250ml
> off boil water so usually 98'C (I tried lower temp and I find extraction works better at high temp as expected)
> 0 sec: 40ml - 40s blooming + stir the slurry
> Add to 150ml by 1:10
> Add to 250ml by 1:40
> Draw down usually last till 3min -3:30
> 
> It's not as if they are ..bad coffee
> Imagine if the first cup hits all the right notes, and then it slowly drifts but moving grind size didn't help much (feld2)
> I know I shouldn't blame the equipment but obviously I don't really know how consistent from grind to grind it is - adding onto my technique could vary a bit depending on ,i don't know, mood


 I doubt your grinder is the issue.

In what way do they drift, tastewise?

Find a technique that's easier to track, trying to pour 100g or 110g in 30s isn't easy & doesn't lend itself to letting the water drip straight down from the kettle spout.

Your brew times aren't particularly quick, given that you're pouring so fast, so you have plenty of scope to break down the pour speed & make it more consistent, without speeding up brew time.


----------



## Neo

MWJB said:


> I doubt your grinder is the issue.
> 
> In what way do they drift, tastewise?
> 
> Find a technique that's easier to track, trying to pour 100g or 110g in 30s isn't easy & doesn't lend itself to letting the water drip straight down from the kettle spout.
> 
> Your brew times aren't particularly quick, given that you're pouring so fast, so you have plenty of scope to break down the pour speed & make it more consistent, without speeding up brew time.


 It tastes like underextraction - Without moving anything, the positive notes just fade away and the cup profile just becomes 'generic' coffee ( and grinding finer and finer doesn't bring back the details, but at some point you hit the spot where it goes downhill)

Perhaps another way to say it is that the notes are less defined, and more muddled and became -- yeah it's bit bright bit fruity and nicely sweet, instead of 'ripe stone fruit, clean and balanced brightness and sweetness). I don't think I'm explaining this very well

Sometimes I do wonder if I am just expecting too much but hey ho

Sorry, what do you mean by 'letting the water drip straight down from the kettle spout.' ? If I haven't misunderstood it completely - I aim to maintain a downward stream without 'dribbling'


----------



## MWJB

I can't imagine why the coffee would extract less after day 1.

If the coffee is largely under-extracting, slow down the pour (smaller pulses), this will raise extraction.

If you pour too quickly the stream is too aggressive & arcs like a hose, this will drive more silt into the cup & flatten off flavour. Nothing wrong with a little dribbling, you want the stream dropping straight down from the spout.

There's nothing magic about 15:250g, under-extracted coffee will also be weak, using more coffee/less water will bolster strength/intensity, no problem using 65g/L or a little more.


----------



## Neo

MWJB said:


> I can't imagine why the coffee would extract less after day 1.
> 
> If the coffee is largely under-extracting, slow down the pour (smaller pulses), this will raise extraction.
> 
> If you pour too quickly the stream is too aggressive & arcs like a hose, this will drive more silt into the cup & flatten off flavour. Nothing wrong with a little dribbling, you want the stream dropping straight down from the spout.
> 
> There's nothing magic about 15:250g, under-extracted coffee will also be weak, using more coffee/less water will bolster strength/intensity, no problem using 65g/L or a little more.


 Yeah thank you
I will keep experimenting, I don't think there's another way haah
I just assume my technique is the main problem but hasn't found anything that consistently improve the cup - I do find some beans are easier than others to keep getting the same notes in the cup (even if fainter over time)


----------



## MWJB

Neo said:


> Yeah thank you
> I will keep experimenting, I don't think there's another way haah


 It should only take you 3 or 4 brews tops to get ball-park. Then minor tweaks based on a larger sample of brews.

People have been making V60s for 15years, seems a shame to waste coffee in experiments, we should know how to do it by now.


----------



## Neo

MWJB said:


> It should only take you 3 or 4 brews tops to get ball-park. Then minor tweaks based on a larger sample of brews.
> 
> People have been making V60s for 15years, seems a shame to waste coffee in experiments, we should know how to do it by now.


 Different people still swear by different techniques

By now I know the grinder and the regime well enough to get to the ballpark almost straightaway - it's a pretty small range tbh
I don't know why, subsequent brews just don't seem quite the same - I could be simply insane, who knows

I have been pouring a bit faster actually, and finding myself having 2-5 seconds to spare in each 'stage' after blooming
I decided to try using the ideas from AdAstra (https://coffeeadastra.com/2020/05/23/the-physics-of-kettle-streams/)

It's not easy controlling the stream that way, but it's just something I'm testing out and at least it's not obviously a bad thing so far


----------



## MWJB

Neo said:


> I have been pouring a bit faster actually, and finding myself having 2-5 seconds to spare in each 'stage' after blooming
> I decided to try using the ideas from AdAstra (https://coffeeadastra.com/2020/05/23/the-physics-of-kettle-streams/)


 Ignore that nonsense, you can brew consistently, at similar levels of extraction, with a range of streams. It's grind size vs speed of pour that normalises brewing results.

250g to a bag is 16 brews from a bag, you told us that you weren't happy with the other 15...doesn't sound ball-park to me, nor a healthy strike rate of good brews.


----------



## Neo

MWJB said:


> Ignore that nonsense, you can brew consistently, at similar levels of extraction, with a range of streams. It's grind size vs speed of pour that normalises brewing results.
> 
> 250g to a bag is 16 brews from a bag, you told us that you weren't happy with the other 15...doesn't sound ball-park to me, nor a healthy strike rate of good brews.


 Thanks
I'm gonna try using 16-16.5g, and separately my old 4 stage pour to see how it varies

As an example: I made 3 brews today - no changes in grind settings
1st one I noted very prominent stone fruit, nice balance

2nd and 3rd one: The stone fruity taste is not as up-front as but I just finished my 3rd cup and the sweetness is candy-like
It tastes really nice, but I still feel like I can push it to be more and get both the amazing sweetness, nice brightness , plus the strong fruity taste that I got in the first
Need to look into pour consistency as you suggested


----------



## the_partisan

I second ignoring that kettle streams article (and really the rest of that blog), the discussions there are based on theory rather than actual, you know brewing the coffee and tasting it. Try not get holed up in "maximum extraction" cargo-cult and find something that works for you and will actually taste good. Also, don't feel like you need to change parameters every brew, find something you enjoy and stick to it!

You can try something like in this video with April, but I typically use higher temp than what's recommended there.


----------



## Neo

the_partisan said:


> I second ignoring that kettle streams article (and really the rest of that blog), the discussions there are based on theory rather than actual, you know brewing the coffee and tasting it. Try not get holed up in "maximum extraction" cargo-cult and find something that works for you and will actually taste good. Also, don't feel like you need to change parameters every brew, find something you enjoy and stick to it!
> 
> You can try something like in this video with April, but I typically use higher temp than what's recommended there.


 I struggle maintain the speed and stream of water at a greater height anyway...
I am just perplexed by the level of variation in the brews I make - I must be doing something very inconsistently/wrong


----------



## MWJB

Neo said:


> I struggle maintain the speed and stream of water at a greater height anyway...
> I am just perplexed by the level of variation in the brews I make - I must be doing something very inconsistently/wrong


 OK, so keep a notepad handy & record what you actually do (dose, grind setting, last water in by, dry bed, etc). Do this for a few brews and see how wide the differences.

A lot of folk say they follow a regime, but in reality,the follow them very vaguely.

A video might be handy.


----------



## Neo

MWJB said:


> OK, so keep a notepad handy & record what you actually do (dose, grind setting, last water in by, dry bed, etc). Do this for a few brews and see how wide the differences.
> 
> A lot of folk say they follow a regime, but in reality,the follow them very vaguely.
> 
> A video might be handy.


 At the moment I am trying out 16.2-16.3g of coffee (65:1L)
Grind settings I move as per last brew
Last water aim at 1:40 +-3 sec usually
I define dry bed as when the water line is just at the level of the bed -- Obviously grind dependent but normally 3:00-3:15 is where it tastes decent, but I find dry bed time not necessarily correlated to taste

At the moment I'm brewing the competition lot from plot roast
My last 2 brews were with volvic water
1st one taste decent but nothing very remarkable like the 1st brew
2nd one I go from 7.x to 7, I think the brew time was about 10 sec longer and I got lots of chocolate/cocoa, good body and balance but the 'stone fruit/black cherry' requires bit concentration and sniffing to be detected


----------



## the_partisan

Why don't you try cupping the coffee as a way to get some indication of the flavours: 9g coffee to 150g boiling water using a fine grind. Break crust after 4 min, let it stay for another 6-8 min and then remove the silt at the top with a spoon and start tasting.


----------



## MWJB

@Neo

I don't understand, "Grind setting I move as per last brew"? Your grinder has the settings clearly visible, quote these.

Actually time what you do, not usually, that's the only way you will see where you are going wrong. Last water in by 1:40 sounds very much like what you said earlier, about the coffees you find lacklustre...why keep doing the same thing if you want a different result?

Dry bed is when all the standing liquid has disappeared from above the coffee, leave the brewer for 30-40s after this (but don't include this drip time in your brew time).

You are right, a specific brew time does not dictate how good a brew is, as different beans brew in different times, what it does tell us is how variable times are...just as a rough guide. Pour timings dictate consistency of extraction much more accurately.

Can you try to describe the faults in terms of flavour balance & portable faults? These are things that largely produce very similar artefacts in any bean. "Decent", is just a reflection of expectation. I'd like every coffee I bought to be utterly outstanding, but in reality it's more like a normal distribution... the best coffees are far fewer in number, so most of the good coffee you taste will be good enough. By the same token, you shouldn't be wondering whether you actually enjoy them or not (if you like coffee that is).

"Chocolate/cocao", specific fruits are dependent on coffee & don't help dial in. You seem to be changing grind frequently, but it's not clear to me what you are trying to achieve & why the grind setting is being changed?

Think more in terms of cleanliness & balance of brew, is it tangy, or slightly oily/fatty, does it have a powdery/mouth coating feel. If it is bitter is that a charred/carbony bitterness, is it woody, is there a tree bark like astringency, is the bitterness like smoke/bitter hop? How many differing faults are you getting in the same brew? E.g, I might get more mouth coating feeling at the start of a cup, but it may become cleaner as you get into the cup.

It may seem I'm being pedantic, but drip brewing (whatever you say you do/don't do) always has the same parameters: Grind setting, dose, bloom/prewet, pour regime & rate, dry bed & a result in terms of whether it is representative of notes/has any generic faults that are clearly identifiable as being due to brew parameters. Whether you note each aspect or not, they still happen & infuence the brew.


----------



## catpuccino

the_partisan said:


> You can try something like in this video with April, but I typically use higher temp than what's recommended there.


 Been doing similar for a while now (but with 2x50, 1x100g pour for a 13g dose) and a slightly higher temp, really works well with lighter roasts with "juicier" notes. Very sensitive to temperature I find but on the whole very repeatable.


----------



## Step21

MWJB said:


> @Neo
> 
> Can you try to describe the faults in terms of flavour balance & portable faults? These are things that largely produce very similar artefacts in any bean. "Decent", is just a reflection of expectation. I'd like every coffee I bought to be utterly outstanding, but in reality it's more like a normal distribution... the best coffees are far fewer in number, so most of the good coffee you taste will be good enough. By the same token, you shouldn't be wondering whether you actually enjoy them or not (if you like coffee that is).
> 
> Think more in terms of cleanliness & balance of brew, is it tangy, or slightly oily/fatty, does it have a powdery/mouth coating feel. If it is bitter is that a charred/carbony bitterness, is it woody, is there a tree bark like astringency, is the bitterness like smoke/bitter hop? How many differing faults are you getting in the same brew? E.g, I might get more mouth coating feeling at the start of a cup, but it may become cleaner as you get into the cup.


 Lots of great advice from @MWJB

I'd also consider scoring your brews say out of 10 or whatever. It helps to build an idea of consistency over time.

I look for the same type of attributes you see on cupping sheets:-

sweetness, balance, mouth feel, aftertaste, acidity, clean cup

and attribute a rough score while sipping the brew and make a few notes of highlights/faults.

Absolute top blow your mind type brews are pretty rare in my experience but the vast majority of the brews should be at least in the 7 to 9 out of 10 bracket. I.e enjoyable to excellent.


----------



## MWJB

Step21 said:


> and attribute a rough score while sipping the brew and make a few notes of highlights/faults.
> 
> Absolute top blow your mind type brews are pretty rare in my experience but the vast majority of the brews should be at least in the 7 to 9 out of 10 bracket. I.e enjoyable to excellent.


 Good point, I generally find a bunch of brews (at least 10 different beans) with an acceptable method will average around 84-85%, individual brews can be higher/lower, & more would obviously be nice obviously, but if the average is much lower I'd be looking at the brew regime.


----------



## Neo

MWJB said:


> @Neo
> 
> I don't understand, "Grind setting I move as per last brew"? Your grinder has the settings clearly visible, quote these.
> 
> Actually time what you do, not usually, that's the only way you will see where you are going wrong. Last water in by 1:40 sounds very much like what you said earlier, about the coffees you find lacklustre...why keep doing the same thing if you want a different result?
> 
> Dry bed is when all the standing liquid has disappeared from above the coffee, leave the brewer for 30-40s after this (but don't include this drip time in your brew time).
> 
> You are right, a specific brew time does not dictate how good a brew is, as different beans brew in different times, what it does tell us is how variable times are...just as a rough guide. Pour timings dictate consistency of extraction much more accurately.
> 
> Can you try to describe the faults in terms of flavour balance & portable faults? These are things that largely produce very similar artefacts in any bean. "Decent", is just a reflection of expectation. I'd like every coffee I bought to be utterly outstanding, but in reality it's more like a normal distribution... the best coffees are far fewer in number, so most of the good coffee you taste will be good enough. By the same token, you shouldn't be wondering whether you actually enjoy them or not (if you like coffee that is).
> 
> "Chocolate/cocao", specific fruits are dependent on coffee & don't help dial in. You seem to be changing grind frequently, but it's not clear to me what you are trying to achieve & why the grind setting is being changed?
> 
> Think more in terms of cleanliness & balance of brew, is it tangy, or slightly oily/fatty, does it have a powdery/mouth coating feel. If it is bitter is that a charred/carbony bitterness, is it woody, is there a tree bark like astringency, is the bitterness like smoke/bitter hop? How many differing faults are you getting in the same brew? E.g, I might get more mouth coating feeling at the start of a cup, but it may become cleaner as you get into the cup.
> 
> It may seem I'm being pedantic, but drip brewing (whatever you say you do/don't do) always has the same parameters: Grind setting, dose, bloom/prewet, pour regime & rate, dry bed & a result in terms of whether it is representative of notes/has any generic faults that are clearly identifiable as being due to brew parameters. Whether you note each aspect or not, they still happen & infuence the brew.


 Hello
I assumed grind setting is not always translatable to all grinders which is why I didn't give a direct number
I have been using a very similar range of coarseness for a long time so my memory of the number of 'full turns' might be fussy but it should be

2 full turns + 7 (for the beans i am brewing atm)
I adjust the grind size at 0.5 step sizes IF required, say, it says slightly watery and astringent, i try going finer

You are right about the time. I said usually only to indicate the general drawdown time for most of my brews, rather than a specific one.
For example my current bean is on 3:15. I had brews that ran 10sec faster and I liked it less, so I adjust grind size one step finer and it became 3:15 again and taste nice

You know, it is a very good point you have made here - it won't always be a 10/10 coffee?
Most of the brews that comes out are 'fine', as in bright but not sour, medium body, not astringent, no powdery unpleasantness and generally free of faults that makes me go 'Ew'
As in, it's drinkable but not remarkable? Or perhaps the other commenter was right, I am 'Wowed' by a new bag of beans and the level of expectations is mismatched
With the tasting notes that comes with the beans, I usually have some level of success in extracting them in the cup but the level of success goes down over time - hence my initial question

Of course there have been times when my brews just taste bad, and my 1st option is try using a different grind size to see if it influences the brews or not.
Thanks for the spreadsheet, let me try that out and see if I can discern any patterns and report back here
I hope my reply makes sense


----------



## Morningfuel

I'm drinking a natural process Brazil at the moment and am getting long draw-down times, typically 4 - 4 minutes 30 seconds. My pour has been as follows:

15g coffee to 250g water

25g bloom, stirred well with spoon to 30 seconds

75g pour to 1 minute

50g every 30 seconds (final pour ends at 2 minutes 30 seconds).

From my reading, I think I need shorter, more regular pours to avoid overly disturbing the bed in the first pour.

My grinder, zassenhaus Panama, produces excessive fines since it was dropped so it's not ideal, but I do believe I should get a good cup. Currently, my coffees have some origin flavour (generic "fruitiness") but roasty bitterness and a generally "muddy" flavour. I use a pouring kettle and pour approximately 2g per second rate, straight drop from spout. Any tips appreciated!

The same pour for a Kenyan yields 30 second shorter draw down and a nicer, fruitier cup with more sweetness and acidity. I believe the Brazil could be better than my current effort.

As an edit, I just followed the same recipe, but with the Kenyan and poured such that I hit all targets in one continuous pour. I wound up with a mounded bed (taller in the middle, didn't swirl or tap the cup at all) and it finished draining at about 4 minutes 40. I've noticed that, compared to previous efforts, my water looks comparatively muddy - usually I'd see a fairly clear layer of water draining through a bed of coffee, but this looks more like a combined immersion and filter brew. I am wondering whether this just means it's time for a new grinder, as the level of fines is unbelievable. I've got some hario Japan papers on the way, which I usually use - these Dutch ones seem to be different, so we'll see how that affects the brew also.


----------



## MWJB

Morningfuel said:


> I'm drinking a natural process Brazil at the moment and am getting long draw-down times, typically 4 - 4 minutes 30 seconds. My pour has been as follows:
> 
> 15g coffee to 250g water
> 
> 25g bloom, stirred well with spoon to 30 seconds
> 
> 75g pour to 1 minute
> 
> 50g every 30 seconds (final pour ends at 2 minutes 30 seconds).
> 
> From my reading, I think I need shorter, more regular pours to avoid overly disturbing the bed in the first pour.
> 
> My grinder, zassenhaus Panama, produces excessive fines since it was dropped so it's not ideal, but I do believe I should get a good cup. Currently, my coffees have some origin flavour (generic "fruitiness") but roasty bitterness and a generally "muddy" flavour. I use a pouring kettle and pour approximately 2g per second rate, straight drop from spout. Any tips appreciated!
> 
> The same pour for a Kenyan yields 30 second shorter draw down and a nicer, fruitier cup with more sweetness and acidity. I believe the Brazil could be better than my current effort.
> 
> I've got some hario Japan papers on the way, which I usually use - these Dutch ones seem to be different, so we'll see how that affects the brew also.


 Are you using an 02? If so, I'd expect you to be spiral pouring to see a convex bed. Once you have bloomed, maybe start the 1st & 2nd pours around the edge to clean off any grounds clinging to the filter walls, but finish those pours straight down the middle. If you have standing liquid over the bed for the final pours, these can probably all be straight down the middle.

Sounds like over agitation to me. A continuous, spiral pour for 2:00 seems a lot of pouring time. I would usually only be engaged in actual pouring for 50% to 70% of the overall average pour time.

Are you sure the Zass is damaged? Without the lid/handle assembly, there will be some visible slop, the top of the axle moves by maybe a mm on mine.

No experience with Dutch papers I'm afraid.

250g is a difficult amount to play with in terms of adjusting pours. Maybe think about trying 230g (bloom plus 200g), or 265g (25g bloom plus 240g) brews to allow more intuative and consistent pouring.


----------



## Morningfuel

MWJB said:


> Are you using an 02? If so, I'd expect you to be spiral pouring to see a convex bed. Once you have bloomed, maybe start the 1st & 2nd pours around the edge to clean off any grounds clinging to the filter walls, but finish those pours straight down the middle. If you have standing liquid over the bed for the final pours, these can probably all be straight down the middle.
> 
> Sounds like over agitation to me. A continuous, spiral pour for 2:00 seems a lot of pouring time. I would usually only be engaged in actual pouring for 50% to 70% of the overall average pour time.
> 
> Are you sure the Zass is damaged? Without the lid/handle assembly, there will be some visible slop, the top of the axle moves by maybe a mm on mine.
> 
> No experience with Dutch papers I'm afraid.
> 
> 250g is a difficult amount to play with in terms of adjusting pours. Maybe think about trying 230g (bloom plus 200g), or 265g (25g bloom plus 240g) brews to allow more intuative and consistent pouring.


 Thanks. Yes, 02 filter paper and spiral all the way - excellent diagnosis.

Pretty certain - with handle assembly in place, as the burrs rotate the inner burr visibly wobbles, more than 1mm for sure. Even after 4 (just tested - 5!) full turns (by which point it's extremely coarse!) from closed the burr will still touch the outer burr on part of the travel. Looking at the grounds, it's definitely worse than it was before by a long way. It's a shame because it was a good grinder for pourover before...

When you say too much agitation, should I pour faster so the bed can "settle" between pours? So perhaps more smaller pours at a higher rate?

I'll try your suggestion of different dosing. Bloom + 240g seems sensible - 6 pours of 40g or 4 pours of 60g gives me two options to try immediately, without needing to engage my mental maths skills...


----------



## MWJB

Morningfuel said:


> Pretty certain - with handle assembly in place, as the burrs rotate the inner burr visibly wobbles, more than 1mm for sure. Even after 4 full turns (by which point it's extremely coarse!) from closed the burr will still touch the outer burr on part of the travel. Looking at the grounds, it's definitely worse than it was before by a long way. It's a shame because it was a good grinder for pourover before...


 4 full turns? I can't imagine using the grinder coarser than 7 or 8 clicks from audible burr rub (the adjuster will go finer than audible burr rub, but I wouldn't count clicks from lock up say).

If is broken I think you're fighting the tide, time to get another grinder.

4 pours of 60g sounds too fast at 2g/s.


----------



## Morningfuel

MWJB said:


> 4 full turns? I can't imagine using the grinder coarser than 7 or 8 clicks from audible burr rub (the adjuster will go finer than audible burr rub, but I wouldn't count clicks from lock up say).
> 
> If is broken I think you're fighting the tide, time to get another grinder.
> 
> 4 pours of 60g sounds too fast at 2g/s.


 Yeah... It's a ways from that! I'll not fight this tide anymore. It can still do an acceptable French press for now, they're more forgiving. Thanks for the tips - when a new grinder arrives, I'll let you know how I get on. I've never struggled with this before so assumed it was grinder woes...


----------



## Step21

The Dutch papers definitely add to drawdown time typically 15 to 20 secs. I used them for a long time. More recently I've switched back to the plastic Hario 01 with tabbed Japanese filters. The Dutch papers also impart more of a taste than the Japanese.

Pulped natural Brazilians can be amongst the worst for fines, so put alongside the Dutch papers, it's potentially a bad combo for drawdown time. Less agitation will help somewhat along with careful centre pouring. Maybe cut out the stirring? It might be adding to the problem with these beans and papers.


----------



## the_partisan

Every now and then I seem to a get a roast more astringent than normal. Currently struggling a little with a Colombian Tabi from La Cabra. Is there any other way to deal with this then trying to push extraction down?


----------



## MWJB

the_partisan said:


> Every now and then I seem to a get a roast more astringent than normal. Currently struggling a little with a Colombian Tabi from La Cabra. Is there any other way to deal with this then trying to push extraction down?


 If extracting less makes a darker roast coffee to tangy/sour, I tend to brew it as French press/Sowden. Takes a bit longer (so I'd prefer not to have to do this) but it's a gentler method of extraction.


----------

