# Wendleboe espressoe



## AndyS (May 12, 2012)

Tim Wendleboe talked about his process in designing new espresso blends on his blog.


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

Ha ha Andy, a little homage to Dan Quayle there? ;-)

There seem to be parallels with Colin Harmon's protocols at 3FE. Will you be trying these coffees & brew parameters?


----------



## garydyke1 (Mar 9, 2011)

MWJB said:


> There seem to be parallels with Colin Harmon's protocols at 3FE.


How so? Im not very good at keeping up these days


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

garydyke1 said:


> How so? Im not very good at keeping up these days


Around a 1.97 brew ratio (+/- from Tim Wendelboe's blog) and 1.91 @ 3FE. Longer that typical shots, higher extraction level to exploit sweetness & balance acidity.


----------



## garydyke1 (Mar 9, 2011)

MWJB said:


> Around a 1.97 brew ratio (+/- from Tim Wendelboe's blog) and 1.91 @ 3FE. Longer that typical shots, higher extraction level to exploit sweetness & balance acidity.


Got you.

It's funny because sometimes a dialling-in shot which gushes through to a similar ratio in 20 seconds often tastes amazing , if a little bright . The subsequent shots , in widely accepted correct time, and, output are never as sweet although they have better mouthfeel

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

garydyke1 said:


> Got you.
> 
> It's funny because sometimes a dialling-in shot which gushes through to a similar ratio in 20 seconds often tastes amazing , if a little bright . The subsequent shots , in widely accepted correct time, and, output are never as sweet although they have better mouthfeel


Never wondered what those shots taste like after 25, 30, 35 seconds? Assuming no channelling or malfunctions...

I think this partly what Tim Wendelboe is alluding to. That the flavour profiles correlate closely to a specific level of extraction, maybe 15-17% for your tasty but acidic fast shot...then as you slow it down, you get more into the 17.5-18.5% range, more developed, but not always sweeter.

There's been a lot of talk lately about how hitting the mooted 19% ideal yield, or higher (for those of us without an EK43...there...I said it....it was always on the horizon, we could have gone a few more posts without mentioning it, but I just couldn't contain myself!) is actually quite hard at 1.65-1.55 brew ratios, with light/medium roasts & a few folk have come to the conclusion that you may need to get more water through the puck to get there. I don't make enough espresso to have an informed opinion myself, just repeating what I've read...


----------



## AndyS (May 12, 2012)

MWJB said:


> There's been a lot of talk lately about how hitting the mooted 19% ideal yield, or higher (for those of us without an EK43...there...I said it....it was always on the horizon, we could have gone a few more posts without mentioning it, but I just couldn't contain myself!) is actually quite hard at 1.65-1.55 brew ratios, with light/medium roasts & a few folk have come to the conclusion that you may need to get more water through the puck to get there. I don't make enough espresso to have an informed opinion myself, just repeating what I've read...


My experience with the Speedster was yes, it was difficult to get up to 19% with 1.6 (=62%) brew ratios. With the Londinium it became much easier. In fact, I have to be careful not to pull the shot too long or I go over 20%+ and the shots go bitter.


----------



## repeat (Nov 14, 2009)

The article was a nice read. Did you checkout the cost of the coffee in the webshop?

Cheque please!


----------



## Viernes (Dec 10, 2011)

AndyS said:


> With the Londinium it became much easier. In fact, I have to be careful not to pull the shot too long or I go over 20%+ and the shots go bitter.


Why?

AFAIK the L1 needs a coarser grind and also have less pressure (6.5bar?) So how is that possible?


----------



## AndyS (May 12, 2012)

Viernes said:


> AFAIK the L1 needs a coarser grind and also have less pressure (6.5bar?) So how is that possible?


I don't know the answer, however the "usual suspects" when comparing spring levers to pump machine are:

1. declining temperature profile

2. declining pressure profile (with lower average pressure)

3. full column of water above puck (with possibly more even extraction)

4. preinfusion options (which may be more limited with some pump machines).

Also, I wouldn't say that the L1 needs a coarser grind.


----------



## The Systemic Kid (Nov 23, 2012)

AndyS said:


> Also, I wouldn't say that the L1 needs a coarser grind.


Agree with you Andy - LI likes find grind and light tamp to get the ultimate out of it.


----------



## Viernes (Dec 10, 2011)

AndyS said:


> I don't know the answer, however the "usual suspects" when comparing spring levers to pump machine are:
> 
> 1. declining temperature profile
> 
> ...


Thanks. Still a mistery for me. I know you didn't said the coarser grind, a friend with a L1 told that it needs a coarser grind than his pump machine.


----------



## AndyS (May 12, 2012)

The Systemic Kid said:


> Agree with you Andy - LI likes find grind and light tamp to get the ultimate out of it.


I can never figure out why people talk so much about tamp pressure. I tamp light, I tamp heavy, it makes very little difference in my espresso making. YMMV.



Viernes said:


> a friend with a L1 told that it needs a coarser grind than his pump machine.


A thorough preinfusion usually increases the subsequent espresso flow rate; maybe your friend's pump machine offers no preinfusion while his manual L1 technique includes it.


----------

