# Espresso, what are we doing?



## DavecUK (Aug 6, 2013)

Just a few articles I whipped off the web, not because they are necessarily representative and not because there are more like this, than those pushing the opposite point of view (I'm sure there are not).

http://www.salon.com/2010/08/25/american_espresso/

http://palettetraining.wordpress.com/category/espresso/

http://www.baristaexchange.com/forum/topics/naked-filter-madness

I'm posting this, because I think it needs to be posted. The brew ratios being pushed around the forum are quite severe Ristretto shots...this seemed to come about with the so called third wave of coffee. There are a lot of factors that got people and shops to this and these links, especially the second, cover some of them. This coupled with the trend of overly light roasting is turning the drink into something else. There's no point arguing taste with anyone....you will taste what you taste and like what you like. The vested interests in these new fads will continue try to convince an audience of specialist coffee drinkers, that this is the right way.

It's easy to lose sight of the basics...if we liken it to baking..you would need to learn the basics first and get really good at that...before experimenting. otherwise where is your baseline.We need something to come back to and something to work from. Experiment more change the ratios, go a bit old school, you might find you like it once you get the roast, grind and extraction right and perhaps stop using any super lightly roasted coffees (I'm also not suggesting you change to the heavy Over roasting prevalent in the past).

In the 40 years I've been drinking real coffee, I have seen a lot of changes, both in preparation methods, roasting and styles of drink. you could say the same for a lot of foods and beverages. Some changes I think are for the better, some....not so much. Unfortunately heavy marketing can create a Zeitgeist that becomes difficult to move away from. e.g. UK DAB radio.

"Errors of illusion are not readily apparent to us because the shared beliefs and assumptions of a particular era to support them come from the Zeitgeist"

"Failure to question research findings that agree with prevailing political and philosophical ideology represents one of the effects of the Zeitgeist."

Now im not going to argue the point, this is just here as a my POV in the espressosphere, perhaps shared by only a few. I am sure no one on this forum shares these views, the less than pleasant nature of the other thread showed me that. *However, if your new to coffee making have a think about it, go read the articles and remember the Espresso (as I think about it) used to form the base for all the other drinks.* If you want to come on here and nit pick at the way the words are put together try and twist what I am saying or pick up on flaws of expression....go ahead, I won't argue with you.

At least this is here now, be interesting to see what happens in the next 5-10 years.


----------



## 4085 (Nov 23, 2012)

Dave, manipulation of facts in the interests of commercialism always has and always will exist. I drink ristrettos, or at least i think I do! My version, is simply to pull a short shot so it will be something like 25 mls from say 16 gms. Now, even I can accept that that is probably wrong, but, I would like to know if there is such a thing as a corrcect formula for a ristretto, be it volume or weight.


----------



## coffeechap (Apr 5, 2012)

Dave I thought that post was really well put togetherand very informative EXACTLY what we want on here, however why you have to undo all the good in that post by insuating that those who proferred a different perspective in the other thread were being less than pleasant is beyond me....


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

Firstly & most importantly, I don't think (or at least hope not) there was real "unpleasantness" in the other thread - opposing views, certainly, strong perceptions & views...but hey, we're just talking about coffee here, it's no reason to cause/take offence or read more into it than need be. We're here because we share a passion, first & foremost...that passion may lead us to be overly robust in getting out point across sometimes, but I'd hate to feel that I, or anyone else mistook that for genuine animosity or ill feeling.

There are other forums that are more like a perpetual war-zone (not just coffee forums), CFUK seems to manage to avoid that & is breath of fresh air in that respect.

Secondly, whoever you/we are, there are always aspects of espresso that we carry with us that are somewhat arbitrary, many of us carry definitions with us, or parts of them & hold to them as the "one true path"...and conveniently sidestep, or ignore others - I don't want to start a tit-for-tat, point scoring exchange, but what I mean by that, is that your first link quotes a Milanese barista, working for Illy...when was the last time you drank Illy, mine was last week by the way, I actually like it, it got me into coffee...I mostly prefer other stuff...but there I said it!  Bang goes any credibility I may have had....;-)

My point though, is I wouldn't pull all coffees, roasts, beans the same way & expect to enjoy the outcome...more to say on this, but better do some work for a bit & keep the coffee vouchers rolling in...


----------



## oracleoftruth (Jan 15, 2014)

Don't think there is much that's controversial in what you've said, Dave. Just seems fairly evident to me. I personally prefer a longer espresso as long as the mouthfeel isn't compromised.

I'll definitely think about how things are going and what I like best rather than attach myself to a Zeitgeist of popular opinion and I'd guess most people here would too.

Really thought provoking article, thanks


----------



## kikapu (Nov 18, 2012)

I can see this being another thread that might get out of hand!!









Read the first two so far found the second more interesting than the first, but couldnt tell you if its points rasied were correct!?

I just make drinks I want to drink! And for my pallet if thats a ristretto then so be it! But its certainly not that way everytime just some seem to suit my pallet that way. However I probably should go outside my 'comfort zone' and try the larger extraction ratios to see if it adds something but I wouldnt do it just so I can say that I am actually drinking espresso and not some other 'new wave drink that might have its origins in espresso but actually isnt' (catchy name for it though







)


----------



## jeebsy (May 5, 2013)

How would you pull a shot in terms of parameters, Dave?


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

Here is a chart I made that hopefully gives some insight into the whys & wherefores of brew ratios - I was hoping this subject would die down, so I could post at a less heated/excitable time...but now looks to be as good a time as any.

#1 - The 4 columns "Trad Normale?", "typical TDS range" are not written in stone, this isn't instruction, nor the 10 commandments of coffee, the columns reflect certain preference points, there aren't obviously just 4, there are many & they dovetail...but hey, you only get one life, I might like to do something else like work, sleep, or eat, rather than work every permutation & points in between 

#2 - It is based on beverage weight - if you feel you can translate that to beverage volume, go ahead...if your coffee is tasty & consistent, enjoy!

#3 - Extraction yield figures (%) - You might not agree with this paradigm, that's fine with me, you might chose to describe the areas inhabited with low figures as "acidic/sour" instead, high figures as "bitter/drying" as I said before...if your coffee is tasty & consistent, enjoy!

Let's start by looking at the bottom right - 70%-80% region & High TDS - Ristretto/Super Ristretto/Waste of coffee...call it what you will...but by anyone's standards it is short espresso & some kind of Ristretto. To hit a balanced flavour your roast has to be suitably developed, basket prep ideal & your grinder capable of going fine enough without fines clamping extraction (pulling longer won't help in this case). If you don't hit the desired strength, you drop back into one of the columns to the left (but not up, as the ratio hasn't changed & ultimately you extract less). These kind of shots may be recognised as having some US influence? Perhaps something like David Schomer may be associated with? Equally may be associated with some lever machines?

So, if you don't hit the desired range here - what to do? Taste! Maybe you like it fine anyway? ...if your coffee is tasty & consistent, enjoy! Otherwise you need to use a more developed roast, and/or grind finer. Alternatively, you might pull a lighter/medium roast longer to get to a similar flavour balance (~60-67% ratio) at a lower concentration? A dense African coffee with a light roast may see you drop the concentration further to ~50%, less soluble, so you need to push more water through the puck to hit the sweetspot. In each case, if your ratio is too short for your preferred intensity/flavour balance/roast level/fineness & even-ness of grind - go longer, push more water through the puck, follow the black arrow (conceptual) up & left.

Trad Normale - Vague term really, this is a very broad guide - again not dictating, nor stipulating - Darker roasts make a more pungent drink, they create more fines when grinding, you get reasonable flow rate at a coarser setting & longer drink, the longer drink may benefit from more dilution to keep the intensity manageable?

Which ratio is right? None of them!....er, All of them! I dunno...I'm not the boss of you...;-)

Percolation (drip/espresso) is pretty mechanical. To get a certain intensity (call it what you will) you push water through a bed/puck of coffee, the amount of coffee that is dissolved in that journey dictates the concentration (finer grind, or darker roast = more dissolved solids vs lighter roast or coarser grind = less dissolved solids). If you can do this by eye/feel, great - it's been done this way for 50yrs. If you want to be more specific...then you can do that too. If you are learning and just hearing people say this, or that, ratio is "right", without knowing why, or their basis for saying so...you are going to still be learning the basics for a lot longer than you possibly need to.

Please take time to read in full & if you must quote me, please do it in context. If you think this is total bollocks (you are free to do so), give me something else...a mechanism that can be conveyed & communicated on a forum without one-to-one interaction (which is always best, but not practical on a forum that can be accessed from anywhere in the world).


----------



## cold war kid (Mar 12, 2010)

coffeechap said:


> Dave I thought that post was really well put togetherand very informative EXACTLY what we want on here, however why you have to undo all the good in that post by insuating that those who proferred a different perspective in the other thread were being less than pleasant is beyond me....


That's spookily similar to what I thought. An interesting , coherent and well thought out argument that was perhaps spoiled by the possible insinuation.

I'm on my way to work now , but will read your links and the following comments with interest when I get in as I'm open to experimentation and straying from the party line in all walks of life


----------



## garydyke1 (Mar 9, 2011)

Throw the EK43 into the mix and all hell will break loose


----------



## DavecUK (Aug 6, 2013)

jeebsy said:


> How would you pull a shot in terms of parameters, Dave?


That would depend on the coffee, the roast, the grind, the machine and the drink I want to achieve....

The point in the post is to stimulate some discussion and it all came about because I keep seeing advice to new members, or rather those new to coffee, as to how to make an espresso, being (I'm working from memory here).18g of coffee at a ratio of 1.6 giving about 24g espresso....from 18g of coffee,or something like this. I'm not sure this is the best way to lead someone into the world of coffee. Moving them in at either end of the spectrum is where we need to be careful, imagine if I said an espresso was 120ml or g, extracted from 18g of coffee...it's the same problem. It's very easy for people to misunderstand. I didn't realise how easy until I saw some of the things at my last meet many years ago.

It's always a good idea to explain the range of drinks to someone who is new and put it in some form of context. Explaining the standard definition of an Espresso and then the variations, plus perhaps some of the reasons why those variations exist, or may be necessary. The standard being where it's an idea to start in the middle, then modify based on the dependencies I mentioned in the first sentence. Sure the limitations of some machines won't allow for the easy production of a "standard" espresso and by their very nature may require moving more towards the Ristretto.

Now using semantics or hair splitting can say, "the middle could be anywhere", but I am sure the experienced all know what I mean, there can be discussions about the amount of crema, but the same applies. Even whether the crema should be stirred in or not, I don't think it should be, but that's my preference. I think some years ago everyone was trying to remove the crema from their espressos!?

I'm, not saying the standard is always right, by definition it can't be...but it's a good starting point in developing your technique for any particular set of circumstances. Sometimes I want 60g (rarely), sometimes 50 (more often), sometimes 40g (often), sometimes 28g (very rarely) from particular coffees...but it does depend on a lot of things.


----------



## Wando64 (Feb 28, 2011)

DavecUK said:


> I keep seeing advice to new members, or rather those new to coffee, as to how to make an espresso, being (I'm working from memory here).18g of coffee at a ratio of 1.6 giving about 24g espresso....from 18g of coffee,or something like this. I'm not sure this is the best way to lead someone into the world of coffee.


Hear, hear.

Message too short, so I'll say it again: Hear, hear.


----------



## Mrboots2u (May 10, 2013)

So I'm clear. Your not adverse to a ration per see just the ratio of 1.6 itself?

I don't think there harm in giving a guide if 1.6 as a ratio. If it qualified with advice if taste it , how does it taste to you. If it tastes one way move the extraction accordingly.

I dont think most people are advocating only drink espresso at a 1.6 ratio and if you don't like it then tough.

Its a simple and brief way of letting new people measure variables and then see what happens when you change them

Re the articles . the guy from illy doesn't like 3rd American coffee. Fair enough. I don't like Illy coffee.Doesn't make one of us right or wrong on the subject . Just makes us different. Being different is OK


----------



## jeebsy (May 5, 2013)

The guy in my local coffee shop who otherwise really knows his shit called 18g in 33g out a ristretto when we were chatting which I found a bit confusing.


----------



## garydyke1 (Mar 9, 2011)

3FE were getting 35g from 18.3g on the EK and clearly using the term espresso.


----------



## DavecUK (Aug 6, 2013)

Mrboots2u said:


> So I'm clear. Your not adverse to a ration per see just the ratio of 1.6 itself?
> 
> I don't think there harm in giving a guide if 1.6 as a ratio. If it qualified with advice if taste it , how does it taste to you. If it tastes one way move the extraction accordingly.
> 
> ...


No, of course I'm not averse to ratios...why would I be? I'm not averse to measuring shot volume by weight either, although I tend to eyeball and stop the shot when it needs stopping.

As for the 1.6, that's a pretty tight starting point...something I would not call a mid point and something I wouldn't recommend to those new to coffee....it might well prevent them having a full appreciation of the range that exists and for many beans/blends would be overwhelming for some people. I certainly find it difficult to get "balance" at those ratios. It's also the case that this advice is very commonly given with absolutely no context.

I think with the Illy guys article, it's important to not lose sight of the point being made, rather than concentrate on the Illy coffee. I don't like Illy Coffee either, I suppose it might taste a lot better when fresh. I also think Robusta has no place in my cup and never use it. I only used Robusta once when I bought 1kg of roasted to a coffee talk I was giving, put it in an esprsso machine and 15 people gave their thought on the "breakfast coffee" as I called it....they were completely unaware it was Robusta. Their reaction was interesting, considering the discussion we had had earlier of Arabica vs Robusta and their perception of taste expectations.


----------



## Obnic (Jan 14, 2014)

I think Dave is makes a valid point about guidance offered to those starting to get to grips with a 'drinkable' espresso.

It seems to me that assuming your advisee can build a puck that doesn't channel and their temperature is not too low, then dose (and therefore grind) is the place to begin.

Something like:

'Aim for a 35s pull before blonding. If your espresso tastes too concentrated use a smaller dose and tighten the grind. If it tastes too bland then up the dose and relax the grind. Keep adjusting dose until you get a drink that balances bitter, sweet, and acidic flavours.'

Once they can balance a drink, then they can tune brew ratio (using grind), and temperature, to draw out what for them is the best taste from the beans they bought. This way they'll discover the very real difference in the cup between Ristretto and Espresso by seeking taste profiles they like rather than mathematical relationships.

For me, knowing the brew ratio is a means to repeat a drink I liked. It's a waypoint for a taste I've found by other means.


----------



## Mrboots2u (May 10, 2013)

I don't think or hope anyone says aim for a 1.6 ratio without talking about temperature ,dose and distribution as part of the plan or asking what machine you have, or what beans your using etc.

Its more used for first port of call for people who have no or little experience of dialling in their first grinder as well

Agree that's all good advice Obnic and in general the ratio is given as part of a package of advice and questions

Its good to hear feedback from users who have asked for advice on what worked well though so cheers!


----------



## The Systemic Kid (Nov 23, 2012)

garydyke1 said:


> 3FE were getting 35g from 18.3g on the EK and clearly using the term espresso.


The EK doesn't behave like other grinders though.


----------



## garydyke1 (Mar 9, 2011)

The Systemic Kid said:


> The EK doesn't behave like other grinders though.


So you dont think a 1.91 ratio constitutes as 'espresso' regardless of grinder used?


----------



## Mrboots2u (May 10, 2013)

The Systemic Kid said:


> The EK doesn't behave like other grinders though.


Naughty ek.....


----------



## The Systemic Kid (Nov 23, 2012)

Certainly is - when it's behaving itself and not being incontinent


----------



## garydyke1 (Mar 9, 2011)

Pergers 2nd placing WBC run down with the EK ''coffee burrs''

Espresso Course -

Red Bourbon, Roasted on the lighter side of traditional espresso.

21g dose, 48g yield, 27 seconds, 9.5% TDS, 21.7% extraction.

Cappuccino Course -

Red Bourbon, Roasted with slightly more development and similar end temp.

21g dose, 50g yield, 27 seconds, 9% TDS, 21.4% extraction.

Signature Drink -

Espresso Component - Same as espresso course

Allongé - Bourbon, roasted slightly lighter and faster than the espresso.

20g dose, 100g yield, 25 seconds, 4.5% TDS, 22.5% extraction.

Lungo - Caturra, roasted halfway between traditional filter and espresso roasts.

19g dose, 150g yield, 25 seconds, 2.9% TDS, 22.9% extraction.

Coffee Shot - Geisha, roasted lightly, as we would usually for filter coffee.

18g dose, 300g yield, 30 seconds, 1.4% TDS, 23.3% extraction.


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

garydyke1 said:


> So you dont think a 1.91 ratio constitutes as 'espresso' regardless of grinder used?


Espresso (Normale) is & has been made at anything from at least 5:1 & shorter. The origin of "Ristretto" is one pull on a lever, so could be anywhere from the region of 2:1 & shorter. There is so much overlap, distinctions between espresso normale & ristretto become largely subjective. But Lungo, Normale & Ristretto are all espresso.


----------



## The Systemic Kid (Nov 23, 2012)

Guy from Illy (first article) talks about espresso giving sour/bitter/sweet experience from a blend including some Robusta. He's pretty scathing about Vivace in Seattle which considers itself faithful to North Italian coffee! One of Vivace's founders, David Schomer has written an interesting book and is respected for his knowledge and innovation. Clearly, the guy from Illy isn't impressed! In is book, Schomer charts how the making of espresso has evolved - even in Italy and is certainly not a uniform commodity - even in Italy. As with all things, nothing stands still - things evolve and develop. Technology has moved on apace - espresso machines are much more stable and consistent. Grinders are getting better too. Roasting is now employing computer technology to squeeze the very best from the bean. So what is an espresso and how it will and should taste will also evolve and change in the light of these developments.


----------



## DavecUK (Aug 6, 2013)

garydyke1 said:


> Pergers 2nd placing WBC run down with the EK ''coffee burrs''


Now this post I'm loving, really gives a feel for the range that exists. Although I personally don't like Lungos or Cafe Crema there is a place for all these drinks....and perhaps with the right coffees, who knows. interestingly I've been tending more towards down dosing from the 21g commonly used, just simply to give a little less depth to the puck and trying to get the shots I want out of 17-18g. unfortunately unless the grinder is pretty good it's a difficult ask. However Pergers example is a good one for newcomers to experiment with.


----------



## Wando64 (Feb 28, 2011)

Hi guys, I am not a trained barista (not that it makes any difference, unfortunately) but please allow me to ask.

From the first article: "Water: 1 oz. Coffee: 7 to 8.5 g. Temperature: 200 degrees F. Time of extraction: No more than 30 seconds."

I recognise these as to be the Italian Espresso standards. If you decide to ignore this key metrics, what is the point of debating any further?


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

Hi Wando,

Italian espresso standards vary some from Illy to INEI. Call me a pedant (it won't hurt, there may even be some truth in the accusation...)

Water 1oz - How do you determine that you are using 1oz of water? You can't measure the water in the group. If the beverage contains 1oz of water, you have to measure & subtract the non-dissolved solids, the dissolved solids. What's an "oz" a US Fl. oz, an imperial fl. oz, a dry oz? Your shot contains water, solids (enhance body & mouthfeel) & dissolved solids (affect the flavour balance)...3-4 grams for a double of dissolved solids, not an insignificant proportion (pull a shot, filter out the solids, dehydrate it, or a proportion of it, you will be able to weigh at least some of what the "coffee" contained in the beverage was).

7-8.5g of coffee - Moving on, we'll assume we have an oz of water & that oz is the same everywhere in the world - 7g to 1oz (we'll assume a 30ml fl oz in this case) is 23% brew ratio (it's actually not, but for our purposes we'll go with it) 8.5g to 1oz is a 28% ratio. Making a brew, keeping everything the same, just changing the dose, will mean spanning the entire range of under to overextraction - the 2 cups will taste totally different. This is the real point of al these discussions - whatever standard or parameter you adhere to, a balanced tasty shot is the desired outcome...your shot should taste good & balanced at whatever ratio you use, if a 1.6:1 shot is sour and a 2:1 shot is sweet, it's not the 1.6 brew ratio's fault, it's not the beans fault (assuming a nominal roast) it's something you have done, or something in your gear/prep that is holding you back.

"Not more than 30 seconds" - 10? 20? 22? 27.5? OK, I'm playing devil's advocate, but say we're going by the INEI ISO standard (45011) for Italian espresso, not driven by a particular company blend, we are still looking at -20% to +16%, a 36% window in time. A big swing, if 30 seconds was right for one shot, 20 seconds won't be right for the next identically prepped shot.

Ultimately, the point is to make an enjoyable drink, this will vary from person to person, bean to bean, roast to roast. How many times have you heard people say they don't like this bean or that? Is it the bean they don't like (people are obviously allowed preferences, we all have them, but nominally extracted coffee is at least palatable) or, is it something in the extraction method/parameters that just happens to suit one style over another?

The bean dictates what you do, change the bean & you change what you have to to hold your preference...any standard, now matter how specific, is a start point. You want consistency & "one size fits all", try French press.;-)


----------



## Wando64 (Feb 28, 2011)

MWJB said:


> it's not the 1.6 brew ratio's fault,


Well, I can agree with everything you say but whichever way we look at it, a ratio of 1.6:1 with near 20g of grounds is nowhere close to the original idea of an espresso. And this is the whole point, unless I have misunderstood the intentions of the article and of the OP.

If standards are a starting point why the common advice provided in this and other forums is to start from a completely different point? i.e. ratio of 1.6


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

Wando64 said:


> Well, I can agree with everything you say but whichever way we look at it, a ratio of 1.6:1 with near 20g of grounds is nowhere close to the original idea of an espresso. And this is the whole point, unless I have misunderstood the intentions of the article and of the OP.
> 
> If standards are a starting point why the common advice provided in this and other forums is to start from a completely different point? i.e. ratio of 1.6


Because this advice is issued with respect to medium/dark roasted, specialty grade SO, recently roasted, CO2 rich beans - not dark roasted, tinned, 9 bean blends. 1.6:1 is a 62.5% ratio, the idea is that you hit 18.5 to 20% extraction yield (sweet, balanced flavour) at ~11-12%TDS (a strength that many find preferable using these kinds of coffees). These ideals are driven by specialty coffee practices and adherance to an ideal extraction yield range (these are also now frequently accepted by Italian machine manufacturers). Note the brew ratio charts for SCAA, SCAE, NCA...OK it's not espresso, but one reason that the Norwegians like "stronger" coffee is because they pioneered the lighter roasts, Europeans darker, SCAA/CBI darker again.

There has been talk in recent years as to how actually doing this at 1.6 can prove quite difficult if your extraction is a little off (largely motivated by VST and the ability for folk to objectively measure their extractions in real time). Going longer is the easiest fix. However, it is perfectly feasible that single pulls on some lever machines, with a finite amount of water in the group, also can result in single pull shots in this range.

This goes back to my earlier point about what we take with us, what we leave behind. The man from Illy/INEI/wherever says use 7g to 1oz with their coffee roast...fine, if you are using their coffee/roast, otherwise it's best to take advice from the guy who actually roasted the coffee you are using.

A quick recap on "espresso" - Invented in France 200yrs ago, initially a means to make a quick cup for individual patrons. Early machines were essentially bulk brewers. Later, steam brewers. These developed into steam driven, hot water brewers - when the Moka pot was invented it made "espresso" in the manner that espresso was typically made then, 1938 & the Gaggia lever appears along with high pressure & crema, '61 the E61 pump machines...

Only after these stages had been reached have people retrospectively gone back & applied strict/ideal definitions. If we take the whole of what "espresso" has meant throughout history, it basically means a "quick cup" of coffee.

20g of grounds is pretty irrelevant (assuming suitable basket & headspace), the ratio is key. But the "ratio" isn't *the point*, sweet, balanced extraction, with a preferred concentration (for that person/coffee) is the point. The ratio is a mechanism for getting there, by which you adjust grind (& maybe dose) to achieve a good result. Eliminate the variables.

It sounds abstract & somewhat ethereal, but once it "clicks" with you what different brew ratios are there to achieve, it's a big eye-opener & a lot less like strict adherance to random/conflicting quotes/black magic.


----------



## MattRobbo45 (Oct 3, 2012)

And my world has imploded!!!!!!! As a newbie, this topic has thrown everything I've been reading, trying etc up in the air. I have to say all the advice etc I've found on here (not a criticism) has been telling me 18g of coffee, 1.6-2 X out over 25s.

I have to say though, it's actually got me excited to start experimenting. I've been effectively imposing rules on myself, that I have to be hitting 1.6-2 x ratio without exception. Come the morning I'm going to let shots run longer and see what happens.

If anything this topic has liberated me. Let the experimenting begin. Thanks DavecUK for this post.


----------



## DavecUK (Aug 6, 2013)

Wando64 said:


> Well, I can agree with everything you say but whichever way we look at it, a ratio of 1.6:1 with near 20g of grounds is nowhere close to the original idea of an espresso. And this is the whole point, unless I have misunderstood the intentions of the article and of the OP.
> 
> If standards are a starting point why the common advice provided in this and other forums is to start from a completely different point? i.e. ratio of 1.6


Thanks, because this has been my point all along. All I want to do is pop people in the middle of the coffee box, give them some context and let them work their way around it. As for the reasons for the super Ristretto shots and the promulgation of their popularity....you have to come to your own conclusions as to why.



> And my world has imploded!!!!!!! As a newbie, this topic has thrown everything I've been reading, trying etc up in the air.


No Matt, your world just got much much larger....enjoy!


----------



## Wando64 (Feb 28, 2011)

MattRobbo45 said:


> Come the morning I'm going to let shots run longer and see what happens.


The one variable I personally would not ever change significantly is the extraction time and to change the output volume I would adjust the grind alone.


----------



## Mrboots2u (May 10, 2013)

Why wouldn't you change the time may I ask ?


----------



## Mrboots2u (May 10, 2013)

Rightly or wrongly I've always assumed people adjust the dose and grind and time to suit their taste , as Mark says 1.6 is a reference and starting poin.t If that tastes unbalanced then try pulling longer or shorter etc . Don't just accept the fact that 1.6 is the only way to brew it itsnt and I'm not sure any of us have advocated that it is .

Often the first questions are , how long should a shot run , how much drink should it make and over what time . Using the 1.6 ratio is a good reference point as any .

Plus it's assuming that there is no channeling and the temperature isn't too hot or cold , which in itself is no mean feat on entry level machines, without a naked PF and with an entry level grinder . With all those factors any ratio your aiming for may taste off if one of the variables is incorrect......


----------



## Wando64 (Feb 28, 2011)

Mrboots2u said:


> Why wouldn't you change the time may I ask ?


Why would you?

Italian espresso guidelines recommend a 25 secs extraction.

My experience confirms that 25 to 35 is an acceptable range depending on coffee type.

Is your experience any different?


----------



## Neill (Jun 26, 2013)

Wando64 said:


> Why would you?
> 
> Italian espresso guidelines recommend a 25 secs extraction.
> 
> ...


I was using sweetshop blend from sq mile and pulling shots at 40-50s that tasted great. Technology has moved on with adjustable pre infusion times and pressure profiles.


----------



## Mrboots2u (May 10, 2013)

Wando64 said:


> Why would you?
> 
> Italian espresso guidelines recommend a 25 secs extraction.
> 
> ...


Yep as per Neil's post above I've pulled longer shots with square mile roasts and pulled some longer timed ristretto on rave dumerso also.

All part of there fun of experimenting , with dose , grind, pre infusion times etc


----------



## jeebsy (May 5, 2013)

I'm drinking a 43g out from 18g in shot just now...it's not great. Ran a bit fast but was probably around 30 secs. Also about the limit of what would fit in the espresso cup.


----------



## Drewster (Dec 1, 2013)

Wando64 said:


> The one variable I personally would not ever change *significantly* is the extraction time and to change the output volume I would adjust the grind alone.





Wando64 said:


> Why would you?
> 
> Italian espresso guidelines recommend a 25 secs extraction.
> 
> ...


Sorry mate but if you vary between 25-35 seconds I would say you are varying the extraction time pretty significantly!!

Approx 40% has gotta count as pretty significant!! Shirley?


----------



## MattRobbo45 (Oct 3, 2012)

While this subject is running, does anyone go by what they see going on? I.e rather than simply timing a shot, watching when they know from experience the shot is just right. I presumed before I started reading into how to extract a shot, dose, time etc that the most valuable piece of information is what you see happening to the coffee as it pours. Does anyone just go by how 'blond' the shot gets and then stop it regardless of how long it has run?


----------



## The Systemic Kid (Nov 23, 2012)

Blonding indicates the time the shot should be ended. Dose weight/extraction ratio/extraction time are guidelines - and as such helpful in being able to dial/tune in your set up. Watching the pour (and using a naked PF if you've got one) provides loads of information/feedback. Ultimately though, how it tastes to you is what matters.


----------



## Wando64 (Feb 28, 2011)

Drewster said:


> Sorry mate but if you vary between 25-35 seconds I would say you are varying the extraction time pretty significantly!!
> 
> Approx 40% has gotta count as pretty significant!! Shirley?


Sure, but please don't read my posts out of context.

I was responding to MattRobb's comment about experimenting moving from the 1.6 ratio to a ratio similar to that of the standard Italian Espresso.

To do this without changing the grind you would have to double your extraction time. i.e. min 50 secs.

Sure there will be someone telling me that there is nothing wrong with a 50 seconds extraction.

Good for you, but not for me thanks.

Remember the purpose of this thread.

You can stretch the parameters as far as you wish in your experimentation, but that doesn't mean they ought to become the new reference point. IMHO

&#8230; and my name is not Shirley.









Edited to add IMHO


----------



## DavecUK (Aug 6, 2013)

MattRobbo45 said:


> While this subject is running, does anyone go by what they see going on? I.e rather than simply timing a shot, watching when they know from experience the shot is just right. I presumed before I started reading into how to extract a shot, dose, time etc that the most valuable piece of information is what you see happening to the coffee as it pours. Does anyone just go by how 'blond' the shot gets and then stop it regardless of how long it has run?


Yes absolutely...either to save water because it's been much too fast/slow and it's only a sink shot. When you look at the crema on the espresso, there should perhaps just be a small white dot, where the blonding started. I also remove the espresso from under the spouts as soon as it's done, as I don't want the drips. I am going to re-quote the post below from garydyke1, because I think this is really good to cover the spectrum of espresso and espresso style drinks.



> Pergers 2nd placing WBC run down with the EK ''coffee burrs''
> 
> Espresso Course -
> 
> ...


The timings are good, not too much faster, not too much slower, in fact really not too much slower. Also some common sense has to be used if using a pre-infusion phase, then you wouldn't add this all on. So much shorter on the shot times...no (and im presuming he used some preinfusion), but longer possibly, If I was using a 8s 2 bar infusion, I might add 4-8 seconds to the shot times. The longer drinks are done in the same time, because that's very usual for the Lugo or the cafe Crema, otherwise the result is a little undrinkable. It reduces the over extraction that would otherwise occur. I personally believe the longer drinks pulled from the machines had their origins in the fact that it was just "easier" for the cafes concerned and there is little merit in them. The taste, however, is different and in certain countries, a market and taste for these type of drinks exists.

He is updosing the espressos, probably due to the lighter roasts and type of beans, but there was also a trend for updosing. I tend to use between 17 - 21g depending on the particular coffee/roast level and sometimes age of roast. my shot volumes are usually in the 50g range (I don't like to go above it very much) unless I'm going for a tighter style "ristretto" shot.....If I'm doing those, it's not so much cutting the shot short as in grinding finer to reduce the volume. for the same time and of course avoiding any blonding, the shot being stopped once it starts to lighten slightly (depending on how tight you want to be).


----------



## garydyke1 (Mar 9, 2011)

The baskets used are 20g VST competition baskets. (typically rated +/- 1g)


----------



## MattRobbo45 (Oct 3, 2012)

Cheers folks. Some real food for thought. Going to start paying more attention to how he shot's progressing etc.

one thing I have noticed, is that towards the end of a shot the stream 'swells' as though it's got air in it. I've been curious as to whether this is past the optimum extraction as it's pretty 'blond' by this point or if this is the point at which the crema is really developed.

Any pointers? Am I just imagining this?

I think part of what's confusing me a bit, is 'how blond is blond'

At what point is enough enough, if that makes sense?


----------



## MattRobbo45 (Oct 3, 2012)

And by all means tell me to cease if I've hijacked this thread and turned it into a personal tutorial


----------



## Mrboots2u (May 10, 2013)

All good points matt. Put a clip up and let's see if we any if us agree when we would stop it by colour !


----------



## MattRobbo45 (Oct 3, 2012)

Out and about, but I'll definitely put one up tomorrow morning


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

garydyke1 said:


> The baskets used are 20g VST competition baskets. (typically rated +/- 1g)


For those that kill shots by blonding, it might be enlightening to FF to 11:50-ish and tell us when you'd kill the coffee shot? ;-) At one of the NBC talks David Walsh showed a video of a long coffee pulled on an espresso machine, thin yellow stream, that ran on & on...that produced a shot described a having "great clarity sweetness & balance".

Try dipstick tasting the tail end of your shot. If you kill the shot whilst sweet juicy coffee is coming out you can end up with a sour shot, even when the stream blonds and you are getting thin, but bland output this can still be beneficial in balancing the shot, astringent bitter output and you've gone too far...but what the colour & texture of the pour looks like doesn't always follow in the taste, especially when you take the beverage as a whole.

This is one of the reasons people place so much store in weight, or beverage mass, derived ratios. A given beverage weight, as a ratio of the dose, at a given strength is a more consistent indicator of what you have extracted from the grinds. If you can't measure the strength, you go by taste, adjusting grind.


----------



## AndyS (May 12, 2012)

coffeechap said:


> a different perspective in the other thread


Please excuse my ignorance but what is the "other thread"?


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

AndyS said:


> Please excuse my ignorance but what is the "other thread"?


http://coffeeforums.co.uk/showthread.php?15668-Amazed-at-how-small-1-fluid-ounce-is

Perhaps some points were put accross a little 'robustly' in that one, but this thread seems to contain the meat & potatoes of varying perceptions & practices.


----------



## garydyke1 (Mar 9, 2011)

MWJB said:


> If you kill the shot whilst sweet juicy coffee is coming out you can end up with a sour shot, even when the stream blonds and you are getting thin, but bland output this can still be beneficial in balancing the shot, astringent bitter output and you've gone too far...but what the colour & texture of the pour looks like doesn't always follow in the taste, especially when you take the beverage as a whole.


Absolutely!

If you kill EK43 shots based on intuition alone you get exactly that. Blonding on a 20g dose = this might be 30-32g output point but actually the best tasting sweet balanced shot is 40-45-50g output !


----------



## MattRobbo45 (Oct 3, 2012)

Good morning folks. Here is a shot I pulled this morning. Im using Gashonga from Foundry roasters Sheffield.

Best result so far was yesterday with 19g - 30s - 31.5g.

For this shot I used 19g and just let it run to get feedback re the blonding discussion.

It resulted in 40g shot and unsurprisingly was bitter/sour. I struggle to tell the difference, but was definitely not as well balanced as yesterday. This kind of answers my own question re where I should be stopping it! However I wondered if you could point out any obvious points in the shot that would signal you to stop it, just from what you can see.

Apologies if the quality isn't great.

Oh and be nice, I'm a newbie


----------



## Mrboots2u (May 10, 2013)

Cripes that's harder to tell with that camera than I thought it would be

Re distinguishing between bitter and sour ., this isn't meant to sound patronising give it a go .

if youfeel like it and want to waste Some coffee.

Coarser the grind way off pull a double shot , if it fills your glass in say 15 seconds then all things equal that will be sour....

Now fine the grind to you get a choker 10 g out in 30 seconds . This will be bitter

Or literally suck a Lemon







- sour

Eat some very burnt toast - bitter .

Try and picture a remember how each one tastes and makes the tongue feel for next time you pull a shot .

the actual shot , away at 30 seconds into the clip for blonding ?

It looks pretty good distribution , central , one stream , possible some dead space at the back it's hard to tell from the angle .


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

MattRobbo45 said:


> Good morning folks. Here is a shot I pulled this morning. Im using Gashonga from Foundry roasters Sheffield.
> 
> Best result so far was yesterday with 19g - 30s - 31.5g.
> 
> ...


A couple of observations, I'd only find it unsurprising that your 40g shot was bitter in light of your previous shot being good at 31.5g. Running another 8.5g of beverage through the puck could mean nearly another gram of coffee dissolved into the beverage - a good extraction, plus 20%+ more coffee dissolved is the definition of "overextraction" ...the more water you push through the puck, the more you dissolve from it. To get a balanced shot at 40g would mean going coarser (assuming channelling didn't become an issue).

You answered your own question when you identified 31.5g as desirable for that bean, dose & approximate grind (the main variable).

Brew ratio sets target concentration. Grind primarily drives level of extraction, dial in the grind to hit the sweetspot.


----------



## MattRobbo45 (Oct 3, 2012)

Will give it a go. Can't go much finer, as this bean needs a really really tight grind. Will dig out a lime and compare.

I might try again with the DSLR


----------



## MattRobbo45 (Oct 3, 2012)

MWJB said:


> A couple of observations, I'd only find it unsurprising that your 40g shot was bitter in light of your previous shot being good at 31.5g. Running another 8.5g of beverage through the puck could mean nearly another gram of coffee dissolved into the beverage - a good extraction, plus 20%+ more coffee dissolved is the definition of "overextraction" ...the more water you push through the puck, the more you dissolve from it. To get a balanced shot at 40g would mean going coarser (assuming channelling didn't become an issue).
> 
> You answered your own question when you identified 31.5g as desirable for that bean, dose & approximate grind (the main variable).
> 
> Brew ratio sets target concentration. Grind primarily drives level of extraction, dial in the grind to hit the sweetspot.


Yeah I'm happy I've got the recipe right, I just wondered if outside of the numbers, there were visual cues that can help identify when a shot is optimal?

This vid isn't good enough quality really, but I was just after some feedback as to what constitutes the right level of 'blonding'.

Just trying to increase my understanding of getting the balance right etc

Will try another vid later with DSLR


----------

