# V60 questions...



## YerbaMate170

I've been using a Chemex for around 6 months and as much as I enjoy it, I feel like it's not a very "easy" method of coffee and I seem to make bad coffee just as often as good. Of course this is partly my technique but I'm not an expert (yet!). (Maybe "bad" is a bit harsh - just, coffee that leaves me thinking "this should be a bit better")

Anyway I also want to try something a little different, and for my criteria (I'm a student - cheap, something easy to make at home etc) the V60 interests me. But, I have a few questions, which I'm sure have been answered a million times before so feel free to redirect me/copy paste, whatever!

1) Am I correct in thinking the V60 is more "forgiving" than Chemex? To expand slightly: I struggle often to get sweetness from my chemex, compared to when I use an aeropress which seems easier.

2) Does plastic vs ceramic really affect taste? Plastic is cheaper but obviously if ceramic is worth it, I will consider it, as I want good coffee, not bargain coffee.

3) What is the view on 01 vs 02 size? I recall reading on here that this seems to affect the coffee

4) Can you get ready/pre-folded filters? Not sure if this is relevant - this was an issue for chemex, as faffing about with filter paper 20 minutes before a 9am statistics lecture is painful.

5) Can I brew/let drip straight into my mug or is it advisable to buy a pot?

Bonus 6) just so I don't have to make another thread later, what are some recommended ratios and brewing tips?

Any other general advice about anything V60/Chemex/Other related? Thanks


----------



## froggystyle

Buy a brazen!


----------



## jeebsy

Troubleshoot your Chemex technique


----------



## jlarkin

1. Not sure.

2. I think it makes some difference but have used plastic and been happy with it + it's dead cheap cheap.

3. Get the size you want to make, if you under-dose I think that's when it can be problematic.

4. Not relevant, they're easier as no folding needed.

5. Straight into a mug ftw - unless you buy a bigger one.

6. http://mattperger.com/V60-Pour-Over-Method#.VehO9flVhBc


----------



## jlarkin

jeebsy said:


> Troubleshoot your Chemex technique


Yes good alternative point .


----------



## jeebsy

Whatever causing you problems with the chemex could filter (boom boom) through to v60 too


----------



## YerbaMate170

jeebsy said:


> Troubleshoot your Chemex technique





jeebsy said:


> Whatever causing you problems with the chemex could filter (boom boom) through to v60 too


True, though as I mentioned, I also do want to try something new - but granted if the problem persists then it's time to stop blaming the tools


----------



## YerbaMate170

froggystyle said:


> Buy a brazen!


don't tempt me!


----------



## MWJB

1) pretty much moot.

2) Not much of the brewer comes into contact with the brew, plastic bounces well & and doesn't eat up heat like ceramic/glass. Thorough preheating should iron out any differences (as it will with your Chemex, how hot is your brew water, are you preheating?).

3) Pretty much moot, depends perhaps on brew/dose size.

5) You can brew straight into a cup/pot, I prefer to use a stand &/or 2 sets of scales so you can confirm the weight of the beverage made (+5 pedantry points).

6) Ratios are unaffected & will be the same as for Chemex, you might be able to grind a little finer with the Hario papers.

As the others suggested, focussing on getting the best out of the brewer (whichever one you use) is really the thing to do. None of them know what you're aiming for, you might stumble on a happy accident (which is fine whilst it works) but really taking control of the brewer & being consistent will help you with any of them.

Perhaps run us through a typical brew and what you think is wrong with it?


----------



## Kyle548

V60 is much less forgiving than a Chemex.

At least you will get something drinkable in 80% of cases.

With a V60, if you don't do it right then you won't be drinking coffee.

Also, do you have scales, a pouring kettle, a reliable thermometer?

These are additional expenses that will need to be paid before you even consider a V60.

2) it makes a difference in heat retention in the coffee bed - ceramic will essentially be a little more thermally stable which helps if you don't really measure water temp.

Also, it's much more tactile and that's a nice thing to have.

3) The 02 will brew upto about 800ml whereas the 01 will do about 500ml - but I would say optimum is 01 = 200ml brew; 02 = 500ml brew.

It's best to brew them at optimum - even though the only real difference between them is the height. Pitch is the same I think.

4) filters are prefolded, you will need to fold a seam on the edge a little however.

Worth noting - the filters are very thin compared to chemex.

5) you can, but make sure your cup is big enough - the V60 does not have a viewing window and can overflow if your not careful.

6) this is a topic and more all on its own.

***while the way they allow water though is different- for a facsimile of a V60 - get some 02 papers in your Chemex and pour a brew though to see how it goes.


----------



## Mrboots2u

YerbaMate170 said:


> True, though as I mentioned, I also do want to try something new - but granted if the problem persists then it's time to stop blaming the tools


Sowden


----------



## Step21

One advantage of a plastic V60 is that they are really cheap (around £5) so you don't have anything to lose in trying it.

The V60 filters impart a different taste to the brew than chemex filters. I don't tend to use them any more as i don't like the results. I used my V60 (size 1) with a chemex filter and much preferred the results. All you have to do is to manually cut round the top of the chemex filter to reduce the size with a pair of scissors - take a few seconds.

I would strongly recommend getting a PID kettle if you can. They are expensive but pretty much guaranteed to improve your pourover brews with better temperature control.


----------



## YerbaMate170

Mrboots2u said:


> Sowden


Interesting... Very interesting.

EDIT: one reason I prefer filter is because it gives a cleaner, more refined coffee compared to say, a French Press. How does the Sowden rank? I disliked FP because it produced "murky" coffee and I struggled to distinguish tastes, it was all a bit monotone.


----------



## Kyle548

YerbaMate170 said:


> Interesting... Very interesting.
> 
> EDIT: one reason I prefer filter is because it gives a cleaner, more refined coffee compared to say, a French Press. How does the Sowden rank? I disliked FP because it produced "murky" coffee and I struggled to distinguish tastes, it was all a bit monotone.


It's exactly like a FP.

Your issues with FP being too murky will be due to your grinder more than anything else though.


----------



## MWJB

Sowden's usually a little cleaner than FP, you still need to leave a little in the pot at the end, you don't want a lot of fines in your grind with the Sowden. With both I'd skim/pour off the oily surface layer before decanting too, as this can blunt flavours.


----------



## risky

To offer a differing opinion to Kyle. I prefer the coffee I get from my V60 compared to my Chemex. I don't find the V60 difficult to use, in fact I find it pretty fool proof. Perger method works well for me. I don't have a pouring kettle. I also don't use a thermometer. Heresy maybe, but I know how long to leave the kettle after it boils to get a great taste. What brew temperature? Haven't got a clue. I have never had a bad V60. From the very first one I made. Not trying to say my technique is great, I'm trying to point out how forgiving I think it is.

To answer your bonus question:

Perger Method off the top of my head:

12g coffee. I grind 1 click from the tightest setting the Rhino grinder will allow.

50g water in and 'stir it like a bandit'

Another 50g in at 30seconds

100g in at 1minute (so that's 200g of water in by the 1 minute mark)

All the water should be through by the 2minute 30second mark roughly.


----------



## Kyle548

risky said:


> To offer a differing opinion to Kyle. I prefer the coffee I get from my V60 compared to my Chemex. I don't find the V60 difficult to use, in fact I find it pretty fool proof. .


I love the V60 - it certainly is better than the Chemex in terms of brew.

It's just not as easy - but it's good that you disagree.

I'm pretty interested in your prep and the flavour profiles you go for.


----------



## jeebsy

Perger method with v60 is pretty foolproof


----------



## The Systemic Kid

Kyle548 said:


> I love the V60 - it certainly is better than the Chemex in terms of brew.


Better? In what way? Different, yes. Chemex provides a cleaner taste due to the thicker filter papers it uses which remove more brew colloids than V60 papers. Whether you prefer the cleaner cup Chemex produces is a matter of personal taste.


----------



## garydyke1

Never got on with v60. Found them pretty hit and miss . Chemex seems a lot less effort


----------



## fatboyslim

Perger works for me too and is also consistent. I'm also getting wonderfully clean and well defined cups using the new Misarashi filter papers from Hario. These have a thicker/denser weave and so remove more oils, producing a cup similar to a chemex. Best of both worlds?


----------



## Rompie

Found that v60 technique just 'clicked' for me, one day I was making mediocre brews then something happened and I started making... Less mediocre brews.

V60 is and isn't a forgiving brew method. At heart it's pretty easy to get a decent brew but there's so many variables. I'm still trying to master chemex but haven't had one for half as long as I've been using v60. Find a method you're comfortable with and just keep repeating it until you start to get it right.

Edit: perger method does yield some great results - I always end up with a longer brewing time than he recommends though, even though I'm grinding fairly 'medium'. Any idea why?


----------



## jlarkin

Rompie said:


> .
> 
> Edit: perger method does yield some great results - I always end up with a longer brewing time than he recommends though, even though I'm grinding fairly 'medium'. Any idea why?


Maybe you need to commit and go fully medium? Also might depend on grinder the v60 filters get clogged really quickly, so a few fines on the paper make it takes ages


----------



## Mrboots2u

Rompie said:


> Found that v60 technique just 'clicked' for me, one day I was making mediocre brews then something happened and I started making... Less mediocre brews.
> 
> V60 is and isn't a forgiving brew method. At heart it's pretty easy to get a decent brew but there's so many variables. I'm still trying to master chemex but haven't had one for half as long as I've been using v60. Find a method you're comfortable with and just keep repeating it until you start to get it right.
> 
> Edit: perger method does yield some great results - I always end up with a longer brewing time than he recommends though, even though I'm grinding fairly 'medium'. Any idea why?


Don't stress with the time . Different water , coffee , grinder and temp will all impact . Key is taste and if it's balanced.


----------



## malling

The v60 can be tricky to use, but following Pergers guidelines certainly helps with consistency. I have been brewing v60 for some years now, and I rarely experience a bad brew, the key to the succes is doing the same thing over and over again. Make sure you have a flat and even bed of coffee. This has everything to do with how your pouring, variance in flow and pouring patternes will result in an uneven bed, a way to cure this flaw is by spinning the v60 or gently tapping it. If your pouring correctly there should not be any problems with clogging. medium fine is usually what is recommended for v60.


----------



## fatboyslim

They should just rename v60....vPerger


----------



## Dallah

Mrboots2u said:


> Sowden


+1 Having recently started with a Sowden it is truly the most idiot proof way to get a good drinkable brewed coffee. Go for the 30 min brew under a tea cosy and it's so forgiving of mistakes that it's hard to believe without trying. I'm actually experimenting now with trying to screw up a long brew. I've tried dumping in water straight from the boil. I've ground too fine. I've ground too course. So it's all been acceptable even when trying to make a bad cup. Of course getting it right produces a better cup but if you are half asleep and can spare 30 mins it's foolproof.


----------



## Hairy_Hogg

Is there anywhere on the site where the Matt Perger ratios have been scaled up? I am looking to put about 300g water through for a bigger cup of coffee and potentially more through the 02 when I have friends around. I assume there is, but I cannot find it


----------



## jeebsy

hairy_hogg said:


> is there anywhere on the site where the matt perger ratios have been scaled up? I am looking to put about 300g water through for a bigger cup of coffee and potentially more through the 02 when i have friends around. I assume there is, but i cannot find it


 @mwjb?


----------



## MWJB

Hairy_Hogg said:


> Is there anywhere on the site where the Matt Perger ratios have been scaled up? I am looking to put about 300g water through for a bigger cup of coffee and potentially more through the 02 when I have friends around. I assume there is, but I cannot find it


The ratio Perger uses on the St Ali video is 60g/l. So for 300g brew water you want 18g of grounds, for 400g water you want 24g of grounds etc.

The wrinkles come with the timing, as the brew gets bigger, flow needs to speed up, but because you have more water the total brew time stretches out.

For 18:300g I'd be looking at a 3min brew: 75g & stir, 75g after 45sec, 150g at 1:30 as a start point?


----------



## SZA

Since there seems to be a lot of discussion about Matt Perger's V60 technique I thought I would share the recipe he was demonstrating at WOC in Gothenburg in June:

In a size 02 V60:

22 g coffee to 350 g brew water,

Bloom with ~2xcoffee weight (40-50 g of water) and stir. He stressed that was very important to wet all the coffee within the first 10 seconds, which is why you need the stirring.

30 second bloom, followed by adding the rest of the brew water in a single, 30 second pour.

The pour should be in spiralling motion, and all the way to the edge (as demonstrated in his old video).

Flat bed = even extraction.

I find this technique very easy to replicate, and also scale up/down. The only parameter (between beans and size of brew) needing adjustment is the grind setting.


----------



## MWJB

Thanks for that, what is the total brew time? A single 30s pour suggests a finer grind than the St Ali video?


----------



## SZA




----------



## MWJB

SZA said:


>


Ahh, so "a long time".


----------



## SZA

HAha, yeah, I guess..







But honestly, I don't think he cares that much. If the flavour is off = adjust grind.

I've had really taste brews at all different kinds of brew times, from 1:45 to almost 3 minutes total brew time. And interestingly enough I haven't seen that much of a difference from pouring all the water at once, compared to splitting it up into two pours. But I guess that in the St. Ali video the time he is actually pouring is a lot less than 30 seconds, maybe more like 2*5 seconds? So you could argue that the WOC recipe gives more agitation of the brew? Which should actually allow for using a coarser grind. Or at least it might explain why it doesn't necessarily need to be finer.

I don't know I'm just speculating!


----------



## MWJB

The time spent pouring isn't important, it's the time that coffee is running out of the cone into the cup that matters more. Brew time relates to beverage size, I very much doubt you could ever properly extract a 22:350 brew in 1:45, there's just not enough contact time, even 3 min for that brew looks on the short side.


----------



## YerbaMate170

SZA said:


>


Wow, mixing at the bloom stage and pouring onto the edges?! Two things I thought were bad (for chemex at least) - will try this today and see if I notice any differences. Always learning new ways!


----------



## Mrboots2u

YerbaMate170 said:


> Wow, mixing at the bloom stage and pouring onto the edges?! Two things I thought were bad (for chemex at least) - will try this today and see if I notice any differences. Always learning new ways!


Been mixing at bloom stage and " round the edges " for a while ( both Chemex and v60 ) . Makes simple tasty drinks


----------



## SZA

MWJB said:


> The time spent pouring isn't important, it's the time that coffee is running out of the cone into the cup that matters more. Brew time relates to beverage size, I very much doubt you could ever properly extract a 22:350 brew in 1:45, there's just not enough contact time, even 3 min for that brew looks on the short side.


Well, 1:45 is definitely also on the short side, and I've only had those for 200-230 mL brew sizes. However, I very rarely get anything good from V60 or Kalita brews that are running over 3 minutes. It simply gets excessively bitter, and all the nice smelling aromatics disappear. It might be down to the water, though. Where I live, in Copenhagen, Denmark, it is practically impossible to get water, even bottled, that is not hard in both calcium and carbonates. I've had really nice +6 minutes Chemex brews, though.

About the time spent pouring, I would assume that that could make a big difference? I mean, you are practically stirring the brew with the pouring water...

And what exactly do you mean with "brew time relates to beverage size"? If the grind size is the same between a small and a large brew, shouldn't the contact time between water and beans preferable be kept the same too? I know that the bigger brew is usually taking longer to drain, probably because of the lower paperfilter/surface-to-volume ratio, which is why you usually end up grinding coarser. But ideally i cannot see why you would need that, if the two brews were draining equally fast (time-wise).


----------



## MWJB

SZA said:


> And what exactly do you mean with "brew time relates to beverage size"? If the grind size is the same between a small and a large brew, shouldn't the contact time between water and beans preferable be kept the same too? I know that the bigger brew is usually taking longer to drain, probably because of the lower paperfilter/surface-to-volume ratio, which is why you usually end up grinding coarser. But ideally i cannot see why you would need that, if the two brews were draining equally fast (time-wise).


As the bed gets deeper, the water needs to pass through it more quickly to avoid over-extraction. It will do this somewhat automatically but as a rough, rule of thumb, guide I'd expect a 15g:250 brew to take around 2:40 (plus any static bloom with little/no flow), or around 1.45g/sec of flow. Go up to 30g:500 and I'd expect flow to speed up to around 2g/sec, so around 3:40 (plus any static bloom with little/no flow). Flow can be slower if aiming for high extraction yields over 22%EY.

If the 30g:500 brew took 2:40 of flow, then that would be nearer 3g/sec...might work for a coffee that tastes good at lower extractions, but probably a bit fast for 18-21%EY brew? If it were under 1.45g/sec, or over 5 minutes (plus any static bloom with little flow) then it would likely be a high extraction, maybe feasible with an EK but likely over with a conventional grinder.

The faster you can brew, whilst achieving a good extraction, the better the aromatics will be - volatile aromatics extract almost instantaneously, getting the desired level of dissolved solids can take longer.

I'm not sure contact time (as opposed to brew/flow time) is very useful way to think about drip, especially compared to immersions. A drip brew is constantly replacing the water in the bed & brew time/extraction seem more related to how much water passes through the bed, more than for how long the coffee is wet.


----------



## YerbaMate170

I tried the mixing at bloom stage and pouring on edges this morning... 19g in, around 275 out, perhaps needed a little more water through but was at 3:30... Tastes fine, can't say I'm noticing massively different flavours etc to my regular method but I'll experiment with this.


----------



## MWJB

Do you not measure the water added?


----------



## YerbaMate170

MWJB said:


> Do you not measure the water added?


what do you mean measure? As I stated, I added around 275g of water.


----------



## MWJB

YerbaMate170 said:


> what do you mean measure? As I stated, I added around 275g of water.


Apologies, you said "275g out", made me think you just weighed the beverage rather than brew water.


----------



## YerbaMate170

MWJB said:


> Apologies, you said "275g out", made me think you just weighed the beverage rather than brew water.


Ah yes, my bad - I reset my scales before I bloom so the final beverage weight is the same as water added, wasn't clear!


----------



## YerbaMate170

Carrying on with the mixing before bloom and pouring around edges... Definitely getting some consistent brews, too early to say for sure whether the resulting coffee in my view is "better" but will carry on experimenting; I've noticed my brew time has increased as a result of this method, because as you pour on the edges, the coffee all goes to the centre and thus it seems to take longer for water to pass through.


----------



## fluffles

YerbaMate170 said:


> Ah yes, my bad - I reset my scales before I bloom so the final beverage weight is the same as water added, wasn't clear!


That's not strictly true as the coffee grounds hold on to quite a bit of water. My 200g brews usually end up with around 170g beverage weight. This is pretty irrelevant unless you're measuring TDS/EY with a refractometer though.


----------



## SeamusMcFlurry

Having used a few different filter methods in my time, my personal preference is the Kalita. It's really easy to use, really consistent, and so long as you have your grinder set up and dialled in properly, is as close to a fire-and-forget pourer as you'll find. Wonderful clarity, good body and flavour. Solid choice, in my opinion.


----------

