# Aeropress & brew methods in general...



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

My 2nd Aeropress arrived last week, so I have been doing a few back to back brews, mostly to validate my AP method, but also to look into whether I can observe any trends that can be detected with the kinds of tools that we home baristas typically have at hand...

Made a few brews, trying various recipes...non really set my world on fire. Today went back to my tried & tested method vs a pretty common approach of 30/30/30. Both non-inverted.

AP#1 - 15g filter grind, 250g, start timer - 30second bloom, top up, 10s stir & leave to 3min with the plunger out, so gravity drains the AP. At 3 min fit plunger & press until brew level hits the top of the grounds bed, remove plunger & let the remainder drip until around 4:30/drips stop.

AP#2 - 15.4g same grind as above, same water added, start timer - 30second bloom, top up stir 10s & fit plunger, start press at 1min for 30secs. Press all the way through "to the hiss".

Both were nice cups, but #1 was much juicier & more complex than #2. #2 was rich and dark, but not bitter. #1 had this quality too, but also had a fruitiness largely lacking in the first cup. #2 was a nice cup that I'd be pleased to pay for, solid but not bursting with character. #1 ...well, it was just a level up, in comparison as #2 was rather one dimensional - there was a little more juiciness as it cooled, but #1 had this from the off.

Just going by taste, I'd reckon the brews were of relatively equal strength, one did not appear significantly stronger than the other. Palate cleansed with water between tastings, beans were not previously known to me & I had no expectations flavour-wise.

Now, you have probably noticed that the goalposts were moved a little between the 2 brews...#2 had 0.4g more grinds (I should have gone with more). This was deliberate because I always intended to press all the way and was trying to counteract the reduced brew water that would be left in the grinds because of this.

Brew #1 retained 35.82g of brew water with gravity only doing the work up to 3min & after 3:30. With #2 full press, only 22g of brew water was retained in the grinds. If (note I say "if") both had extracted evenly %-wise, #2 would have nearly 14g more final beverage and despite the larger dose would still be the weaker cup.

Not a perfect illustration but you get the gist.

What strikes me is that certain brew techniques may naturally skew the brew ratio (water added) slightly, on the basis of water retention and final beverage weight ("corrected" brew ratio, like you have for espresso?). This is also something that I have noticed in comparison between 2 permanent filter brew methods, Hario Cafeor & the Swissgold KF300. To get a comparable brew I need to use more like a 6.3% BR in the SwissGold, as opposed to 6.15% in the Cafeor, to get the same corrected brew ratio (7%). The Cafeor typically retains more brew water for a given dose & grind.

...brew #1 is stone cold now...still delicious.  Just tried #2, more fines in the cup, bitter.


----------



## lucglobal (Jul 30, 2012)

interesting. i was looking at a demo of an aeropress and it seem extremely laborious. and maybe a little less elegant than i would have thought.. Would you say the Aeropress or any similiar brew compares well with a drip brew or moka stovetop?


----------



## Earlepap (Jan 8, 2012)

It does seem laborious, and some methods are simpler than others, but nice you have the process down its actually pretty quick. From kettle boiling to cup - including washed up aeropress - I'm done in about four minutes.

As for the cup it makes, it's not really comparable to a stove top but stands up next to over filter methods. The way I make it ends in a French press kind of cup but with a much lighter body and no silt. You can use it to make deeper, stronger brews though - it's up to you.


----------



## Eyedee (Sep 13, 2010)

For me, the unique selling point of the aeropress is the no silt factor.

French press only gave me really half a cup as when I got to the "turning point" and the silt was showing in the cup I didn't want to drink any more.

ian


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

You could also use a preheated Aeropress to filter silty brews made by other methods, this has been known with Turkish brews for instance. The Aeropress is a handy thing to have around...as well as the associated accessories that come with it (stirrer, funnel, scoop etc.)

I find the Aeropress to be pretty quick & clean, very flexible (there are so many recipes). Like Earlepap says, it can hold its own in comparison with some other brewed methods & largely avoids constant adjustments & standing over...unless of course, you want to.


----------



## garydyke1 (Mar 9, 2011)

Tried something a little different in the Aero today

12g coffee, setting 15 on maestro+ fine/med-drip

preheated aero and my cup, soaking the paper filter in the cup

95.5c water, inverted the Aero

bloom for 30 seconds with 24g water, stiring for the first 5 seconds

add water to total of 205g, evenly wetting all grinds

on the 2 min mark, stir for another 5 seconds.

on 3 min mark add cap and filter, pulling aero down so no air between top of water and filter

on 4 min mark flip onto emptied cup

on 4.20 mark slowly plunge, taking it to 5 mins, no hiss.

Very aromatic cup. Hints of different smells not found before in this particular coffee. Doesnt seem to be anyway of shaking the paper taste out of these filters though, it spoiled the cup for me. Might invest in a metal disc for it


----------



## radish (Nov 20, 2011)

Likewise - could never get rid of paper taste. Just bought the Able Fine DISK and have been pretty happy with the results.


----------



## chimpsinties (Jun 13, 2011)

I found the metal disc got a bit clogged up in some of the holes so it became really hard to press the coffee through. I went back to using paper day to day and just take the disc if I'm going camping so I don't have to worry about keeping filters dry etc.


----------



## Earlepap (Jan 8, 2012)

How much water to you rinse it with? I find 100-200ml hot water removes the paper taste - to my buds at least. I'm waiting for one of those s-filters for the aeropress from America that there was a kickstarter for a month back. Dunno when it'll turn up despite their frequent status update emails bless them. I think I may have kickstarted their kid through college.


----------



## cjbailey1 (Jan 17, 2011)

Earlepap said:


> I'm waiting for one of those s-filters for the aeropress from America that there was a kickstarter for a month back.


They are in production at the moment and (apparently) due to be shipping at the end of the month. How long it will take to get here I don't know though!


----------



## radish (Nov 20, 2011)

I gave the paper filters a really good rinse - became pretty OCD about it! I've used both the original Aeropress and the newer model (with the revised plastic material) but was never entirely happy with either.

I generally use a grind of around 19/20 on the Maestro+ with the Aeropress - clogging hasn't been an issue thus far. Still prefer the V60 though ;-)


----------



## garydyke1 (Mar 9, 2011)

Earlepap said:


> How much water to you rinse it with? I find 100-200ml hot water removes the paper taste - to my buds at least. I'm waiting for one of those s-filters for the aeropress from America that there was a kickstarter for a month back. Dunno when it'll turn up despite their frequent status update emails bless them. I think I may have kickstarted their kid through college.


I place the paper filter in the black holder sit that in my cup , pour in boiling water and let it soak for at least 5 mins and then rinse again with boiling. My Filtropa and Hario white v60 papers do not leave the same paper taste


----------



## marbeaux (Oct 2, 2010)

Well as a pretty good pour over coffee maker, I ventured into the Aeropress field and yet after a few attempts at following various recipes, I still haven't got a handle on it. My pour overs are equal to or even better than the Aeropress hence a little disappointed as my expectations were for something more superior. I think I should go back to the recommendations of the Manufacturer. I have all the essential equipment to hand.


----------



## marbeaux (Oct 2, 2010)

Oh dear chaps, it wasn't my intention to kill this thread but rather to seek encouragement as to how my miserable Aeropress results may be improved. At the moment I am inclined to think that a filter grind combined with an 85 degree water temperature produced a better brew?

Comments obviously would be appreciated.


----------



## Earlepap (Jan 8, 2012)

I pretty much stick to 95c regardless of grind size and steep time, but if the beans are a darker roast I drop the temperature a few degrees. I change grind size in relation to steep time. All inverted. Whenever I try a non-inverted brew it just comes out like a unpleasant V60. I use the aeropress to basically make a french press like cup but without the silt.

As a brew method I definitely think the aeropress suits some beans better than others: fruity coffees are great as it gives them a bit more body while accentuating the crisp sweetness and acidity, where as with something that's got a "heavy" feel already with lots of chocolate or nutty sweetness, I find becomes a bit muddy and boring in the aeropress - or perhaps I'm just making them wrong. I find these sort of beans favour a pour over to improve the clarity and remove some of the inherent bulkiness of the flavours.


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

@Marbeaux "My pour overs are equal to or even better than the Aeropress hence a little disappointed as my expectations were for something more superior."

Have you considered that it is something that you are doing that is making the difference between the Aeropress and pour-over? Have you tried using the Aeropress as a pourover? The different ways that the brewers extract & which components (heavy vs light) they are biased towards in the extraction may affect the flavour profile.

"Superior" seems an odd turn of phrase surely this is a question of taste, rather than a universal accepted rating scale?


----------



## marbeaux (Oct 2, 2010)

I meant superior relative to my best pour overs as I think was fairly obvious. Anyway, I am going to try the suggestions of Earlpap. My coffee brews use an especially nice bean which I settled on a long time ago but maybe I should try some different ones with a filter grind not espresso grind. One thing I don't understand is why an inverted method can produce a nicer brew (taste). Logical answers would be welcome.


----------



## Earlepap (Jan 8, 2012)

I'm sure it is possible to get a tasty cup using it non-inverted, I've just always had more success inverted.

Can't give any logical or factual answers I'm afraid! For instance, check out the recipe at the top of this page: http://worldaeropresschampionship.wordpress.com/recipes/ - it won this year's World Aeropress Championship, so it must create something good, and yet it's all over the place!


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

@Marbeaux: "One thing I don't understand is why an inverted method can produce a nicer brew (taste)."

I think the reasoning is that nothing leaks out via the filter (as it does non-inverted), thus all the grinds are subject to a consistent steep time. I don't think it makes a nicer brew, just gives you tighter control over contact time & eliminates a variable.

Personally, I don't see this leakage as a bad thing and largely prefer non-inverted.

I still don't see why you expect the Aeropress to be superior to a pour over (given good technique). Many seem to find safer & consistent results wth the Aeropress...perhaps livelier flavours & slightly less consistent with the pour over.


----------



## Earlepap (Jan 8, 2012)

I tried non-inverted with this method today - http://timwendelboe.no/2010/10/aeropress-video/

Made a pretty nice cup. Very clean tasting, probably a bit under extracted - maybe go a notch finer on the grind next time. I like the fact that the water goes in straight off the boil so there's no worry with temperature. You'd think this might 'scald' the coffee a bit, but I didn't get any such tastes. I guess with the amount of stirring involved there's greater room for variance which isn't such a good thing.

The video isn't that clear of when to start the timer. What I did was:

14g, 215ml

Water straight in once boiled (10-20sec delay as I faffed)

Stir 5 times, plunger in, start timer

45sec

Sitr 5 times, plunge quickly all the way down. Even through the hiss!


----------

