# Made By Knock Felgrind - what grind settings for different brew types?



## darrenhaken

Hey,

Can anyone recommend any good starting settings for the Felgrind for:

- V60

- AeroPress

- French Press

Any help just to start me off would be amazing as I'm due to get one any day.


----------



## NickdeBug

1.2 - 1.8 covers most of those for me.

Aeropress ~ V60 ~ FP in order (fine to coarse)

Depends a bit on the bean as well


----------



## MWJB

I grind the same for Aeropress as for French press, V60 can be coarser than either.


----------



## darrenhaken

NickdeBug said:


> 1.2 - 1.8 covers most of those for me.
> 
> Aeropress ~ V60 ~ FP in order (fine to coarse)
> 
> Depends a bit on the bean as well


The Felgrind seems to have a scale between 0 and 12, so really as fine as 1.2 for the Aeropress?

What would espresso be then?


----------



## darrenhaken

MWJB said:


> I grind the same for Aeropress as for French press, V60 can be coarser than either.


And what Felgrind setting do you do for each?


----------



## MWJB

I use a Lido1 (same burrs), set just off the first whisper of burr rub (with no background noise, listen for the burr sounding like "sshhh, ssshhhh, ssshh" at one point in the rotation, then set so you hear no rub at all, it's not enough rub to feel). Works for all 3 methods if you adjust pour for the V60.


----------



## NickdeBug

darrenhaken said:


> The Felgrind seems to have a scale between 0 and 12, so really as fine as 1.2 for the Aeropress?
> 
> What would espresso be then?


Sorry - this means 1 complete turn from zero point (1-12) and then set to 2. So more like 14.

Hope that makes sense, but I would listen to MWJB's advice over mine any day. I just play with this stuff, Mark actually knows things!


----------



## MWJB

NickdeBug said:


> Sorry - this means 1 complete turn from zero point (1-12) and then set to 2. So more like 14.
> 
> Hope that makes sense, but I would listen to MWJB's advice over mine any day. I just play with this stuff, Mark actually knows things!


As a card carrying member of the pedant's society, I was thinking it might be easier to discuss the clock-face style adjustment as perhaps "1(turn)*+*2", rather than "1.2". "1.2" could be read as one turn plus 2 marks, or one and a fifth turns (decimalised)?


----------



## NickdeBug

As a member of the same society, I think that you might be right.


----------



## unoll

I usually start off with

Aero = 1+6

V60 = 1+8 - 2

Press = 2+6 - 3


----------



## BRYHER

Took my Feldgrind with me a while ago to NORT STAR ROAST in LEEDS when picking up some coffee.

While there Holy was able to help me set the grinder for my aeropress.

The setting they recommend is 4.25 on a big Ditting machine, for a 2min 30 sec steep + 30 sec press, after testing and tasting,we came to this setting for the FELDGRIND.

1 (full turn out ) . 10 1/2 ( round to the number 10 and just past it but before the number 11 marker ) Don't forget feldgrind goes 0 to what would be 14! unoll's numbering 1+10.5.

Having said that having a go at unoll's 1+6 from above, hope someone much clever than me could make a rough graph showing approx grind settings for each grinder i.e. hausgrind feldgrind lido's porlex ditting ek's

Michael


----------



## Stevebee

For me on the Hausgrind, espresso is at 5 or 6 o'clock (0.5 - 0.6) depending on bean.

With the V60, for a time of between 2m30 and 2m 45 I set it at 1.5 to 1.6 (one full turn then 5 o'clock). This is if I'm brewing about 275ml. If I do 2 large cups (550 ml ) I loosen the setting to 1.10 to 1.11 otherwise the brew time gets too long. This gives about 2m 45 for the larger brew. Haven't tried it with FP


----------



## MWJB

Stevebee said:


> For me on the Hausgrind, espresso is at 5 or 6 o'clock (0.5 - 0.6) depending on bean.
> 
> With the V60, for a time of between 2m30 and 2m 45 I set it at 1.5 to 1.6 (one full turn then 5 o'clock). This is if I'm brewing about 275ml. If I do 2 large cups (550 ml ) I loosen the setting to 1.10 to 1.11 otherwise the brew time gets too long. This gives about 2m 45 for the larger brew. Haven't tried it with FP


Do they have the same adjustment mechanism? 5 or 6 o'clock on the Feldgrind would be talc, 1.10 would be too fine for V60.


----------



## PPapa

Never mind, I'm an idiot.


----------



## MWJB

PPapa said:


> Never mind, I'm an idiot.


Ha, maybe I am too, I read "1.10" as decimal (one & one tenth of a turn), rather than 1+10, which would be feasible for V60.


----------



## PPapa

MWJB said:


> Ha, maybe I am too, I read "1.10" as decimal (one & one tenth of a turn), rather than 1+10, which would be feasible for V60.


My facts were plain wrong though.

I use 1.8 for V60 (Perger's method, 2'30" ish for 12g:200g). But that's on Feldgrind.


----------



## prophecy-of-drowning

what settings do you use for Moka pot?


----------



## Jon

NickdeBug said:


> As a member of the same society, I think that you might be right.


Me three.


----------



## Stevebee

PPapa said:


> My facts were plain wrong though.
> 
> I use 1.8 for V60 (Perger's method, 2'30" ish for 12g:200g). But that's on Feldgrind.


This is what I think I'd get if I used 12g. I use 17g to make 275ml for around 2'45" so with less coffee I would tighten the grind a touch from 1.10 (1+10 o'clock)


----------



## PPapa

Stevebee said:


> This is what I think I'd get if I used 12g. I use 17g to make 275ml for around 2'45" so with less coffee I would tighten the grind a touch from 1.10 (1+10 o'clock)


I got some Dutch V60 papers to try out. Damn, even 2.2 was too fine for 2:30 target. Might need to change the timing too as I think going coarser would seriously under extract it.


----------



## MWJB

PPapa said:


> I got some Dutch V60 papers to try out. Damn, even 2.2 was too fine for 2:30 target. Might need to change the timing too as I think going coarser would seriously under extract it.


Not if you keep to the same time, with the same coffee. They should come in pretty close.


----------



## PPapa

MWJB said:


> Not if you keep to the same time, with the same coffee. They should come in pretty close.


It felt a little bit more acidic and had a lighter body compared to V60s in old papers.

I'm still experimenting as I had two brews with new papers since yesterday. I'll keep trying to hit the notes of LSOL to what I was getting with other brewers.


----------



## PPapa

MWJB said:


> Not if you keep to the same time, with the same coffee. They should come in pretty close.


The reason of getting very different taste to what I was expected is... I used different beans! Duh. I wake up fairly early and rush to work, hence I sometimes don't notice the obvious.

Got the LSOL beans, loosened the grind on Feldgrind to 2.4 and got about 2:40 time. Probably one of the best V60s I had.


----------



## Jon

What's the optimal feldgrind setting for CCD do you think folks?


----------



## MWJB

1+6 to 1+8-ish for a longer steep, water in first.


----------



## Jon

Thanks! Now rolling with 1.6!


----------



## yoyo920

I just used my new feldgrind grinder, it's so incredible smooth and easy to use. I used 1.8 for v60. Going to try a tad finer next time.


----------



## malling

Just one question dos any have experience with Wave all the setting seem to be for v60 and I usually use a wave I guess it needs to be courser but wanted to hear what you guys say


----------



## MWJB

Either coarser grind and/or less pours than V60, but aim for comparable brew times


----------



## PPapa

malling said:


> Just one question dos any have experience with Wave all the setting seem to be for v60 and I usually use a wave I guess it needs to be courser but wanted to hear what you guys say


Somewhere around 2.8 to 2.12.

Wave's grind really depends on the pour regime, that's what I found.


----------



## malling

Okay that correspond with my last brew, at 2.7.

How many gr/liter do you guys usually prefer with this grinder

Yeah Wave brew time is defiantly pour dependent.

When you write v60 time I'll guess your brewing relatively short brews eg. 2-3min incl. bloom

That is a bit shorter then the 3-4.5min brew I usually brew with wave on my EK


----------



## MWJB

malling said:


> Okay that correspond with my last brew, at 2.7.
> 
> How many gr/liter do you guys usually prefer with this grinder
> 
> Yeah Wave brew time is defiantly pour dependent.
> 
> When you write v60 time I'll guess your brewing relatively short brews eg. 2-3min incl. bloom
> 
> That is a bit shorter then the 3-4.5min brew I usually brew with wave on my EK


Brew time will depend on quantities used. Say 13.5:220g in 2:30 (+/- a few sec) pulse pour with no bloom, or 3:00 with a 30sec bloom. Brew time between the Wave & V60 won't be significantly different for a given result.

Brew ratios won't change for the same result in extraction.


----------



## malling

So as I expected a more classic brew of 2-3min on smaller brews and a tad longer with my 300g and a slightly higher dose than I'm used to +60g/l.

I usually do longer brews when grinding with the ek eg. usually over 3min with 300g and 57-60g/l this usually give some crisp clean brews with high EY.


----------



## fluffles

PPapa said:


> Somewhere around 2.8 to 2.12.
> 
> Wave's grind really depends on the pour regime, that's what I found.


Can you elaborate on what you've found? What technique(s) can you use to alter the brew time (i.e. how can I speed it up or slow it down)?

EDIT -sorry, thought you were talking about speed of draw down but I've just realised you weren't.


----------



## MWJB

fluffles said:


> What technique(s) can you use to alter the brew time (i.e. how can I speed it up or slow it down)?.


Let's say you are brewing with 13g dose & 220g water & aiming for 2:30 flow time (this will change with different brew weights, bigger brews take longer, up to a point). If you have a 30sec bloom, with little to no drip through, add that 30sec to the total brew time, but flow time stays at 2:30.

I like to keep the post bloom brew water to a number that is easily divisible, so in this case 200g + plus 20g for bloom (could be 1-2 times dose weight, just try to keep the remaining brew water at an easy number to break up into different factors).

So, to recap, you are hypothetically aiming 2:30, or 150 seconds flow. You bloom with 20g, wait 30s add the remainder in one constant pour and you're all done by 2 min (90sec plus bloom), it's too fast.

Either tighten grind and/or also break up the pours. E.g. divide the remaining brew water by 4 for 4 pulses after bloom. Divide the flow time by 5, because as the brew progresses, the bed consolidates & water weight reduces so the last water drains slower than the early brew. We then get 50g added, starting every 30s.

If that's too slow, try 2 pours, divide remaining water by 2 & flow time by 3: 100g after bloom, another 100g after 50sec.

Maybe 50g every 30s is too fast, so try 6 pours of 33g starting every 20sec after bloom...& so on.

The coarser the grind the more pours you need to meet the brew time, the finer the grind the fewer pours.

Grind & pours work together so you can either stick to a pour regime & adjust grind, or find a grind setting that lets you meet your brew time with a range of coffees mainly by adjusting the pour. In this example brews might be +/-15sec or so across different coffees so there's no need to be overly exact.

If you don't have a specific bloom stage & you know you are just going to add in multiple pulses, look at the whole brew as flow time, stir the grounds at the first addition, you'll get output from the brewer pretty much immediately.

I haven't seen a noticeable difference in flow time for brews with/without a 30s bloom stage, so personally a bloom depends more on how much brew water I am using, if it's just 200g total, I may as well go straight in with the pulses.


----------



## fluffles

MWJB said:


> Let's say you are brewing with 13g dose & 220g water & aiming for 2:30 flow time (this will change with different brew weights, bigger brews take longer, up to a point). If you have a 30sec bloom, with little to no drip through, add that 30sec to the total brew time, but flow time stays at 2:30.
> 
> I like to keep the post bloom brew water to a number that is easily divisible, so in this case 200g + plus 20g for bloom (could be 1-2 times dose weight, just try to keep the remaining brew water at an easy number to break up into different factors).
> 
> So, to recap, you are hypothetically aiming 2:30, or 150 seconds flow. You bloom with 20g, wait 30s add the remainder in one constant pour and you're all done by 2 min (90sec plus bloom), it's too fast.
> 
> Either tighten grind and/or also break up the pours. E.g. divide the remaining brew water by 4 for 4 pulses after bloom. Divide the flow time by 5, because as the brew progresses, the bed consolidates & water weight reduces so the last water drains slower than the early brew. We then get 50g added, starting every 30s.
> 
> If that's too slow, try 2 pours, divide remaining water by 2 & flow time by 3: 100g after bloom, another 100g after 50sec.
> 
> Maybe 50g every 30s is too fast, so try 6 pours of 33g starting every 20sec after bloom...& so on.
> 
> The coarser the grind the more pours you need to meet the brew time, the finer the grind the fewer pours.
> 
> Grind & pours work together so you can either stick to a pour regime & adjust grind, or find a grind setting that lets you meet your brew time with a range of coffees mainly by adjusting the pour. In this example brews might be +/-15sec or so across different coffees so there's no need to be overly exact.
> 
> If you don't have a specific bloom stage & you know you are just going to add in multiple pulses, look at the whole brew as flow time, stir the grounds at the first addition, you'll get output from the brewer pretty much immediately.
> 
> I haven't seen a noticeable difference in flow time for brews with/without a 30s bloom stage, so personally a bloom depends more on how much brew water I am using, if it's just 200g total, I may as well go straight in with the pulses.


Thanks - so the general rule is that using more pulses will stretch things out?

I've only ever pulse poured, never tried continuous pour. If doing continuous, is the aim to maintain a constant depth of water above the coffee bed throughout the pour (so I'm pouring the same rate as it is draining)?

My usual recipe is 14.8g/240g. Bloom 40g, stir, wait 30 seconds. Then 40g pulses until 240g. Depending on bean, it's usually done in around 3 minutes.


----------



## MWJB

fluffles said:


> Thanks - so the general rule is that using more pulses will stretch things out?
> 
> I've only ever pulse poured, never tried continuous pour. If doing continuous, is the aim to maintain a constant depth of water above the coffee bed throughout the pour (so I'm pouring the same rate as it is draining)?
> 
> My usual recipe is 14.8g/240g. Bloom 40g, stir, wait 30 seconds. Then 40g pulses until 240g. Depending on bean, it's usually done in around 3 minutes.


Yes, more pulses will stretch things out at a constant grind setting (unless you get a coffee that grinds up finer, then that may stretch the brew time by itself).

With a constant pour, I'd aim to get the water in, in as consistent a time as possible, I don't look at depth above the bed. If you are pouring so slowly as to keep a constant depth, low above the bed, then you may as well be pulsing? Seems like it would be harder to be consistent with a single, long slow pour (never tried it though)?


----------



## stimu

Oh this is so tough..... never figured out the right fine/corse level....


----------



## MWJB

stimu said:


> Oh this is so tough..... never figured out the right fine/corse level....


It just seems tough, total consistency is very hard, but if you do things the same each time & note what's going on, it shouldn't take long to get a coffee/recipe dialled in. Start a thread on the brewed forum if you're struggling.


----------



## jeg

So just got my Feldgrind (had the same issue initially of the bottom falling off when grinding) Got some Crankhouse espresso coffee also - though getting a weak brew through my Bialetti. What setting should I use? Also a new Aeropress should be here tomorrow, seen in the thread that people say 1.8 or 1 to 10/11 on the Feldgrind - is this 1 full turn all the way round, then to 8 and the same to 10/11? Sorry bit of a novice

thanks - j


----------



## BRYHER

I am enjoying a new method to me, Aeropress..14 grams coffee ...grind with Feldgrind set a touch finer than I usually do at 1.5 (Aeropress I used1.6 for a while with longer steeps )...because its a bit finer less steep 1 minute slow press about 20/30 seconds. Water *on* the boil straight into the plunger fill (mine holds 200 grams ) tip into Aeropress stir to wet 3/4 stirs,

just before pressing 3 gentle stirs / paddle strokes back and forth. Got the idea here Tim Wendelboe






Enjoy the experimenting, ..... 1.5 = one full turn 0 to 0 then turn to number 5 (which is infact a dot between 4 and 6)

Michael


----------



## Stevebee

Just got a new shiny black Feldgrind from MBK so I thoght I'd run some settings through the Kruve sieves. The burrs haven't been seasoned yet so I will probably do the exercise again once they are. It might be too small to read but I've attached the charts for the sieving.

The settings on the Feldgrind were 1+6, 2+0, 2+2 and 2+8. I've also shown my Hausgrind at 1+6 for comparison. The reason I am using the Kruve is to ensure that for whatever grinder I use for a particular brew method, the grind size will be the same.

Very smooth and easy to use - almost felt easier than the Hausgrind. Thought I'd miss the feel of the walnut but the feld does feel solid.

The average micron size respectively were 641, 764, 890, 1037 with the Hausgrind 1+6 at 877.


----------



## MWJB

Stevebee said:


> Just got a new shiny black Feldgrind from MBK so I thoght I'd run some settings through the Kruve sieves. The burrs haven't been seasoned yet so I will probably do the exercise again once they are. It might be too small to read but I've attached the charts for the sieving.
> 
> The settings on the Feldgrind were 1+6, 2+0, 2+2 and 2+8. I've also shown my Hausgrind at 1+6 for comparison. The reason I am using the Kruve is to ensure that for whatever grinder I use for a particular brew method, the grind size will be the same.
> 
> Very smooth and easy to use - almost felt easier than the Hausgrind. Thought I'd miss the feel of the walnut but the feld does feel solid.
> 
> The average micron size respectively were 641, 764, 890, 1037 with the Hausgrind 1+6 at 877.


Your chart for Feldgrind 1.6 appears to have less below 400 than when set to 2.0? This seems very unlikely. Are you resifting the same grounds or sifting a fresh grind each time, with a different sieve set fitted?


----------



## Stevebee

I basically start with 30g ground at say 1.6 and then pass this through a series of sieves. 1400 and 1200 and weigh what was on top of the 1400 and 1200. What passed through both was put to one side. Then the sieves were changed to 1100 and 1000 and the grounds that had passed through previously was added to the top what was then left on top of the 1100 and 1000 was weighed and the process continued until there was less than a measurable amount passing through. I shook the same time each sieve, 60 seconds. The only thing I thought was if 30g was too large a weight to start but it does pass through the larger sieve in the time and doesn't clog so it's probably ok. The Feldgrind burrs are not seasoned yet but not sure what effect this is having at the moment


----------



## MWJB

I really think you should use new grounds for each sifting, but if you're going to try resifting, maybe start with the smaller sieve set so that the smallest particles are separated first & removed from the rest of the sample & can't they then stick to larger particles. You should be seeing more like 30% under [email protected] 1.6, broken in burrs or not.


----------



## Stevebee

Surely what I have done is no different than the commercial sifter/shakers do where the different size sieves are stacked form largest to smallest. The fact that that system does it all at the same time and the Kruve system does it step by step should not be much different. Small particles sticking to large would be a problem in both systems if that was an issue.


----------



## Stevebee

I think starting with the smaller sieves first would be more likely to clog leading to less going through and giving misleading results. I think by sifting the larger then gradually getting smalle, the small fines will be more likely to be separated from the larger boulders. Interesting though, as the Kruve is not exactly prescriptive with its instructions if using it to get to a grind distribution. I think the assumption is it will be used to exclude a range of the grind when brewing, which apart from maybe some larger boulders, I'm not going to do.


----------



## MWJB

Stevebee said:


> Surely what I have done is no different than the commercial sifter/shakers do where the different size sieves are stacked form largest to smallest. The fact that that system does it all at the same time and the Kruve system does it step by step should not be much different. Small particles sticking to large would be a problem in both systems if that was an issue.


Easy to test that theory. Fit 1200 & 400 sieves, set your Feldgrind to 1+6, sift and tell us what you get?


----------



## MWJB

Here's what I'm saying, irrespective of how many sieves you use, if the smallest is 400 & the largest is 1200, the ground weight outside of these should remain fairly constant for a given setting. Adding more sieves should just change the shape of the curve as each sieve eats up a little bit of the overall %. Here's a chart with a guesstimated 30% below 400 & 1% over 1200...








[/url]

Just 2 sieves can give you some basic, but useful info, using too many & showing them as discrete weights can make data hard to read.

2 sieves are shown in the SCAA & ECBC drip grind specifications. SCAA cupping spec describes 1 sieve, this was also a method proposed by Lockhart decades ago.

You can use the Kruve as a calibration tool, with/without discarding any grounds.

The only reason that re-sieving could reduce the % of grounds falling through the smallest sieve would be if those grounds were getting bigger. They can't do that, but they can stick together.


----------



## Stevebee

Having done a quick sieve going from the smaller to the larger, you were right about the small parts sticking to the large. I think if you start with the small you are removing the smaller grind as you go along therefore minimising its effect although it will still be there. So if I did want to get a distribution profile this is the order I would do it in which is contrary to what looked like common sense re the commercial sifter example. They must shake more vigorous and for longer than my arms can manage!

With regard to using just the two sieves, if I wanted to get an average micron size for a particlular setting not sure how I would get this with only the two. Understand that if comparing one grinder with another by getting the % in between the two sieves the same that would mean that they are set the same. Assume you'd change the 2 sieves depending on whether its French Press or filter to make sure most is in between. If it means using less sieves to get a workable result I'm all for that! Thanks for the smaller to larger tip. The results now align more with the sieve with just the two.


----------



## MWJB

Stevebee said:


> They must shake more vigorous and for longer than my arms can manage!
> 
> With regard to using just the two sieves, if I wanted to get an average micron size for a particlular setting not sure how I would get this with only the two. Understand that if comparing one grinder with another by getting the % in between the two sieves the same that would mean that they are set the same. Assume you'd change the 2 sieves depending on whether its French Press or filter to make sure most is in between. If it means using less sieves to get a workable result I'm all for that! Thanks for the smaller to larger tip. The results now align more with the sieve with just the two.


I shake for 2 mins, maybe less would be consistent enough, but I'm finding that very repeatable.

Different grinders, with different distributions may produce an equivalent result in terms of extraction at a different average, so I'm not sure the average size is so critical. Within a usable range of settings you may find a given grinder lands the same % between the same 2 sieves - e.g. about 66-70% between 400 & 1200 for Feldgrind at the finest end of drip (1+10) to a pulse poured, 1 mug, V60 (2+6, 12% passing through the 400).

If you did want to pin down the average (you can only really do this within the constraints of 100um sieve intervals), if you have 32% excluded by the sieves (could be 10% one end, 22% the other, or 14%/18% etc) I'd just approximate the average by dividing/multiplying the sieve mesh by sdev factor (1.7*400 = 680 as average target). Or, make a judgement call as to whether the average is nearer the bottom sieve (20% or higher passing through), or the top sieve (20% or more sitting above) then sift a new sample aiming for your anticipated average @ 50% weight, +/-5% with one of the new sieves.

So, if I had 400 & 1200 and 40% under 400 I'd guess the average was around 500 & try that as my target average sieve size, 40% over 1200 and I'd maybe try a 1000 and see if I can get 45-55% on top of that?

For Feldgrind, Hausgrind, Lido (steel burrs with bearing support & essentially very similar as far as we can tell from this procedure) I'd just be guided by the weight falling under the smallest/over the largest sieve used to determine a start point setting for a recipe/brew method.

I only usually extrapolate the factor of the sdev, say you get 68% (+/-1sdev) between 400 1200, then divide 1200 by 400 = 3.

SQRT 3 = 1.73...don't fret too much about that 2nd decimal place..

Call it 1.7...which covers my Feldgrind from 1+10 to 2+7. If I set the Feldgrind to 3+6, the factor of the sdev increases to ~2.2, but you can still make tasty drip brews by really stretching out the pour

I don't do a specific grind for French press, I use the same grind as I would for whatever drip method I am using at that time...if on the coarser side (unlikely to go coarser than 2+7 on Feldgrind) I just steep longer in an insulated press.

Personally, as most of the grinders I use are 1.7 to 1.9 at the settings I use them for manual brews & I concentrate on recipes that use a similar grind setting, I don't change sieves if I can help it...it's a bit of a faff to do frequently.


----------



## MWJB

MWJB said:


> So, if I had 400 & 1200 and 40% under 400 I'd guess the average was around 500 & try that as my target average sieve size, 40% over 1200 and I'd maybe try a 1000 and see if I can get 45-55% on top of that?.


FWIW I just tried sifting a not-particularly-fine espresso grind and didn't get more than 30% under 400, but I did get more than expected above 1200 (12%) & this obviously contained very fine particles, so I think maybe 30% @ 400 is as high a genuine measurement as you might see, if the weight above the bigger sieve increases as you go finer on grind setting, you're probably beyond the useful range of the Kruve.


----------

