# Rao's latest pourover method



## tambu (Sep 7, 2015)

Rao using a metal brewer and abandoning timing. I suspect these two are related - he's trying to keep the slurry temp up high enough, which is one of his things, and it looks like the full 340g wouldn't fit into the kalita all at once. But then he says same technique for v60, but it's not obvious to me why. The grind looks rather fine to me (I know eyeballing grind over the internet is generally a waste of time, but it really does look quite fine). Then nearly 5 mins for 20g dose of a Kenyan? I just can't imagine that cup tasting good. Any ideas?


----------



## Rob1 (Apr 9, 2015)

I don't do pour over. Why would 5 minutes not taste good? He says at the start of the video he's using a tea strainer which prevent holes from getting clogged and results in a higher flow rate so that could explain why/how he's using a finer grind than would be usual (if he is).


----------



## Northern_Monkey (Sep 11, 2018)

@tambu - I've kind of zoned out of Rao's recent stuff, weirdly it makes me think he is moving away from enjoying the drink/taste/experience and fixating on specific variables without seeing the whole picture.

Whilst he may have forgotten more than I will know about coffee, I'm not necessarily sold on his "improvements"...

Using Hoffman's V60 method with an EK I have to be under 3 minutes to get the distinct flavours and lighter notes or it gets muted/stewed. I am a bit sceptical as well in this regard...


----------



## Mrboots2u (May 10, 2013)

tambu said:


> Rao using a metal brewer and abandoning timing. I suspect these two are related - he's trying to keep the slurry temp up high enough, which is one of his things, and it looks like the full 340g wouldn't fit into the kalita all at once. But then he says same technique for v60, but it's not obvious to me why. The grind looks rather fine to me (I know eyeballing grind over the internet is generally a waste of time, but it really does look quite fine). Then nearly 5 mins for 20g dose of a Kenyan? I just can't imagine that cup tasting good. Any ideas?


 Don't imagine ...

try and see


----------



## tambu (Sep 7, 2015)

Mrboots2u said:


> Don't imagine ...
> 
> try and see


 You're coupling the grind with the pour regime with this method, as it effectively fixes when you add the water, but to what end? If I try enough grind settings, I'll find one that tastes just fine. But I can't work out what he's trying to achieve with this versus his previous method tbh.


----------



## AJP80 (Feb 29, 2020)

For fruity Kenyans and Ethiopians, I would say, eyeballing Rao's grind, I'm quite a bit finer than that, at least in the first day or two after opening a bag of beans. I agree that 5 mins doesn't sound like a fast brew - is that normal for a Kalita (my V60s are closer to 2m30s)?


----------



## tambu (Sep 7, 2015)

I'm wondering if the 185s just brew a lot longer? I''ve got an old 155 kicking around somewhere, but I think Mark brews with a kalita from time to time so he'll have plenty of data and I'll leave him to comment.

@Rob1 You're right of course that there's no reason why 5 minutes wouldn't taste good, and using time to guide the brew isn't advised. But with a v60, 5 mins for 20g would definitely raise an eyebrow (I'd expect it to be on the bitter side). I don't know what the mesh is doing, but I think it's just to stop the filter getting stuck into one of the holes and clogging, it won't change the flow rate in general.


----------



## fluffles (Sep 4, 2012)

tambu said:


> I'm wondering if the 185s just brew a lot longer? I''ve got an old 155 kicking around somewhere, but I think Mark brews with a kalita from time to time so he'll have plenty of data and I'll leave him to comment.
> @Rob1 You're right of course that there's no reason why 5 minutes wouldn't taste good, and using time to guide the brew isn't advised. But with a v60, 5 mins for 20g would definitely raise an eyebrow (I'd expect it to be on the bitter side). I don't know what the mesh is doing, but I think it's just to stop the filter getting stuck into one of the holes and clogging, it won't change the flow rate in general.


185 always brewed slower than 155 for me. The stagg dripper is also quicker like the 155, I put it down to the steep sides but that's just a guess

Sent from my AC2003 using Tapatalk


----------



## AJP80 (Feb 29, 2020)

Having watched it again, it looks awful. So much agitation. The slurry at the end has a layer of sludge that I get when I've over agitated. And what's with the pour height advice? Just below where it starts to splash. That sounds arbitrary to me. Even the gentlest of low pours will create a hole in the slurry, if you don't spiral pour.


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

I'm having no luck at all achieving extractions anything like the ball-park Scott suggests, with V60. Will keep trying, but having to go coarser all the time to keep silt down.


----------



## Rapid (Jun 12, 2020)

AJP80 said:


> And what's with the pour height advice? Just below where it starts to splash.


 Just speaking from my experience I've found that what Scott is referring to seems to create about the right amount of agitation for the Hoffman method to work best (for me). i.e. pouring too close doesn't create enough agitation to get the flavour extracted right. I'm sure this will all depend on your method but for me, I can relate to what he's saying.


----------



## AJP80 (Feb 29, 2020)

I suppose what I struggle to understand is the relationship between grind and agitation. I thought lower agitation would permit a finer grind, which in turn leads to more flavour in the cup. I find I hit bitter long before siltiness when going finer. That's when I back-off. If I agitate more, won't there be more silt and/ or bitternes?

A lower pour must also lead to less heat lost to the air, which is also a good thing, right?

For what it's worth, I also balk at Hoffman's pouring technique for the same reason (so much agitation). Maybe it's just that I prefer relatively weak coffee.


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

AJP80 said:


> I suppose what I struggle to understand is the relationship between grind and agitation. I thought lower agitation would permit a finer grind, which in turn leads to more flavour in the cup. I find I hit bitter long before siltiness when going finer. That's when I back-off. If I agitate more, won't there be more silt and/ or bitternes?
> 
> A lower pour must also lead to less heat lost to the air, which is also a good thing, right?
> 
> For what it's worth, I also balk at Hoffman's pouring technique for the same reason (so much agitation). Maybe it's just that I prefer relatively weak coffee.


 I get siltiness before the bitterness of over-extraction mostly. Not all bitterness is because you didn't extract enough. there's often a bit of bitterness before you get into the peak of balance.

None of my cups with this latest Rao method have been over-extracted, all have been silty with a bitter undertone from the silt. I'd agree, too much agitation at too fine a grind. I'm currently at 44 on Niche, will try 46 tomorrow . Had been brewing of late 24:360g at 81.5 for the same extraction range & cleaner cups & a big overlap on brew time. One thing to bear in mind is that the more water you have above the bed, for a given dose, at drawdown will lead to wider variation in brew time, so I wouldn't be surprised at brews taking +/-30s for 7/10, dependent on coffee (for this latest method).

If you agitate more at a coarser setting there could be less bitterness, because coarser grinds have less silt to flush through the paper. I try and ensure full wetting just with the pour at coarser grinds & only need to pour straight down the middle for most of the pour, at a slower rate.

Weakness doesn't seem to have much to do with it, Hoffmann recommends 1:16.7, Rao 1:17. Neither of these are particularly strong, (I tend to brew 1:16 to 1:15 and don't find normal extractions overpowering at 1.40 to 1.60%TDS). Even very weak espresso is at least twice as strong as this.

I'll give this method a few more goes, just to ensure I have given it a fair crack.


----------



## Rapid (Jun 12, 2020)

AJP80 said:


> I suppose what I struggle to understand is the relationship between grind and agitation. I thought lower agitation would permit a finer grind, which in turn leads to more flavour in the cup. I find I hit bitter long before siltiness when going finer. That's when I back-off. If I agitate more, won't there be more silt and/ or bitternes?
> 
> A lower pour must also lead to less heat lost to the air, which is also a good thing, right?
> 
> For what it's worth, I also balk at Hoffman's pouring technique for the same reason (so much agitation). Maybe it's just that I prefer relatively weak coffee.


 I'm glad Mark replied sooner than I did because tbh I think the answers to those questions are beyond my skill level.

As a wise man once told me to, I've focused on getting a technique that works for me. I then adjust the grind to fit. I'm sure with more experience I'll be able to adjust the method to find the perfect balance but for the most part I'm usually able to find the sweet spot with each bean. Keep the method the same, find the grind with a tiny bit of bitterness and dial it back one. That works for me. Interestingly, I always am able to find siltiness before bitterness. I think that often has more to do with technique than grind, particularly how much agitation you do towards the end i.e. swirling etc rather than agitation from pour.

The only time I felt I had to change the method rather than the grind was when I was sent a bag of pre ground coffee by mistake, rather than wholebean. The same wise man helped me with this....


----------



## AJP80 (Feb 29, 2020)

I tried this this morning with a V60 and a Guatamalan from Square Mile. Not wanting to ignore the laws of science, I ground this where I normally do for this type of bean, at about the 6 O'Clock position on the EK43S. I would say that Rao's grind in the video would put him at about the 12 O'Clock position, which is where I would also grind for a Kenyan. That is a lot finer but I know it would not work with the Guatamalan (except possibly if using room temp water).

The water drained through in about 2.5 mins, which is fast but similar to when using the Hoffman technique. Yes there was a little more sludge on the slurry, but it was hardly noticeable, visually, probably due to the coarser grind vs Rao's.

The taste was really very good. Great clarity, and some nice sweetness and fruitiness for what is not a very fruity bean. There was a hint of dryness that suggests I was a touch too fine, but it didn't detract from the enjoyment of the cup. For me, an 8/10.

However, perhaps I'm misremembering, but this is exactly what I'd expect using the Hoffman method (fast drain and good clarity and fruitiness). Are the two methods different in any significant way (ignoring spoon vs swirl)?


----------



## tambu (Sep 7, 2015)

Rao2 and Rao1 don't seem to be different apart from two pours versus one for the same dose, and what is visually a quite fine grind in that example given the amount of agitation. I'm not sure what he's trying to achieve with this new technique, so the claims about EY are interesting. Hoffman and Rao1 are very similar; and Rao1 is pretty much the inevitable consequence of his old blog post from 2016 (and I remember being overly sensitive about his chemex bashing at the time 😂) and to a certain extent the stuff in his brew book.

So far, all methods seem pretty much the same to me. Some methods are easier than others, but they all work if you tweak the grind / temp / pour rate. I would like Rao to explain what is different about this method, or why it's easier than the others - neither is obvious to me. In some respects my "favourite method" of 2020 is the April method with no bloom and two pours - not because I make noticeably better coffee with it, but because it is so refreshingly simple while not being noticeably worse; it's a method to tell us that methods don't matter so much (or refractometers).

I think the best drip brews come from a) not having a ridiculous method, i.e. don't do something that is inherently difficult to make consistent, and b) do the same thing every single time for a fixed set of equipment (kettle, grinder etc). Trying a few methods to decide which one makes b) the easiest is reasonable, but once you've found it I don't think there's any upside in changing it (i.e., there isn't some magical method out there that will give you even better brews for the exact same bean).

Admittedly, I just changed my grinder and I'm starting from scratch at the moment 😂

This Guatamalan from SM needs more mouthfeel for me, haven't loved the pourovers so far (I mean they're juicy enough, and sweetish, but I'm also finding it drying at quite coarse settings where it's also starting to become thin, so while I could play with dose I think it will work better in an immersion).


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

AJP80 said:


> I tried this this morning with a V60 and a Guatamalan from Square Mile. Not wanting to ignore the laws of science, I ground this where I normally do for this type of bean, at about the 6 O'Clock position on the EK43S. I would say that Rao's grind in the video would put him at about the 12 O'Clock position, which is where I would also grind for a Kenyan. That is a lot finer but I know it would not work with the Guatamalan (except possibly if using room temp water).
> 
> The water drained through in about 2.5 mins, which is fast but similar to when using the Hoffman technique. Yes there was a little more sludge on the slurry, but it was hardly noticeable, visually, probably due to the coarser grind vs Rao's.
> 
> ...


 If it drained through in 2:30 how is it similar to Rao's most recent method? At his grind suggestion my brews were 4:15 to 4:59, going coarser with a CR got me down to 3:45.

Why would you grind differently for a Kenyan? I don't usually need to change grind at all for V60, maybe occasionally for very unusual coffees (less than 1 in 20).

Hoffmann's method is a take on Rao's method prior to 12th Sep & after his 'pulse pour at the coarsest possible grind' methods. Recent Hoffmann & Rao methods are very similar apart from a finer grind, swirl rather than stir & split, slightly longer pour.

Did you measure the EY (you need to syringe filter with a VST refractometer at Rao's suggested setting, otherwise the readings are artificially high by 0.10 to 0.15%TDS). He suggests we should be seeing 21-25%EY.


----------



## AJP80 (Feb 29, 2020)

MWJB said:


> If it drained through in 2:30 how is it similar to Rao's most recent method? At his grind suggestion my brews were 4:15 to 4:59, going coarser with a CR got me down to 3:45


 I followed the timing for the bloom phase and pours. The only change was grind. It's just that the drawdown was very quick after the last pour. If I used his fineness for the Guatamalan, the taste would be off the charts awful (subjective, I know).



MWJB said:


> Why would you grind differently for a Kenyan? I don't usually need to change grind at all for V60, maybe occasionally for very unusual coffees (less than 1 in 20).


 For all brighter/ fruitier washed beans (from the tasting notes), which have all been Kenyans and Ethiopians this year from SM, eyeballing it the grind size is about a third of that used for other coffees (about 12 o'clock vs 6 o'clock on the EK). This is simply because the coffee gets sweeter and fruitier the finer I go, so I keep going until I get a hint of bitterness, then I back off a touch.



MWJB said:


> Did you measure the EY (you need to syringe filter with a VST refractometer at Rao's suggested setting, otherwise the readings are artificially high by 0.10 to 0.15%TDS). He suggests we should be seeing 21-25%EY.


 This is all just my taste subjective, but the flavour is night and day different between a fine ground fruity Kenyan / Ethiopian and a fine ground nutty Guatamalan/ other nutty Square Mile roasted bean. I can't imagine anyone enjoying the latter whereas the former is out of this world good.

I've had similar experiences with Colonna's rare offerings (which so far have been natural or some odd process (anaerobic). These tend to have fruity tasting notes and they tolerate an even finer grind than the SM fruity beans. These tend to taste more black tea like than coffee (there is almost no coffee like bitterness), and the fruit notes are all front and centre stage, with the tea/ coffee notes vey much in the background/ an after taste.

I must get a refractometer to try and put some hard numbers to these observations, but the number of mornings I am gobsmacked by my morning coffee, wondering how Colonna or SM can roast something this good.


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

AJP80 said:


> I followed the timing for the bloom phase and pours. The only change was grind. It's just that the drawdown was very quick after the last pour. If I used his fineness for the Guatamalan, the taste would be off the charts awful (subjective, I know).
> 
> For all brighter/ fruitier washed beans (from the tasting notes), which have all been Kenyans and Ethiopians this year from SM, eyeballing it the grind size is about a third of that used for other coffees (about 12 o'clock vs 6 o'clock on the EK).


 OK so you are saying you copied the pours but then knowingly ground coarser, because grinding fine would taste bad (we have to assume most folk would agree with you). Grinding coarser at the same pour regime drops extraction. Rao is specifically touting the desirability of very high extractions (although these don't seem to be happening).

Coffee does not differ (at broadly similar roast level) enough to necessitate grinding a third as coarse as another bean (for the same regime). If you keep the grind size the same, it will only vary by +/-10%, which is enough to allow for natural variation. Of course, fine tuning at will is always an option but halving the grind size, or even grinding at 80% difference in setting will be dramatically different (a bigger difference than any variation in bean).


----------



## AJP80 (Feb 29, 2020)

Ok so this is interesting, I've just brewed a V60 with the Guatamalan at 12 o'clock on the EK. So very fine for a Pourover.

I was wrong. It didn't taste terrible; it was actually very nice. Stronger than the others, but no real bitterness. I am really enjoying it.

But, total time to dry bed, including "Pre Wet", was just over 2.5 mins, which was surprising, but then I don't usually pour as aggressively as the Rao method suggested. I might have missed a step, so I'll check the video again, but I don't know how I'd find the other 2.5 mins.


----------



## AJP80 (Feb 29, 2020)

I used a 15.5 to 1 brew ratio and probably could have waited 20s or so longer before starting the final pour. I'm going to keep experimenting with this method but not sure I want to push the brew time out too much.


----------



## AJP80 (Feb 29, 2020)

That last one was actually a bit too strong for me. Maybe it's the accumulation of coffee throughout the day, but I actually feel quite queasy, now.


----------



## tambu (Sep 7, 2015)

Why even use two pours if using a v60? Even at a very fine grind I think 20/340g fits (to be tested) and I'm not convinced it's any harder to pour 1x280 than 1x150 + 1x130.


----------



## AJP80 (Feb 29, 2020)

tambu said:


> Why even use two pours if using a v60? Even at a very fine grind I think 20/340g fits (to be tested) and I'm not convinced it's any harder to pour 1x280 than 1x150 + 1x130.


 To push out the brew time, perhaps?


----------



## tambu (Sep 7, 2015)

Can be done with grind alone? Perhaps the 185 can't accommodate that much water

Edit: I don't remember seeing this before, but a partial answer at https://www.scottrao.com/blog/2017/9/14/v60-video

"I pour v60's two ways: one pour or two pours. I find the one-pour method ideal for cafe service, because it's fast and allows the barista to spend much less time paying attention to the coffee. Total barista time spent standing in front of the brew should be 1:20.

The two-pour method requires a slightly coarser grind and adds 30--40 seconds to both the barista's task and the brewing time. I use the two-pour method when I have extra time and care about squeezing an extra 0.5% extraction out of a coffee."

In the same post, he mentions 20% extraction for a 22g dose in 2:15.


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

AJP80 said:


> That last one was actually a bit too strong for me. Maybe it's the accumulation of coffee throughout the day, but I actually feel quite queasy, now.


 Guatemalans typically extract less than Kenyans, Colombians & Rwandans, there may be some overlap, but I'd go by these latter 3 origins to determine your finest setting(s), then CR, Brazil, Guatemala will come in less.


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

tambu said:


> Why even use two pours if using a v60? Even at a very fine grind I think 20/340g fits (to be tested) and I'm not convinced it's any harder to pour 1x280 than 1x150 + 1x130.


 Timing & repeating pour speed is harder with big, continuous pours. Also, more water above the bed at end of pour means wider tolerance in brew time (not necessarily bad for extraction but makes timing less useful for reference with those who are not measuring brews). If you have a coffee that extracts high, you're already pouring as fast as you can, so now need to change grind. Same if you have a coffee that extracts low, you can't change extraction without changing grind...so you can be tempted to change grind more than you need to & waste more coffee.

A single fast pour also needs a finer grind, more likelyhood of silt in the cup.

If you can pour to a gram or two, pouring in one go to 280g is no harder/easier than pouring 4x70, or 8x35g. At the end of the day 280g total is what matters, how many times you pour just dovetails with chosen grind size.

The coarser you grind the cleaner your cups at the same extraction, the more smaller pulses, the tighter the tolerance on brew time.


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

tambu said:


> Can be done with grind alone? Perhaps the 185 can't accommodate that much water
> 
> Edit: I don't remember seeing this before, but a partial answer at https://www.scottrao.com/blog/2017/9/14/v60-video
> 
> ...


 That's the old video.

Extraction & timings mentioned here look totally reasonable.


----------



## tambu (Sep 7, 2015)

MWJB said:


> That's the old video.
> 
> Extraction & timings mentioned here look totally reasonable.


 Completely agree - I was just answering my own question about why he'd switched to two pours (i.e., it's not just because he was using a 185).

But why did he switch away from 4/5 pours? Temperature?


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

tambu said:


> Completely agree - I was just answering my own question about why he'd switched to two pours (i.e., it's not just because he was using a 185).
> 
> But why did he switch away from 4/5 pours? Temperature?


 I have no idea, it's not temp (whatever he might say). I suspect less hands on time for baristas working a brew bar.

I do use a single pour method, but mostly with brewers that have a valve (never with V60), so I can do long, big bloom, then I add all the water fast with a regular kettle, so agitation isn't drawn out.


----------



## tambu (Sep 7, 2015)

I always brewed chemex with a single pour, but I think a lot of that was because the fines that came out the porlex used to clog the filter if I didn't.

Any tasty 24% EY brews with this new method yet?! I'll try a very fine grind with two pours in the v60 tomorrow morning.


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

tambu said:


> I always brewed chemex with a single pour, but I think a lot of that was because the fines that came out the porlex used to clog the filter if I didn't.
> 
> Any tasty 24% EY brews with this new method yet?! I'll try a very fine grind with two pours in the v60 tomorrow morning.


 If you have a wide distribution (like Porlex, or KG79, Hario Slim etc.) it's better to go coarse to limit the finer particles & pulse. I've been making tastier brews with Chemex & KG79 than with this latest method.


----------



## tambu (Sep 7, 2015)

MWJB said:


> If you have a wide distribution (like Porlex, or KG79, Hario Slim etc.) it's better to go coarse to limit the finer particles & pulse. I've been making tastier brews with Chemex & KG79 than with this latest method.


 😂

I think I used to find that with multiple pours it'd stall more often, which I attributed to churning up a lot of fines (rightly or wrongly). Fortunately, I won't be wasting any coffee testing as the porlex is out on loan.

I will probably be wasting 20g tomorrow morning on this latest method though.


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

tambu said:


> 😂
> 
> I think I used to find that with multiple pours it'd stall more often, which I attributed to churning up a lot of fines (rightly or wrongly). Fortunately, I won't be wasting any coffee testing as the porlex is out on loan.
> 
> I will probably be wasting 20g tomorrow morning on this latest method though.


 Grind coarse & the fines get bigger, less cloggable. Once all the dose is wet with a spiral bloom & you have standing water over the bed, you can just pour down the middle which agitates less than spiral pours.

(Just to note, I prefer to use Japanese Hario papers in Chemex, with a steel straw down the spout to prevent hydraulic lock.)

I have never clogged Chemex (with the straw, it can clog without but is more prone to clogging with a large weight of water over the bed, less with smaller pulses), V60, Melitta, nor Kalita 185. I have only clogged drip brews with a Brewista Smart Steep brewer. Clogging usually means you are too fine and/or stirring things up too much with aggressive/unnecessary spiral pouring.


----------



## tambu (Sep 7, 2015)

I did indeed waste 20g of coffee on this; really very drying. Then, in the interests of experiment, I decided to grind finer. Same pour, same stir, and it tasted better - actually quite decent. No idea why. Drawdown time was similar both times. It tasted good, but lacked a bit of clarity versus a coarser grind and more pours, and no obvious improvement otherwise. I'd have played more, but ran out of that coffee and the dose is too big for me to experiment much in general. I might see what I can do with something on the order of 13 grams, but a 3:1 bloom and two pours in an 01 is very similar to the old Matt Perger routine (which was also a fine grind iirc) so I doubt I'll learn much more. I suppose a stricter translation would be

Rao: 13.3g dose, 40g bloom with swirl, 1x100g pour, 1x80g pour versus the old

Perger: 13.3g dose, 55g bloom with stir, 1x56g pour, 1x111g pour


----------



## salty (Mar 7, 2017)

MWJB said:


> That's the old video.
> 
> Extraction & timings mentioned here look totally reasonable.


 Interesting to see the pour method in that context


----------



## salty (Mar 7, 2017)

I've been using the new Rao method for the last week or so. Following it exactly, with a kalita 185 and the tea strainer mesh mod, a grind setting of 40 on the Niche and using the September LSOL I was getting a total brewtime of 4:25 and a dry and astringent coffee as a result. Kept going coarser over the following days and it wasn't until I was at 65 on the Niche that I got a tasty, sweet brew. I'm now at 70 on the Niche and a cup that I'm enjoying with a total brewtime of 3:20 +/- 10 secs


----------



## tambu (Sep 7, 2015)

Is it any tastier than your usual regime? I had a few last attempts at this, at increasingly finer grind settings, and while I pushed past drying it was just really silty. I think I might just like a different cup to Mr Rao. I'm back at a divot/gentle stir of bloom/6 pours/coarser, and I'm much happier. I'm playing with the pours a bit though - trying a maintained level of water in the brewer instead of fixed size pulses. This is probably a recipe for consistency disaster, but I want to try and find something that keeps the slurry temp consistent.


----------



## AJP80 (Feb 29, 2020)

I too persevered with this method (or at least attempting it) the past week but, as I don't often brew 20g at a time I reduced everything pro rata for a 16g brew. I was however unable to get high brew times even with a fine grind. I was usually down to a dry bed in under 2.5 mins. Cup was ok but I struggled for consistency.


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

tambu said:


> This is probably a recipe for consistency disaster, but I want to try and find something that keeps the slurry temp consistent.


 How are you ascertaining slurry temp consistency? If it differs from extraction consistency, is it a thing? The temp of the hot brew water in the kettle (especially with a hot element in it) must be pretty good? In past attempts I couldn't determine a difference in slurry temp between 6 pours and one fast pour.

FWIW none of the Rao #2 brews were pleasant. None exceeded 20.4%EY (my brews average 19.3%EY +/-2%) using the same calculation as Rao.


----------



## jaffro (Oct 6, 2015)

The main thing I've stuck with from Rao's new method is swirling the bloom and doing just small swirls between pours. I saw he advocated dropping the brewer lightly and swirling before, which I used to do every time, but I think dropping the brewer to close channels actually slowed the brew down a lot...

I've actually had some decent brews around the 45-50 mark in a v60, which is way finer than I would have gone before. Pretty much whatever I did with v60 came through at about 3:30 and never as high as 4:20. Maybe I should try the current Kenyan I have a setting 40...

Im trying it with the December dripper now but finding I have to grind a bit coarser. Still very tasty. Only thing I'm not sure about is how open to have the December to replicate the kalita, I think half way. I'm tempted to try his tea strainer addition (which I actually think is a great idea), just need to get my hands on some.

I'm quite liking a bloom and 2 pours anyway. Using Rao's method just means leaving it longer in between pours.

So overall it seems to work fine for me. Nothing ground breaking. But I haven't found that I love Brewing with that fine a grind. But I am grinding a bit finer than before and getting really good brews.


----------



## the_partisan (Feb 29, 2016)

When using Kalita, I don't think swirling is needed or does anything. What seems to be effective is doing bypass. For example, if using such fine grind as Rao is doing, then you can try adding the last ~15% as bypass. So for example, this is how I brew with 155, for 185 you can scale it up similarly.

14.5, fine/V60 grind

40g bloom
80g 1st pour
80g 2nd pour
add 40g bypass


----------



## tambu (Sep 7, 2015)

MWJB said:


> How are you ascertaining slurry temp consistency? If it differs from extraction consistency, is it a thing? The temp of the hot brew water in the kettle (especially with a hot element in it) must be pretty good? In past attempts I couldn't determine a difference in slurry temp between 6 pours and one fast pour.
> 
> FWIW none of the Rao #2 brews were pleasant. None exceeded 20.4%EY (my brews average 19.3%EY +/-2%) using the same calculation as Rao.


 I thought I'd just use a thermapen in an 01; single pour versus 6 small. I don't know how cool the slurry gets when I do smaller pours; the kettle water is good as long as there's a decent amount of water, otherwise it does seem to drop 97 to low 90s within minutes. This is all on the Rao theme, given that he switched to a single/two pours because of his complaints about "soggy, sour acidity indicative of low-temperature extraction". If you tried it and couldn't find a difference, I won't waste my time - It's probably not a thing anyway, as you can grind a little finer to compensate without getting silty I should think. It's a persistent idea though (that one-pour keeps it all hotter).

As I still don't use a refractometer, hard to know how close I got to Rao's intentions (and no idea what 40 on the Niche is like). Either he has magic grinders, or he's drinking coffee I don't really like.


----------

