# Mazzer Titanium Burrs



## monkey66

...anybody tried them?

I am guessing they are more about longevity but if they are sharper/cleaner they could be of interest.

I change my burrs once every year or two and always notice a kick up in flavour. About 1kg per month.

It's not like they are worn out after this time, just not as good as brand new.

If the titanium burrs would maintain 'as new' performance for a few years I would consider them.


----------



## CamV6

I have them in my major and they are fantastic. I never used it with normal burrs so I I can't compare but these are the best and most consistent non clumpy grinds I've ever had. It may well be that standard burrs would have been just as good but I'm happy anyway


----------



## Dylan

How much coffee do you go through?

Replacing the Mazzer burrs every two years for a home user is a lot, I stole this from espresso parts:

Mazzer Mini (58mm flat burr) - change at 660lbs coffee throughput

Mazzer Super Jolly (64mm flat burr) - change at 880lbs coffee throughput

Mazzer Major (83mm flat burr) - change at 1300lbs coffee throughput

Mazzer Kony (63mm conical burr) - change at 1640lbs coffee throughput

Mazzer Robur 110V (71mm conical burr) - change at 1700lbs coffee throughput

Mazzer Robur 220V (83mm conical burr) - change at 1800lbs coffee throughput

The Ti burrs last longer but make no difference in the cup (from my own research, I cant comment first hand). The Major I bought has the Ti burrs and if it wasn't hassle I would sell them and swap in the regular burrs as I cant see me ever needing to replace either type, and the Ti ones are a LOT more expensive.


----------



## Charliej

Unless your grinder actually came with Ti burrs, or they are only ones specified for your grinder e.g the Mythos, then they are complete overkill in the home, I discussed the idea with Coffeechap last year when sorting out a group buy on burrs for Brasilia grinders as I could get the Ti burrs for an RR55 OD at a relatively reasonable cost, compared to Mazzer and other Ti burrs, and he just told me not to waste my money.


----------



## monkey66

Thanks for the replies. I think I covered most of your questions in my first post.

I am well aware of how long burrs will perform reasnobly well. I am looking for that extra performance when they are brand new and really sharp.

Does anyone have first hand experience on the sj and titanium burrs purely on the 'in the cup' difference?

The question is whether they maintain that 'new burr magic'


----------



## Dylan

monkey66 said:


> Thanks for the replies. I think I covered most of your questions in my first post.
> 
> I am well aware of how long burrs will perform reasnobly well. I am looking for that extra performance when they are brand new and really sharp.
> 
> Does anyone have first hand experience on the sj and titanium burrs purely on the 'in the cup' difference?
> 
> The question is whether they maintain that 'new burr magic'


New burrs are generally considered worse in the cup that burrs that have been broken in, most will not judge a grinder until it has had multiple KG of coffee through it to 'season' the burrs.


----------



## Charliej

D_Evans said:


> New burrs are generally considered worse in the cup that burrs that have been broken in, most will not judge a grinder until it has had multiple KG of coffee through it to 'season' the burrs.


To add to this, anecdotally Ti burrs also take much longer to "season", as the surface of the burrs is that much harder.


----------



## monkey66

D_Evans said:


> New burrs are generally considered worse in the cup that burrs that have been broken in, most will not judge a grinder until it has had multiple KG of coffee through it to 'season' the burrs.


I am supprised by this. I always get a kick up in complexity and body with brand new burrs.

Can anyone technically explain why burrs need to be broken in?


----------



## Charliej

monkey66 said:


> I am supprised by this. I always get a kick up in complexity and body with brand new burrs.
> 
> Can anyone technically explain why burrs need to be broken in?


For the same reason car engines need a period of " running in", burrs are not made or packaged in absolutely matched pairs and so they need a period where they bed into to each other and for the rough edges to be smoothed out.


----------



## monkey66

OK but we are only talking about 1 moving part. Nothing like the complexity of a car engine.

I guess what I was hoping was that the Titanium burrs were made with tighter manufacturing tolerances, in other words higher quality off the bat. Being a harder material they could be ground to a finer edge.

Have there ever been attempts at higher-quality burrs, I am thinking cnc'ed form something like stainless steel or harder steels, properly stone finished to a fine edge etc ...I saw the titanium burrs and got excited.

Is it possible that i have the wrong end of the stick and the sharpness of my Mazzer oem burrs are not the weak point in quality, it is the more fundamental size/speed/design/heat factors.

Am I the only one who has experienced an 'in the cup' improvement when going from relatively good burrs to new ones?


----------



## shrink

the limit on a super jolly in the home environment is not the burrs. You'd have to use it with a 250g bag of coffee every week for about 30 years to get round to needing to replace them.

the taste limitations are more the results of burr size, heat transfer, and motor power.


----------



## Terranova

shrink said:


> the taste limitations are more the results of burr size, heat transfer, and motor power.


The burr size doesn't play a roll in the mentioned range, heat transfer is also not important for home use of a middle class grinder.

Motor power ? Which grinder is underpowered excepted the VL ?

You mentioned a lot of stuff but it seems that you forgot the most important part which is "alignment" / parallel burrs.



monkey66 said:


> I guess what I was hoping was that the Titanium burrs were made with tighter manufacturing tolerances, in other words higher quality off the bat. Being a harder material they could be ground to a finer edge.


A 0,003mm thick coating has no influence to the manufacturing tolerances, keep in mind that you are referring to a titannitride coating instead of burrs made of Titanium which do not excist because of the cutting tools which cost 20 times more than those for steel.

Stainless steel is way to soft for burrs, they are mostly made out of a hardened tool steel or an alloy steel like 42crmo4.



monkey66 said:


> Have there ever been attempts at higher-quality burrs, I am thinking cnc'ed form something like stainless steel or harder steels, properly stone finished to a fine edge etc ...I saw the titanium burrs and got excited.


You can get your burrs grinded on a flat grinding bench to have an accuracy in the micrometer range, but there are much bigger numbers in the run out of your grinder..

If any burr set manufacture is telling you that the burrs are good for 1000 lbs just see it as a fairy tale and count on 30% of their saying.

They are still in the good old Italian classic roast days, when anything lighter roasted did not excist.


----------



## monkey66

So a CNC machined burr carrier my be a worthwhile mod for an SJ and a step up in tolerance over the cast aluminium part?


----------



## jeebsy

monkey66 said:


> OK but we are only talking about 1 moving part. Nothing like the complexity of a car engine.


You've got the burrs, the carriers themselves, how they're mounted, the shaft etc


----------



## Terranova

monkey66 said:


> So a CNC machined burr carrier my be a worthwhile mod for an SJ and a step up in tolerance over the cast aluminium part?


There are much more parts involved and not just the burr carrier.

The grinder is only as good as the weakest / crappiest part is in the whole chain, not mentioning the massive thread play which most grinders got or locking mechanism which brings the burrs out of alignment even more.


----------



## El carajillo

As has already been said, the burrs may be made to very fine tolerances but there will be more play in your grinder AND the mounting of the burrs is the critical part.The fixing holes do not give precise alignment by any means, there is lateral movement as well as circumferential .

The only way I have found to be reasonably accurate is using a tapered cone through the lower carrier to centre the burr with the carrier.


----------



## monkey66

Thanks for all the input. it's been very informative.

Has anyone done any interesting mods to improve the tolerances/precision of the sj?


----------



## shrink

Terranova, you'd be crazy to suggest that you can't better the 64mm burr set in a super jolly when it comes to flavour profile in the cup.


----------



## Dylan

monkey66 said:


> Thanks for all the input. it's been very informative.
> 
> Has anyone done any interesting mods to improve the tolerances/precision of the sj?


dsc alluded to the Mazzer burrs not having the best tolerances in his ZR-71 project, but from his posts I would assume that he has been incredibly fastidious about the tolerances on his grinder, so much so that the burrs themselves have become the 'weakest part'


----------



## Terranova

shrink said:


> Terranova, you'd be crazy to suggest that you can't better the 64mm burr set in a super jolly when it comes to flavour profile in the cup.


I don't know exactly what you mean with this, just guessing.

Taste is subjective and if you like one or the other roast with different grinders or burrs, than it is the matter of alignment.

One got a bigger range in particle size and distribution, one a smaller range.

One roasts might taste better with some over- and under extraction, the other does not.

@ El Carajillo

The fixing holes do not really need a precise alignment, axial play does not play a big part in mechanical interventions for particle size (flat burrs). Talking about a ~ 0,1mm range which is already a lot.

Radial play does and this is something you cannot fix that easy.


----------



## shrink

So you're trying to suggest that burr size has absolutely no effect on flavour whatsoever?


----------



## Dylan

That wasn't my reading of his post at all. Bigger burrs will produce a different particle distribution, as will conical vs flat, from people experiences it seems that the larger burrs produce the better drink across the widest range.

As an example, the EK seems to produce a very even particle distribution, and this contributes to the shots it produces, but some still prefer the flavour profile produced by other big grinders, even though, scientifically, the grind distribution is 'worse'.


----------



## coffeechap

which tastes better then, the major of the superjolly, as you have both now?


----------



## Mrboots2u

D_Evans said:


> That wasn't my reading of his post at all. Bigger burrs will produce a different particle distribution, as will conical vs flat, from people experiences it seems that the larger burrs produce the better drink across the widest range.
> 
> As an example, the EK seems to produce a very even particle distribution, and this contributes to the shots it produces, but some still prefer the flavour profile produced by other big grinders, even though, scientifically, the grind distribution is 'worse'.


Big burrs ( conical or flat. ) will only produce tasty shots in a skilled users hands .

Better particle distribution won't count for owt if the person making the shot doesn't know how to make a good shot

A good grinder can tsill produce badly extracted shots

A 1:1 ratio ristretto on an EK might not be so tasty

A 18g in 50 g out lungo on a robur might not either


----------



## Terranova

shrink said:


> So you're trying to suggest that burr size has absolutely no effect on flavour whatsoever?


Yes (in the range we are talking about 64-83 flat) and I understand that this is the exact opposite of what you have "learned" or read but I am not on a mission trying to convince anyone.

It was just my personal opinion and experience.


----------



## coffeechap

The bigger mazzer burred grinders release far more flavour than the super jollies, I dont know whether this is down to spin speed, burr cut, burr size or what but it is a fact that the bigger burred grinders are far more capable in the cup than the smaller ones.


----------



## Terranova

coffeechap said:


> The bigger mazzer burred grinders release far more flavour than the super jollies, I don't know whether this is down to spin speed, burr cut, burr size or what but it is a fact that the bigger burred grinders are far more capable in the cup than the smaller ones.


I would never say that this is not true, but the reason for the better result is not just the burr size.

Thats all I said.

It is built quality and alignment but not burr size.

@ D_evans

The EK 43 got a complete different burr geometry which was made for a homogeneous grind and not for espresso but other brewing methods.


----------



## shrink

Have you ever torn down some of the larger flat burred mazzers vs the smaller ones. I can't believe there's any difference in tolerances, build quality or alignment. A major burr set is no higher in quality than an SJ, nor is the motor, bearing and burr carrier assembly any better put together. It's just a bigger burr set intended for higher throughput in busier coffee shops.

The only possible way to have your theory be true, would be to suggest that on a burr with larger diamater, small alignment changes are less critical than on a smaller burr set, so have less influence on flavour. However, I'd generally assume the opposite to be true, that any tolerance issue on a 64mm burr set would be amplified by throwing a larger burr on there.

But that larger burr set allows for a much faster grind, much less clumping and to me, a much better tasking cup of coffee.


----------



## Terranova

shrink said:


> The only possible way to have your theory be true, would be to suggest that on a burr with larger diamater, small alignment changes are less critical than on a smaller burr set, so have less influence on flavour. However, I'd generally assume the opposite to be true, that any tolerance issue on a 64mm burr set would be amplified by throwing a larger burr on there.


It is the other way around, a larger burr set with the same alignment like a small one is more prone to radial play, just because of the diameter.

Bigger burrs will have less gap between "grind setting" and zero point when the thread pitch is the same compared to the smaller set.



shrink said:


> But that larger burr set allows for a much faster grind, much less clumping and to me, a much better tasking cup of coffee.


Of course the output is higher from bigger burrs, but also clumping has nothing to do with the burr size.

Neutralizing the ions, also a lower grind speed has an effect on triboelectric / static charge and therefore taste.


----------



## dsc

I don't really believe the hype Mazzer is getting for their burrsets OR I got a dudd. I haven't checked yet but on my set either the mounting hole is not perfectly perpendicular to the bottom surface of the inner burr or the top surface vs. bottom surface are not exactly parallel. I'm getting parallelism errors at around 0.1mm when checking outer ring horizontal surface vs. inner burr bottom surface. In all honest I should get the TiN coated OEM set and check that, but I've been busy wiring the internal electronics and haven't played with the grinder at all yet.

I'm curious if Compak's red burrs are any better or if there's anyone out there who makes better burrsets. In my opinion flat burrs are easier to check for alignment as you have flat surfaces to measure against both on the outside and the inside (the cutting side). With conicals you can really only check the outside surfaces against each other as the inside are all cut in different directions and you can't really have a point of reference (ie. on the outside the set can be perfectly parallel but the inside cutting surface might be cut at an angle to the vertical if you catch my drift). At least that's my understanding of it, I might be well wrong here.

Regards,

T.


----------



## shrink

Terranova said:


> It is the other way around, a larger burr set with the same alignment like a small one is more prone to radial play, just because of the diameter.
> 
> Bigger burrs will have less gap between "grind setting" and zero point when the thread pitch is the same compared to the smaller set.


This is the point I was making in the second half of my sentence. That surely on bigger burrs any problems are amplified. So this surely suggests that a bigger mazzer may even potentially taste worse than a smaller one. But I can't think of any time when I've found that to be the case



Terranova said:


> Of course the output is higher from bigger burrs, but also clumping has nothing to do with the burr size.
> 
> Neutralizing the ions, also a lower grind speed has an effect on triboelectric / static charge and therefore taste.


Well the fact that larger burrs create a greater throughput, that doesnt just sit on the exit chute, is why you get less clumping. Yes the other factors are there too, but additional speed helps prevent the clumping.

An example of all this is a Super Jolly E vs a Major E. The Major throws out lovely piles of fluffy coffee which produce far far better shots than its smaller brother. Can you explain why this would be the case? I'm actually genuinely interested in knowing what's making up the mechanics of this, as it seems we spend a lot of time chasing larger, grinders, bigger burrs etc.


----------



## Terranova

shrink said:


> An example of all this is a Super Jolly E vs a Major E. The Major throws out lovely piles of fluffy coffee which produce far far better shots than its smaller brother. Can you explain why this would be the case?


It can have many reasons like I wrote in my previous post (charged ions, grind speed, triboelectric)

Edit: You get what you pay for, accuracy is the biggest factor in costs (if not an extreme bling) the bigger grinders with bigger burrs are made better there is no doubt about that.

BTW. I also thought that conical burrs are made accurate, but mostly they suck and on a very good built quality the conical burrs are the biggest error source (imho)


----------



## DavecUK

shrink said:


> Have you ever torn down some of the larger flat burred mazzers vs the smaller ones. I can't believe there's any difference in tolerances, build quality or alignment. A major burr set is no higher in quality than an SJ, nor is the motor, bearing and burr carrier assembly any better put together. It's just a bigger burr set intended for higher throughput in busier coffee shops.
> 
> The only possible way to have your theory be true, would be to suggest that on a burr with larger diamater, small alignment changes are less critical than on a smaller burr set, so have less influence on flavour. However, I'd generally assume the opposite to be true, that any tolerance issue on a 64mm burr set would be amplified by throwing a larger burr on there.
> 
> But that larger burr set allows for a much faster grind, much less clumping and to me, a much better tasking cup of coffee.


I have read this discussion with interest and show a comparison of burrs below, part of the image taken from another forum thread.

I do think that as the burrs become larger the motors, structure and construction quality of the grinder improves, this must contribute, partially, to an improved grind. Then if you look at the length of the grind reducing zones after the pre crush zone...with larger burrs they are much longer overall and more have a more evenly spread size distribution. In the two 83mm burrsets, it becomes clear Ceado don't use the same burrs as Mazzer, I assumed they would, but these pictures show they don't? Which must account for the variances in grind times for similar speed grinders. The 83mm mazzer burr has less, but larger precrush zones, whilst the Ceado has more, but smaller precrush zones, with a slightly longer over all grind reducing path.

These things must make a difference, both in static, particle distribution and overall grind quality as we move from small to large burrs. I think it's more than just big burrs grind faster. There well may be a sweet spot, an upper limit where the difference is not detectable in blind taste testing though. Is that 83, 90, 100, 120, 150...who knows?


----------



## Terranova

DavecUK said:


> The 83mm mazzer burr has less, but larger precrush zones, whilst the Ceado has more, but smaller precrush zones, with a slightly longer over all grind reducing path.


I am pretty sure that they are from the same manufactory.

There are 3 different types available Major, Stark, Royal. (A,B,C) just the angle / cut from A-C is getting more aggressive (3 phase motor) so if these are not the same, then the Ceado got the B or C types which makes the grinder grind faster.

The "feeding" also plays a part in more g per minute.


----------



## DavecUK

Terranova said:


> I am pretty sure that they are from the same manufactory.
> 
> There are 3 different types available Major, Stark, Royal. (A,B,C) just the angle / cut from A-C is getting more aggressive (3 phase motor) so if these are not the same, then the Ceado got the B or C types which makes the grinder grind faster.
> 
> The "feeding" also plays a part in more g per minute.


Yes, I think I was just pointing out the differences for the burrs specifically in the pictures *for larger vs smaller burrs and grind quality*....which was the overall point. As for whether they use Mazzer burrs or not (or the same burr from the same factory stamped with the CEADO name, or from a different factory made to exactly the exact specification as a Mazzer burr stamped with the ceado name) I have specifically asked Ceado if they use the same burrs as Mazzer, so will be interesting to see what they say. However that is a different discussion issue to the one at hand.

Also if you have photos of the 3 types of Mazzer burr available in the 83mm size, we can start a separate thread with a photo comparison?


----------



## Terranova

Have a look here, the ones on top are the A version and at the bottom C

http://www.kaffee-netz.de/threads/mazzer-mahlscheiben-unterschiede.58776/#post-719454


----------



## DavecUK

Terranova said:


> Have a look here, the ones on top are the A version and at the bottom C
> 
> http://www.kaffee-netz.de/threads/mazzer-mahlscheiben-unterschiede.58776/#post-719454


Interesting, both nothing like the Ceado ones


----------



## Terranova

DavecUK said:


> Interesting, both nothing like the Ceado ones


I was just talking in general, the TiN burrs are the B version.


----------



## DavecUK

Terranova said:


> I was just talking in general, the TiN burrs are the B version.


Well I had the official reply from Ceado, as I thought, they are not the same burrs on their grinders as in Mazzer grinders. They are specifically designed for the Ceado grinders E37S and E92.


----------



## Charliej

It is my understanding that Mazzer took manufacturing of "genuine" Mazzer burrs in house due to issues with OEM suppliers. To add to what is under discussion I have certainly experienced large leaps forward in quality in the cup coming more from the grinder than the machine, I was hugely surprised with the leap forward that going from the 64mm burred Brasilia RR55 OD to the Eureka Mythos gave me. I accept that with the Mythos there is more going on than just bigger burrs as they are also mounted at 45 degree angle.With the flat burr Mazzers the burr carriers simply seem to be upsized versions going from the Mini through to the Stark and I can't imagine that the construction methods differ between any of the production lines in the factory or that a Super Jolly is built to a lower standard than a Major or Royal. Certainly over time wear on the machine tools that make the various parts will account for differences between grinders of the same range but different dates of manufacture.


----------



## DavecUK

Charliej said:


> It is my understanding that Mazzer took manufacturing of "genuine" Mazzer burrs in house due to issues with OEM suppliers.


Where did you hear this?


----------



## Charliej

DavecUK said:


> Where did you hear this?


If I remember correctly it was a thread on here quite a while ago discussing where to get Mazzer burrs and how to tell if you had bought authentic, aftermarket or "fake" original versions and someone had contacted Mazzer about this and they said they were making the burrs themselves.


----------



## DavecUK

Charliej said:


> If I remember correctly it was a thread on here quite a while ago discussing where to get Mazzer burrs and how to tell if you had bought authentic, aftermarket or "fake" original versions and someone had contacted Mazzer about this and they said they were making the burrs themselves.


Not sure they are.


----------



## The Systemic Kid

DavecUK said:


> Not sure they are.


Have a look at this Jim Seven article and reference in comments to Itallmill.

http://www.jimseven.com/2011/06/15/dear-grinder-manufacturers/


----------



## Charliej

I will also cite this from Sprudge:

http://sprudge.com/mazzer-factory-tour.html

and this read the 1st paragraph under "Features"

http://www.wholelattelove.com/Mazzer/rocket-espresso-mazzer-mini-type-a.cfm

Both are I would say pretty reputable sources.


----------



## DavecUK

Charliej said:


> I will also cite this from Sprudge:
> 
> http://sprudge.com/mazzer-factory-tour.html
> 
> and this read the 1st paragraph under "Features"
> 
> http://www.wholelattelove.com/Mazzer/rocket-espresso-mazzer-mini-type-a.cfm
> 
> Both are I would say pretty reputable sources.


Have to defer to the article then, didn't know they started making their own in 2007...strange how the same old problems still seem to be cited with the burrs, you would think that it would all be different now. Perhaps customers are seasoning unnecessarily. The very fine manufacturing tolerances amaze me as well, because the grinders themselves don't appear to evidence those tolerances. In fact with the mechanisms used, I would think it would be hard to achieve....but we live and learn.

Looks like Mazzeras from 2007 on are the best grinders out there, according to the article.


----------

