mrgnomer wrote:I don't know, I'm new to equipment and still learning after 3 years.
snip
Maintaining a big grouphead with a 40W heater set for 200F may not be the best thing from what I know. PIDing it which is what was suggested they are considering, is. Or a thermosyphon loop fed by a fixed brew temp. Now that might be neat. Display the thermosyphon temp and grouphead temp to give an operator troubleshooting feedback.
snip This is the ground floor of a design that could really be tweaked and developed into something special, I think.

FWW
The 1994 Grindmaster 1750 and 2450 series made in this country did have a 75W grouphead heater. I bought one for parts salvage and got the manual with it.
richard

I'm still a total newbie, so feel free to yell at me...

Based on Jet Steam's replies on CG, it seems they truly value the wants of their potential customers and other knowlegable people on the subject. For me at least, that counts for a lot, and while I haven't been around too long, nor searched extensively for it, I've never seen any of the LM or Synesso teams posting on threads about their products. Also like Marshall said, it could easily turn into a new toy for those people who want something that looks real neat and have the luxury of not caring about cost . But it seems that once people start to taste the product, and use the machine, the fate of the company will be decided...

gtrman wrote:I'm still a total newbie, so feel free to yell at me...

Based on Jet Steam's replies on CG, it seems they truly value the wants of their potential customers and other knowlegable people on the subject. For me at least, that counts for a lot, and while I haven't been around too long, nor searched extensively for it, I've never seen any of the LM or Synesso teams posting on threads about their products. Also like Marshall said, it could easily turn into a new toy for those people who want something that looks real neat and have the luxury of not caring about cost . But it seems that once people start to taste the product, and use the machine, the fate of the company will be decided...

Far be it from me to yell at you.

Let's assume for the moment that this machine makes better espresso than all the other machines out there, and is easier to use, by far. I'd still rate the likelihood of this being a successful business proposition, at slim to none. The world is full of examples of mediocre and worse products dominating their industries and squeezing out much better stuff. You have to look no further than the computer you are using to view this message (most likely a PC) to prove THAT point. If success in the marketplace was based on the quality and merits of the products, Microsoft would be but a footnote in the history of personal computing and we'd all be using something else. Betamax was reportedly far superior to the technology that was ultimately adopted, VHS, for videocassetes. A skilled barista using good and fresh coffee produces much better drinks than any superauto, but on nearly every street corner you will find a Starbucks full of button pushers and superautos making milk drinks from 6 month old coffee, and there are often lines out the door. I could continue but I think you get my idea.

As to LM and Synesso, I can only comment on LM. They are the most consumer-oriented espresso manufacturer out there and actively solicit and welcome input, and make themselves available to the enthusiast community in every possible venue. I have no doubt that you could pick up the phone and speak directly with any of the principles in that company merely by telling the person answering the phone that you are enthusiastic about espresso and would like to ask a few questions. So your comments on LM, at least, are misinformed.

ken

My bad Ken...I had no idea about the folks at LM. As for your other points, I see what youre saying, I can't say much about betamax...but as for the computers and such, I'm on a shiny new Mac that can do pretty much whatever it wants, and better than microsoft that I've experienced. (thanks to my school)

I think this will be interesting to see what happens. I only wish I was in a position to demo some of these high end machines.

gtrman wrote:My bad Ken...I had no idea about the folks at LM. As for your other points, I see what youre saying, I can't say much about betamax...but as for the computers and such, I'm on a shiny new Mac that can do pretty much whatever it wants, and better than microsoft that I've experienced. (thanks to my school)

I think this will be interesting to see what happens. I only wish I was in a position to demo some of these high end machines.

You're in Boston. Maybe you can arrange a little visit to George Howell's place. I bet they would see you.

ken

Ken,
Thanks for the suggestion, I'll have to see if I can get that to happen.

HB wrote:Clearance for 20+ ounce to-go latte cups. And no, I am not joking. The "big gulp" cups are a problem for today's cafe owners in the US and manufacturers are responding by raising the group.

I really think the concept of a type of flip down, or removable stand for smaller cups would be a good idea. I don't like the idea of the coffee descending that distance through the air to "splash" into the cup below and feel it can't improve the flavour of the shot....just the reverse in fact.

Overall though the concept of not hiding the preparation from the customer is a good one, a friend and I talk sometimes about the perfect coffeeshop (imagining what you would have if you opened one). Time and time again we came back to the conclusion that 2 or 3 single group machines would be better, as:

The customer can see the preparation process and you have room to move
Less temptation to steam 2 litres of milk (firm believer that you steam wheat you need for that drink or series of drinks)
The machines can be spaced across the counter, giving a spread of preparation points and a clear view by all of whats happening

I really hate it when all the preparation is hidden behind a huge 4 group machine, carefully placed so you can't see whats going on, for good reason in most cases (filthy, wet portafilters, filthy unspritzed groups, thoughtless poor quality tamping and 6 second cremaless gushers).....then out comes the hand requesting $2.50!

P.S. I would also use Mazzer Mini E's or similar doserless grinders......how I hate coffeeshop dosers!

espressme wrote:FWW
The 1994 Grindmaster 1750 and 2450 series made in this country did have a 75W grouphead heater. I bought one for parts salvage and got the manual with it.
richard

I don't think the heater is a bad idea, just maintaining the grouphead at a set temp. I don't know from first hand experimentation but going on the information and theory the group is a large thermal mass and regulator of brew temp. I'd think holding the group at a specific temp would compromise brew temp flexibility. Targeting the group as well as brew water for varying brew temps makes more sense.

DaveC wrote:I really think the concept of a type of flip down, or removable stand for smaller cups would be a good idea. I don't like the idea of the coffee descending that distance through the air to "splash" into the cup below and feel it can't improve the flavour of the shot....just the reverse in fact.

FYI - They have/will have a shot "riser" to accomodate smaller cups, this was indicated in the CG thread and via e-mails. Pictures may be added.

It was also indicated that locations of machines would be added to their website, if you wanted to go see one at somepoint. Of course, I don't think anyone has one yet.

Company past performance history not withstanding (and making a huge leap that this machine pulls a sublime shot), the machine design looks like it might justify its' cost. They are probably one-offs and there are no economies of scale with no preexisting customer base or pre-orders.

While I think that the group height is crazy for someone like you and me, I do think it makes sense for a commercial shop. A local shop here really encourages its' customers to use their own cups... in fact they give a 5% discount for folks who bring their own cup/travel mug or reuse a paper cup. Folks who order in or bring their own to go cup also get a different customer loyalty card, but only to "feel" better about their choice to be "greener". For a shop, having that sort of height would allow drinks to be built right in the patrons travel mug du jour, and not just 20 oz. to go cups.

Multi-group machines make sense to me, but they can also be the Achille's heel... potentially one point of failure and you might be making drip brew for a day or more. Having two or more single-group (or multi-group) machines, makes a lot of sense from a redundancy standpoint, and potentially from an ergonomic standpoint depending on how you lay out your shop and the numbers of baristas on staff. But multiple machines translates to greater initial purchase and installation costs, and greater preventative maintenance costs.

Personally (and I'm not bragging), I think I could easily work a two-group by myself in a busy commercial setting, and with practice, maybe even a three-group, if all I had to do was build drinks. IMO, a good shop will know their regulars and start building their drink as they come in the door, and the PBTC should be taking orders 3 customers deep in the queue.

DaveC wrote:I really think the concept of a type of flip down, or removable stand for smaller cups would be a good idea. I don't like the idea of the coffee descending that distance through the air to "splash" into the cup below and feel it can't improve the flavour of the shot....just the reverse in fact.

Although presumably done for a different reason (esthetics, avoiding splashing), an interesting practice I observed in Vancouver, BC, has made its way into my own espresso preparation. This was at Alistair Durie's Elysian Coffee, an excellent shop that became my personal Vancouver favorite last spring during my last visit. They use bottomless PFs in their LM and in order to adjust for this they use a round ramekin under the espresso cups, on the drip tray. It elevates the espresso up about an inch and a half, and facilitates centering the cup under the bottomless PF.

I now use this approach on my rotary machine. On the vibe, there is simply too much vibration and the ramekin has a tendency to dance across the drip tray during the shot, so unless I can hold the cup there during shotmaking, I do without. I may experiment with something soft (like a rubber coaster) under the ramekin, but I haven't gotten around to it yet.

ken