Brewing ratios for espresso beverages

[AndyS]

The terms "ristretto, espresso, lungo," etc have meaning only if we all use them in the same way. I'm posting a graphic that suggests a way to do this. The chart is based on two concepts:

(1) Bean freshness, bean variety, type of portafilter, pump pressure, and several other factors influence the amount of crema produced. Therefore, the measured volume of a shot can vary significantly. The only quick, accurate way to measure the actual amount of espresso produced is by weighing it, NOT by measuring it volumetrically.

(2) "Brewing ratio" is the best way to specify what a "ristretto," "regular espresso," or "lungo" is. Brewing ratio is the ratio of dry coffee used to liquid beverage produced. For example, a 32 gram espresso shot prepared with 16 grams of coffee would have a brewing ratio of 16/32 or 50%. Previously I called this the "extraction ratio," but I believe "brewing ratio" is the more descriptive term. It is already used by the SCAA in defining brewed coffee parameters.

When first introduced to this approach, many people feel the geek coefficient is too high. They feel more comfortable remaining confused and deluded, gliby mouthing the terms "ristretto," "espresso" and "lungo." But I think that many serious home and professional baristas are motivated enough to seek a better way to communicate.

This chart is a work in progress. The key factors are the ones highlighted in green. Your comments about what you consider a ristretto or regular espresso to be (measured in this way) are welcome.



(Click above to see larger image)

Arrogantly yours,

UPDATED 01/04/07:

[RapidCoffee]

The terms "ristretto, espresso, lungo," etc have meaning only if we all use them in the same way...

While there might be some argument over the percent cutoffs (conveniently chosen at 100%, 50%, 33%, etc.), you've outlined an excellent basic approach to standardizing these commonly-used espresso terms. One of the best posts I've seen in a while. Nice work!

Any thoughts on adding flow rates/shot timings? After all, it's not just the lesser volume that comprises a ristretto.
________
John

[AndyS]

While there might be some argument over the percent cutoffs (conveniently chosen at 100%, 50%, 33%, etc.), you've outlined an excellent basic approach to standardizing these commonly-used espresso terms.

John, thanks for your positive response.

Actually, an argument (or at least a discussion) about the somewhat arbitrary cutoffs is exactly what I was hoping for. Care to start?

Any thoughts on adding flow rates/shot timings? After all, it's not just the lesser volume that comprises a ristretto.

Quite a few thoughts, but the basic idea is to keep the concept simple, using the two most important variables: the amount of dry coffee and the amount of liquid espresso. Yes, a 26 second shot pulled at a 100% brewing ratio is different than a 33 second shot pulled at a 100% BR. But they're undoubtedly both ristrettos.

[Martin]

When first introduced to this approach, many people feel the geek coefficient is too high. They feel more comfortable remaining confused and deluded, gliby mouthing the terms "ristretto," "espresso" and "lungo."

. . .or they resort to the default "what's right is whatever tastes good to you."

I don't know how many others there are like me----non-techno geeks. I read and pay attention with a kind of soft focus----not expecting to master or "follow" the data, definitions, or cupping reviews; but trusting that over time there's a kind of cognitive absorption that translates to better shots.

Ive recently read a few "popular" (hah!) books on string theory. Love that stuff! Do I have even a clue? Well, maybe a clue, but I'm a slow learner, and it may all depend on how long I live.

But that's not my question. I'm waiting for delivery of my new La Spaziale Vivaldi II. Seems that your chart/thinking becomes almost "practical" when using a machine with volumetric control. Your thoughts?

Martin

[AndyS]

I don't know how many others there are like me----non-techno geeks. I read and pay attention with a kind of soft focus----not expecting to master or "follow" the data, definitions, or cupping reviews; but trusting that over time there's a kind of cognitive absorption that translates to better shots.

Martin, I'm pretty much a techno geek, but the technological approach often has big limitations. I truly respect less techno-y folks like you -- sometimes the intuitive approach yields real dividends. Perhaps the result simply depends on how passionately one applies his or her particular mindset.

Of course the numerical method I presented in this thread will not magically help a newbie pull a great shot. It's simply a way that people can communicate with each other about their espresso. And I very much believe that good communication between passionate baristas, consistently applied over the long haul, WILL magically help them pull great shots.

Seems that your chart/thinking becomes almost "practical" when using a machine with volumetric control. Your thoughts?

I honestly don't know the answer to that yet. I normally use the volumetric control only when running experiments, not for everyday shot-pulling. The intent of the brewing ratio approach was for me to be able to say something like, "When I pull Black Cat at a 100% ratio, I get awesome body and intense sweetness. When I pull it at 60%, it's not heavy and sweet, but gobs of chocolate and fruit appear." The ability to measure meaningfully and convey the results to you mean you'll have a lot easier time trying to duplicate what I'm doing. You may like it, you may not, but at least you can be confident that we're both trying the same thing.

[RapidCoffee]

Quite a few thoughts, but the basic idea is to keep the concept simple, using the two most important variables: the amount of dry coffee and the amount of liquid espresso. Yes, a 26 second shot pulled at a 100% brewing ratio is different than a 33 second shot pulled at a 100% BR. But they're undoubtedly both ristrettos.

How about a 10 or 15 second shot? I don't believe that cutting a pour short makes a ristretto, regardless of the ratio. That's why shot timings might be worth adding. But this is somewhat off track, and I don't mean to confuse the issue.

Um, I think I'll let others argue the ratios. Yours are certainly reasonable.
________
John

[AndyS]

How about a 10 or 15 second shot? I don't believe that cutting a pour short makes a ristretto, regardless of the ratio.

No matter what the brewing ratio, a 10 or 15 sec shot is not called a "ristretto," it's called "bad espresso."

[timo888]

1 to 1
1 to 2
1 to 3
1 to 7

'give or take' (for small/large)

Those ratios are fine for the broad difference between ristretto, normale, lungo, and caffe crema. A good start.

But I think your chart needs a footnote in red so it stands out The note should emphasize that the single, double, and triple are different drinks, not merely different sizes of the same drink. The taller versus shorter column of dry coffee presents a different pressure/flow profile. There's not only a quantitative difference but a qualitative difference when you change the amount of dry grind even if you change the amount of liquid so it remains in proportion.

Regards
Timo

[AndyS]

Those ratios are fine for the broad difference between ristretto, normale, lungo, and caffe crema. A good start.

But I think your chart needs a footnote in red so it stands out The note should emphasize that the single, double, and triple are different drinks, not merely different sizes of the same drink. The taller versus shorter column of dry coffee presents a different pressure/flow profile. There's not only a quantitative difference but a qualitative difference when you change the amount of dry grind even if you change the amount of liquid so it remains in proportion.

Hi Timo:

Thanks for your comment. Yes, the ratios express broad differences only.

Are you sure the note has to be in RED? I was thinking a nice ORANGE might do as well....

I agree, a drink made with 14 g of coffee at a BR of 50% is a different drink from one made with 20 g of coffee at the same BR However, I think there will be similarities too. Experiments that Jim Schulman and I are doing show that basket perforation area is also an important factor in what you get into the espresso.

This is a topic that calls for a lot of experimentation. I'm not naive enough to think that little chart is the last word. I just hope that it gets people thinking about this.

[timo888]

I agree, a drink made with 14 g of coffee at a BR of 50% is a different drink from one made with 20 g of coffee at the same BR However, I think there will be similarities too. Experiments that Jim Schulman and I are doing show that basket perforation area is also an important factor in what you get into the espresso.

Yes indeed. I've noted similar extraction/flow effects from the filter perforation area in a thread about the single baskets on my Cremina. Differences in basket shape and total perforation area (and possibly perforation type, but I cannot measure that) have a significant effect: the same grind won't work for both single baskets. The taller single basket with less perforation area needs a coarser grind. Now, measure the single against the double basket, and you've got a difference that makes a big difference.

Regards
Timo

[HB]

I'm game for anything that provides a more meaningful way of comparing details, and your proposed brew ratios seem reasonable. As a quick test, I pulled a double yesterday with 20 grams of coffee. The espresso weighed 20 grams. By your table, it would be considered a "small" double, which agrees with its volume including crema (estimated to be slightly over 1.5 ounces).

Qualitatively, I recognize ristrettos as much by their pour characteristics as the ultimate volume. For example, a ristretto will have a longer dwell time (an extra 2-5 seconds before drops appear), longer "gloppy" time before the cone formation completes, often an overall longer pour time, and of course a smaller final volume.

Thanks Andy for the idea, I'll weigh shots to see if the table's quantitative values correspond with my qualitative assessments and report back.

[AndyS]

Espresso making is hard to characterize, since one can start with anywhere from 6 to 24 grams of coffee. Then, from each coffee amount, one can produce everything from a very small ristretto to a very generous cafe crema. The range of beverage variations is enormous. Even if one leaves out lungos and cafe cremas, just considering ristrettos and "normales" covers a very wide range of beverages and styles.

I'm game for anything that provides a more meaningful way of comparing details, and your proposed brew ratios seem reasonable. As a quick test, I pulled a double yesterday with 20 grams of coffee. The espresso weighed 20 grams. By your table, it would be considered a "small" double, which agrees with its volume including crema (estimated to be slightly over 1.5 ounces).

This says to me (again) that I am doing a very poor job explaining the concept. Your (20g dry/20g wet) espresso is made at a 100% brewing ratio, smack in the middle of what I would call the ristretto range.

Qualitatively, I recognize ristrettos as much by their pour characteristics as the ultimate volume. For example, a ristretto will have a longer dwell time (an extra 2-5 seconds before drops appear), longer "gloppy" time before the cone formation completes, often an overall longer pour time, and of course a smaller final volume.

Thanks Andy for the idea, I'll weigh shots to see if the table's quantitative values correspond with my qualitative assessments and report back.

I agree completely with your comments about how a ristretto pours, and I appreciate your interest. Perhaps someone better at explanations than I can make the brewing ratio idea more understandable. Or not.

[HB]

This says to me (again) that I am doing a very poor job explaining the concept. Your (20g dry/20g wet) espresso is made at a 100% brewing ratio, smack in the middle of what I would call the ristretto range.

Ah, now I see what you mean. This particular extraction didn't have ristretto pour characteristics or flavor profile; it ran faster than I prefer and the crema was bubbly because it needed another day to chill out. As you said, that's an advantage of weight versus volume for comparison purposes, i.e., what appears to be a double by volume may be a ristretto-proportioned espresso in "crema's clothing."

[LeoZ]

im going to buy a digital scale right now. this is too damn geeky for me to not test! will report this afternoon.

[Martin]

For general (non-geek) understanding, does the following approximate some of your preliminary data?

For each ounce of drink, a ristretto requires twice as much coffee as a regular espresso; three times as much coffee as a lungo; seven times as much as a cafe crema; and 17-20 times as much as a cup of brewed coffee.

Martin

[jesawdy]

AndyS-

I might suggest that you change the drip coffee to a single serving of coffee, or footnote the current table to reflect the number of servings. This would be more consistent and directly comparable to the others. I do realize that the thing you are most interested in is the ratio, and that is the same regardless of serving size. One might argue what that serving size should, but 6-8 ounces would probably be appropriate, albeit small by many folks habits.

[RapidCoffee]

Qualitatively, I recognize ristrettos as much by their pour characteristics as the ultimate volume. For example, a ristretto will have a longer dwell time (an extra 2-5 seconds before drops appear), longer "gloppy" time before the cone formation completes, often an overall longer pour time, and of course a smaller final volume.

That's the point I was trying to make earlier. Cutting a normale short at a smaller volume does not make a ristretto. Running more liquid through the puck does not make it a lungo. The flow rates/shot timings must be adjusted as well. This isn't meant to distract from the brew ratio idea, which has always seemed fundamental to me. But flow rates/shot timings really ought to be part of the definitions, not just brew ratios.
________
John

[Psyd]

It's simply a way that people can communicate with each other about their espresso. And I very much believe that good communication between passionate baristas, consistently applied over the long haul, WILL magically help them pull great shots.

Not to denigrate your research, but if the goal is a more common lexicon, i.e., better communication, then you need to start with more common 'verbiage', it seems to me. While I may agree with all of your precepts and fully support your goal (as I'm not even sure what makes up a 'cappuccino' anymore!), I ain't gonna start weighing my shots. Maybe I'm just lazy. Maybe I drink too much decaf, I dunno.
I think that the terms are liberally (and somewhat glibly) applied, too, but I think that that evolved from baristas trying new things and needing some new terms to describe how they were arriving at their results. "Hey, How'd you do that! ?!" "I just overfilled the basket till it restricted the flow a bit more and took a bit longer to pull the shot."
"Hey, use Franco's 'restricted' technique, it's great."
"What's this? It's good!"
"That's a 'restricted' shot."
"Hey, make me one of those 'restricted' shots'"
"Franco, another 'restricted', please"

[AndyS]

For general (non-geek) understanding, does the following approximate some of your preliminary data?

For each ounce of drink, a ristretto requires twice as much coffee as a regular espresso; three times as much coffee as a lungo; seven times as much as a cafe crema; and 17-20 times as much as a cup of brewed coffee.

Sure does, but with three caveats:

1. It's tricky measuring drinks in ounces (volumetrically), because the amount of crema varies widely. Ounces of weight are a much more reliable measure.
2. Since ristrettos, regular espressos and lungos intergrade completely, there are no hard and fast definitions. The proportions you list above are just a guess at what constitutes the typical or average drink of each type.
3. I don't really have "data" as much as I have preferences. Your preferences may be just as valid as mine.

[AndyS]

I might suggest that you change the drip coffee to a single serving of coffee

Good idea, thank you. I will do that on the next version, if this thing has enough traction for there to BE a next version.