Titan Grinder Project - Page 4

[Ken Fox]

I still have not convinced myself that I prefer the Kony over the Super Jolly, or the Cimbali Jr.

I need to do some amateur cupping and a few blind shot tests this weekend to convince myself the differences are not part of my imagination. Given the perceived cup differences, I should be able to pick out the Kony 99% of the time.

speaking as one who has "convinced myself" of many things with coffee that have later been disproven in my own mouth on blind tasting, I would second the idea that any "convincing" when one knows the operative variables, be made with a great deal of caution.

I would be shocked if it turned out that all commercial conicals make "better" shots than all commercial planars. There are simply too many variables in espresso preparation, and a conclusion such as "conicals beat planars" would simply not square with the reality of the complexity of espresso as I know it. There may be a super grinder out there whose grind product tastes better than the grind product of any other grinder, however I'm skeptical.

There are lots of reasons for preferring one grinder over another, such things as doser function and cleanliness and bean waste and maybe even heat. We shall see if there is a standout great grinder there. If I could simply go out and spend XX dollars and have my espressos jump up a level in quality, I'll be among the first. But I have a feeling the results will not really be all that clear, and if subjected to any do-able number of blind shot comparisons, the likelihood of proving anything (among a sample of competent grinders) is probably not all that high. Or, if a difference is found it will likely be sufficiently slight that it won't rationally be a reason to go out and buy that grinder in favor of a group of other grinders that may have their own advantages.

ken

[RapidCoffee]

I would be shocked if it turned out that all commercial conicals make "better" shots than all commercial planars. There are simply too many variables in espresso preparation, and a conclusion such as "conicals beat planars" would simply not square with the reality of the complexity of espresso as I know it.

Even this early in the review, I'm already convinced that you are correct. Given all the recent buzz, I was prepared to be blown away by the conicals. But thus far my venerable flat burr Super Jolly has held its own very well.

Now if only the Robur wasn't so honkin' huge...

[cannonfodder]

The Daterra is a nice mellow Brazil, with no striking flavor characteristics apparent in the Robur grind, perhaps better blended than as a SO. I'll do some taste comparisons with the MXK and SJ grinders later today, then sample the Ambrosia blend.

Speaking of commercial roasts: there was a very welcome surprise waiting for me in the mail today. Rocket Coffee Roasters has generously contributed 5 pounds of their classic espresso blend to the Titan Grinder Project:
5 pounds of beans (and a T-shirt!)

Half of this will go in the freezer for the other Titans. Thanks, Larry!

I told Larry to hold off on my shipment. I will be out of town all next week and did not want it sitting around.

If my observation about the Kony highlighting the bright flavors of a blend are correct, then using a low toned coffee should result in a more balanced and clean cup. I have a bag of Daterra I was going to use for my cupping and shot tests this weekend. The Kony should bring out the higher points of the coffee while providing that thick and buttery cup.

I dropped the base off the Kony today to put the portafilter fork back on and snapped a couple of photos to show the electronics. I also decided to take the burrs out to see how much coffee they were holding onto. I was surprised by how much coffee was caked in burrs. I cleaned them up and took some macro photos of both burr assemblies. I was going to post them with a few comments but got a call from work and had to tend to a database issue, I will get them posted in a day or two.

[nobbi4711]

It's a pity you didn't order a Casadio GC98; 210rpm.... I'm very curious about the further progress in testing.

Greetings \\//

Marcus

[RapidCoffee]

It's a pity you didn't order a Casadio GC98; 210rpm...

If you'd care to send us a Casadio grinder, I'd be delighted to add it to the project.

FWIW, Casadio grinders did come up during preliminary discussions. I (for one) was intrigued by Teme's review of the Instantaneo on Espresso Passione. But these grinders are not yet being distributed in the US (at least, not to my knowledge).

And while we're on the subject of supplying the Titan grinders for our review:

Finally, I'd like to add my personal thanks to Jim Piccinich of 1st-Line for sponsoring and sitting still for this process -- it goes waaay beyond anything any company has done when sponsoring product reviews.

+1. Without the generous and patient sponsorship of Jim Piccinich at 1st-Line, this review would not have been possible. Thanks, Jim!

[peacecup]

Because you seem to be gravitating towards the idea that grinder type is going to produce some identifiable (i.e. statistically defensible?) differences in the espresso in the cup, it might be well to clearly state some testable hypotheses as to why this may be so, before you go any further.

So, what are some likely hypotheses? Here are some off-the-cuff ideas:

1. Heat from flat burr grinders degrades certain compounds in the beans (does anybody know what these are, or how they effect espresso in the cup?). Therefore, espresso made from flat-ground burrs will taste more XXXX than does espresso made with conical burrs.

2. Conical burrs result in more rounded, even, coffee particles (if this turns out to be the case - this could also be a testable hypothesis). Rounded, even, grinds effect espresso in the cup by (does anyone know?). Therefore, espresso made from conical burrs will taste more XXXX than does espresso made from flat burrs.

3. More evenly-ground coffee compresses better in a PF basket - more weight per unit volume, more even distribution = more complete extraction? Jim has given us some guidance on the effects of complete extraction, so the XXXX ground coffee (whichever is more even) will produce more XXXX results (e.g. complete extraction results) than does the less-even grinder.

Clearly, I'm no expert in either grinding or extracting espresso. But if you don't have some "a priori" hypotheses, you'll end up with a lot unsubstantiated claims, which one can already find in sufficient quantity on the Internet.

Will blind taste tests enable anyone to differentiate between grinders? I suspect that there are far too many other variables in espresso making for the subtleties of grinder differences to be noticeable, but I'd love to be proven wrong. Ultimately, one's choice of grinder will rely on a variety of other reasons like space, aesthetics, ease of use, etc.

PC

[RapidCoffee]

Because you seem to be gravitating towards the idea that grinder type is going to produce some identifiable (i.e. statistically defensible?) differences in the espresso in the cup, it might be well to clearly state some testable hypotheses as to why this may be so, before you go any further.
...
But if you don't have some "a priori" hypotheses, you'll end up with a lot unsubstantiated claims, which one can already find in sufficient quantity on the Internet.

IMHO, the primary TGP focus is a descriptive, qualitative evaluation of high-end grinders, especially conical burr grinders. The quantitative aspects are an interesting sideline, to be pursued as resources permit. It's unlikely we will turn up any definitive answers in the early stages of this project, and there will probably be some missteps. (As I like to tell my students, if we knew what we were doing, we wouldn't call it research. )

Preliminary quantitative measurements can be important, even when the hypotheses are extremely general. If you want an initial hypothesis, here's one:

Different grinders produce measurably different particle size and shape distributions, and this has an impact on taste.

Suppose the particle size distribution plots showed no difference between grinders, but our taste buds told us otherwise? Then we'd know that particle size measurements are useless for grinder evaluation. But now that we've got supportive preliminary data, it's time to develop and refine hypotheses, and design experiments for testing them.

Please keep in mind that we're still in the first phase of this project. The Titans only began circulation a week ago, and look how much has already been accomplished!

[peacecup]

Let me just say that I appreciate how much effort you all are putting into this project. My comments are motivated by my genuine interest in seeing you get the most of your efforts.

But now that we've got supportive preliminary data, it's time to develop and refine hypotheses, and design experiments for testing them.

Both you and Dave have said that there are perceptible differences in espresso in the cup - is this the preliminary data? To quote Ken, whom I trust to have a much greater knowledge of things espresso than I do myself:

speaking as one who has "convinced myself" of many things with coffee that have later been disproven in my own mouth on blind tasting, I would second the idea that any "convincing" when one knows the operative variables, be made with a great deal of caution.

I maintain that any reports of differences in results ought to be from blind tests for the reason Ken notes. It would be simple to work out a formula like:

grind two doses each taste test, load two baskets (with hidden ID marks), flip a coin to see which one is used, and report results BEFORE looking at the ID.

PC

[Java Man]

I had a conversation about the mechanics of conical vs. planar grinders yesterday with Rick "Javaman" Knowlan of Vancouver.

From our conversation it appears highly doubtful that these different grinder types were originally developed for reasons of perceived grind quality differences, rather before the development of electrical motors, it would have been difficult to produce enough torque by hand to operate a planar grinder. Subsequent development of these grinder types, until perhaps very recently, was done for reasons other than grind quality issues, although this may play a part in the last few years.
ken

To enlarge on my speculation -- and it's the most reliable kind, unfettered by facts or knowledge -- I guessed that manual grinders were primarily conical because planar grinders need substantial rotational speed to spin the ground coffee out centrifugally; and that is beyond the reasonable capability of a hand-cranked grinder.

Much of the product development I've seen in other industries adds improvement after improvement on existing concepts rather than breaking the mold with something really different; and I thought perhaps that may have shaped the development path for grinders -- manual conicals followed by electrical conicals, and then electrical planar grinders.

I have no opinion about whether conicals make better tasting espresso than planar grinders; but it may be terribly difficult to firmly establish that any perceived taste difference is due specifically to whether the burrs are conical rather than planar, and not to some other difference between two grinders. I think it may be devilishly difficult to hold all the other variables constant. In order to establish true conical superiority, I think we'd also need a sound theoretical explanation of specifically what makes conicals better, supported by testing to establish that the advantage can be "measured" in the grounds themselves before they're brewed.

Nevertheless, I'm eagerly awaiting the results of this project!

Rick

[Ken Fox]

To enlarge on my speculation -- and it's the most reliable kind, unfettered by facts or knowledge --

but it may be terribly difficult to firmly establish that any perceived taste difference is due specifically to whether the burrs are conical rather than planar, and not to some other difference between two grinders. I think it may be devilishly difficult to hold all the other variables constant. In order to establish true conical superiority, I think we'd also need a sound theoretical explanation of specifically what makes conicals better, supported by testing to establish that the advantage can be "measured" in the grounds themselves before they're brewed.

Nevertheless, I'm eagerly awaiting the results of this project!

Rick

I view this part of the project much as has been stated before by John and Dave; it is preliminary research aimed at trying to see if there appears to be a difference between different grinders in their output, and if this possible difference appears related to burr type. Along the way, there is a lot of descriptive and illustrative material, including photos, that can be put out there, much better stuff than is out there at the present.

I will myself be contributing with a mini review/comparison of the Cimbali Max to a Junior or Cadet. I'm leaning towards using my Cadet in this work since it has just had its burrs changed and the Junior I retain has 3 year old burrs. The Maxs I have are nearly brand new, so the comparison would be more equivalent given that the Cadet and Junior share the same burrs, the same grinder path, the same motor, and the same doser.

What I intend to do is a lot of back and forth shots which I hope will illustrate if there is any obvious and repeatable apparent difference. If there is, then more formal tasting such as with blind tasting will be necessary to be certain whether or not the apparent difference is real.

ken

[HB]

I maintain that any reports of differences in results ought to be from blind tests for the reason Ken notes. It would be simple to work out a formula like: grind two doses each taste test, load two baskets (with hidden ID marks), flip a coin to see which one is used, and report results BEFORE looking at the ID.

You outline what I planned on doing when the TGP arrives. I figure that after a few weeks of rating each shot, the differences, if any, should be plainly evident.

In order to establish true conical superiority, I think we'd also need a sound theoretical explanation of specifically what makes conicals better, supported by testing to establish that the advantage can be "measured" in the grounds themselves before they're brewed.

I've abandoned comparing specifications or designs as a means of predicting the performance of similar equipment. Measured results of comparable equipment may help speed testing, but it's not a substitute for actual hands-on usage.

[cannonfodder]

Tomorrow I am going to dial in both grinders for identical shot lengths, no tasting. Then have the wife grind into a generic white ramekin while I am outside (can't hear the grinder). Then I will take the ramekin, dose into the portafilter, pull the shot and taste. Then repeat with the other grinder. I would like to do it three times, once in the morning, mid day and afternoon. I will mark which one I believe is which grinder. Then after the last set of the day my wife will tell me which sample came from which grinder and see how I did.

When I said I have not convinced myself that I prefer the Kony I am expressing exactly what Ken is talking about. With all the hype on the Internet about conicals and the supposed dramatic (and better) cup difference it should be a clear cut comparison. Right now, I am almost convinced that there is a difference, but I would not say one is better than the other at this time. In fact I doubt I will declare one better than the other since taste is such a subjective subject. My best may be your worst. I hope to keep with more descriptive comparisons. This grinder produces X Y Z in the cup while this grinder produces A B C in the cup.

Once I do my shot comparison and correctly pick which sample came from which grinder 80% of the time, I will be convinced.

[RapidCoffee]

Both you and Dave have said that there are perceptible differences in espresso in the cup - is this the preliminary data?

Actually, I was referring to the preliminary quantitative data from the particle size distribution measurements. The qualitative taste impressions reported by Dave and myself should be treated as nothing more than anecdotal evidence. (This will change when blind taste testing commences.) But even so, our observations may be useful to drive the development of testable hypotheses.

[old442]

Right now, I am almost convinced that there is a difference, but I would not say one is better than the other at this time. In fact I doubt I will declare one better than the other since taste is such a subjective subject.

I wonder if the blends have been optimized based on the equipment available (i.e. flat burrs). It may be that a good roaster could maximize the flavor potential of a blend for conical grinders. Just a thought.

[cannonfodder]

I have a sneaky feeling that this is exactly where we will end up. Certain styles of coffee (bright, floral, fruited, chocolaty, leathery, tobacco, spic, and molasses) will be best suited to a particular kind of burr, or even brand/model specific. Right now, that is the way my thinking is trending, but it is still very early and I am only on set one of the grinder pairs.

[Java Man]

In order to establish true conical superiority, I think we'd also need a sound theoretical explanation of specifically what makes conicals better, supported by testing to establish that the advantage can be "measured" in the grounds themselves before they're brewed.

I've abandoned comparing specifications or designs as a means of predicting the performance of similar equipment. Measured results of comparable equipment may help speed testing, but it's not a substitute for actual hands-on usage.

Sorry, I wasn't suggesting this as an addition to the project. I was simply commenting on what it might take to establish something more than simple correlation between grinder burr configuration and observed differences among grinders.

Rick

[Ken Fox]

Now aside from the fact that "myths" - in the original sense of the word mythos - were much closer to reality than the so called "facts" we describe in our languages based on logos as a tool of communication I see no debunking of anything so far. But what I do seem to sense is a certain number of hasty conclusions based on questionable experiments.

If it is agreed upon, that the heat we notice comes from the fraction of the beans - meaning from inside the beans rather than the environment outside, I don't see why it should be a "moot" point that this very heat is capable of doing considerable damage to the overall taste, namely by affecting the volatile components as well as those which undergo substantial chemical changes when heat is applied, just because we don't notice any "dramatic" temperature rise in the environment relatively far away (where the thermocouples actually sit, surrounded by mostly air which happens to be a pretty good thermal insulator).

If I were doing such experiments with a claim of them being remotely scientific, I would probably first try to figure - or measure properly - how much energy in form of heat - on a microscopical level - is actually released and how this heat would affect the chemical substances in the close vicinity (at least those we know of). And then I would try to find out if either type of grinder - conical or flat - does less thermal damage than the other...

But then again, what do I know...

Any measurements taken would be valueless in the absence of any observed differences in shot quality.

It has previously been stated by a number of well respected enthusiasts that conical burr grinders, or at least some conical burr grinders, make better shots than planar grinders. Some of these same people (and others) have inferred that it is the extra heat present in the grinding process of a planar grinder that accounts from some of the supposed shot quality degradation from a planar grinder.

Personally speaking, I don't take it as a given that conical grinders are superior to planar grinders, nor that if conicals are superior, that excess heat, in a low volume home setting explains this.

Call these assumptions anything you wish. For me they are unproven suppositions, all of them.

ken

[cannonfodder]

(Saturday Morning)

I am not having much luck with blind cupping, but it is not for lack of trying. The problem I have is that I am the only coffee drinker in the house and I know no one that knows anything about espresso that lives relatively close.

Indulge me as I tell my story...

This morning started out wonderful, except for that 5am call from work, stupid users. It was sunny and cool, a beautiful morning. I planned on doing some espresso cupping later in the day so decided to open up the grind on the Kony and make a pot of drip coffee with the Clarity.

I ran into a new annoyance with the Kony as I reset the grind for drip. I grabbed the adjustment pin on the color and proceeded to turn it one revolution. Whack! I forgot about the interlock on the back of the grinders hopper. You can not turn the adjustment ring 360 degrees because of the blade on the back of the hopper. You have to unscrew the adjustment pin, screw it in on the other side of the interlock, and then continue to turn the color. I have to say the grind looked very nice to the eye, better than my Mini.

I brewed up a pot of Brazil Fazenda Cachoeira Da Grama, the #16 Brazil COE winner. Wonderful cup. Sweet, smooth, not a hit of bitterness, floral, melon, maybe a touch of nut in the background. I could already tell it was going to be a good day.

After breakfast I did a thorough cleaning on my Elektra. I backflushed the machine, scrubbed the gasket and shower screen and soaked the portafilter and basket. It was spic and span and ready for action.

I opened a bag of Brazil Daterra from Caffe Fresco and split it between the Kony and Super Jolly. You really notice how huge those hoppers are when a half pound of coffee barely fills the bottom ¼. I dialed both grinders in to produce a 27 second shot give or take a second with a 16 gram dose. The Kony adjusted back from the morning drip with ease. Three shots and I had it spot on. The Super Jolly was more temperamental and took 5 shots to get it dialed in. I did a good water backflush, scrubbed off the shower screen and washed out the portafilter with some hot water and a towel in preparation for the cupping.

Let me step back one second before I get into the cupping. I was trying to address two hypothesis with this test. The first was that the Kony produced a brighter cup highlighting the more fruited flavors and providing better separation in the flavors while the Super Jolly produces a deeper cup with more muted fruit with an emphasis on the lower toned flavors. The second hypothesis was that there was indeed a difference between the Kony and Super Jolly in the cup. I selected the Daterra because it is a somewhat reserved coffee with a little fruit, mild acidity and mild body. If my hypothesis had a leg to stand on, I should be able to pick out which shot came from which grinder with ease. One last thing, I have not sampled this coffee from either of these grinders, and it has been months since I had a bag. So this was truly a blind test, I had no profile to fall back on.

So I got everything ready for the test. The wife is going to grind a sample from one of the two grinders and dose it into a ramekin that I had already weighed and zeroed out the scale. I went outside the house while she ground and dosed the sample. She called me back to the house. I put the ramekin on the scale and adjusted the dose to 16 grams. I filled my portafilter (using a spouted portafilter to hide any obvious differences in the crema) tamped, flushed, started the timer and my shot. I was pulling into a metered measuring cup so I could be sure I got the correct extraction and the correct time. 2 ounces in 27 seconds, good enough for me.

Somewhat bland, nutty with a little fruit in the background and a touch of floral, medium to medium-low acidity and medium body, a decent cup but not outstanding. I cleaned the cup, portafilter and machine then left the house so the wife could grind the second sample. The extraction was within one second of the previous, again good enough for me. Then I sampled. Smooth, floral, fruity, nut, nice acidity, medium body, creamy in the mouth and a little less body the previous shot. I note the first was the Super Jolly second was the Kony. I asked the wife which grinder was the first sample was from, 'the black one', I was on the money.

I was tempted to just stop there. There was that noticeable of a difference in the cup. I was not splitting hairs, there was a very obvious difference. As I had predicted, the shot that the Kony produced was much brighter with the higher toned floral and fruit notes taking center stage with the nut and body playing second fiddle. This was one of the best shots I have had from the Kony. It accentuated the high notes in the coffee, it was not harsh or sharp. The Super Jolly also performed as expected providing a mid toned cup accentuating the nut and even a little coco while the fruit and floral notes were there but not as strong or well defined. It was quite honestly a somewhat boring cup with plenty of body but missing the creamy mouth.

I cleaned up and we headed off to the store. Several hours later we got home. I fired up the Elektra and prepared to do another round of shots to see I could once again easily pick out the Kony.

Once again I go outside while the wife grinds my next sample. I walk around the pool, watch a squirrel in the tree, walk back around the pool, and put the cover on the grill. I think to myself what is taking so long. Finally she calls me back in. 'I turned it on and pulled the handle like you told me but nothing was coming out, so I let it run a little longer. Then a whole bunch came out at once'.

Houston, we have a problem. Never let someone that has only used a doser twice in their life run a commercial grinder. She emptied the entire hopper! A quarter pound of coffee shot to hell. I don't think she was pulling the doser level completely around so the flapper was not grabbing the spur on the hub and rotating the doser. She just stood there flapping in the wind. So I tell her she must not have pulled the doser handle all the way around. Mistake. 'Well I've never used one of those before but I did it just like you told me.' I don't think so hun, let me show you again (second mistake). Well, I never quite got that second round of cupping. I am sitting on the deck in the dark typing on the laptop. Oh bother.

So I will have to defer the blind cupping to others, but I most definitely got a different cup from each grinder and the resulting shot was easily identified. Now I know there are those that will complain that one sample is not statistically adequate, and it may not be, but I don't care. The cups were so different I don't feel the need to do it again, not that I could since she ground every bit of coffee that was in the Kony. I am talking white and red wine different here. At least my tomato plants have some good coffee for fertilizer, I wonder if I can get a mochamatos?

[HB]

To avoid losing an important discussion in this larger thread, I split the follow-on discussion of Dave's grounds temperature measurements to Titan Grinder Project: Does burr heating coffee grounds negatively affect taste of espresso?

(Sorry, I know it's a long title...)

[ricci71]

I have been following this conversation and I have to say it is the one I've been waiting for. For a couple of years I have been drawing and developing a grinder that utilized a large 83mm Robur burr set. With the cunning (or obvious) use of a huge radial bearing, a modified timing pulley, a toothed belt and I had a grinder that I hoped would solve many of the complaints about espresso grinders. Alas, I happened upon "My" grinder at SCAA this year and I mean it was so similar it was freaky even down to the placement of the screws that held the body together.
They say that "Necessity is the mother of invention" and I fully expected that someone else with the resources and funds to acquire a patent would build a grinder such as this. It has probably been a design that has entered many a caffeinated mind. This grinder is basically the same principle as the Versalab only built to withstand the abuse of a busy espresso bar and has a bean hopper.
This is going somewhere I promise. Ground coffee is basically abused throughout the process and especially just after it leaves the burrs wherein it is basically squeegeed around a very tight channel only to be jammed through a little chute that is not oriented in the direction the grounds would naturally take. I will spare you all the doser issues; I know to some, none of this is new info. I have seen the image of coffee in the doser of the Robur and what seems like much less clumping compared to the other grinders. I assume this has something to do with the size of the channel around/under the burrs being larger and the speed at which they are "squeegeed". This has me thinking that if someone where to build a grinder with an even larger channel and the exit chute to the doser was angled and not as long we would see even less clumping in the doser and who knows, it may solve a little of the heat issue. Albeit very little.


It would be great if someone could get a hold of a microscope or a sifter or a laser or all of the above and do a comparison of how uniformity of the particles differs from the conicals to the flat. If we could do this we could talk even more about total dissolved solids and what makes a great cup. I assume, based on some of the members finding more clarity in the taste off the conicals that some of this comes from more uniformity of grounds and therefore a better extraction.


Am I crazy for spending this much brain power on this coffee thing? Oh well, at least I am not alone.