Why don't pros use the WDT? More advanced distribution techniques? - Page 2

[HB]

...and you're an expert "whacker", right?

I think you mean thwacker.

[Rainman]

My lever is too new to make a "thhhhwhack".. for now its quietly "whack"-ing!

[k7qz]

It is my impression that the secret ingredient in their barista technique is updosing. 18 grams in a double L/M basket is considered normal by most of the baristas I worked with. At times the impression of the shower screen screw on the spent puck is so deep, it forms a small crater. The updosing is so severe, that in all three competitions the L/M technicians needed to replace the dispersion screen halfway through the competition on all the machines. The baristas will go up to 19 & 19.5 grams at times.

Abe:

Thanks for this post. I find this observation of yours quite intriguing- I'm not in your league in terms of experience but the minute I read your thoughts I said to myself "By George, that's it!" One of those things I also have seen top tier baristas do but never noticed it or had it click in my mind until just now when I read your post. Hmmm, maybe a little more experimenting along these lines is in order...

[Abe Carmeli]

Abe:

Thanks for this post. I find this observation of yours quite intriguing- I'm not in your league in terms of experience but the minute I read your thoughts I said to myself "By George, that's it!" One of those things I also have seen top tier baristas do but never noticed it or had it click in my mind until just now when I read your post. Hmmm, maybe a little more experimenting along these lines is in order...

You're welcome, but before you start experimenting perhaps this little qualifier is in order: Updosing is very machine dependent and you will get varying results. It has to do with head space. On the L/M's & Synessos it works well. It will not work well on some home machines, and may cause uneven extractions.

[Matthew Brinski]

John,

I am not disagreeing with people's use of your technique. I gave my opinion regarding the question by the OP. I said in the first line of my post, if it works, more power to it. There are people who obviously think it's a great technique, and that is why they get on the forums and praise it. They saw a tremendous improvement in their extraction, and then wonder why it isn't used by most people exclusively. It is because there are other ways that are more advantageous to different people for different reasons. The way I learned, which I described in my first post, works very well for me.

Regarding dose, I dose by sight and the compression / rotation feel while redistributing. I would find it very difficult to dose appropriately using the WDT without doing some sort of redistribution technique after it ... that is if the beans (or grinds) aren't being weighed per dose on a scale. If redistribution needs to be done after the WDT, then why bother if the results are the same or better than without the use of the WDT?

I am also not attacking the use of doserless grinders ... OK, maybe I am ..., but point is that a doserless setup, whether crafted at home or manufactured by the Holy and Divine Mazzer grinder folks, is problematic for flat burr grinders. The WDT is in effect helping fix a problem (clumping) that didn't need to be such a problem to begin with.

[RapidCoffee]

Regarding dose, I dose by sight and the compression / rotation feel while redistributing. I would find it very difficult to dose appropriately using the WDT without doing some sort of redistribution technique after it ... that is if the beans (or grinds) aren't being weighed per dose on a scale. If redistribution needs to be done after the WDT, then why bother if the results are the same or better than without the use of the WDT?

I am also not attacking the use of doserless grinders ... OK, maybe I am ..., but point is that a doserless setup, whether crafted at home or manufactured by the Holy and Divine Mazzer grinder folks, is problematic for flat burr grinders. The WDT is in effect helping fix a problem (clumping) that didn't need to be such a problem to begin with.

Matthew, at the risk of repeating myself: I respectfully disagree with your opinions. There is nothing inherently more difficult about dosing with the WDT. Like you, I dose by sight until I have a slight mound in the basket, then stir and level. Your techniques work for you because you have refined them by practice. Mine work for me for the same reason. I'm quite sure that if you took more time to practice with the WDT, you'd develop dosing proficiency. (I'm not saying you should, I'm saying you could.)

Although dosers can help reduce clumping, they tend to throw grinds to one side of the basket, and retain more coffee grounds. So it's a tradeoff. If you like dosers, stick with them. But until I see a better doser design, I'm convinced doserless is the way to go for home use. (BTW, I believe clumping primarily results from grounds getting compressed in the chute - not flat burrs.)

IMHO, the WDT provides several advantages over other distribution techniques. First, it allows you to distribute grounds evenly throughout the basket. Other methods only interact directly with surface grounds, so you don't really know what's happening underneath. Second, it declumps. Third, it offers additional flexibility in dosing. The WDT allows you to downdose by fluffing up the grounds. And it's inexpensive, nearly foolproof, and very easy to teach and learn.

But if you prefer not to use it, that's fine by me. It's not like I get royalties.

[AndyS]

The updosing is so severe, that in all three competitions the L/M technicians needed to replace the dispersion screen halfway through the competition on all the machines.

Sort of makes the technical judging something of a farce, no? If the barista is allowed to damage the machine without technical penalty, what's next? Is it allowable to knock the espresso machine onto the ground when you're done to add a little "flair" to your performance (The Who)? Or set it on fire (Hendrix)?

[HB]

Is it allowable to knock the espresso machine onto the ground when you're done to add a little "flair" to your performance?

Barry would know for certain, but the rules state the barista must clean and return the station to its original setup. If they damage the screens in what is judged improper use of the equipment, points should come off.

[Matthew Brinski]

Sort of makes the technical judging something of a farce, no? If the barista is allowed to damage the machine without technical penalty, what's next? Is it allowable to knock the espresso machine onto the ground when you're done to add a little "flair" to your performance (The Who)? Or set it on fire (Hendrix)? :o

...or jump on top of the table (Bobby Flay)?

[jesawdy]

Is it allowable to knock the espresso machine onto the ground when you're done to add a little "flair" to your performance (The Who)? Or set it on fire (Hendrix)?

Now that is something that I would like to see! When WBC goes more mainstream (ya know, whenever WWF and WBC combine) this is the sort thing that would draw a crowd and make good television.

Andy, you could start a similar interest in espresso machines... something like ROBOT WARS with Silvia versus La Marzocco.

[AndyS]

Barry would know for certain, but the rules state the barista must clean and return the station to its original setup.

OK, so AFTER you knock it over and set it on fire, you have fifteen minutes to put out the fire and get it back on the table. Cool.

[AndyS]

the improvement for the Mazzer Mini is unmistakable; it's hardly worth the time for the Mazzer Robur. I would like to explore this "WDT Factor" more closely...

I've also experienced that the natural distribution of the Robur is far better than that of the Mini.

This brings to mind another issue. Obviously a badly channeled shot doesn't taste right. But I suspect that some of the enthusiasm over the WDT is more about the appearance of the shot than it is about the taste.

When pulling a series of shots, sometimes I rate the evenness of the naked shots before I taste them. In other words, I give the naked visual perfection of the shot a one-to-five rating: five is perfect, one would be a channeled disaster. I find the "near-perfect" visual shots don't taste any better than the "very good" ones.

Try it for yourself, and see if the "perfectly even" shots taste consistently better than the "very good" ones.

[RapidCoffee]

This brings to mind another issue. Obviously a badly channeled shot doesn't taste right. But I suspect that some of the enthusiasm over the WDT is more about the appearance of the shot than it is about the taste.

When pulling a series of shots, sometimes I rate the evenness of the naked shots before I taste them. In other words, I give the naked visual perfection of the shot a one-to-five rating: five is perfect, one would be a channeled disaster. I find the "near-perfect" visual shots don't taste any better than the "very good" ones.

Try it for yourself, and see if the "perfectly even" shots taste consistently better than the "very good" ones.

Andy, you bring up an excellent point. I'm unaware of any scientific studies that correlate the appearance of shots with their taste. Perhaps it's time. Now if we could only find someone to do the studies...

[AndyS]

Andy, you bring up an excellent point. I'm unaware of any scientific studies that correlate the appearance of shots with their taste. Perhaps it's time. Now if we could only find someone to do the studies...

I think Ken Fox is just itching to do it.

[Dogshot]

But I suspect that some of the enthusiasm over the WDT is more about the appearance of the shot than it is about the taste...Try it for yourself, and see if the "perfectly even" shots taste consistently better than the "very good" ones.

They certainly aren't going to taste worse , so there is little chance of harm in making consistently perfect looking pours.

I can understand if people who have well established techniques don't care to use the WDT; I definitely do not understand some culture of cool around eschewing the WDT in favour of 'pro' methods. Actually, I used to sample espresso wherever I would see a machine at a shop. After seeing the horrors that many of the shop machines and grinders have lurking within them, I realized that espresso machines and grinders must not be subject to the same food preparation regulations that other comestibles are. With that in mind, I would rather have an espresso prepared by being poked with an implement that is used only to poke at coffee grounds than having an espresso that is fingered and palmed by a barista...

Spending time with any good technique will allow the user to become fast and to be able to control dose to some degree. I think the WDT has an edge in ease of learning and in reproduceability of results. What more could a home-barista want? I also think there is merit to trying to pare the WDT down to the fewest, most important steps to get great results. If a pro tried to do this, I bet they could work it into a retail environment workflow, and might even see better overall results.

Mark

[Teme]

I am not an advocate of WDT. I have tried it, but do not use it.

I recently had some interesting discussions regarding dosing and distribution with a couple of people vastly more experienced than me. These conversations got me thinking about the WDT again.

While the WDT does help break clumps, does it not also result in an uneven distribution of grinds in terms of the different coffee particle sizes? In other words, doesn't stirring the coffee result in more of the fine particles ending up in the bottom of the filter basket while the coarser particles stay on the top? This would lead to the coffee puck being uneven in density when looking at the cross-section. This must also have an effect in the cup, yes or no?

Br,
Teme

[RapidCoffee]

While the WDT does help break clumps, does it not also result in an uneven distribution of grinds in terms of the different coffee particle sizes? In other words, doesn't stirring the coffee result in more of the fine particles ending up in the bottom of the filter basket while the coarser particles stay on the top? This would lead to the coffee puck being uneven in density when looking at the cross-section. This must also have an effect in the cup, yes or no?

Interesting thought. Stirring might cause a particle size migration, but until someone wants to measure this, well... You could also argue that doser vanes do something similar when the doser is full of grounds.

More to the point: would it matter? Stirring breaks up clumps and fills in gaps in the puck, which are likely to cause uneven distribution and promote channeling. If the distribution is flat and even in a radially symmetric fashion about the center of the puck, then a vertical gradient of particle sizes shouldn't have ill effects on the pour. Current thinking implies that fines migrate to the bottom of the puck during the pour anyway.

Pure speculation, of course.

[TimEggers]

Most interesting. In my experience the WDT definitely helps far more than it hurts. But I'm new to all this.

In my opinion there are so many variables in play during any given shot that can anyone claim to control them all well enough to know that any one technique or variable is detrimental to the shot? I'd argue that the typical barista, while quite talented, will always have variables for each shot that are just beyond their (or any humans) control. There in lies the art aspect of all this. Is there anyone in such complete control of the process that they can single out a single variable as the culprit?

I could be completely wrong; I accept that (I am an amateur after all). I just have a gut feeling that some tend to over analyze every aspect of making a shot rather then just doing it and further crafting their skill on the art of espresso.

[Teme]

More to the point: would it matter? Stirring breaks up clumps and fills in gaps in the puck, which are likely to cause uneven distribution and promote channeling. If the distribution is flat and even in a radially symmetric fashion about the center of the puck, then a vertical gradient of particle sizes shouldn't have ill effects on the pour. Current thinking implies that fines migrate to the bottom of the puck during the pour anyway.

I guess my thinking was that with more fines in the bottom of the filter, the pour could appear nice while at the top of the puck you will have less fines to hold the puck together. This could lead to pitting or even channeling in the top part of the puck without it being that apparent from the pour (but would cause uneven extraction nevertheless). This is just something that popped into my mind and is also pure speculation. I may be completely off base here, but it would be interesting to see evidence either way

In my experience the WDT defiantly helps far more than it hurts.

I am not disputing the usefulness of the WDT and I agree that if one does not mind the procedure, it will help in overcoming at least some of the weaknesses of clumping grinders. My point is that it may not be a perfect substitute for a grinder that distributes the ground coffee better in the first place. In other words, is there also a (hidden?) downside to WDT? There may or may not be, hence my question.

In my opinion there are so many variables in play during any given shot that can anyone claim to control them all well enough to know that any one technique or variable is detrimental to the shot? I'd argue that the typical barista, while quite talented, will always have variables for each shot that are just beyond their (or any humans) control. There in lies the art aspect of all this. Is there anyone in such complete control of the process that they can single out a single variable as the culprit?

Sure, but one could at least try and isolate the variables and see what impact a change to one of them at a time (with the others remaining equal) will have to the outcome. I see that such experiments have already been conducted e.g. with regards to the size of the dose and the results were quite interesting. I do not claim to be qualified to perform such tests and draw conclusions, though.

I just have a gut feeling that some tend to over analyze every aspect of making a shot rather then just doing it and further crafting their skill on the art of espresso.

I agree (and I am guilty as charged ). I think there is a time for just pulling your shots and enjoying them. But I also think that there is a time for thinking about what you did to get that shot? why you did things the way you did? why the shot ended up like it did? is there something that you could do differently? if so, why and what would the impact of the change have been? for the better or for the worse? why so? etc etc. I think this is part of the fun and of the neverending learning process. I would assume that WDT is a result of a similar process of over analyzing and proof that something good does come out as a result of it

Br,
Teme

[Rainman]

I'm with Tim (being fairly new to all the distribution stuff). For me, that technique evolved via frustrations/re-learning how to dose and tamp after I bought a bottomless PF. Using that Rocky, there was just no way it was going to work unless I stirred the grounds. Teme, you may be right about the fines settling to the bottom, but they at least do so in a uniform manner during redistribution (WDT) if that's the case. It may be a case of which is an overriding factor- fines mixed in the puck in the vertical plane, but not evenly spread out horizontally (a definite no-no I would think), or evenly spread out along the bottom- I'm sure some are still suspended in the middle somewhere, and not ALL on the bottom. It does work with the cheaper grinders, especially those with doserless features- I'm guessing the mini-e's are the exception there.