In reply to some earlier comments Mazzer use a 1.5mm thread pitch and the HG 1 uses a 1mm thread pitch. So if I understand correctly one revolution of the adjustment collar on a Robur covers half as much again adjustment range as the HG 1.

boar_d_laze wrote:If the Vario has less than 260 discrete steps because some of the 10 x 26 steps overlap (presumably at the macro-steps' shared boundaries), Baratza's statement about each of the 10 macro-steps being broken into 26 distinct micro-steps would not be false advertising -- as long as each of the 10 steps IS broken into 26 distinct micro-steps. Assuming the language supplied in this thread is representative, Baratza neither stated nor implied an absence of overlap.

Baratza madeit sound like the entire range of micro setting resides within one macro setting by their use of the word "further" to suggests this, quote, "...further divides each of the 10 macro steps into 26 distinct settings.". In the context as written, that's how most people would comprehend it.

Anyway the only thing more convincing than the experience of others is one's own, first-hand. So tonight, I rolled up the sleeves and did some tests....

It wasn't too hard to see there was considerable overlap. I'll let you take a look and ring in your own thoughts on the results. Having the advantage of feeling the grinds between my fingers, I can tell you the the entire range of micro settings was equal to two macro steps. So in actuality the total number of distinct steps is turns out about half what they claim...



For the full sized photo, i've posted it here:
https://public.dm2302.livefilestore.com ... jpg?psid=1

Anyway, not to stray too far from the topic at hand, I'd like to point out that your point about the large conicals being much more forgiving on bean aging was spot on (this was a post in the "other" coffee forum).. In 4 days the roast in the hopper needed some serious re-dialing, whereas it grinded and pulled perfectly on my HG One, untouched. So in retrospect, my step size comparison may very well end up being apples to oranges anyway.

In http://hg-one.com/spring-plunger-pins/, Craig explains that chief among the reasons a spring plunger redesign was rejected:

So why didn't this idea work-one word, resolution. ...In practice, this would mean that for every step on the adjustment mechanism, the burr would travel 1/55 or approximately .02 mm

Craig goes on to say it was back to the drawing board in search of "...a method that would provide finer resolution".

The "crenellated" design they went with yields 75 discrete steps, or a resolution difference of 0.005 mm per step beyond the spring plunger design that was rejected (ignoring machining tolerances). Although, stated as a 36% increase in the number of steps (55 to 75) sounds more impressive

Until someone has a 2014 HG One to trial, I'd like to see a current HG One owner time their shots with a 5 degree grind adjustment between shots, just to get an idea of what sort of a difference we could expect to see. (I saw Dick's comment that one notch on his K10 translates into ~5 seconds of flow time, but even though the K10 also has 75 notches, it wasn't clear to me if the K10 has the same thread pitch as the HG One).

You don't need to get the new HG One to do this experiment. Just approximate 1/75 turn on the current model.

Hey I wonder if people will have opinions one way or another now that HG-One is going stepped

Full disclosure: I just ordered one. I was partly persuaded by the other new features (user adjustable alignment, engraved scale, provision for FotonDrv style dosing accessories ).

I pull to constant weights/brew ratios, and I tend to make any small (<3-4 sec) flow adjustments by tweaking dose a few tenths of a gram rather than making very small grind changes. I have never noticed a difference in taste between using that method vs. making small grind adjustments as long as the brew ratio stays the same.

Sure, dose affects taste, but my experience is that it takes a larger dose change to be significant, as long as flow rate and brew ratio are matched. Have others found differently?

For me the new locking system should be good, I hope.

It's getting late here in Sydney, Australia but I was curious and did a couple of extractions. The diameter of the locking ring I measured at 30 cm. 1/75th of 30 cm is a movement of the locking ring of 4 mm. I started off at my "normal" setting for double ristrettos. Equipment:
1. HG one - 83 mm TiN Mazzer;
2. ECM Technika Profi IV - vibe pump pourover;
3. 18 g VST basket in ECM naked PF;
4. Gram scale measuring to 0.1 g.

Method:
1. Measure 18.0 g La Hacienda Esmerelda Palmyra x 2;
2. 2 sprays of water using small atomizer;
3. Grind directly into PF using Tidaka funnel;
4. Carefully remove lower funnel and knock any retention into PF;
5. Vigorous WDT using mini whisk;
6. Set up cup on gram scale;
7. Start stopwatch when pump is engaged;
8. Stop stopwatch when gram scale hits 18.0 g of extraction.

Results:
Standard grind setting 29.6 seconds to achieve 18 g extraction.
Movement to more coarse grind setting by 4 mm (a very small movement in my experience) results in 28.3 seconds for 18 g extraction.

Both extractions looked fine (didn't drink as I'd like to sleep tonight).

My sense is that the 75 increments per full revolution would be plenty fine enough for my purposes.

Terence

swapping burr mounts
swapping burr mounts
The HG one grinder comes built to order with either of two burr sizes, 71mm and 83mm.

I guess you can still get 71mm burr sets, this copied from their web page on the new model.

Just some comments about the micro/macro settings on Vario grinders. They definitely don't have 230 distinct settings, the micro and macro settings overlap quite a lot, like some have mentioned in the thread before:

coffeedom wrote:The Vario, for clarification, doesn't have 26 micro settings, it has 23. The Forte runs A-Z, the Vario runs A-W. The Vario generates 230 settings while the Forte has 260. I have spoken to Baratza directly regarding the micro steps and verified that the A-W range is certainly larger than one macro step. There is overlap. Each setting is not unique meaning there is more than one way to get a desired grind setting.

weebit_nutty wrote:I can tell you the the entire range of micro settings (25 of them to be exact, not 26) was equal to two macro steps. So in actuality the total number of distinct steps is turns out about half what they claim...

This is what I have experienced with my Vario also. I haven't run any grind tests on many different settings and studied the resulting grounds like Scott did, but it is also tested quite easily just by going by sound changes on the finest settings when the burrs start to close in tight and the motor starts to labor. On mine the pitch starts changing on the second highest macro setting when the micro setting is moved a bit above the middle, and each step on the micro from there on in when going finer results in a slight change in the pitch.

Then by comparing the pitch of the sound by going back and forth on settings I can easily hear that changing from finest to middle setting on the micro is about the same as going one macro step. Or put another way: a full range on micro is about equal to two steps on macro. (The micro runs from A to W on Vario, 23 different steps).

So in my experience the Vario only has about 110-120 distinct steps. I don't know if the Forte has the same mechanism for adjusting the burrs.

Assuming the numbers from Baratza are correct as Scott posted earlier:

weebit_nutty wrote:Ceramic burr range for Vario and Forte AP is 230 - 1150 microns.. That's a 920 micron range divided between 260 "distinct" settings on the Forte AP. 920/260=3.5 microns per step.

For Vario that would then be ca. 920/120 = 7,7 microns per step.
But if the range on these grinders is more like he has experienced, around 800 at coursest, it will be more like this: 800 - 230 = 570, 570/120 = 4,75 microns pr. step.

I have never experienced that a change of just one micro setting gets me from a several seconds too fast/slow shot to just right. I find I have to go at least 2, often 3 or 4 steps to see a change, but I am an amateur at espresso with beginner's equipment and still struggling for consistency. And it doesn't help that I am trying 3-4 different beans a week and also use the Vario sometimes for grinding for chemex and french press

Also, guess we cannot compare steps on 53mm flat burrs on an electric grinder with 83mm conical burrs on a manual grinder in this way to find any conclusions.

I am at least looking forward to getting a HG-one and prosumer machine (thinking of going for a lever) for a hopefully big increase in shot quality (in time), and so I can leave that grinder for espresso only.

But would be very surprised (and disappointed) if I found that there was a bean I couldn't get quite right on my machine because the 'perfect' grind setting was between two steps on the Hg-one...

Nice grind display Scott, it makes things clearer. I've felt that the span of the micro range is close to two macro steps, so this helps towards verifying that.

As for how much each micro step represents, it's hard to pin that down. At any calibration point the Vario never spans the whole useable range. You can calibrate the grinder to increase maximum coarseness until a set point, after which an internal spring will pop out and nothing more can be done. At that point the 1150 micron particle size can be achieved. Note that Baratza is referring to resultant particle size, not burr gap, when stating 250-1150 microns (they refer to it as "range of grind"). The space between burrs will actually be larger, but I know of no official data that specifies the actual numbers. For flat burr grinders this kind of data hasn't come up much, as far as I know.

So the 120-odd distinct settings on the Vario are not dividing into the particle size range, but into a larger, unspecified number, representing the actual space between the burrs. It would not surprise me if the gap/particle size ratio is similar to that of conicals, despite the differing burr geometries. It's a very niche question.

With this in mind, the notion of the micro steps being around 4.75 microns is unlikely. That is very fine indeed. It will definitely be much larger. It's only my speculation based on the numbers we have but if the burr gap range (at the coarsest calibration) is approximately 600-2000 microns (resulting in, say, a range of 350-1150 micron particles across all grind settings) then the value of a micro step would be closer to 1400/120 = 12 microns per micro click.

This is just my speculation of course, as we don't know the real values of the burr gap.

The HG One will have a minimal step of 13 microns, but maybe a bit more with machining tolerances. Comparable to the Vario, but a different type of burr. Flats do tend to be more sensitive to small changes than conicals, so maybe the possibly greater step size will not have as much impact on flow. Will be curious to see how it plays out once some more trials are done.