timo888 wrote:Challenging accepted wisdom is what it's all about, right? I would not want either of us to shut up.

OK, then please allow me the luxury of challenging accepted wisdom, and take this in the spirit in which it's being offered. I'm simply reporting what I've discovered.

timo888 wrote:And by light, I mean VERY VERY lightly.

Unless you want to visit and observe for yourself, you're gonna have to trust me on this. I tamped VERY VERY lightly.

timo888 wrote:An exceptionally light tamp compresses the top region less than a heavy tamp compresses the bottom region.

You might be right, but this is another statement that I'd like to see evidence for. In this case, I am merely stating conventional wisdom, e.g. Mark Prince's article on Tamping Science, Theory and Practice:

Second, and most crucial, they believed that in manual hand tamping, no matter how much pressure a person exerts on the top of the bed of ground coffee, by the time one gets down to the bottom third of the bed, almost all that pressure is eaten up, and the bottom portion of the formed puck is barely compacted any more by the tamping pressure.

A light tamp may well reduce the chance of fracturing the puck on the upstroke. I was just hoping someone had figured out a way to test this hypothesis. And if a light tamp works better with multiple pulls, how about no tamp at all?

timo888 wrote:With a very light tamp, "gross differences" between first and second pull become less pronounced.

Not necessarily true. In my (admittedly limited) testing, a light tamp made little difference. But the differences between pulls were dramatic, regardless of tamp pressure.

Not all lever machines are created equal, and many factors impact extraction. You've pointed this out a number of times. La Pavoni has a high volume pull, high enough for one complete pull to yield a normale or even a lungo brew ratio. That pretty much guarantees a badly overextracted second pull.

timo888 wrote:Updosing makes the latter stage extraction more like the early stage extraction.

Before responding (or performing any more experiments), I'd like a clarification of this statement.

My preference of light tamp vs. hard tamp has been coffee specific. Blue Bottle Hayes Valley is undrinkable with a light tamp, but great with a hard tamp. Harar is tastier with a lighter tamp. Go figure.

HB wrote:That's where we disagree, assuming you refer to lever espresso machines that require multiple pulls. Two lever pulls don't equal two halves of a continuous extraction. I agree your suggestions minimize the negative impact for the Lusso and thank you for pointing them out.

Two lever pulls do not equal or map exactly to the two timed halves of a continuous extraction from a pump machine, granted, but they are comparable. The differences in the espresso from first and second pull are to be attributed mainly, I think, to the fact that the first pull has taken things from the filter basket that are no longer there, or are much depleted, by the time you enter the second phase, regardless of the type of machine, assuming they're operating at comparable brew pressure etc etc.

A manual lever that can attain 8-9 bar and sustain that brew pressure (cf. Alchemist's posts) and a pump machine operating at 9 bar are actually more alike in this regard than are a manual lever and a spring lever, despite their visual similarities, because the spring lever is operating at ~6+ bars max and tapers to 3 bar as the spring decompresses.

To come back to RapidCoffee's request that I clarify my remark that updosing can mitigate this depletion, and so make the difference between the two phases less pronounced ... what I said is not novel, but seems standard accepted wisdom: if you were to dose a double basket to capacity and to dose the same size basket moderately or even shy of a moderate dose, then after 15 seconds, all other things being equal, the filter basket with the larger dose would have more good stuff left in it than the filter basket with the moderate to skimpy dose would have. The second-phase extraction from the skimpy dose might even blonde, making for a really "gross difference" between the two phases. A larger dose can diminish those differences.


Regards
Timo

timo888 wrote:Two lever pulls do not equal or map exactly to the two timed halves of a continuous extraction from a pump machine, granted, but they are comparable.

Then we agree, they are not equal but are comparable. Another interesting comparison along these lines is doubles with two pulls versus singles with one. I haven't tried the Lusso's singles, but it's on my to-do list. Have you, and if so, how do they compare to the doubles?

timo888 wrote:A manual lever that can attain 8-9 bar and sustain that brew pressure (cf. Alchemist's posts) and a pump machine operating at 9 bar are actually more alike in this regard than are a manual lever and a spring lever, despite their visual similarities, because the spring lever is operating at ~6+ bars max and tapers to 3 bar as the spring decompresses.

Yes, I think this point has already been made several times, but thanks for the bold faced reminder for those who may have missed it.

Greetings,

If I may quote from the first post on the purpose of this Smackdown.

"Sponsored by 1st-line Equipment, this review will focus on their recent introduction to the US market, the Ponte Vecchio Lusso. This temperature-stable lever espresso machine will be compared and contrasted against better known models..."


Lets try to stay close to the purpose of this project.


Cliff Isackson

Because of potential puck fracturing, several Team H-B members suggested early on that I lock the PF in loosely during the initial upstroke. This was not an unqualified success. I often found myself raising the lever a bit too high before locking in, and BLAM! grounds would spray everywhere. So I developed a slightly modified version of this protocol on La Pavoni:


short flush to warm cup and raise grouphead temp


lower lever slightly (just enough to stop flow) and lock in loaded PF, then raise lever and pull shot

This approach is a bit clumsy, because La Pavoni is a lightweight machine, and it's hard to hold the lever up with one hand while dumping the cup and inserting the PF with the other. But it's much easier to determine exactly where the grouphead valve opens and closes.

Probably old hat to most leverheads, but a new technique for me.

cannonfodder wrote:That's one of my pet peeves about most lever machines: Why do they insist on putting a screw under the drip tray? Any liquid that gets spilt on the base will end up under that drip tray..

HB wrote:Few would argue that the La Pavoni Europiccola and Elektra Microcasa a Leva are among the most popular lever machines. Dave could have said "many" or "many of the most popular," but that's nitpicking over word choice.

cannonfodder wrote:Don't know, you would have to ask the engineer about that. Why would they put a screw under the drip tray? Do you think the designers intended for water to never get under the water drip tray?

To extrapolate on Dan's interpretation of your assertion that most lever machines have the defect of the screw under the drip tray, the Elektra Semiautomatic has this same set-up. Given the popularity of pump machines over levers, the Semiautomatica probably outsells all of the La Pavonis and a' levas combined.

Let's drop the screw in the drip tray criticism of lever machines.

I am really trying to get this two lever pull technique down. I went through about a half pound of coffee today between the Factory and Microcasa working on two pull shots. As recommended I have been grinding very fine. My normal light tamp with this grind would choke my A3 and its rotary pump.

I have been using Counter Culture Cafés Espresso La Forza with some mixed results

I am still getting better results from the Gaggia than I am the Elektra. That may be due to the spring levers same every time pressure and my ability to vary the pressure between the first and second pull on the Gaggia Factory. The second pull flows much faster than the first and goes blond so you have to keep an eye on the flow and pull the cup when you reach that point.

I will say that the shot flavor has improved over my initial results on both machines and I am getting more crema and a less bitter, acrid cup that I was when I started this endeavor, but I personally still prefer a single pull. That is not to say that with more time and experience I would not be able to get even better results. A curious observation, I have been doing a half pull/full pull on my Factory for several years. That technique has yielded one and a half ounces of espresso on a consistent basis. When I do the full pull followed by a second lever raise and full pull, I still get 1.5 ounces. Not sure how to explain that nor am I going to try at this time.

I am getting better results than John but that may be purely due to me having a couple years more experience on the machine. Think of it as a first time user learning a new machine and an old hand trying something new, there will be a difference in results.

I shot a video of the process which I will post once I have had time to do some video editing.

cannonfodder wrote:That is not to say that with more time and experience I would not be able to get even better results. a curious observation, I have been doing a half pull/full pull on my Factory for several years. That technique has yielded one and a half ounces of espresso on a consistent basis. When I do the full pull followed by a second lever raise and full pull, I still get 1.5 ounces. Not sure how to explain that nor am I going to try at this time.

Are you doing the fellini before your first pull? I have found if I want to be up to a full two ounces I have to do two fellini's to get there. Doesn't always work, but it will more often than not. Always have to watch the pour closely on these.


I think part of the explanation for this is the way the water enters the group. There almost always seems to be air trapped in the group, so the stated 1.5 ounce water draw is usually more like .75-1 ounce. The fellini and a good preinfusion will usually keep toward the higher end of this.

Just tried the "timo "was that a tamp?" tamp" again. I'm afraid I under dosed, and probably had at least 8mm headspace. So I only pulled once, and got a very nice shot, probably in the 9g:18ml range. Very tasty, and seemed to bring out the brightness in the Cafe D'Arte Firenze. I do like experimenting with the light tamp, but I don't rely on it. Next time I'll dose fuller and try a second pull. Timo's thesis, I supose, is that if there isn't a "puck" it can't fracture. My limited results with lower doses that are lightly tamped blond earlier than a more tightly-tamped puck of the same dose. I've always attributed this the channeling, because I figured the lose-ack was swirling around in there.

One interesting side note with lower doses in the PV double basket is that there is a greater volume of water per pull, maybe 20 ml (vs. 15 if full). The can yeild a very nice 10g:20 ml single-pull shot.

PC