It seems to be an industry standard to sink the screw holes right in the middle of the flat burrs' grinding surfaces, but given John Bicht's contrary nature I'm a bit surprised he didn't find a new way to do this.

Anybody know his opinion about this?

Henry

hbuchtel wrote:It seems to be an industry standard to sink the screw holes right in the middle of the flat burrs' grinding surfaces, but given John Bicht's contrary nature I'm a bit surprised he didn't find a new way to do this.

John very kindly replied to an email about this question-

He said they did not experiment with this, but that compared to the benefit of other modifications changing the placement of the screw holes would not be worth the cost of having burr sets custom made.

Henry

luthier wrote:My millennium europiccola has 51~51.5mm baskets and it's probably the smallest suitable basket size for the M3 grinder.

It's been a while since the Versalab M3 grinder was discussed on HB, but since I only recently joined up, I hope it's not too late to leave a few comments and ask a couple of questions.

I admire the machine's clean lines and simplicity very much, and trust the experts on this forum who give it high marks for distribution of coffee in the basket and for other features that lead to good espresso. But the M3 grinder seems less than excellent in terms of its user-friendliness and practicality in real-world settings, as others have already noted.

Given the variability in basket sizes, it would be a customer-friendly touch and at the same time an homage to earlier machine designers if the ring at the bottom of the funnel were easily interchangeable with rings in different sizes (i.e. varying inner diameter to accommodate different filter baskets, 49mm, 51mm, etc).

If you're going to be changing grind according to the coffee of the moment, you need some frame of reference to help you dial in the location of a desired setting. I gather it's costly to engrave the face of a cone. But would it be less costly to put the markings on the top rim of the funnel? Is that a flat surface? Arabic numerals or, to honor the Italian heritage of espresso, perhaps early Etruscan/Italic glyphs ... any set of symbols with a few dots between them would do

http://www.travelphrases.info/gallery/F ... talic.html

But the M3 grinder seems less than excellent in terms of its user-friendliness and practicality in real-world settings, as others have already noted.

I am not sure what "real world" means. The real "commercial world" or the real "home world?" Dr. Jim, who frequents these forums has pointed out to me that the design goals for a home machine should differ substantially from the design goals for a commercial machine. Indeed, many of the obstacles that we have to overcome, such as maintaining stable heat in an HX machine, are considerably reduced in a commercial shop where continuous shots are being pulled. At home, with lower usage, we're forced to "water dance and count down" in a way that would be less necessary if the machine was used commercially. It's logical enough - the machine was designed for use in a high production environment, not necessarily optimized for "the best cup of coffee possible" regardless.

I view my Versalab the same way. It's not fast enough to work in a high production environment. But it's plenty fast for the three or four double espressos I pull every morning. And it is in a whole other category in terms of grinding and distributing from the Macap that preceded it. Issues like "clumping" and getting rid of residual grounds go away.

Given the variability in basket sizes, it would be a customer-friendly touch and at the same time an homage to earlier machine designers if the ring at the bottom of the funnel were easily interchangeable with rings in different sizes (i.e. varying inner diameter to accommodate different filter baskets, 49mm, 51mm, etc.

I have successfully filled everything from a 49MM (Olympia) to a 58MM portafilter without incident. The machine maintains its excellent distribution no matter the size - its simply a matter of holding the portafilter up to the ring until the very end. As a matter of practice it isn't a problem.

If you're going to be changing grind according to the coffee of the moment, you need some frame of reference to help you dial in the location of a desired setting. I gather it's costly to engrave the face of a cone. But would it be less costly to put the markings on the top rim of the funnel? Is that a flat surface? Arabic numerals or, to honor the Italian heritage of espresso, perhaps early Etruscan/Italic glyphs ... any set of symbols with a few dots between them would do

Here I agree with you. My pencil marks definitely don't do the same thing as a scale would. The shape of the funnels makes a scale difficult to implement. I may have a skilled machinist do it someday. But if I have to choose grind and distribution over marks - I'll gladly use the pencil.

hperry said:

[The M3 is] not fast enough to work in a high production environment. But it's plenty fast for the three or four double espressos I pull every morning.

I didn't say anything about the M3's grinding speed when I mentioned that there I had some practical "real world" reservations. That there's no hopper makes it clear that the M3 's not intended for commercial settings. Speed is not among the important criteria for home-grinders. I think we're in agreement on this point too.

SCALE
Since you mention speed, I'd say that John Bicht's exposed-wheel race-car test-driver background is revealing itself in the M3's design. You have to drive the M3 by 'the seat of your pants' and that's part of the appeal, I think, for the designer; he's trying to give the user a sense of that raw machine joy. I do appreciate that aesthetic but believe a compromise respecting the needs of the user would not detract from the machine's essential appeal and would remain true to its intended purpose. The aesthetic challenge is to come up with grind scale markings that are suited to the machine. An improved machine would let one quickly return to a previous successful grind setting for a bean enjoyed a few weeks ago ... avoiding a lot of grind-bracketing.

49mm PORTAFILTER
With regard to the other limitation I mentioned, the small portafilter issue, I was quoting from luthier who remarked that 51mm is the smallest basket he'd recommend for the M3. I didn't see anyone taking issue with his statement. I am happy to learn that you've had no trouble with your 49mm Olympia baskets. Grinds aren't sprayed out through the space between the basket and the ring?

EXPOSED BELT?
Finally, having to clean the belt weekly with alcohol to prevent slipping struck me as another feature that was less than ideal. Would the need to do this belt servicing increase in frequency the older the belt gets? Was there ever an answer provided about the belt's expected lifetime? In the photographs, the belt looks exposed. Is that so, or is there a lid that was removed to showcase the mechanism? If the former, is there a danger that something could become snagged in this exposed belt assembly as it spins? Isadora Duncan's scarf, perhaps, or my wife's long hair?

Regards
Timo

SCALE
An improved machine would let one quickly return to a previous successful grind setting for a bean enjoyed a few weeks ago ... avoiding a lot of grind-bracketing.

Totally agree. John Bicht has argued that it would materially increase the cost of the device and appears to not have an investment in doing it.

49mm PORTAFILTER
Grinds aren't sprayed out through the space between the basket and the ring?

As long as the portafiler is held against the ring there is no spray. I drop it down to pick up the last grounds from the funnel and that will cause some spillover.

EXPOSED BELT?
Finally, having to clean the belt weekly with alcohol to prevent slipping struck me as another feature that was less than ideal. Would the need to do this belt servicing increase in frequency the older the belt gets? Was there ever an answer provided about the belt's expected lifetime? In the photographs, the belt looks exposed. Is that so, or is there a lid that was removed to showcase the mechanism? If the former, is there a danger that something could become snagged in this exposed belt assembly as it spins? Isadora Duncan's scarf, perhaps, or my wife's long hair?

Belt maintenance is required with some regularity, although they are providing a new belt which reduces the need to do so. It's also somewhat coffee-dependent. I use some beans that have a light oily sheen. When using them there is not much belt cleaning. Beans that are not oily require more frequent cleaning of the belt. The cleaning requirement is reduced considerably by following their new procedure, which is to add the beans after starting the grinder. It may be a "cost of doing business" to meet other design goals that he has.

The belt is exposed. There are very tight tolerances between it and the side guard making it difficult, but not impossible, to get something in there. From a safety standpoint, objectively speaking, it should be covered. I do like the aesthetic the way that it is and think that adults, using common sense precautions, should not get into trouble.

Belt maintenance is required with some regularity, although they are providing a new belt which reduces the need to do so. It's also somewhat coffee-dependent. I use some beans that have a light oily sheen. When using them there is not much belt cleaning. Beans that are not oily require more frequent cleaning of the belt. The cleaning requirement is reduced considerably by following their new procedure, which is to add the beans after starting the grinder. It may be a "cost of doing business" to meet other design goals that he has.

Perhaps if the top metal plate were extended by a few millimeters, a plexiglass cap could be bolted to the top plate, protecting the belt from coffee dust and thereby reducing the maintenance while improving safety, yet leaving the mechanism exposed to view. A plexiglass tray could also be inserted into a tray-holder on the base. The tray could have a cylindrical cutout to permit insertion of filter basket below the funnel. The hole would be 58mm in diameter with brass ring inserts to bring the diameter down to 49mm. A tight-fitting plexiglass cap with detents could also sit on top of the upper funnel.
Timo

The top cover could work, although it would compromise the aesthetic. There is also the inevitable scratching that plexiglass would bring. As a practical matter, though, the weekly belt maintenance takes far less time that the almost daily "brushing out" of machines to get rid of old coffee which many users of other grinders report. Never have to do that with the Versalab.

I don't really see the need for the tray as I easily move from 58mm to 49mm going from the Olympia to the Termozona. At 49mm grinds don't spray if you hold the portafilter to the ring. It would introduce a level of complexity into what seems to me to be an elegant and simple solution as it sits.

There must be some shatterproof, scratch-resistant, moldable glass-like substance that would glisten and complement the machine's aesthetic, to cover the exposed belt.

A filterbasket-holding tray could be an optional feature for those of us too lazy or too distracted to stand in front of the grinder holding a PF.

As for the flexible collar with detents that fits around the lip of the top funnel... that could be an easy retrofit if the collar were split and had spring-tension like the piston ring on the new Cremina that Steve Robinson wrote about in his piece about the evolution of a design. Instead of numbers, the collar could use glyphs taken from various alphabets around the world, wherever coffee is grown. If there were a reference dot on the funnel to ensure that Versalab owners could synchronize their collars, people could then communicate their successes so:

Godshot with this Ethiopian with the collar set two detents to the left of ጵ

Regards
Timo