Over the years, there have been many posts describing the WDT as time consuming and cumbersome. OK, perhaps I'm biased - but I have difficulty understanding this. Although my dosered Robur is arguably the least likely grinder on the planet to require the WDT, I still use an abbreviated version. The funnel saves me time and effort by reducing mess, and the brief stir guarantees an even grinds distribution and a very consistent extraction.

Here is a short video of my routine. Disclaimer: standard consumer digital camera, nonexistent video skills, overhead lighting, one take, no do overs, first pour of the day... But I believe this gets the point across.


Grind, dose, distribution, tamp. I got lucky on the dose (15g exactly).

Here is the extraction. Lighting was very poor underneath the grouphead, and video was digitally brightened. Note that this is a Spaz S1 with rotary pump and no preinfusion, so any extraction problems are revealed immediately with the bottomless portafilter.


Compass Coffee Delirium blend. Yes, it tasted as good as it looks.

I don't know John, 2.5 seconds. Where will we find the time!

For me, WDT is not cumbersome at all, nor it's taking a lot of time. But it just seems weird to me even after using it for some time. Especially when you're having guests and WDTing every shots. They go like "what are you doing to the coffee with the needle?" And I usually take longer time than you do if I WDT, otherwise, I find it disturb the distribution more than to help distributing.

Did you try it without WDT? If it's not distributed evenly, just shake gently horizontally to distribute the coffee. This is even easier without the need of a 'surgery' tool. I suspect it would probably achieve the same result.

Except for the part where the coffee falls into the basket, I thought the whole video demonstrated a series of useless rituals, especially with a Robur. But, uh, I think we've been down this tired road before ....

Of course you don't "need" the WDT with a Robur, or any large commercial grinder. That's not the point. I continue to use the WDT because it occasionally helps, and there is so little effort involved.

Marshall, I will continue to (respectfully) disagree. There is a rationale for all my "rituals", including weighing the dose into the basket, and evenly distributing the grinds, and tamping. You have obviously developed different rituals, partly because you have different equipment (notably a timer on your grinder). But that doesn't make mine useless.

another_jim wrote:A perfectly flowing shot is a thing of beauty, and will certainly improve many people's enjoyment of the shot; even if it does not add to the shot's actual taste over an uglier but still non-channeled flow.

Another reason to chuck the bottomless portafilter once you're past the early training phase. (The other is the excessive [to my taste] crema).

RapidCoffee wrote:Here is a short video of my routine. Disclaimer: standard consumer digital camera, nonexistent video skills, overhead lighting, one take, no do overs, first pour of the day... But I believe this gets the point across.

My dear Sir, that is certainly NOT WDT. Why bother with that over the real thing? I think somebody duped you when they introduced you to WDT!

Let me tell how its really done. First you need better sharp implement with diameter not larger than 0.8mm. Why 0.8mm? I am glad you asked. You see WDT tools manufacturers spent billions researching the best WDT implement and after years of clinical trials they concluded that 0.8mm implement is the most optimal, but also that larger one will work. Don't argue the science son!

Next, you need to perform exactly 33 perfect overlapping concentric circles in basket but not with the ugly yogurt implement inside the basket. Through extensive research independent WDT experts have proven that using yogurt implements imparts unspecified taste to your coffee that you surely must want to avoid!?

Now let me get back to those 33 circles because that is most important. WDT tools manufacturers spent another couple of billions trying to find out exactly the best way to perform tasks and after years of research, you guessed it, they concluded that only 33 perfect overlapping concentric circles drawn using 0.8mm implement produces the perfect distribution of coffee in basket and indeed perfect espresso.

In short, there is only one way to do it right!

Now you can argue with me, but you can't argue with billions they spent researching it.

Hope this helps clear up any confusion.

^^^Nice^^^

Maybe I am missing something or maybe it is simply that I am too new and with too little tasting capacity to tell the difference. However, I think a lot of people in this site simply love more the "lab experiment" portion of making espressos far more than the actual espresso drink itself. For weeks, I read and read about every little ritual, machine, believe, voodoo, dose variables, temps, and habit there is. I read about all the acronyms and made up coffee language/words. I read reviews about machines, grinders, tampers, temps, etc. In the end, I came with many conclusions, but one was that there is a lot of people with OCD and too much time in their hands.

In the end, I bought a machine (Mini Vivaldi) and a grinder (Compak K3 Touch), some beans, and a tamper. I started to use them according to the gospel read here in so many threads only to find out most of the things I was reading made not a single difference in the practical world. Some do and there is no arguing those, but lots of the rituals, WDT included, are simply a waste of time in my mind. I have tried now 6 different types of beans, all of which have different dose/temp/volume recommendations. I have followed the roasters recommendations to a T and then also made them all with the same temp/volume/dose only to find out that I personally couldn't tell much of a difference. The one difference I could tell was that for the most part they all seem to taste far better when dosed at much lower weight than recommended. Yes, they all taste different from each other, but not necessarily one better than the other.

I guess if you think that what you are doing is making all the difference in the world, then keep doing it. Placebo is an extraordinary drug in itself.

Flame away now.........

tekomino wrote:Now you can argue with me, but you can't argue with billions they spent researching it.

I know you're trying to be funny, but would you clarify what your real point is? Is it your point that the WDT is a waste of time (as Marshall asserts) or something more precise? For what it's worth, I haven't used it in years, but I agree with John that it's a great way to compensate for grinder shortcomings or correct gross distribution errors.