Except for the burrs and the tolerance in the threads, the Monolith is inherently perfectly aligned. It's the same basic design as most of the Mazzers and all the other big top fed grinders. The difference with the Monolith is Dennis tries very hard to assure perfection. Grinders like HG-1s and Versalabs require alignment and can get out of alignment.

Having never seen a late Monolith taken apart I can't say how it works, but Dennis does not seem to make changes to his grinder unless it improves alignment or workflow, but always alignment first.

Ira

ira wrote:Grinders like HG-1s and Versalabs require alignment and can get out of alignment
Ira

What is the basic design you mention? And what part about the HG-1 and Versalabs make them different from that design? And, is the EG-1 closer to the Mazzer's in design or the HG-1/Versalab group?

Very much appreciate the education from you all. Thank you for your patience with my questions on these concepts. Feel free to tell me to hit the road for a bit haha!

mivanitsky wrote:I would not call an EG1 a less capable grinder, if it is aligned well. It is larger, but less stocky than MAX. My concern is that you align the EG1 by eye and feel, rather than by measurable structural design. Despite this concern, I have never seen anyone complain online about problems attributable to malalignment of the EG1.

I would be interested to hear what Mike and others think about the new Ceado e37sd as an alternative to the Monolith Flat or MAX.

Is burr alignment an issue with the Ceado? Will the Monoliths produce superior results in the cup? There's no doubt that the Monoliths are miles ahead of the Ceado in design and craftsmanship. But those considerations aside, will the quality and consistency of the grinds themselves be greatly different?

The Ceado Hero is out of the picture for me, so I'm not thinking of that comparison.

the e37sd isn't fundamentally different from a regular e37s. the burr carrier and alignment should be identical. the only difference between the two models appears to be the lack of hopper and increase in price. there are plenty of user reviews on the e37s.

taelvin wrote:What is the basic design you mention? And what part about the HG-1 and Versalabs make them different from that design? And, is the EG-1 closer to the Mazzer's in design or the HG-1/Versalab group?

Well let's start with the VS and the HG-1. You can see where one burr is mounted to the shaft coming from the top and the other burr is mounted to a block of metal bolted to the column meaning they have to be aligned for every grinder built.

On things like Mazzers and Monoliths, at least in theory, the body of the grinder is mounted in a lathe and all the surfaces having to do with alignment are cut in one setup. All the bearing mounts and indexing surfaces along with the threads for the stationary burr carrier. That insures that the threads are both concentric and parallel to the shaft holding the rotating burr. Additionally, the remaining 2 pieces should be machined the same, one lathe setup to cut all mounting surfaces and threads so all the pieces having to do with burr alignment should be as close to perfect as the manufacturers are willing to make them.

Ira

ira wrote:On things like Mazzers and Monoliths, at least in theory, the body of the grinder is mounted in a lathe and all the surfaces having to do with alignment are cut in one setup. All the bearing mounts and indexing surfaces along with the threads for the stationary burr carrier. That insures that the threads are both concentric and parallel to the shaft holding the rotating burr. Additionally, the remaining 2 pieces should be machined the same, one lathe setup to cut all mounting surfaces and threads so all the pieces having to do with burr alignment should be as close to perfect as the manufacturers are willing to make them.

Ira

Thank you Ira! Let's test my learning hehe. So looking at the manual for the EG-1 https://lynweber.com/products/eg-1/care ... -burr-set/ then it is manufactured similarly to Mazzer's and Monoliths--where the body was likely mounted in a lathe and cut in one setup to form the area labeled "Burr mount" in the guide?

Conceptually yes, but it also appears as if the lower burr carrier is bolted to the body and there is an additional piece bolted to the bottom which makes me wonder if the lower burr carrier on the EG-1 is three pieces assembled and bolted to the motor and rotating burr carrier. Not to say that's necessarily bad, it just is that way.

Ira

ira wrote:... the body of the grinder is mounted in a lathe and all the surfaces having to do with alignment are cut in one setup.

This would be categorically incorrect based on the Kafatek posts on Instagram.

The burr carriers are cut separately from the body and top on a CNC machine as seen here:
The body is also cut separately from the top plate and burr carriers on a CNC machine as seen here:
Top plates are cut separately from the body and burr carriers on a CNC machine as seen here:

There are no lathes used to machine critical alignment surfaces. The burr carriers, body, and top plate each has an impact on the final alignment of the top and bottom burrs but they are all machined separately.

Still looks like one setup per part, surprised that it's not done on a lathe, but I guess maybe modern CNC mills can pull off what previously needed a lathe.

Ira

And then a fairy godmother popped up and showed me that I'm at least partially right:

This is a picture of a Monolith part in a lathe for what I think is it's final truing and finishing.



Ira