SIMPLIFY the Brewer (Kickstarter) - Page 3

Coffee preparation techniques besides espresso like pourover.
DamianWarS (original poster)
Supporter ♡

#21: Post by DamianWarS (original poster) »

franklin270h wrote:Mesh is easy enough to add, sure, but it's a design flaw that's present on Kalita brewers, also an issue on December, Stagg, Blue Bottle. To me it's a ridiculous problem to have and annoying we have to fix this with things like mesh and strainers because this is something that every basket on a batch coffeemaker, even the cheap ones like a Mr. Coffee, have figured out.
it seems all flat bottoms have this issue and I agree there is a gap in the manufacturing/design process and how it is actually being used in niche specialty markets. I would think they could manufacture mesh discs for use with these brewers so it is an optional thing for those who want it plus easy to produce and sell replacements of. Right now I don't these companies have caught up yet to this demand and perhaps they don't really care. The Asian market (like Kono, Hario, Kalita, SIMPLIFY, Origami, Clever, etc...) seems to dominate the market with pour-over and perhaps are somewhat "the bar" that everyone compares it too. The Asian market however has very different ideas as to what makes a good pour-over. Like the espresso market in Italy, these companies somewhat operate in a vacuum and don't look to outside markets when it comes to design choices even though outside markets are buying a lot of the product. For example, if you buy an Italian grinder that grinder is designed to produce an Italian espresso which is different than the specialty market demand that looks to single origins, light roasts and high extractions yet the Italian manufactures are still highly desired outside their market. This is similar with pour-over and the Asian market produces a lot of the products but they are designed to produce Asian pour-overs and not interested I don't think are that interested in mesh inserts.

ECM Manufacture: @ecmespresso #weliveespresso
Sponsored by ECM Manufacture
franklin270h

#22: Post by franklin270h » replying to DamianWarS »

I don't even see the mesh as necessary at all or want one if I could help it. It's simply compensating for too small of a platform to hold the filter up.

All they or anyone would have to do is make the filter "standoffs" taller.

I do agree there's something of a vacuum and feedback is slow to get there

DamianWarS (original poster)
Supporter ♡

#23: Post by DamianWarS (original poster) » replying to franklin270h »

Design wise use a series of raised perforated holes on the flat bottom. The raised perforated edges would raise the filter and keep it from sealing to the spaces between the holes but you would need a lot of holes to accomplish this. Manufacturing wise it's a simple punch and nothing overly complicated (it would look something like the holes on a cheese grater). You could also have something like the areopress with a locking cap that use various configurations for hole design, some more traditional others with mesh like surfaces or whatever you want.

The SIMPLIFY has opted for a giant 40mm hole and I'm not sure quite but I actually suspect a mesh may encourage greater flow over a giant hole.

Jonk

#24: Post by Jonk »

Auctor wrote:Couldn't you offset the short brew time with a finer grind?
Jonk wrote:No, not with a paper filter at least. It'll clog and brew slow, or channel badly / bypass the grinds and still result in a weak cup.
I need to correct myself a bit. When I answered the question I forgot about which method we were discussing and while I stand by the answer in general, a 'only bloom' brew with a single pour does not clog easily and then you can improve extraction with a finer grind.

I brewed a cup, 15:230 with my regular V60 grind size in a plastic V60 using a Kalita 185 filter and 'only bloom' centre pour like in the Kickstarter video.
It brewed too fast and the result was like coffee tea. Not unpleasant but quite weak.

Next try with a much finer grind size, think Aeropress, brewed in roughly 1:30 and I must say it was nice. Wish I had a refractometer accurate enough to measure weak concentrations, I wouldn't be surprised if the extraction was still on the low side but it didn't exactly taste weak. Very smooth.
Looking at the filter both of these brews had a thick layer of grounds caked to the side of the filter walls. Talk about high and dry.

So, next attempt was to see if it could be improved with a spiral pour like in this video:
Total brew time increased slightly to 1:45, but total average contact time must've been more like double since it almost looked like a normal brew with only a thin layer stuck to the filter walls. Result in cup was a salty, unpleasant flavor that didn't taste like strong coffee - just unbalanced.

In line with my previous experiences with Kasuya's fast method, for me it's not a simple method but actually more finicky and heavily dependent on both grind and what kind of beans you're using. This was an easy Dominican medium roast, but one of the more interesting uses is when you don't have a good enough grinder for dense light roasts - just increase the dose and get acceptable results without any clogging.

DamianWarS (original poster)
Supporter ♡

#25: Post by DamianWarS (original poster) »

Jonk wrote:I need to correct myself a bit. When I answered the question I forgot about which method we were discussing and while I stand by the answer in general, a 'only bloom' brew with a single pour does not clog easily and then you can improve extraction with a finer grind.

I brewed a cup, 15:230 with my regular V60 grind size in a plastic V60 using a Kalita 185 filter and 'only bloom' centre pour like in the Kickstarter video.
It brewed too fast and the result was like coffee tea. Not unpleasant but quite weak.

Next try with a much finer grind size, think Aeropress, brewed in roughly 1:30 and I must say it was nice. Wish I had a refractometer accurate enough to measure weak concentrations, I wouldn't be surprised if the extraction was still on the low side but it didn't exactly taste weak. Very smooth.
Looking at the filter both of these brews had a thick layer of grounds caked to the side of the filter walls. Talk about high and dry.

So, next attempt was to see if it could be improved with a spiral pour like in this video:
video

Total brew time increased slightly to 1:45, but total average contact time must've been more like double since it almost looked like a normal brew with only a thin layer stuck to the filter walls. Result in cup was a salty, unpleasant flavor that didn't taste like strong coffee - just unbalanced.

In line with my previous experiences with Kasuya's fast method, for me it's not a simple method but actually more finicky and heavily dependent on both grind and what kind of beans you're using. This was an easy Dominican medium roast, but one of the more interesting uses is when you don't have a good enough grinder for dense light roasts - just increase the dose and get acceptable results without any clogging.
Barista Hustle did an experiment measuring the effects of the "yo-yo" pour (moving the kettle up and down vertically) versus a classic circular pour with steady height and the resulting cups was the yo-yo pour had a faster drawn down than the classic but they had the same extraction yield. There was no comment on the quality of the cup but their conclusion was the yo-yo pour increased agitation. perhaps a centre pour at the right height is doing something similar.

Jonk

#26: Post by Jonk »

I think what's happening is a bit like water first in a Clever dripper. The bed of grinds floats up to the top.

Then, unlike with a Clever, it's draining straight away so there's no time for the grounds to sink to the bottom again. Instead they deposit evenly along the whole surface of the filter - with just a small amount to slow down the flow at the bottom. I tried the technique with a regular Kalita Wave. The holes are actually big enough already and the resulting flow/brew time was the same as long as you keep the holes from clogging with a mesh.

The saving grace is that a fine grind will extract fast, so it's not too weak. But there's added complexity like with espresso, because of the short brew time dialing in the grind is increasingly important and the pour can make or break the brew. In the end, it's still weaker or will require more beans compared to a more standard method.

DamianWarS (original poster)
Supporter ♡

#27: Post by DamianWarS (original poster) »

Jonk wrote:I think what's happening is a bit like water first in a Clever dripper. The bed of grinds floats up to the top.

Then, unlike with a Clever, it's draining straight away so there's no time for the grounds to sink to the bottom again. Instead they deposit evenly along the whole surface of the filter - with just a small amount to slow down the flow at the bottom. I tried the technique with a regular Kalita Wave. The holes are actually big enough already and the resulting flow/brew time was the same as long as you keep the holes from clogging with a mesh.
That makes sense and it would be forming a crust like in a cupping. Even in the video you posted you can see a thick heavy crust then all the grinds just gently rest along the sides. Barista Hustle also have been recently doing tests with immersion and discovered if you bloom in an immersion it doesn't develope a crust so it makes sense the same typical immersion style of pour (no bloom) "floats" all the unsaturated coffee. Byass would also have a different impact.

Flair Espresso: handcrafted espresso. cafe-quality shots, anytime, anywhere
Sponsored by Flair Espresso
jdrobison

#28: Post by jdrobison »

After a couple of weeks with the Simplify brewer...... Meh. It's not bad but so far it's not particularly impressive. It's been considerably more consistent than the Espro Bloom, so that's a plus, but I haven't produced a cup as good as my go-to Kalita Wave yet. The first couple of tries resulted in something lacking any character so I changed my 22/375 recipe to 22/340 which improved the brew considerably and got it much closer to what I'm used to from the Wave. Much like the Espro, the results from the Simplify are pretty inconsistent - perhaps I need more time with it to dial in a technique that delivers the same cup every time. There is a lot less bypass since the paper isn't up against the side walls, so that's a plus. I think a good market for this would be people like a friend of mine who wants to spend as little time as possible and doesn't want to be troubled with "technique" (and probably doesn't have a highly discerning coffee palette). I'll play with it a few more times, though.

I do enjoy supporting the industry whenever I can, especially when someone is trying to innovate, so I'm certainly not at all disappointed. This was a very inexpensive campaign to back and my expectations weren't especially high.

Jonk

#29: Post by Jonk »

jdrobison wrote:There is a lot less bypass since the paper isn't up against the side walls, so that's a plus.
That should actually lead to more bypass and perhaps the reason you felt a need to lower the ratio.
Either way, after playing around with no bypass brewers like Tricolate - I'm not convinced bypass is really undesirable. Perhaps it's just a source of more complex flavor.

jdrobison

#30: Post by jdrobison »

I thought the same thing but I don't see bypass happening. Perhaps it's simply that I don't see it?? When I brew with a Kalita, I can see water filling up around the outside of the filter in the fluting - it's trapped between the paper and the brewer wall. With the Simplify, there's no water there - only the brew pouring from the bottom of the filter.

Today I'm enjoying a delicious cup from the Simplify so I know it's very capable of making good coffee. But, again, what I'm finding is that it's so finicky about technique that I can't guarantee a consistently delicious result like I can with a Kalita. Sure, it took less work and less time but, honestly, we're talking about a minute or two. My life isn't that hectic that shaving two minutes off my morning routine is worth it.