baldheadracing wrote:Depends on whether one believes that there is an optimal grind size for a particular coffee when used in a particular brew method. If you have multiple grinders then I would suggest testing that hypothesis for yourself. When you do that experiment, than I would suggest that six or so stages of sieving are good enough for assessing equivalent grind size, and that the grinders should be reasonably similar (no use comparing a blade grinder to an EK43).

I don't believe there is one optimal grind size for a particular coffee and a particular brew method. I believe great brews can be achieved in different ratios/brew time/grind settings/etc. What is "grind size" anyway, they come in different shapes and sizes and sieving doesn't make them exactly the same.

Under-extracting and over-dosing as you seem to be doing can improve the taste, especially with lower-quality coffee. Traditional Japanese Kissaten methods are famous examples. In addition, some prefer the taste that results from such brew methods regardless of coffee quality, and there is nothing wrong with that.

What makes you think I'm under-extracting and over-dosing? What is your definition of under-extracting? Certain EY threshold?

LBIespresso wrote:They are talking about intentional bypass. Post brewing. I do it with my aeropress. I intentionally brew a lower ratio, more concentrated cup and then add water to taste.

Thanks!

I uses the kalita Wave pour over device using the Kalita 155 paper flat bottom filters. ( I prefer flat bottom paper as fine grinds may collect in a cone and cause interruptions)
I follow my prescribed timed pour over recipe..
I try not to rush my pours or change my coffee/water ratios (depending on each coffee I use and if light or medium roast levels ).
I find my coffee doesn't meet my expectations if I don't follow closely to my measured timed pours.

So, I'm not in favor of rushed pour-over extractions. Otherwise I would use a electric drip device. And even elect. devices are slower than a one minute pour over.
My recipe after wetting down the paper filter is six 40-45 gram water pours over 16-18 grams of coffee.
I periodically stir or shake the brew. In the early bloom stage.
I pour for 20 seconds and wait 15 seconds between each pour. So, it is a appropriate 3 1/2 minute pour.
I fully aware that this slow process isn't for most people. I wanted to share my alternative to quick pour coffee brewing.

K7 wrote:Fastest V60 I've seen on YouTube is about 1m40s while most are running 2-3 minutes. But I am finding that I can get great results, perhaps more consistently, by going even faster, like 1m10s or so. For this I use very fine grind and short ratio (e.g. 1:9). I add water later (bypass) for desired cup strength. I wonder why this method is not more popular. Anyone tried this?

Because people like to play follow- the- leader. It's a coffee industry standard that 3 minutes is basically the best time for brew coffee. However, as you have seen with keurig.... One minute might be better for a fine grind..... However Keurig is synonymous with ....blech.... So there's that.

A lot of trial and error has historically gone into the best way to extract the good things while minimizing extraction of the bad things. However people have individual taste s as well. My individual taste says fresh roasted coffee brewed in 60 seconds will beat the hell out of old stale grocery store coffee brewed in standard 3 minutes.

I only loosely pay attention to time, most of the time I'm just pouring near enough to the rate I always pour at. I know it's going fast but it probably is 2 to 2 and 1/2 minutes overall and I'm okay with it. I don't even use a scale a lot of times because I just start checking the level of my vacuum tumbler when I onow i get close to the end, and I can tell exactly when to stop pouring. It has a full line scribed on the inside..... If I mess up and pour a little too much water into yhe V60, I just dump it in the garbage when my Tumbler is full. There's always enough paper trash to soak up a little bit of liquid.

A lot of people make their daily coffee much more difficult than it has to be. The thing that has the biggest effect by far is the beans. Everything else is quite minor by comparison.

Mbb wrote:Because people like to play follow- the- leader. It's a coffee industry standard that 3 minutes is basically the best time for brew coffee.

I'm curious how that 2.5-3min standard came about. I suspect it might be just a result of constraining ourselves to the popular 1:~16 ratio with a typical set of brewer and brew grinder (can't grind very fine or too many fines causing way too early stall).

A lot of people make their daily coffee much more difficult than it has to be. The thing that has the biggest effect by far is the beans. Everything else is quite minor by comparison.

I agree. I got tired of warming up the machine for my Americanos so here I am. So far I have tried many different V60 recipes...many of them are more complicated (with equal or worse cup results, at least in my attempts) and all of them take longer than my fast method. So I'm going, hmm..how come nobody else seems to be doing this?

Well, upon further research since my original post, I found that some cafes in the Far East apparently do utilize a similar approach of very fine grind, short ratio, and fast brewing. Makes a lot of sense for cafes since it saves time/money.

i was drinking drip for few years before knowing v60. cafe use cloth, and there's the common instant drip bag in japan.

back then for home uses grinders are mostly basic ceramic mill or chopper. there wasnt choice of premium home grinder, a good method to communicate clicks / settings, nor that people at home pay particular attention to temp and grams per litre.

what fits the scoop and server matters more.
this probably lead to a normalized / close to common 1:15 ratio according to popular choice of coffee scoop, hario and kalita brewer and especially server sizes.
also when v60 came it wasnt really favorable for home brew, touted as difficult, until mr tetsu won brewers cup and popularized the 4:6 method using 20g coffee 300ml water.

for grind size, it seems to follow trend that to fit good taste with local roasts if the grounds does brew in 2~3mins, and that became a benchmark.

it think is similar like how previous barista are more concerned about filling basket, doing stockfleth, throwing away excess grounds, and pull for blonding in circa 25~30s.. and beans are roasted to be slightly oily.

nowadays people start with dose and gets confused when they cant fit the basket properly, choosing wrong temp and ratio for the grinds and roast, and ending up with poor shots and frustating themselves. same goes with brewing, there was history to it, and internet wasnt as global as it used to be, so most are probably lost or unrecorded, and anything viral became the standard.

On my palate, the fast and fine recipes taste harsher than something like the Tetsu method. I haven't tried higher ratios of coffee to water and bypassing. I'll try that soon to see if it works with my taste.

For me, the nicest thing about this approach has been how evenly it seems to extract cup after cup. I get basically zero signs of harshness typically associated with uneven extraction. Kinda like French press. Sure, I still dial in in terms of grind size (and often water ratio and temperature), but it's giving me smooth cups very reliably. I didn't do any rigorous test but stirring may have been the key for me. The first stage stirring to make sure there's no dry patches (which can occur more easily due to very fine grind) and the second stage stirring to break up the bed and let all grounds get decent amount of agitation. I also pour in a way to avoid a hot spot in the bed. Again, nothing scientific, just going with what I think makes sense.

BTW, I mentioned 1m10s brew time earlier, but it obviously can vary significantly depending on coffee. Instead of forcing a particular brew time, I try to be flexible. I've had great brews with some coffees draining slow (up to 2m00s).