malling wrote:Might just go the Comandante or 1zpresso K rute.

Based on which criteria ?
From the pictures published so far Arco burrs are very close to those used by 1zpresso, Italmill too...
Italmill burrs are now in almost any manual conical grinder on the market, what other different offering do you think you can find ?
And generally speaking, as a principle, you can't get another distribution from a manual conical, is just a hype that some model offer better brew grounds. The Kinu grinders using the brew burr didn't noticed any dramatic change in taste, rather a significant increase in grinding time.
If you want absolute paradigm change, try a ghost burrs grinder and will talk later.

Arco value is in the all around balance of the combo, not being optimised for a specific brew type.
There is simply no such offer from other company for a similar combo solution, at any price.

The microns discussions were simply ridiculous jugglery with numbers that are in the same ballpark as the bearings play, and nobody noticed this.
Also, if such numbers would really matter, why nobody did the math for Kinu, to find its settings are 3 time more fine than Arco, and complain about this ? Because really don't matter, and the discussions stepped in the absurd arguing realm.

Kinu vs Arco burrs, for me it seems almost identical to Kinu brew burr (right, darker coating).
An example how microns discussions led to wrong conclusions...





Pictures are taken from our local "espressoman" forum, Kinu pictures from an owner, Arco picture from what they posted.

malling wrote:On top the use of Italmill burrs that produce somewhat larger fraction of fine particles (why some companies now offer a secondary burr set, or use it in grinders specifically designed for espresso use)

Which Italmill burr though? There are severeal variations. I do agree that the regular one used by Kinu is not ideal for brew, but perhaps Arco settled on a different set? This is the information we haven't been given yet

I've been hoping that they're using a brew focused burr. They tend to take longer to grind, especially on fine settings, but can still be used for tasty espresso and the motor would negate the time drawback.

renatoa wrote:Based on which criteria ?
From the pictures published so far Arco burrs are very close to those used by 1zpresso, Italmill too...
Italmill burrs are now in almost any manual conical grinder on the market, what other different offering do you think you can find ?
And generally speaking, as a principle, you can't get another distribution from a manual conical, is just a hype that some model offer better brew grounds. The Kinu grinders using the brew burr didn't noticed any dramatic change in taste, rather a significant increase in grinding time.
If you want absolute paradigm change, try a ghost burrs grinder and will talk later.

Arco value is in the all around balance of the combo, not being optimised for a specific brew type.
There is simply no such offer from other company for a similar combo solution, at any price.

The microns discussions were simply ridiculous jugglery with numbers that are in the same ballpark as the bearings play, and nobody noticed this.
Also, if such numbers would really matter, why nobody did the math for Kinu, to find its settings are 3 time more fine than Arco, and complain about this ? Because really don't matter, and the discussions stepped in the absurd arguing realm.

Ah that's a truth with modification, the top crop of handgrinders tend to use either Italmill or in house designed burrs. There are also a couple of Chinese made burrs out there, Etzinger plus a couple of others.

I agree the difference is slim between one 47/48mm conical burrs to the other, but you also should take the dial into the equation. The Comandante is using larger steps making it faster and easier to get from one method to another just like is the case with 1zpresso more brew oriented grinders.

Secondly the Italmill produces slightly more fines, I sifted it so I know that to be true, the brew also tends to be slightly more focused on body. I agree that the difference is slight, I didn't write otherwise. If it where just the burrs I would just continue backing it, but when all things put together the Arco isn't the perfect match for someone only making brewed. It's the combination of smaller steps and choice of burrs that clearly indicate what this is focused on.

My main grip if you read my post is the amount of steps and how small these are. Allot of steps is annoying when you're focused on brewed.

Why annoying, you will stay in the turn 3 range probably all the time. Instead Commandante 24 clicks you have 30...
Contrary to the espresso, where people dial having as goal/target 25-30 seconds extraction, what goal do you have in a brew ?

They are talking about 60 steps pr. Turn and reducing it to 3 turns instead of 4 so a total of 180 instead of 160

That 2.5 times more steps than the Comandante. 24 steps is more than plenty for brewed, you could probably make do with half.

I really do not like such a fine meshed dial, I would probably be nice to have for spro, but for brewed that's just annoying.

Ah... didn't noticed where they say reducing to three turns, which make sense, imo, Kinu is used for a maximum of 4-5 turns (of 0.5 mm throw each), which equate to 2.5 mm shaft axial total stroke, so three turns of one millimetre for Arco should suffice, would equate to 6 Kinu turns.

60 steps... still not annoying for me... after playing for years with 50 divisions per turn of Kinu, without any click, so no tactile feedback.
60 clicks should be better, I expect to have the feeling of a manual lens dialing as in my film days 20-30 years ago
You should touch a Leica lens to better understand what I mean

... instead of 160

30 * 4 = 120

renatoa wrote:Ah... didn't noticed where they say reducing to three turns, which make sense, imo, Kinu is used for a maximum of 4-5 turns (of 0.5 mm throw each), which equate to 2.5 mm shaft axial total stroke, so three turns of one millimetre for Arco should suffice, would equate to 6 Kinu turns.

60 steps... still not annoying for me... after playing for years with 50 divisions per turn of Kinu, without any click, so no tactile feedback.
60 clicks should be better, I expect to have the feeling of a manual lens dialing as in my film days 20-30 years ago
You should touch a Leica lens to better understand what I mean


30 * 4 = 120

I don't like the Kinu of that reason (or any other top adjusted grinder of that reason), nicely build grinder, but I found it annoying to use for anything else than spro. But I guess you can learn to live with it. But getting a new one as my old one broke, I obviously gonna pick the one that ticks most boxes.

Your right about the 120, I thought it where 40 steps not 30. If they just keep 30 steps then that would be close enough to the Comandante and others. But 60 steps is really a turn off.

renatoa wrote:Another video, less technical, more action


What I noticed from the first seconds... it is indeed a thick grinder, not easy for everyone to grasp...

Thank you again for this. I decided to change my pledge to the 2 in 1. There will be travel trips again some day and when by car that will be useful to have without worrying about the size. There are still some Early Bird spots.

Hey guys!

Logged on the forums today and found this debate about the clicks.
We are obviously going with 60 clicks per rotation x 3 rotations.

I don't really understand why some of you think that adjustments would be slower or more tedious with more clicks.
You don't have to count the clicks from zero on the Arco. You just have to remember or write down the number for a certain coffee and go straight to that number and you always end up at the exact same setting as you wrote down.
It takes about 2 seconds to adjust Arco to a grind setting that you wrote down/remembered.

Can someone elaborate on what kind of adjustment would be better? Also; I mostly drink pour over. You can rest assured I made sure that the espresso capability does not compromise on the pour over grind performance.