Compak K10 needs a little dosing love - Page 2

Grinders are one of the keys to exceptional espresso. Discuss them here.
User avatar
Viernes
Posts: 266
Joined: 15 years ago

#11: Post by Viernes »

Yes, I understand you perfectly. To me aesthetics play an important psicological role too, and usually it affects the taste. However I'm lucky because I usually use the spouts, not naked PF, so no problems! :mrgreen:

User avatar
Spitz.me (original poster)
Posts: 1963
Joined: 14 years ago

#12: Post by Spitz.me (original poster) »

Has everyone done the upper dosing vane mod as well? I'll have to open mine up to see, but I don't see anything attached to those vanes when I look through my chute. Does that help clean up more easily? After playing with it this afternoon and then reviewing Nicholas' routine I'd say I'm sweeping about 2x as long, but still getting coffee. I find that if I can get inside the chute past the vanes I can get more coffee always. It doesn't seem like, from the routine videos, people are THAT concerned with the coffee stuck in the nooks of the vanes. I'm probably being wayyyyy too an-al...
LMWDP #670

Hillkwaj
Posts: 11
Joined: 12 years ago

#13: Post by Hillkwaj »

I'm loving the K10 Fresh. Could not be easier. Distribution into the PF is very even - just a nice mound with no real spillage. No sign of any clumping. Just tamp and go. The shots are amazingly consistent - seriously, I'd have to work hard to get a bad looking flow from the naked PF. I've weighed the timed doses and they are consistent to about 0.1g. I've had the burrs out to look at retention. There is typically about 5-6g in the grind chamber. Doesn't bother me as I either clear it with a minimum manual pulse or most days just use it in the 4 shot americano that I take to work in a thermos. The adjustment is incredibly fine - the entire adjustment range is all within what I'd call the espresso range.

It certainly wasn't cheap, but I have zero regrets. And with the short hopper it is doesn't look too out of place in my setup.

Steve

User avatar
Spitz.me (original poster)
Posts: 1963
Joined: 14 years ago

#14: Post by Spitz.me (original poster) »

I'm happier with the extra grand in my pocket and the ability to clean out the stale grinds easily. I'm not actually complaining about the K10. I've mentioned before that I'm totally ok with the routine. I was mostly wondering if my routine was much different than everyone else's routine.
LMWDP #670

User avatar
JohnB.
Supporter ♡
Posts: 6580
Joined: 16 years ago

#15: Post by JohnB. »

Spitz.me wrote: After playing with it this afternoon and then reviewing Nicholas' routine I'd say I'm sweeping about 2x as long, but still getting coffee.
Like Nicholas I start sweeping as soon as the flow through the chute begins to slow down. If you keep the flow moving while the beans are grinding the grounds don't build up in the chamber. One or two quick pulses are all that's required to get the last of the grounds out.
LMWDP 267

User avatar
Spitz.me (original poster)
Posts: 1963
Joined: 14 years ago

#16: Post by Spitz.me (original poster) »

OK I get that. I'll try that out and see how it goes.
LMWDP #670

User avatar
Peppersass
Supporter ❤
Posts: 3692
Joined: 15 years ago

#17: Post by Peppersass »

(*sigh*)

This thread reinforces my opinion that the pendulum has swung way too far in the direction of the bottomless portafilter and it's time to bring it back to normal (or maybe I should say, "normale" :mrgreen: )

I've said this in another thread, but as far as I know, no one has demonstrated a correlation between the so-called quality of the pour as seen with a bottomless portafilter and what you taste in the cup (as the OP admits.)

I do believe that a bottomless portafilter is an essential tool for beginners and those who are trying to diagnose equipment or preparation problems. It can certainly reveal serious equipment flaws and distribution errors. But if you're using equipment of reasonable quality, have developed your technique to the point where the coffee is evenly distributed and tamped level, and you can repeat your technique consistently, the bottomless portafilter isn't needed. At that point, it's just a distraction and source of needless worry.

I wonder how many tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars have been wasted on espresso equipment upgrades because the pour wasn't "pretty".

User avatar
Spitz.me (original poster)
Posts: 1963
Joined: 14 years ago

#18: Post by Spitz.me (original poster) »

Well in my defense. I'm coming from a Vario, where I could say that if the pour didn't look pretty it was a bad shot 99% of the time. By pretty I don't mean, I see some spritzers or it takes too long to converge into one stream... yada... yada. I mean it is a distribution issue, but I thought I didn't NEED to distribute, per se, with the k10.

I was surprised to see the shot was FINE after seeing what could be a distribution problem, which is the reason for this thread, hence the title "...needs a little dosing love."

When people say, "With these titans you can grind, tamp and go" I believed them and believed it would be the case with the K10. When that wasn't my experience, I asked why. Maybe I didn't make my issue clear.

I tend to agree with your post though. I'm a little tired of always trying to view my extraction, quite frankly. I wish I wasn't so affected by the visual pour, or the NEED to see it. However, I do think it's AT LEAST helpful to pull with a bottomless PF when dialing in, but I realize that may even be more than needed.
LMWDP #670

User avatar
tekomino
Posts: 1105
Joined: 14 years ago

#19: Post by tekomino »

Peppersass wrote: I've said this in another thread, but as far as I know, no one has demonstrated a correlation between the so-called quality of the pour as seen with a bottomless portafilter and what you taste in the cup (as the OP admits.)
I think this would be really interesting to test and put to rest with the refractometer (paging Mr. Mitch :D ). I do think that pour quality definitely affects taste. Uneven pours show uneven extraction where small parts of coffee puck are over-extracted while most of the puck is under-extracted. I think getting refractometer readings on pulls that do not look pretty (and pretty to me is an even extraction) should show whether there is extraction difference and thus taste difference...

mitch236
Supporter ♡
Posts: 1231
Joined: 14 years ago

#20: Post by mitch236 »

I already did the vane mod to the K-10 so no need to worry about that!

I'd be willing to do the refractometer test. Dick has one too so maybe both of us can check for more reliable results. However I think what we call an ugly shot isn't really bad. I find the VST baskets prone to having multiple spouts early in the shot which coalesce into one. If that's what we are calling bad, then I agree with Dick that the taste is unaffected. If the pour is ugly like mine were before the new burrs then yes, that's going to be bad, as I've already proven with the refractometer.

The K-10 is a very capable grinder but I've found that with all new equipment, there's a learning/comfort curve. With time he will get consistently good results.