Top 5 Grinders for Light Roast Espresso Application - Page 11

Grinders are one of the keys to exceptional espresso. Discuss them here.
bakafish

#101: Post by bakafish »

I pulled two 1:3 shots today, 25.6% EY by my LAB SWEET and 22.6% by my huie-71 with the Gorilla Gear RoBlack. I still love the brew ratio 1:2 with lower EY and higher TDS. The only reasonable explanation is my coffee is not light enough. :D
But I still want to say again, lower EY doesn't mean under extraction.
I like brew ratio 1:3 only for Italian brands coffee, 9 bar without preinfusion. That's Italian Espresso.

User avatar
cafemolino

#102: Post by cafemolino »

@Denis

nice so you have one Max? Did you test TDS because you are saying it never runs up...

Versalab: maker and supplier of finest espresso equipment
Sponsored by Versalab
User avatar
cafemolino

#103: Post by cafemolino »

@Denis

you named roast hazard sorry if my English is not so good but in Spanish means poison, bad

is that what you mean not eatable drinkable gives health problems?

catalinH

#104: Post by catalinH »

bakafish wrote:I pulled two 1:3 shots today, 25.6% EY with my LAB SWEET and 22.6% with my huie-71 with the Gorilla Gear RoBlack. I still love the brew ratio 1:2 with lower EY and higher TDS. :D
Again, lower EY doesn't mean under extraction.
I like brew ratio 1:3 only for Italian brands coffee, 9 bar without preinfusion. That's Italian Espresso.
Lab Sweet is a formidable grinder,hands down.I like it better than standard EK for espresso,but I prefer my SSP EK with turkish carrier when it comes to espresso.
The reason I pull longer shots is because here are the beans that I'm using.

nuketopia

#105: Post by nuketopia »

I think we're at a fundamental problem, one that technology as simple as a set of SCAA Agtron color discs could solve:

Define "Light Roast" in terms of espresso.

We're missing that.

In the wider world, the two roasts I showed would be classified as "medium" and "light" or perhaps "medium light".

https://nationalcoffee.blog/2015/11/19/ ... ing-types/

We can exchange all the internet phone photos we want, but having worked with color sciences in software before, it is virtually impossible to do this without a lot of calibrated equipment.

Which leaves open the question: "By repeatable and objective measurement, what is light roast espresso?"

User avatar
Denis

#106: Post by Denis »

For us it is pretty easy because we have the Nordic roasters who deliver light filter roasted coffee, and we make espresso with it. Their espresso roast is to dark for me, and I am buying only filter roasted coffee (for brew methods) for months. People tend to mistake medium roast with italian coffee and 3rd wave coffee with light roasts. A light roast is a coffee that is not advertised by the roaster for espresso, but they call it roasted for filter/brew. The omniroast is something that is good for both filter/brew and espresso, but it is on the light side. I tend to stay away from omniroasted coffee.

The picture you posted with the 2 type of roasts are pretty easy to distinguish:
-the darker roast you call medium is similar to an Italian roasted blend from North Italy. Here is a Lavazza medium roast, this is just out of question that is to dark roasted.


- the lighter roast you posted is to developed to be classified as a filter/brew roast. The beans are to developed, they are inflated. This is your traditional 3rd wave specialty coffee espresso roast. This is how you get coffee if you ask for espresso roast. The guys from Square Mile or Hasbean in UK roast approximately the same if you buy the espresso roast.

Here is a picture of an espresso roast from 3rd wave specialty coffee, I got coffee from them many times but it is to roasted for what I am searching.



There is no problem in drinking what you like. And there is no shame or harm that you don't use light beans. I find them hard to work with, and they are demanding in therms of workflow/equipment. I am glad we can clarify what light roast means.

Aguirre (original poster)

#107: Post by Aguirre (original poster) »

nuketopia wrote:I think we're at a fundamental problem, one that technology as simple as a set of SCAA Agtron color discs could solve:

Define "Light Roast" in terms of espresso.

We're missing that.

In the wider world, the two roasts I showed would be classified as "medium" and "light" or perhaps "medium light".

https://nationalcoffee.blog/2015/11/19/ ... ing-types/

We can exchange all the internet phone photos we want, but having worked with color sciences in software before, it is virtually impossible to do this without a lot of calibrated equipment.

Which leaves open the question: "By repeatable and objective measurement, what is light roast espresso?"
I thought it was kind of clear since the beginning, but as I'm the OP, let me clarify then:

We're not talking about "espresso light".

We're talking about a lot lighter than that.

We're talking about nordic light, filter roasts, that just some very fortunate people with very capable equipment can turn into really good espresso shots. And let's not forget: this group of people can't be considered the norm. It's really a very small group of espresso drinkers that will like this type of beverage. It happens to be that we do have a good representation of this group here in this forum.

And by the way I agree with this comment
devlin2427 wrote:If the coffee in the first picture was sold as specialty, I would change the supplier.
Not judging the roast level, just how badly sorted that coffee is.

BPlus: turning your coffee spirit
Sponsored by BPlus
KarlosdelaMancha

#108: Post by KarlosdelaMancha »

The diversity of opinions here is great. I've been trying several different approaches to my lighter roasts (primarily from Brandywine) and darker roasts like espresso blends from Caffe Lusso. I use a monolith flat but have zero experience with conicals. So all I can say is that I can taste differences with every change; dosing, ratio, grind, Slayer technique.

Thanks!

BaristaBob

#109: Post by BaristaBob »

Denis wrote:Conical burrs deliver a different shape of particles compared to flat. They tend to drag and break the coffee and the flat break and cut more than break.

In grinder comparison and laser analysis diffraction the conical and some flat (this is geometry-rpm related) tend to do more boulders than other flat grinders.

Let's say we want to grind for espresso, and we know that for a traditional espresso we grind between 200 and 600 microns. In this range we are going to get the highest percent of grind particles. But some grinders deliver a high percent over 600 microns, up to 800/1000. Those are boulders. I am grinding finer than 200-600microns.

Now from a discussion and a presentation of Perger we know that water penetrates totally up to 100microns in the walls off coffee particle, watch this video and if you want to see the explanation about this watch after min 34 : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lPGf1gM9nA ).

If we draw a circle with 100 micron radius we get a perfectly rounded particle with a 200microns diameter. That will be fully wet and extracted. For high extraction yields you need to grind fine and the distribution needs to be uniform, because if you have fines that will lead to choke, and if you have boulders that will lead to under extraction. Fines will lead to under extraction as well because water will be forced to find way out and do micro channeling.

There is another thing involved, the shape of the particles influence the hydraulics and how the water flows. A puck made out of square and angular bits will have more porosity and permeability than a puck made out of "flakes". The grind from flat looks similar to flakes. So the flaked coffee puck is harder to extract and in most cases people will say they have more channeling with a flat burr grinder than with a conical. Or I hear a lot my Kinu is way better than was my Lelit flat grinder.

To achieve higher taste or EY you need good coffee (air roasters like Loring will roast more even from inside out this means you can extract more from the volume of coffee, if the bean is undeveloped in the interior that will not allow you to extract) a flat grinder that has uniform grind and a flow/pressure profiling machine that does what you say (temperature, flow/pressure, time-stops-starts).

We humans like to over complicate things, we are curious and always search for more, it is never enough. Some may say what the hell! why would you buy almost "green" roasted coffee and try to make espresso out of it, remember this is a hobby. This is time consuming, a lot of money involved. Getting the last 5% out of anything is like this, I don't know if it was worth it.
Denis,

Here are my micrographs at 50x of grounds from my conical... Monolith Gen2. It would be great if someone had these images using a large Flat for comparison sake.
I was crazy enough to purchase a Kruve sifter with a six screen set. Recently using two Kruve screens (200 and 600 microns) I measured the particles less than 200 microns (the fines fraction), particles between 200 and 600 microns (near optimum for espresso), and particles greater than 600 microns...( the coarse fraction). I decided for now not to run replicates on this experiment because of the messiness (and the wrath of wife), but to run the experiment at three grinding levels hoping for a logical trend...and of course drink the results. In the end this little experiment proved that; 1) the Kruve sifter can reveal differences in PSD upon grinding, and 2) the KafaTek Monolith Conical grinder produces coffee grinds that are very low in fines (<200 microns), high in optimum particles (200-600 microns), with a trailing coarse fraction (> 600 microns). The particle size fractions I captured matched up well with a curve from Socrates...so I'm happy about that (see results below). Taste wise, a grind setting of 5, even down to 4, has been great for this coffee (Kaldi's Espresso 700). It's well balanced with excellent sweetness with just the right amount of acidity. At a setting of 6, this coffee was a little on the "thin, transparent" side, and at a setting of 3 it was like drinking mud! I performed one test using a totally different coffee (Kenya AA) just to see if the PSD curve would be radically different...it wasn't.

Data Table for Kaldi's Espresso 700:
...<200microns / 200-600microns / >600 microns
Grind Setting
..... 6__2.0% 76.2% 21.8%
..... 5__1.0% 78.4% 20.6%
..... 3__2.0% 81.1% 16.9%
.....6(Kenya AA) 1.8% 76.1% 22.0%

Micrographs of fines, optimum, and coarse particles at 50X

Fines


Optimum


Coarse
Bob "hello darkness my old friend..I've come to drink you once again"

User avatar
Denis

#110: Post by Denis »

Optimal grind for lighter is as close as you can get in the 250-300 microns zone. You don't need bigger and smaller (you get them but in a small amount).

Here is a grinder that will dethrone a lot of competition specially in Europe:

https://www.bentwoodcoffee.ch/


I don't want to talk more about conical grinders, for me there is no interest in them for many reasons, not only the distribution they produce, but the lackness of SSP burrs and many more reasons). I had some conical grinders, I still have the Kony but it will go away hopefully this weekend.

Kruve is excellent, but I would take the fines results with a grain of salt. Because if you look closely you can see fines sticking to your 600 microns + particles. So the fines percent in general is bigger.