Turin DF64V Grinder - Page 8
-
Jeff
- Team HB
A necessity to hot start isn't all that bad, in my opinion. I run my LCU at 200 RPM and use the LeverCraft puffer/hopper which handles the beans while I can handle the basket. Slow feeding is another thing, which I would find really annoying.
I know people what have sold boutique grinders because of the need to slow feed typical European filter roasts, which are darker than some of the roasts that are being enjoyed as both filter and espresso in some circles.
I know people what have sold boutique grinders because of the need to slow feed typical European filter roasts, which are darker than some of the roasts that are being enjoyed as both filter and espresso in some circles.
-
mikeporter
In my earlier comment about stalling while grinding for filter, I forgot to mention that I always hot start the grinder.
-
DaveC
A necessity to hot start is poor design and improper technical selection...something the use of hopper made impossible in the old days. Of course it's bad, but it seems the "modern" view is this sort of thing is acceptable?Jeff wrote:A necessity to hot start isn't all that bad, in my opinion. I run my LCU at 200 RPM and use the LeverCraft puffer/hopper which handles the beans while I can handle the basket. Slow feeding is another thing, which I would find really annoying.
It's like the comments about some grinders, that they are not "stalling", it's a safety cut out...which is really just semantics. A grinder has one job to do...grind coffee. The addition of lots of whizzy features seems to impress purchasers and they overlook core things a product has to do. Just a few examples below...not related to any particular grinder.
Bellows = overcome a design flaw
Clump crusher = overcome a design flaw
Hot start = overcome a design flaw
Variable RPM = whizzy feature
Magentic bits = whizzy feature
Knocker = overcome design flaw
Magnetic grind chute = whizzy feature/overcome design flaw.
Anti spray/Anti static flap = overcome design flaw
RDT = process to overcome design flaw (absolutely necessary on some grinders)
-
Sproyo
I'm happy to live with several of these flaws if the grinder can overcome the bigger flaw not listed... a 4 digit price tag.
-
Jeff
- Team HB
This is why there are product managers.
While they are "flaws" from a purely engineering perspective, any product needs to meet a price/value point that has sufficient market size. Whether a consumer or commercial product, there are also size, weight, and power-draw constraints that need to be considered in the overall value proposition. Even the highly successful Niche Zero is highly flawed by that list. However, for its target market, the value provided exceeds the technical flaws.
The original DF64 has some critical flaws in its design and execution that prevent it from reasonably and reliably fulfilling its apparent goal, reasonable quality grinds suitable for making espresso and filter/immersion coffee. It will be interesting to see which of the follow-on designs have significantly improved on those issues and still provide good usability.
While they are "flaws" from a purely engineering perspective, any product needs to meet a price/value point that has sufficient market size. Whether a consumer or commercial product, there are also size, weight, and power-draw constraints that need to be considered in the overall value proposition. Even the highly successful Niche Zero is highly flawed by that list. However, for its target market, the value provided exceeds the technical flaws.
The original DF64 has some critical flaws in its design and execution that prevent it from reasonably and reliably fulfilling its apparent goal, reasonable quality grinds suitable for making espresso and filter/immersion coffee. It will be interesting to see which of the follow-on designs have significantly improved on those issues and still provide good usability.
-
mikeporter
I just did a test that gave me unexpected results.
TLDR; the DF64V is more likely to stall when grinding filter coffee than espresso at low RPM.
Constants:
600 RPM
Light roast natural Colombian beans
Hot start
One RDT spritz w/shake to distribute
Anti-popcorn device in place
The first grind was at an espresso fineness (18). I dosed all 18.5g at once. About a second into the grind, it stalled for half a second, then started running again on its own, and finished all 18.5g.
The second grind was at coarse drip fineness (65). I weighed up 25.5g and fed "fingerfulls" of ~5 beans at a time. The grinder kept running until I fed a bigger fingerfull of about ~10 beans at once. This stalled the grinder and engaged the failsafe. To clear the jam, I unplugged the grinder for 5 seconds, plugged it back in, coarsened the grind to 90, raised the RPM to 1800 and restarted it.
My new theory: the aggressive design of the infeed/breaker section on these burrs is more effective at metering coffee into the burrs when set for espresso, but when set further apart for filter coffee, the burrs lose control of the feed rate.
This doesn't make the burrs bad (I've been very happy with the quality of the coffee they produce) it just means that more torque is needed for low-RPM coarse grinds.
Also keep in mind that this was just a single test on a single machine using a single coffee. More testing would be needed, to be confident in the conclusions.
TLDR; the DF64V is more likely to stall when grinding filter coffee than espresso at low RPM.
Constants:
600 RPM
Light roast natural Colombian beans
Hot start
One RDT spritz w/shake to distribute
Anti-popcorn device in place
The first grind was at an espresso fineness (18). I dosed all 18.5g at once. About a second into the grind, it stalled for half a second, then started running again on its own, and finished all 18.5g.
The second grind was at coarse drip fineness (65). I weighed up 25.5g and fed "fingerfulls" of ~5 beans at a time. The grinder kept running until I fed a bigger fingerfull of about ~10 beans at once. This stalled the grinder and engaged the failsafe. To clear the jam, I unplugged the grinder for 5 seconds, plugged it back in, coarsened the grind to 90, raised the RPM to 1800 and restarted it.
My new theory: the aggressive design of the infeed/breaker section on these burrs is more effective at metering coffee into the burrs when set for espresso, but when set further apart for filter coffee, the burrs lose control of the feed rate.
This doesn't make the burrs bad (I've been very happy with the quality of the coffee they produce) it just means that more torque is needed for low-RPM coarse grinds.
Also keep in mind that this was just a single test on a single machine using a single coffee. More testing would be needed, to be confident in the conclusions.
-
madgalaxy
- Supporter ♡
I had a DF64V, but ended up returning it. It ground espresso fast (1200rpm) and is pretty quiet. I was surprised how small it was! There are couple reasons I ended up returning:
- The magnetic chute pieces did not quite latch correcting and one of the magnets came out (or was not there to begin with?). Some other fit & finish issues.
- I think I prefer forks on my grinder?
- Stalls - anything 900 rpm and below would stall all the time. I use medium roast and had to feed a few beans at a time to precent stalling. This bugged me as I really wanted to play around with low/high rpm grinding.
-
DaveC
No, I consider them flaws from a usage perspective, not a purely engineering perspective. It's not just semantics either. In grinder terms, it's whether the core function has design flaws from a usage perspective..Not sub standard paint, poor finish etc.. All those things I mentioned before are sub standard design and technical selection issues.Jeff wrote:While they are "flaws" from a purely engineering perspective, any product needs to meet a price/value point that has sufficient market size. Whether a consumer or commercial product, there are also size, weight, and power-draw constraints that need to be considered in the overall value proposition.
Take the motor, should that really stall when beans are added too fast, or it's not hot started? I would suggest not and an appropriate motor/use of gearbox should have been chosen. Instead they opted for a less than optimum solution with a speed control that is still outside the optimum speed range and is not really usable at the low speeds due to lack of torque. If it was purely engineering, the motor would do what it should.
My point is it now seems acceptable to change the terms and start calling it "purely an engineering thing", simply to excuse poor design and technical selection. To meet price value point, perhaps they could have dropped variable speed in favour of not stalling?
-
washed
This grinder seems half baked in function compared to how it looks. I hope they fix the stalling / torque for v2. I'm sure they are already working on it.
Sponsored by Baratza
