Caravel 3.2 impressions - Page 2

A haven dedicated to manual espresso machine aficionados.
User avatar
armindillo (original poster)
Posts: 141
Joined: 8 years ago

#11: Post by armindillo (original poster) »

After more experimentation here is the important advice I was missing:

Fill the water tank quite full.

I have the habit of filling the tank less than half way. It heats up faster that way and the non-piston-hole VAMs tend to backwash, so I dump and rinse the tank often.

With a full tank on the 3.2 Caravel the cylinder fills much better, no jiggling needed and no excessive sponginess when pulling down on the lever.
LMWDP #667

User avatar
drgary
Team HB
Posts: 14345
Joined: 14 years ago

#12: Post by drgary »

I like to preheat a full tank's worth of water on a stove to bring my Caravel up to temp faster and warm the whole machine. That also helps to preserve the Caravel's heating element.
Gary
LMWDP#308

What I WOULD do for a good cup of coffee!

Rufus T.F.
Posts: 49
Joined: 4 years ago

#13: Post by Rufus T.F. »

This is the first time I have seen someone compare actual quality of coffee between the models. Previous comparisons basically deal with the quality of specific elements or issues of ergonomy. So thanks for that, Armin.

I usually fill my tank up to about an inch from the top, but that's because the thermostat on the Caravel 1.0 works best when the tank is nearly full (since the bimetal strip reaches a bit above the mid part of the tank). But I'm surprised the amount of water in the tank influences the actual quality/ergonomy of brewing in 3.2. So now, after you figured it out, does the shot's taste differ much compared to the VAMs?

User avatar
armindillo (original poster)
Posts: 141
Joined: 8 years ago

#14: Post by armindillo (original poster) »

Today's coffee is roasted a bit darker and I did another comparison. This time Caravel 3.2 vs. VAM 1.0.
I used the same grind setting and made sure to wiggle the handle when up to get plenty of water into the cylinder.
Both shots "pulled" the same as far as pressure and time and gave crema. If anything, the Caravel 3.2 shot was better (thicker, sweeter) but I think that was due to the water being a bit hotter.

At steady state, the Caravel 3.2 seems to cycle between 94C and 100C while I have the VAM set to shut down around 93C.

So I'll report that the late model caravel does not doom you to make only bad espresso, but I am really not the authority on how to make the perfect espresso. I don't weigh the coffee, I dose by volume. Out of curiosity I sometimes weigh after dosing and it varies between 9 and 12 grams with the lighter roasts having the heavier weight. I use a teaspoon to fill the basket and no fancy stirring gadgets. I use a grinder that nobody else uses.

All I feel confident about is that the later machine will press at the same pressure and mechanically should produce equal results to the earlier machines.
LMWDP #667

User avatar
armindillo (original poster)
Posts: 141
Joined: 8 years ago

#15: Post by armindillo (original poster) »

It is easy to have the attitude that the lower-cost later machines are worse, but keep in mind that there is clever engineering in making a product that performs the same but costs less to make.
Even in the last model, all the parts that touch the water and the coffee are stainless steel. The piston still comes out without tools. The styling hasn't changed.

Many people mention the lid lifting lever on the VAM and the thinner steel on the later lids. Not so well known is that many of the Caravels had their own less obvious lid lifting mechanism and the steel on the VAM lids is actually thinner than on the early Caravels.



At left you see the VAM design. Note also that the lid is shaped to overlap the tank when it's down. You have to lift the lid before turning it.
At right is the Caravel 1.2. The steel is thicker and the lid does not "sit in" the tank, it just lines up. When you twist it, one of the crown shaped prongs around the post catches on a special bump on the piston assembly. That pops up the lid automagically.
In the middle is the Caravel 3.2. The steel is thinner again and it's up to you to lift push, twist, whatever you want.
LMWDP #667

gravy
Posts: 25
Joined: 7 years ago

#16: Post by gravy »

I actually prefer the in-cup results on my 3.2 to my 2.0.

I can't say why exactly but I do find that when I pull the pistons for a clean there is a lot less muck getting caught in crevices on the 3.2 than the 2. I find the volume to be slightly better on the 3.2 but perhaps that is a false impression - I'll get scientific one day. I also have less sponginess issues with the 3.2. I think it is due to issues with the small 2x4mm gasket. I'm about to start experimenting with 1.5x5mm gaskets to see if they improve things.

I use pid for temperature so it isn't a factor for me.

I am in the process of setting up a 1.x from spare parts so that will be an interesting comparison. I do love the clever cylinder release mechanism on the older machines.

vze26m98
Posts: 264
Joined: 10 years ago

#17: Post by vze26m98 »

Thanks for posting this. I have two v.3 Caravels, one in the gray hammertone finish in your photos. The finish is actually a thick plastic. I'd guess you could peel it off if you hand a mind.

Filling is a bit of a mystery. I took to wiggling the lever for some reason. A pull for me is:

. Lever up and wiggle until the gurgling stops
. Pull down until first drip for pre-infusion. Slowly raise lever back up over pre-infusion time.
. Pull the shot.

That gives me a 24gm result with 14gm of coffee as a starting approach to a particular coffee. I'm a light tamper.

I sometimes stop with the level halfway down, and then back up for a third pull and larger volume. If you're careful you can do it quickly with no damage to the puck.

User avatar
armindillo (original poster)
Posts: 141
Joined: 8 years ago

#18: Post by armindillo (original poster) »

I also wiggle the lever at the top of the pull and listen for the gurgling noises on all my Caravels. The earlier models have closer tolerances in all the linkages so there is less wiggle room but it still helps to wiggle to get the water into the cylinder. I just dose by shoveling in grounds with a spoon until I'm in danger of spilling and then tamp that. As far as I know, the designers intended that the back of the included spoon be used as the tamper but for me a teaspoon for scooping and a regular tamper is more convenient. Usually I don't weigh the dose, but it tends to be 12g for a light roast and 10g for a dark roast.

The hole in the piston means you're not disturbing the puck and backwashing into the boiler when you do all those multiple pulls with wiggling. It's one of the really clever design features that you don't find on other machines.
LMWDP #667

zan
Posts: 38
Joined: 3 years ago

#19: Post by zan »

armindillo wrote:
The hole in the piston means you're not disturbing the puck and backwashing into the boiler when you do all those multiple pulls with wiggling. It's one of the really clever design features that you don't find on other machines.

Strietman's piston is based on this brilliant idea.




Post Reply