I'm game for anything that provides a more meaningful way of comparing details, and your proposed brew ratios seem reasonable. As a quick test, I pulled a double yesterday with 20 grams of coffee. The espresso weighed 20 grams. By your table, it would be considered a "small" double, which agrees with its volume including crema (estimated to be slightly over 1.5 ounces).

Qualitatively, I recognize ristrettos as much by their pour characteristics as the ultimate volume. For example, a ristretto will have a longer dwell time (an extra 2-5 seconds before drops appear), longer "gloppy" time before the cone formation completes, often an overall longer pour time, and of course a smaller final volume.

Thanks Andy for the idea, I'll weigh shots to see if the table's quantitative values correspond with my qualitative assessments and report back.

Espresso making is hard to characterize, since one can start with anywhere from 6 to 24 grams of coffee. Then, from each coffee amount, one can produce everything from a very small ristretto to a very generous cafe crema. The range of beverage variations is enormous. Even if one leaves out lungos and cafe cremas, just considering ristrettos and "normales" covers a very wide range of beverages and styles.

HB wrote:I'm game for anything that provides a more meaningful way of comparing details, and your proposed brew ratios seem reasonable. As a quick test, I pulled a double yesterday with 20 grams of coffee. The espresso weighed 20 grams. By your table, it would be considered a "small" double, which agrees with its volume including crema (estimated to be slightly over 1.5 ounces).

This says to me (again) that I am doing a very poor job explaining the concept. Your (20g dry/20g wet) espresso is made at a 100% brewing ratio, smack in the middle of what I would call the ristretto range.

HB wrote:Qualitatively, I recognize ristrettos as much by their pour characteristics as the ultimate volume. For example, a ristretto will have a longer dwell time (an extra 2-5 seconds before drops appear), longer "gloppy" time before the cone formation completes, often an overall longer pour time, and of course a smaller final volume.

Thanks Andy for the idea, I'll weigh shots to see if the table's quantitative values correspond with my qualitative assessments and report back.

I agree completely with your comments about how a ristretto pours, and I appreciate your interest. Perhaps someone better at explanations than I can make the brewing ratio idea more understandable. Or not.

AndyS wrote:This says to me (again) that I am doing a very poor job explaining the concept. Your (20g dry/20g wet) espresso is made at a 100% brewing ratio, smack in the middle of what I would call the ristretto range.

Ah, now I see what you mean. This particular extraction didn't have ristretto pour characteristics or flavor profile; it ran faster than I prefer and the crema was bubbly because it needed another day to chill out. As you said, that's an advantage of weight versus volume for comparison purposes, i.e., what appears to be a double by volume may be a ristretto-proportioned espresso in "crema's clothing."

im going to buy a digital scale right now. this is too damn geeky for me to not test! will report this afternoon.

For general (non-geek) understanding, does the following approximate some of your preliminary data?

For each ounce of drink, a ristretto requires twice as much coffee as a regular espresso; three times as much coffee as a lungo; seven times as much as a cafe crema; and 17-20 times as much as a cup of brewed coffee.

Martin

AndyS-

I might suggest that you change the drip coffee to a single serving of coffee, or footnote the current table to reflect the number of servings. This would be more consistent and directly comparable to the others. I do realize that the thing you are most interested in is the ratio, and that is the same regardless of serving size. One might argue what that serving size should, but 6-8 ounces would probably be appropriate, albeit small by many folks habits.

HB wrote:Qualitatively, I recognize ristrettos as much by their pour characteristics as the ultimate volume. For example, a ristretto will have a longer dwell time (an extra 2-5 seconds before drops appear), longer "gloppy" time before the cone formation completes, often an overall longer pour time, and of course a smaller final volume.

That's the point I was trying to make earlier. Cutting a normale short at a smaller volume does not make a ristretto. Running more liquid through the puck does not make it a lungo. The flow rates/shot timings must be adjusted as well. This isn't meant to distract from the brew ratio idea, which has always seemed fundamental to me. But flow rates/shot timings really ought to be part of the definitions, not just brew ratios.
________
John

AndyS wrote: It's simply a way that people can communicate with each other about their espresso. And I very much believe that good communication between passionate baristas, consistently applied over the long haul, WILL magically help them pull great shots.

Not to denigrate your research, but if the goal is a more common lexicon, i.e., better communication, then you need to start with more common 'verbiage', it seems to me. While I may agree with all of your precepts and fully support your goal (as I'm not even sure what makes up a 'cappuccino' anymore!), I ain't gonna start weighing my shots. Maybe I'm just lazy. Maybe I drink too much decaf, I dunno.
I think that the terms are liberally (and somewhat glibly) applied, too, but I think that that evolved from baristas trying new things and needing some new terms to describe how they were arriving at their results. "Hey, How'd you do that! ?!" "I just overfilled the basket till it restricted the flow a bit more and took a bit longer to pull the shot."
"Hey, use Franco's 'restricted' technique, it's great."
"What's this? It's good!"
"That's a 'restricted' shot."
"Hey, make me one of those 'restricted' shots'"
"Franco, another 'restricted', please"

Martin wrote:For general (non-geek) understanding, does the following approximate some of your preliminary data?

For each ounce of drink, a ristretto requires twice as much coffee as a regular espresso; three times as much coffee as a lungo; seven times as much as a cafe crema; and 17-20 times as much as a cup of brewed coffee.

Sure does, but with three caveats:

1. It's tricky measuring drinks in ounces (volumetrically), because the amount of crema varies widely. Ounces of weight are a much more reliable measure.
2. Since ristrettos, regular espressos and lungos intergrade completely, there are no hard and fast definitions. The proportions you list above are just a guess at what constitutes the typical or average drink of each type.
3. I don't really have "data" as much as I have preferences. Your preferences may be just as valid as mine.

jesawdy wrote:I might suggest that you change the drip coffee to a single serving of coffee

Good idea, thank you. I will do that on the next version, if this thing has enough traction for there to BE a next version.