Implications of Schulman's latest on LaSpaz shots?

For generic information on making espresso alt.coffee, coffee geek, Sweet Maria's web site and many others excel at this tutorial level of information. However, if you've been there and done that but have specific questions and concerns about getting the best espresso on the S1/VII/Mini-VII/Dream/Dream T, post those topics here.
Post Reply
Martin

Implications of Schulman's latest on LaSpaz shots?

Post by Martin »

I'm a fan of Jim Schulman's work. I rarely understand him on first reading, but after a few months or years of spiraling his findings and opinions into my experience, I start to get the point (in a soft-focused sort of way).

At any rate, his latest posts have implications for over- and under extraction and over- and under dosing that seem particularly relevant to the LaSpaziale and its basket/pf configuration and (in my case) the departure of a machine with a distinct preinfusion component of the brew cycle.

My biggest takeaway point (with too few shots-over-time to confirm with confidence) is the huge factor dosing is on the LaSpaz and how this plays out on my quest for a 30 second ristretto without over-packing or over-grinding

LaSpaz-specific thoughts on this?
Martin

Here's the post:
http://www.coffeecuppers.com/Espresso.htm
Weska

Post by Weska »

Martin, I'm in the same position as you. Schulman's rigor makes me take his work very seriously, but I'm not sure yet how to apply it to my S1. (In fact, I'm still very much in the dialing-in phase of my relationship with mine. Still seeking a suitable grinder to replace my Gaggia MDF.)

My take-away point from the article is that puck depth is as significant or more so than absolute quantity of coffee. If there is an optimal depth for the puck to extract all the best that is in it, then a smaller diameter basket will take a lower dose to form that depth. Updosing will not improve the shots and may be counterproductive. It would follow that the yield per shot for a 53mm basket to taste its best will be less than the yield from a 58mm one.

In another post, I speculated that the La Spaziale team had optimized things for the usual Italian cafe dose mentioned by Schulman in his more speculative section. Certainly, I can't get anything worthwhile with more than 14 grams from my machine so far. I want to try a deeper basket to be sure, but now I'm skeptical that it will pan out.

Previously, I think the group was inclined to think that the extra depth resulting from using the same dose in a 53mm as in a 58mm would decrease the likelihood of channeling. Now, Schulman seems to be saying that the depth should be kept the same, other things being equal (which they never are, of course).

For my part, I don't see that the article bears on pre-infusion one way or the other. Can you explain what you see there? The Schulman-Fox experiments on matched La Cimbalis suggest that it is consequential, but I have yet to hear a concrete suggestion on how to implement it for a Vivaldi. I suspect that some techician among us can figure out a good way to do it, but I don't have those gifts. It is certainly a tweak I would consider seriously.

Well, Martin, excuse me for a long post that doesn't give you anything like what you requested. But at least we are starting the conversation.
Pete

Post by Pete »

Martin,
After reading through Schulman's recent postings and some on over-extraction on this site I decided to fine tune my dosing. I've gone to a finer grind overall and bought a more accurate .1 gram scale for dosing. Where I was guess dosing before at 18 grams I now stay in the 16.5-17.5 range. The results so far are more consistent extraction times and much fewer bitter - over-extracted? - shots. Eventually, I'll know if I learned anything.
Martin

Post by Martin »

Weska and Pete: Interesting posts, both. With my E61, I always used a triple, and for a while I was most irritated that I couldn't get one for the LaSpaz. But now, as with many things, I'm trying to learn from the machine, rather than somehow make the machine follow my whims. I honestly can't say that my espresso satisfaction is diminished by a double basket.

There's some combination of weight and empty basket volume between top of the puck and the basket rim that appears to be at work. So, I've been dropping my coffee weight to its current 15-16, and I might go less. It seems a little odd to have the basket filled only to what is clearly below the basket spring marker line. But because my shots have been all over the place, it's hard to comment on the effects. Possibly the next step is try a lighter tamp: less coffee, more volume?

The reason I mention the pre-infusion as as separate machine process, is that I wondered if the Viv makes good use (requires?) of its greater depth (if not volume)below the puck and shower screen.

I'm also just 3 months into the Vivaldi. All this, of course takes weeks and months to sort out at my 5-7 shots per day, reg. and decaf, my own roasting, and lots of different beans and blends.

Martin
Weska

Post by Weska »

Martin, we are very much in the same position, but I might be behind you.

Although I've had my Vivaldi for 6 months, I rarely exceed 4 shots a day and three of those will be cappucni and therefore not very useful for quality control. I am without a source of consistent, fresh, professionally roasted coffee and am compelled to do my own stove-top, highly variable roasts. Far from ideal for dialing in, but it is what I have to work with and not without modest success.

What I now wonder is how you (and you, Pete) manage to get so much more into your double baskets than I can. (You are using doubles and not triples, aren't you?) If I put as much as 15 grams into mine, I have obvious channeling and compression of my wet puck against the screen, which makes it dry.

To my knowledge, Vivaldis have no preinfusion strategy, and no one has found a good equivalent. (Worth noting is that not all heads that are called E61 have it either and that definitions of preinfusion seem variable if not outright controversial.) The only suggestion, that we program a couple-second surge on one button, was quickly undercut by noting that the opening of the solenoid at that shot's presumed end would blow apart the surface of the puck prior to starting the second longer shot intended to do the extraction. What is needed is to open the puck to the mains pressure without engaging either the pump or the solenoid valves.
Martin

Post by Martin »

compelled to do my own stove-top, highly variable roasts.
I've done heatgun roasting for 4 years, and after enough time at it, you can stick to a desired profile and accomplish a very even roast. IMO,still pretty basic--and combined with suitable bowl for stirring (dog bowl, of course) it's a technological step up from stovetop. I roast outdoors, but I can't imagine how substituting or adding a HG would create more of a smoke problem than stovetop.
If I put as much as 15 grams into mine, I have obvious channeling and compression of my wet puck against the screen, which makes it dry.
I've struggled with channeling at the fuller doses. But along with solving that problem, I've wound up with under 20 sec. shots. So it's back to balancing fuller basket against faster shots. However, it's only the last week or so that I've been lightening the dose and lightening the tamp. It's counter-intuitive, but this combo has lengthened the pour duration.
no preinfusion strategy, and no one has found a good equivalent.
Your caveats about the controversy are well taken. My naive understanding is that the purpose of preinfusion is to wet the puck without pressure so the grounds expand to provide greater and more even resistance to the pressure when it kicks in. (Continuing with my home-brewed physics), the Vivaldi accomplishes a similar effect by allowing (requiring) a smaller surface area and "deeper" empty volume for water. Filling that volume with grounds (over-dosing above 14-15-16g) may defeat this engineering design.

At the least, this does not seem inconsistent with Schulman's discussion of the Italian "secret" which begins with a carefully measured (and smaller) dose and modest-pressure tamp.

But clearly, this will take more than a few days to resolve empirically in my kitchen. :wink:
Martin
Weska

Post by Weska »

Martin, I'll definitely give a lighter tamp (presumably with a finer grind?) a try. It's one direction I haven't gone. Thanks for the suggestion, or prompt.

I can easily believe that the heat gun dog bowl is superior to stovetop. Stovetop is just what I've become used to. One clear disadvantage of my Whirley-Pop is that it is closed to view. I really have to dump out the beans to judge the degree of roast. This almost always means that I dump them back to finish.
toddnix

Post by toddnix »

I've had my S1 for a couple of months now. My last machine was an Isomac Millenium E61. I definitely had growing pains at the beginning while transitioning to the new size portafilter and lack of preinfusion.

After struggling to get espresso to my liking for the first couple of weeks I read Shulman's latest and had a bit of an A-ha! moment:
I was overdosing for the optimum group spacing for the S1

I use Essse Bar S beans (also from Bologna like the La Spaziale) and they also recommend a lower dose. My current does is about 15g for the double. The one thing that I would note is that different beans have different densities so focus on the tamped puck depth more than the actual weight.

My new routine is to grind and distribute without too much downward pressure so as not to overdose. Then I center tamp and Staub tamp before locking and loading.

I still have a bit of a problem with the "doughnut of death". I have a flat tamper so switching to a convex might help. In the meantime I'm trying to lighten up my tamp a bit.

My target for the shot is to have a 1.75oz double that pulls in 35 seconds, but end-stop the shot by pulling the cups out at 25-27 seconds.
Martin

Post by Martin »

Seems to be some convergence of experience here. Let me add another variable: Initially, I could see no particular use for the auto doser. Couldn't even find a theoretical purpose for a home user pulling half a dozen shots a day. And several on this forum seemed to agree that they don't use it to cut their shots. For me, it has always been, watch for the blonding (better, anticipate it), then cut.

For a while now, I've set the dose at 1.75 oz and tried to adjust the grind. That worked pretty well for decent-but-not outstanding shots-----generally, at too fast a pour. Using weight and dose as "standards" I've gotten into a groove that equals my best (if intermittent) performances on the Iso Tea, and makes me feel like I'm closer to realizing the Vivaldi's merits.

In retrospect, I can see how a lot of my improvement as a barista has been centered on adjusting for error rather than the setting non-variables (water and basket dose) and adjusting "only" with grind.

Martin




Martin
Jesse

Post by Jesse »

LaSpaz-specific thoughts on this?
Martin

Here's the post:
http://www.coffeecuppers.com/Espresso.htm
Following the thoughts put forward in this piece has improved my shot quality, more than anything I have done with the VivII to date, in a most dramatic way.

I, clearly, have been over-dosing. I, too, was getting the donut of death as mentioned in other posts, and the coffee was not especially good. Grinding and dosing 13-14 grams and wow--what a difference.

I noticed increased latitude of brew temperature between acceptable shots. I.e.: I was able to brew the same bean at 94*, 95*, 96* and taste the variation plesantly--and all the shots were good. This is lovely news.

I am accustomed to the slight-dish fill of a 58mm Rancilio or 57mm La Marzocco basket and was doing the same trick with the VivII--to ill effect. With less coffee in the basket, and a 30 lb tamp, I am now getting perfectly extracted shots--still a bit quick at 22 seconds (but perhaps not in light of the research...) but the VivII is finally pulling shots as good as the old machine.

I am thrilled.

Espresso beans were from Barefoot in LA, and the best coffee was brewed at an indicated 96*C. Each time I used the Espro tamp at 30lbs pressure and the most effective tamp seemed to be light-tap-heavy-polish.

Yeah!
-Jesse
Martin

Post by Martin »

Jesse,
try keeping everything the same at a lighter tamp. See if the shot doesn't take a bit longer.
Martin
Weska

Post by Weska »

I've tried the lighter tamp, 20 lbs instead of 30, and the results are interesting. It gives me a slightly earlier blonding which takes on a helical-shaped stream out of my bottomless pf.

What I think is happening is that the lighter tamp is exposing some defects in distribution. I'll work on that next and see what happens while I hold the lighter tamp.
BillK

Post by BillK »

I get about 16 grams of coffee in a normal shot.

Actually, I dose by volume, so it can vary a bit, but 16 grams would be a good average.

I dispense about 18 grams or so from a Mazzer Mini into a double basket. I stir with a straightened paper clip to fill voids and distribute uniformly. I then level with my finger with minimum pressure, even with the top of the basket. I finish with a tamp with a convex tamper. Using this procedure I almost never have a problem with channeling. I get excellent repeatibility of shot time and flavor.

How do I do a reliable, repeatable "downdose"? I have tried grinding 14 grams of beans, carefullydispensing them into the basket, stirring with a paper clip, then shaking the basket gently to try to settle the coffee evenly in the basket. Then tamp. Results are not very repeatable at this point, and I get channeling quite a bit of the time. When it goes right, the quality of the shot is outstanding, better than a bigger dose - cleaner, more distinct flavors and a bit sweeter. So I am of the opinion that this is worth pursuing.

Do any of you have a reliable way of dosing to 14 grams, which is to say, dosing to a level that is lower than the top of the basket? I have read on other boards about people using French curves, to help distribute below the level of the basket top, but I do not quite understand what it is that they are doing.

Comments?
Jesse

Post by Jesse »

How do I do a reliable, repeatable "downdose"? I have tried grinding 14 grams of beans, carefully dispensing them into the basket, stirring with a paper clip, then shaking the basket gently to try to settle the coffee evenly in the basket. Then tamp. Results are not very repeatable at this point, and I get channeling quite a bit of the time. When it goes right, the quality of the shot is outstanding, better than a bigger dose - cleaner, more distinct flavors and a bit sweeter. So I am of the opinion that this is worth pursuing.
The single basket that came with my machine turns out to hold, on average, just a couple beans over 14 grams when level. So what I do is use it to scoop beans out of an old Illy can with airtight seal, level the beans and then remove two. I dump the beans in the mazzer and use the single filter to rest in the mazzers throat and minimize popcorning. After grinding, I make sure to sweep all the grinds out of the doser and this results in a _just_ underfilled double filter. I stir the coffee with the back of a demitasse spoon and then tamp with the espro. In my case, this results in better coffee that using a lighter tamp (a week of experimentation is my evidence to date, and this opinion is subject to change).

While the puck is wet at the end, the coffee is now consistent in volume (for the first time with this machine) and consistently good when pulled to 22-odd seconds. This week I've been using two-year-old green Espresso Monkey Blend from Sweet Maria's, roasted to Vienna (mahogany, a few snaps into second crack).

I'm including two shots below, from this mornings coffee. A pretty shot of espresso and an unimpressive apple of latte art.

Try using the single filter-full of coffee, or if you have a good scale, see if that has the right weight for you.

-J

Image
Image
Post Reply

Return to “Pursuit of the God Shot”