smaller double basket

General Questions and Comments that fit no specific category.
Post Reply
SL28ave

smaller double basket

Post by SL28ave »

I'd love to have a shorter double basket than the stock basket. Does such a basket exist anywhere?
Niko

Post by Niko »

I don't think a basket like that exists.
I'm assuming you like to pull long singles?
BillK

Yo Lino

Post by BillK »

Unless I miss my guess, the person who posted the question is a roaster at Terroir Coffees and a specialty coffee competition judge, a very serious and expert coffee person. I don't know him, but I did have a brief conversation with him last summer in Boston, and when I told him I had an S1 he was very interested and asked me about the basket dosing. He told me that Terroir was doing some testing with small dosed doubles, and that was about as far as the conversation went.

Almost certainly the reason for his inquiry here is due to the experimentation people are doing with "underdosed" double shots and SO espressos. The theory is that this results in a sweeter, better balanced shot, due to more optimal extraction.

You can read about the work that Jim Schulman and others have been doing by going to the coffeecuppers.com website and locating his report. It is most interesting.

I suspect there is something to what Jim is experiencing, and this means that there is going to be demand for a double basket that can be dosed to a lower amount of coffee - 12-14 grams.

Or, a tool that allows for convenient, reliable lower dosing of the current baskets.

This is where the 53mm world may be deficient, given that a trend develops - not many 53mm people focused on the equipment needed, as far as I know.

OTOH... this is also a possible opportunity for the S1 community. I wonder what the standard dose would be if the S1 double basket would be reduced in height to about the same height as a popular 58 mm basket such as the LM basket. And, would this create a geometry that would be more optimal for espresso extraction than an underdosed 58mm LM basket. I wonder if such a basket would be easy to fabricate. I wonder if Lino is reading this...
Weska

Post by Weska »

The way I read Schulman, what matters most is not the dose in grams or cubic centimeters but rather the depth of the puck. If the hot water has to travel too far in the puck the bottom grinds never extract while the top level seriously overextracts.

Our narrow Vivaldi baskets, if this is right, would dictate a lower dose in terms of grams or cc's in order not to stack too high.

What I don't get about the op's request is why the head room above a shortened dose would matter much. That is, why would radically underdosing a conventional basket be worse than having the usual tight head room above a shorter basket?
Bud

Post by Bud »

What I don't get about the op's request is why the head room above a shortened dose would matter much. That is, why would radically underdosing a conventional basket be worse than having the usual tight head room above a shorter basket?
The reason may be, that if you
Weska

Post by Weska »

Very valid point, BillK. If you are practicing Stockfleth or Chicago chop kinds of distribution/dosing, I guess the ability to have the brim of the basket define your dose is essential.
Martin

Post by Martin »

First, let's examine how we are using the term "underdosing." If it's a matter of being "under" our initial mindset, then the term works. Otherwise, dosing less than what we are used to might simply be "correct" dosing-----even if we've always assumed that more has got to be better.

We had a thread going for a while musing on the relevance of Schulman's paper for the Vivaldi. One of my take-away points from the article has been the possibility that what Schulman calls "headroom" (volume between top of puck and screen) can be an important factor, and IMO might be especially important for the non-preinfusion Vivaldi. If so, a shorter basket might be counter-productive.

My inclination is to assume that La Spaziale knows pretty much what they are doing. This isn't ironclad! I know that savvy machine adopters often improve on what the manufacturer provides. However, I'm getting very good shots in the under-16g range, and until corrected, I'm prepared to think that this is what LaSpaz has in mind.

Now, to that even more unsettling point: At 15-16 g, you can barely fill to the basket ridge, and the finger sweep (of any variety) just isn't what it used to be. My current workflow is to WDT with the chute/cup in place, take out the cup, do some left-right/front-back shakes, level with the tamper's own weight (no more), very light NSEW tamp to secure the sides, and flat-tamp with only the weight needed to re-level/polish.

Too soon to commit to this routine, but could be that "finger-across-the-brim" in order to get that perfectly flat or contoured "leveling" goes the way of the 30 lb tamp "rule."

Martin
BillK

Post by BillK »

Martin wrote:First, let's examine how we are using the term "underdosing." If it's a matter of being "under" our initial mindset, then the term works. Otherwise, dosing less than what we are used to might simply be "correct" dosing-----even if we've always assumed that more has got to be better.

We had a thread going for a while musing on the relevance of Schulman's paper for the Vivaldi.
Martin, where is this thread?

I agree on your underdosing comment.
Martin

Post by Martin »

BillK wrote:
Martin wrote:First, let's examine how we are using the term "underdosing." If it's a matter of being "under" our initial mindset, then the term works. Otherwise, dosing less than what we are used to might simply be "correct" dosing-----even if we've always assumed that more has got to be better.

We had a thread going for a while musing on the relevance of Schulman's paper for the Vivaldi.
Martin, where is this thread?

I agree on your underdosing comment.
See the "God Shot" section. It's right on top
Martin
Weska

Post by Weska »

Good point, Martin. We should probably be talking about downdosing rather than underdosing.
User avatar
chas
Vivaldi Dreamer
Posts: 3044
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 11:52 pm
Location: Central Maryland
Contact:

Post by chas »

I guess all of us that bought triple baskets from lino a couple of years back and swear by them are living in Schulman sin!

Next he'll be proving that bottomless PFs are a terrible invention only suitable as a troubleshooting tool. :violent1:
Chas
LM GS/3 & LaSpaziale Dream v 1.25 (US 120V)
Mazzer Kony E, Customized Rocky
Hottop P/B
Weska

Post by Weska »

Experience trumps theory every time.

I want to try it both ways, but we don't have a source of triple baskets any longer. (Maybe we'll have something close to them from the oversize baskets--if they resemble Niko's--on order for matching to tampers in another thread.) Downdosing has been good to me for a bit, and it was prompted by reading Schulman. Nevertheless, I'd like to give updosing a shot too.

After all, this coffee we use is an organic material full of its own variables, and there is nothing to say that a single approach works best with all of it. Schulman doesn't deny that and even suggests that different dosing levels end up producing preferences for certain kinds of beans.
Post Reply

Return to “General Q&A”