NUMERICAL BLINDNESS - A RESPONSE TO A RESPONSE
There is a lot being said right now about the EK43 and its merits.
This is going to be a two parter, a response to James Hoffmann's response to Dale Harris blog and then in Part 2,
a few thoughts of my own.
First up, to save on space, read the posts from Dale and James. And whilst you're in the reading mood, you may as well try these from Colin Harmon, Prufrock Coffee and James Bailey @ Workshop Coffee
Done? cool, buckle up, this could be a long one.
On the whole, there are some interesting arguments posited by both Dale and James, I'll try to go through in some sort of order, but forgive me if i start to flit between posts.
For clarity, I have used excepts from both posts, James Hoffmann's comments will be in Italics, Dales will be bordered.
At the WBC in Melbourne Matt Perger, a super smart guy along with his coach Ben Kaminski [sic] (also super smart) presented a routine filled with new ideas and demonstrated a vision of how the espresso machine could be used: by using a grinder not usually associated with espresso preparation and by allowing a different control of extraction parameters. Around the same time, a few people I have great respect for have embraced some of these new concepts, putting them on bar alongside or to replace their existing menu.
Ben has run some training events in Europe, discussing the what, why, and how of these techniques and the drinks they create—I have not been to these sessions; I wish I had.
My first concern is that Dale hasn’t attended these events, and is speculating about their content from 2nd degree sources. Some of these sources actually contain a few inaccuracies about the events, but that is by the by.
I entirely understand this concern, but it immediately raises and interesting question. If we are to encourage discourse, should we limit this discourse to only those who have had primary experience of an event?
Without giving Ben’s class away, I would disagree here.
Here's my first major issue, and it links in with my comment above. The lack of coherent information on the content of the course is, in my view, damaging the level of discourse we are having on this subject. I understand that this is hard earned knowledge and by attending the course you are paying for the opportunity to spend time with and learn from Mr Kaminsky. But I don't understand why there is this level of silence around the content. It feels very protectionist and more than a little cliquey. If, for whatever reason, we have been unable to attend, why should that preclude us from gaining access to knowledge, and by extension having a meaningful place in the discussion? It will if anything make us more eager to attend the course. Knowledge has been written down for eon's yet eager students still travel to train with masters of their crafts, this will not change.
Question No. 1: Is it a good solution to the problem?
The innovators and early adopters of these techniques and set-ups are getting tasty coffee with the EK43. That’s great! But, if we’re talking about it as a “solution” for both filter coffee and espresso, I’m finding it very hard to buy into as an idea.
Fair enough. However, I’d be more comfortable with the dismissal of ideas after testing, rather than reading about online. Before my own experimenting I had placed a hard limit on extraction at around 20%, and was extremely skeptical when told that coffee could taste good above that. Testing revealed I was wrong, and my parameters have changed accordingly.
I agree with James, experiment, and assess ideas before coming to a conclusion. But i think he's got the wrong end of the stick here. To me Dale is referring to the EK43 as an integrated solution for both filter and espresso, something he goes on to explain. What interests me more is the hard limit on extraction. It opens so many questions, do you brew and measure before you taste? Assuming you reached this % yield cap through a process of taste assessment followed by measurement, do you now not taste anything not within these parameters made under normal circumstances? Very interesting.
I don’t, however, buy into the EK43 as a grinder for espresso preparation. Here’s why:
New grinders are expensive – how many more cups of coffee do you need to sell (or how much more do you need to charge per cup) to cover a £1500 investment in a tool you happily lived without yesterday
I’m not really following the logic of this statement. I lived without things in the past but their addition to my life has been an improvement, and I now consider them indispensable. As for the cost argument, you could approach this from an actual answer – assuming most cafes make around 10-13% pre tax net, then you’d need to sell between £14,000 and £18,000 worth of coffee (including VAT). Depending on cost per cup obviously, but let’s just say 8,000 drinks for now. This is before we factor in the reduction of waste. For most people 8,000 drinks would take about 160+kg of coffee. Most people’s coffee waste sits between 10-15%, and if that were reduced. This could be reduced to significantly less waste, increasing yield per kilo. You’d probably require 25kg less coffee to do the same amount of drinks (so multiply the wholesale price of whatever coffee you use by 25 for a bonus saving.) Now work out the savings over the course of 1, 3 and 5 years. I suspect the grinder paid for itself relatively early on.
I’m aware the above back-of-a-napkin maths is massively oversimplified, and can be torn to pieces quite easily – the point is that in a well run business should be able to renew its equipment and invest in things that allow it to increase its efficiency and profitability.
You're right, you can tear the maths to pieces easily. My concern here is that not only are the maths grossly oversimplified, but so is the view of a well run business. There are so many factors that can preclude investment in expensive equipment, even for well-run businesses. It also seems to assume one model of business, that of the "Better Cafe" one who serves everything a chain cafe does, or as we know it, the current speciality coffee model.
Dale though, misses a trick here. His argument is based on the financial realities of the EK43 as an espresso grinder, without consideration for whether it produces desirable results. Taste should be the driver here, not finance.
To come back to finance quickly, the cost should realistically be doubled, after all, if the EK43 should fail for any reason, you will be left unable to serve any drinks. A sensible precaution would be to have a back up.
This grinder is not made for espresso service – we’re taking a tool designed for a different purpose and pushing to the limits parts of it that just aren’t made for high volume use – things will break (and will thus be more expensive) in the long run
It isn’t made for espresso service, on this I absolutely agree. I think it is unfair to speculate on reliability without any data though.
On the contrary, it's perfectly reasonable to speculate that any piece of machinery used outside of its design remit, may well encounter reliability problems. Its is also just as likely that it will operate perfectly.
On this though, my gut feeling is that this grinder is not designed to be used for very short bursts, in rapid succession over an extended period of time. I'd love to see some data on this from mahlkonig.
lastly on this, it's already run in to issues in service @ 3fe in Dublin.
Colin Harmon @dublinbarista21 Aug
A few problems have arisen with the EK43,although not insurmountable.Almost afraid to blog about it though in fear of adding to the noise
The blades are sharper and more expensive—they will dull faster. Let’s say burrs for a standard on-demand grinder are £80, these burrs are closer to £350, and likely to need replacing more often to maintain the virtue for which they are being prized
I’d really like to see where the data on burr age is coming from, as in my experience the way a burr ages is a complex mixture of burr material, quality of cutting, size, volume of coffee used, grind setting used etc etc. If there is data that is available on this then I would welcome it.
Like James I'd like to see more data on blade wear and life. Also consider that if the cost comparison is based around replacing both espresso and filter grinders, then most shops who would consider running an EK43 would have far more than one grinder in operation at the moment. I have 5 grinders, the cost of replacing the blades for these at current prices is approximately £400.
Using the grinder is labour intensive – it takes longer. Does the subjective quality of the shots produced add up to enough benefit to charge more per drink your staff make? Even if slower service is acceptable to customers, it still reduces the amount of drinks a person can make within a given timeframe
Currently it is indeed more labour intensive. I haven’t done the maths on how the reduction in waste tallies against the increase in labour cost, and obviously every cafes relationship between price spent per kg and wage paid per hour is different. There would likely be some offset, if not a net gain. However, no one is really proposing this grinder in this incarnation as a final solution. It is simply a step forward.
I can’t reiterate the above point enough, and it should be noted that those experimenting with it are pretty much alpha, perhaps beta testers. If you are not willing to participate with some risk, and a high incidence of bugs and errors then don’t buy a grinder yet. No one is selling this as a finished solution, and to make out like anyone is creates a logical fallacy best known as the straw man argument.
Couldn't agree more, this is not the end solution, that surely would be equivalent blades that fit within current espresso grinders. assuming of course, that this all turns out to be for the better.
As for the time/cost argument, we, like many specialist coffee shops, weigh every dose before making an espresso, our time per drink is already long. Adding an extra man hour to pre-weigh doses is a small price to pay IF the shots we produce are quantitatively and demonstrably better than before.
These are incredibly boring reasons to supposedly write off the future of coffee preparation; in fact, I understand deeply the argument that cost should never be the deciding factor in a business focussed on delivering quality. However, it is still part of the equation: I don’t give a shit if you sold the best coffee in the universe if you’ve closed due to bankruptcy when I follow trip adviser to your door.
Is £1500 spent going to damage an historic, famous landmark coffee bar of the speciality movement? Probably not, but it could be the margin between success and failure for a less established business, and slower service and insufficient capacity are not something customers are crying out for right now.
The endemic financial unsustainability of serving coffee drinks is a problem, that needs more work for a solution. However, if you are taken out by a £1,500 hit then you are either grossly underfunded, terrible at cashflow management or (and this is frankly extremely rare compared to the other two) you aren’t sufficiently profitable. Expenses like this are inevitable in business, planned for or not.
I hope I have made something of a case above about why thinking like this and experimenting like this can lead us towards increased profitability and an increased likelihood of customer engagement.
Dale is making a good point, bigger more established business's are going to be fine by taking a 1500 hit on the cost of the grinder. Smaller or newer businesses like mine are not. I feel though that James takes the bait too easily. My business is not underfunded, poorly run and I'm not terrible at cashflow management, i simply can't afford to invest at this point.
I fail to see though what this has to do with customer engagement, for me this has less to do with the equipment you use and far more to do with the environment and the method of service. Customers WILL wait if the product and service is of sufficient quality and presented with the correct context, similarly if you're relying on interesting machinery to create customer interaction, then you have a major problem.
Coming back to filter coffee and moving away from the grinder, to a topic I’m less familiar with – coffees shots: do we need to be brewing filter through an espresso machine? Are the flaws in manual and automated filter brewing so high that the solution would be to brew coffee exclusively through metal baskets attached to pump driven pressurised machines because at least that way temperature stability and pouring technique aren’t issues?
There are obvious implications in using espresso machines to brew coffee to filter coffee style volume and TDS% goals:
Time: whilst brewing filter coffee through many methods is slow, at least you can do it away from your espresso bar
What is the advantage of that? Increased movement in a cafe is generally a bad thing, and economy of movement should be prized as a part of workflow in labour intensive operations.
Correct, but equally time spent brewing can be used for the afore mentioned customer interaction, and thus is not wasted. inefficient bar design is usually to blame for poor economy of movement, a single production machine will not solve that on its own.
Water usage: cafes in many european cities using RO are quite aware of the effort it takes to produce perfect water for brewing[2] more water volume through your espresso machine means greater storage requirement of filtered water – there goes another cover
This is incorrect. If you require 250g of water to brew a filter coffee then an RO doesn’t become more or less efficient depending on whether that water will be heated in a counter top water boiler or an espresso brew boiler. In fact, our tendency to rinse filter papers means that an RO would need to produce more water to brew a pour over. (I put most people’s rinse at around 100g of water). Pour over coffee uses more water than a coffee shot, and therefore produces more waste from an RO.
The easier point to make here would be that in most scenarios the energy usage in the water boiler would be better, as they are generally more thoroughly insulated than espresso brew boilers (and the fact they are not properly insulated on so many machines drives me insane!).
Spot on, also the space vacated by the boiler can house an RO tank, which is nice.
Using tools in a way they are not designed: I don’t believe the design of any modern temperature stable espresso machine has figured for regular output of 250ml shots – some of the older ones (pre 1940) were designed for it – but PID’s weren’t included
This will vary dramatically from machine to machine, but I would argue it is significantly more repeatable and controllable than the water coming from a pouring kettle. Again – actually testing this (hard to do without messing around with your Scace device), combined with actually tasting the results, would be better grounds for dismissal at this point than speculation. I admit to having retained a hangover of skepticism around coffee shots, despite the fact that I’ve had several that have been exceptional and unique in certain qualities to that brew method. (In a good way.)
Perhaps, but pulse brewing and frequent refilling of kettles can maintain a higher water temp with relative ease. By comparison, the inlet temp of the preheated water in to most dual-boiler machines will fall with increased use as its has less time to heat in the steam boiler (unless you have a slayer). I'd like to Scace this, but we regularly flush through our coffee boilers and when conducted in unison, the temp probe readings in the tank can drop to as low as 60deg.
As a quick aside, the suggestion seems to be that coffee shots replace filter brewed coffee, which i find interesting.
As well as flaws, there are virtues to the way we currently brew filter coffee. I enjoy the clarity of flavour that reduced undissolved solids allow in my Chemex, and I appreciate the difference between my consistently well brewed 6l drip brewers output[3] and the cup profile I get from my Eva solo. In fact, I adore tasting a coffee a different way and finding a completely different reason to love it.
Dismissing the clarity of a properly made coffee shot, without tasting one, is a little unfair. No one is proposing that these methods disappear, however I’m not really sure either is suited to a typical cafe environment.
Fair enough, but i also don't imagine that your typical cafe will be suited to coffee shots either. If the chemex, v60, clever dripper, eva solo isn't right, why would the coffee shot be ok? Unless of course I misunderstood this, and James was referring to both traditional and new methods of brewing.
Personally - and I fight internally over this all the time - I don’t think I want every cup of coffee I drink to come from a box behind a bar, with the promise that it was ground at that point the only remaining nod to ‘prepared for you’ the same way as every other drink being served from there was. That doesn’t suggest to me great engagement between staff and their product and it doesn’t help me appreciate that making coffee involves knowledge and craft. In fact, pre-portioned doses ready for any possible menu item reminds me more of the McFlurry machine.
I don’t care about how my coffee is made if it tastes delicious. Our continued fetishisation of brewers we consider fashionable, regardless of customer experience, often in the name of “craft” is a problem for us. Most of our customers really don’t care about the prep work, they care somewhat about the product and absolutely about the experience. If we can spend a little less time pouring self-absorbed swirls of water over coffee, and a little more time being nice to people, then that would be great.
Excellent, Less time spent on craft and theatre and more time on true, informative service would be of benefit to the industry as whole.
Question No. 2: Is the problem really a problem?
I don’t want to be the guy who stands up for the status quo, for the good enough, and for the adequate – I don’t want to say that selling coffee is a numbers game that requires fast food style service and high volume to succeed in a market with high rent and low unit value…
I am, however, going to question whether coffee made and served the way speciality cafes have been trying to over the last 10 years is that bad.
Let’s start by clearly defining my bias:
I’ve had delicious espresso, more than onceI’ve had delicious filter coffee, more than once
These seem like really silly things to write down – I would seriously ask why anyone would passionately drink, let alone sell coffee if they couldn’t say this – but bear with me, you’ll see why it’s important.
None of these delicious drinks needed modal grind size, or low grind size distribution – they needed good coffee, and people working hard with the goal of delivering consistently something they thought was nice tasting and worthwhile.
I have said this every year I’ve been in coffee, and every year I’ve worked to set myself a new benchmark. I’m interested in better in every aspect of what we do. This does not invalidate what I enjoyed in the past, but I have no intention of settling at any point. So I do not believe the above to be a valid argument against experimentation and innovation.
I am arguing that we are able to serve delicious coffee if we so wish, and whilst different taste goals should and can be explored, there is value in what we’ve built so far.
Another straw man I’m afraid, because no one is arguing that we’re not capable of delicious coffee now. No one is making a point contrary to the above.
Um, there seems to be a lot of effort here to say not very much. James is right though, the argument Dale presents is not valid against experimentation and innovation. It is maybe valid with regards to motivation and reaction. Is the motivation driven by a desire for different tastes, or a numerical exercise in the prefect chemical extraction? Likewise, the faddish nature of our industry means that many are minded to throw away what went before in favour of that which is new, regardless of its inherent value.
I can’t speak to other people’s quotes. I would be happy to go on the record to say that I have tasted shots and brews that exceed the quality of what I have experienced before on traditional equipment.
How!!!!! my biggest problem with all that has been written about the EK43 is a disturbing lack of information about why the drinks are perceived to be better. It's of no use to me to to describe your cupping bowls as "singing" or your espresso as "consistently delicious", these are just words and i can use them to describe what i produce every day. To forward this discussion we need data, blind tests, back to back comparisons, what are the differences, why are they better or worse! At the moment all we can take away is that coffee can taste better through an EK43, useless.
Within another, ‘as part of adopting this we may need to develop our understanding of what good espresso tastes like’, that perhaps we’ve been apologising for or skirting over the fact that espresso was acidic, when in fact it was our inability to brew correctly.
I don’t really understand this point clearly. Higher yields have resulted in increased balance and mouthfeel, and increased sweetness for me. (There are certain other attributes that wreck my head, and how I understand espresso, but I promised not to give Ben Kaminsky’s entire class away…)
No problem at all with what Dale is saying here, perhaps we have, perhaps we haven't. But again this shroud of mystery descends, if you don't want us to speculate, don't dangle carrots of information in front of us before whipping them away. I see no reason at all for the continued secrecy, a measured release of information would benefit everyone, Ben Kaminsky included.
When I judge espresso as tasty it is a reaction to flavour and texture, not a filing of it against a context we’ve established as a movement. When espresso has acidity and we enjoy it, that’s because it’s nice. When it’s too acidic, too bitter, or even too sweet, we should adjust our recipe, adjust our technique, or not serve it.
What we enjoy from coffee is up to us, and arguably some of our positions allow us to influence what some people drink and how much they enjoy it – but the market (or our chosen part of it) will always tell us what they really think in the long term.
The invitation will always be open to come and share espressos with us here, and discuss what we collectively taste. Writing off how an espresso tastes from an EK, without ever tasting it, is a problem for me.
I'm not sure that Dale is writing off the EK espresso here, but James' point stands, we should all taste it before we make judgement as to its quality. As for the market deciding, well, I'm it sure that's valid part of the discussion at this time, If we have two shops, on the same street, one using the EK43 and one not, then it may tell us something.
’m not saying that those using these new systems are wrong, or that it won’t be part of or inform our shared coffee future. In fact, I’m proud to work in an industry that has many people, trying many new things, and I can’t wait to taste them all—Innovation is good, taking (calculated) risks is good, following your nose, pallet, or gut is good.
However, I’m shamed by our rush to embrace a silver bullet to fix our problems, by our desire to be the coolest kids on the block, and our fear of being left behind.
Here is, for me, the real meat of Dale’s post. This is something that I absolutely agree with. Please don’t jump on the EK43 bandwagon without a thorough understanding of what is being experimented with, and what the potential ROI is. There is no rush. This is a new idea, this is early days. There may be competitive advantage in it (as outlined above), but that inevitably comes with caveats.
TESTIFY, TESTIFY!!
(what they said)
Lets get this straight – if you buy into this now you will not be the first person to do this in a shop, there will be no first place prize, the novelty is not valuable – in 6 months lessons will have been learnt and the cutting edge will have moved on, possibly leaving scars, possibly some people gloating at my idiot naysaying and almost definitely some tidied up lessons that may or may not include aspects extolled today as progress.
Agreed again. 100%. I’ve tried, repeatedly, to differentiate innovation from novelty (something we seem to struggle with as an industry).
We agree again.
Doing something expensive, risky, and different because someone else thinks it’s the future of your industry isn’t clever—it’s certainly not innovation, taking a calculated risk, or following your nose. It’s playing follow the leader where the leader doesn’t know you, how your business operates, how your staff work, and who your customers are.
I’m disappointed by our lack of faith in the drink we gave to someone yesterday, and I’m pissed off that we still think a new toy will fix everything when the proven reality, not just in coffee but in every industry, is that growth and improvement come with small, boring improvements and an aggregate of marginal gains, not an old deli grinder.
Again, more agreement. However, I believe that it is also disappointing to see something so thoroughly dismissed without proper testing or hands on time. I agree with so much of the sentiment, but I believe it is absolutely healthy (and essential) to be dissatisfied with what we are doing now – if our businesses are focused on quality. When that goes away we start doing stupid things like talking about “the perfect cup”, and we discover all too late that we’ve been left behind (something we see in this industry often, as well as many other industries.)
As an industry we should be constantly looking for improvement everyday, regardless of the equipment we use. Yes there are gains to be made still in conventional espresso, but that doesn't preclude experimentation into new techniques. I do worry about Dales question of faith though. Consider that we, as an industry don't lack faith in what we serve, we just desire that i can always be better. That doesn't mean that what we serve now is bad, just that there is always scope for improvement.
Summary:
Some of us are playing with the grinder. It is being used in a way it is not designed to be. We believe there are commercial and qualitative upsides to this. We do not think we have a market ready solution to various problems. We are excited. We believe that we have access to a higher tier of cup quality, with a few caveats and challenges along the way.
If you aren’t ready to suffer through alpha and beta testing: please wait. Doing this without an an understanding of what you’re trying to achieve will decrease your quality and consistency.
Good. I'm glad that those who can are taking the time to investigate new avenues. Whether there are qualitative upsides is going to be key, and more importantly against what are we judging these upsides, what are we looking for when judging?
The Comments from the original post from James are missing in the transfer to this new site, you can read them here:
http://everylatte.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/numerical-blindness-pt-1-response-to.html