Turbo shots??

Cuprajake - Lance Hedrick is your man on that sort of thing. He really rates it.

It’s not my thing.

MediumRoastSteam Nor mine….

I enjoy a turbo, which I probably encountered by mistake when dialling in a coffee for the first time.

I wouldn’t say it’s like a filter, you’re only brewing a 1:3 so from a 16g dose it’s still only 48g liquid. It’s still got good texture and mouthfeel.

For me it suits some coffees more than others.

Regards being invented by influencers, I believe the term came from them but the execution came from a paper by some professors who I think were aiming to improve consistency, reduce waste and make time efficiencies in cafes.

I remember getting a coffee at one of these mobile vans and in the queue timing how long the shots were taking, which was something like 14 seconds and I was thinking, ’this guy hasn’t a clue’, low and behold the drink was good! Maybe he read the paper and was pulling turbos.

Worth a go in my opinion but I can understand why some wouldn’t like it having tried them.

Chriss29 I enjoy a turbo, which I probably encountered by mistake when dialling in a coffee for the first time.

That was is called a gusher.

MediumRoastSteam Gusher no doubt! I should add I use a Cafelat Robot and I think turbos/gushers lend quite well as it’s a shorter shot so less time for heat loss.

James Hoffman discussed the paper I mentioned in my previous post back in 2020

https://youtu.be/BoYBLn9hRqs

Here’s a link to the paper I referred to if anyone is interested (also linked in the YT Video)

https://www.cell.com/matter/fulltext/S2590-2385(19)30410-2?_returnURL=https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2590238519304102?showall=true

Cuprajake Are these more similar to filter coffee than espresso? They lack body, give clarity and are usually quite high in volume output,

I often pull shots with lighter roasts around 1:4 to 1:6, (not “turbo”, supercharged, water injected, nor any other attempts to raise their BMEP). Yes, I feel the flavours are easier to pick out and the coffee is less generic & less sharply acidic (even at a reasonable EY, not EK levels as discussed in the Cameron paper cited - it is also worth noting in that paper thy say that people might not have a preference for the shots and mixing them with a 1:2 might be a highly impractical solution).

1:6 shots are still twice as strong as typical filter, 1:4 three times as strong, but yes, much lower intensity & mouthfeel than 1:2 shots.

For darker, more conventional espresso roasts/blends, I might be more like 1:2.5 to 1:3.5.

Longer shots aren’t a new idea, they got very short in the early days of specialty (1:1.5-1.6), but have been creeping up in length again in the last decade.

Illy, INEI and the SCAA all have a broad definition range, often centering around 1:3.5/4.0.

MWJB what times do you use for those longer ratios? Still approx 30 seconds or as long as it takes, adjusting grind for flavour?

simonc Adjust grind for flavour, killing by weight in the cup, but they mostly seem to fall 25-35s for doubles, I’ve had good tasting singles closer to 20s and as long as 40s.

Not the same grinder used for all shots and some coffees brew to a reasonable EY & taste in much less time than others, so I don’t target times.

MWJB Longer shots aren’t a new idea, they got very short in the early days of specialty (1:1.5-1.6), but have been creeping up in length again in the last decade.

I remember when people were advocating shots that were literally a couple of teaspoonfuls of espresso…it got ridiculous.