Questions: what are the perks to using this vs a pour over system (which is what I currently use when I’m out of cold brew)? Is this easy to use if you have limited hand dexterity and strength?
Haven’t done a lot of pour over coffee, so my ideas might be inaccurate in that regard. However, I still use a moka pot from time to time, and have experimented with that enough to compare these methods to some extent.
control
Based on what I’ve observed, I think the key feature of an AeroPress is control. You can use any grind size, any extraction time, and any temperature below boiling. None of these variables are tied to one another in any way. With other methods, they are tied, so you will find yourself using one variable to control another, which isn’t ideal.
grind size and extraction time
With a pour over, you have to make the grind size big enough, or your paper will clog up. Clogged up paper will result in a long extraction time, which might not be what you want, so in a pour over you are essentially using grind size to put some limits to the extraction time. You can use coarse grind and pour very slowly to have more control over the result, but you can’t use fine grind and expect to have the same amount of control. Besides, pouring extremely slowly isn’t for everyone.
yield
Pour over method is still worth considering, because it allows you to irrigate the grinds with fresh water all the time, which maintains a high rate of extraction. However, you can also push that too far, which will result in bitter coffee. In an AeroPress it’s harder to screw up like that, because the grinds are constantly in contact with the coffee. Once enough has been extracted to the water (AKA coffee), extraction will naturally slow down. That makes AP a more forgiving method. However, if you really want to maximize yield, pour over might be better for you.
Also, fine dust can clog up a moka pot. If you use coarse grind, the water will just run through the grinds giving you a very short extraction time and weak coffee. With the moka pot, you can’t really control the temperature very carefully. When water evaporates, it creates enough pressure for the water to rise up the tube. If you crank up the heat too much, you’ll get way too much steam which will produce bitter coffee, so it’s very easy to screw up with a moka pot. You have to know what you’re doing, whereas with an AeroPress it takes effort to actually screw up.
strong coffee
I have never tried to make extra strong coffee with the pour over method, so I don’t really know how well that would work out. However, the moka pot produces strong coffee very easily. If you want to make very strong coffee with the AP, the recipe can be easily adapted for that purpose as well.
number of drinkers
The AP is also ideal for making one cup at a time. Making two is still fine, but three gets a bit tricky unless you get one of those XL size variants. Making a single cup with the pour over method can be done, but IMO that is a bit tricky to get right. Making pour over coffee for a large group of people is much easier. Moka pots are a different story. You need to have the right kind of pot for the right number of people. Using a large moka pot for a small group or even a single drinker is something I haven’t even tried, but I would expect it to be problematic.
The effect on extraction by the slight pressurization (and ability to change the pressure by how hard you press) and speed of use would be two advantages over pour over.
It doesn’t require hand dexterity or, really, hand strength. Arguably a proper, well-made pour-over with a goose neck kettle takes more hand dexterity than an Aeropress. Basically you put the hot water in, wait, and then press the plunger. Body weight or mild strength is all it takes. I usually just put my hands on top and then lean with my body; that functionally makes it require no hand strength at all.
They’re very affordable, so perhaps worth trying. Unless you are concerned about microplastics. The entire thing is plastic.
Edit: they have a newer, more expensive version made of Tritan crystal. I know nothing about the composition of Tritan crystal and whether there is anything that can leech or whatever from it, but I would assume it gets rid of the microplastic concern. Though I’m not sure what the “rubber” stopper is made from.
Triton is a trade named plastic. All the microplastic concerns would still be there, but because it’s based frre, food safe, and can be made clear, it allows “funner” colored food safe plastics to be used.
Yes, that’s a fair point. Though, there are other materials that might be explored (types of metal perhaps?) for those that would prefer a non-plastic version.
The reason some might be concerned is that when “food-grade” plastics, like the polypropylene used by aeropress, are used and “exposed to hot water, they release trillions of nanoparticles per liter into the water.”
The slight pressurization and the friction of the rubber plunger likely amplifies that result.
The press doesn’t matter, material wise. Rubber plunger is closest thing to contact the coffee, and it usually doesn’t. The other tube could be made of stainless steel, along with the honeycomb filter holder on bottom.
If that were a taste issue for some reason, it would way up the manufacturing price, but you can put a glass tube encased in stainless steel or plastic. It’s been done with thermos’ and water bottles.
Aeropress is more forgiving and produces more body. Pour over, being a percolation brew, will have higher extraction at the cost of being a bit more sensitive to technique.
Questions: what are the perks to using this vs a pour over system (which is what I currently use when I’m out of cold brew)? Is this easy to use if you have limited hand dexterity and strength?
Haven’t done a lot of pour over coffee, so my ideas might be inaccurate in that regard. However, I still use a moka pot from time to time, and have experimented with that enough to compare these methods to some extent.
control
Based on what I’ve observed, I think the key feature of an AeroPress is control. You can use any grind size, any extraction time, and any temperature below boiling. None of these variables are tied to one another in any way. With other methods, they are tied, so you will find yourself using one variable to control another, which isn’t ideal.
grind size and extraction time
With a pour over, you have to make the grind size big enough, or your paper will clog up. Clogged up paper will result in a long extraction time, which might not be what you want, so in a pour over you are essentially using grind size to put some limits to the extraction time. You can use coarse grind and pour very slowly to have more control over the result, but you can’t use fine grind and expect to have the same amount of control. Besides, pouring extremely slowly isn’t for everyone.
yield
Pour over method is still worth considering, because it allows you to irrigate the grinds with fresh water all the time, which maintains a high rate of extraction. However, you can also push that too far, which will result in bitter coffee. In an AeroPress it’s harder to screw up like that, because the grinds are constantly in contact with the coffee. Once enough has been extracted to the water (AKA coffee), extraction will naturally slow down. That makes AP a more forgiving method. However, if you really want to maximize yield, pour over might be better for you.
Also, fine dust can clog up a moka pot. If you use coarse grind, the water will just run through the grinds giving you a very short extraction time and weak coffee. With the moka pot, you can’t really control the temperature very carefully. When water evaporates, it creates enough pressure for the water to rise up the tube. If you crank up the heat too much, you’ll get way too much steam which will produce bitter coffee, so it’s very easy to screw up with a moka pot. You have to know what you’re doing, whereas with an AeroPress it takes effort to actually screw up.
strong coffee
I have never tried to make extra strong coffee with the pour over method, so I don’t really know how well that would work out. However, the moka pot produces strong coffee very easily. If you want to make very strong coffee with the AP, the recipe can be easily adapted for that purpose as well.
number of drinkers
The AP is also ideal for making one cup at a time. Making two is still fine, but three gets a bit tricky unless you get one of those XL size variants. Making a single cup with the pour over method can be done, but IMO that is a bit tricky to get right. Making pour over coffee for a large group of people is much easier. Moka pots are a different story. You need to have the right kind of pot for the right number of people. Using a large moka pot for a small group or even a single drinker is something I haven’t even tried, but I would expect it to be problematic.
The effect on extraction by the slight pressurization (and ability to change the pressure by how hard you press) and speed of use would be two advantages over pour over.
It doesn’t require hand dexterity or, really, hand strength. Arguably a proper, well-made pour-over with a goose neck kettle takes more hand dexterity than an Aeropress. Basically you put the hot water in, wait, and then press the plunger. Body weight or mild strength is all it takes. I usually just put my hands on top and then lean with my body; that functionally makes it require no hand strength at all.
They’re very affordable, so perhaps worth trying. Unless you are concerned about microplastics. The entire thing is plastic.
Edit: they have a newer, more expensive version made of Tritan crystal. I know nothing about the composition of Tritan crystal and whether there is anything that can leech or whatever from it, but I would assume it gets rid of the microplastic concern. Though I’m not sure what the “rubber” stopper is made from.
Triton is a trade named plastic. All the microplastic concerns would still be there, but because it’s based frre, food safe, and can be made clear, it allows “funner” colored food safe plastics to be used.
Ah, thanks for the info.
Honestly I’d rather use plastic than have to press my hand down on heated glass. It’s bound to explode one day and send glass down your wrist.
Yes, that’s a fair point. Though, there are other materials that might be explored (types of metal perhaps?) for those that would prefer a non-plastic version.
The reason some might be concerned is that when “food-grade” plastics, like the polypropylene used by aeropress, are used and “exposed to hot water, they release trillions of nanoparticles per liter into the water.”
The slight pressurization and the friction of the rubber plunger likely amplifies that result.
The press doesn’t matter, material wise. Rubber plunger is closest thing to contact the coffee, and it usually doesn’t. The other tube could be made of stainless steel, along with the honeycomb filter holder on bottom.
If that were a taste issue for some reason, it would way up the manufacturing price, but you can put a glass tube encased in stainless steel or plastic. It’s been done with thermos’ and water bottles.
Aeropress is more forgiving and produces more body. Pour over, being a percolation brew, will have higher extraction at the cost of being a bit more sensitive to technique.