For all of us Aeropress junkies, hereβs a deep rabbit hole: https://aeroprecipe.com/. I hope yβall have as much fun as I did playing around with the recipes and results options.
Best lightweight coffee maker. The rubber goes after a time but you can buy replacements
Iβve kept the rubber plunger out of the tube when in storage. When kept inside the tube it compresses the rubber and retains the shape memory which causes it to fail. Havenβt ever replaced mine and it is eight years old. Still works perfectly.
My original one i had to do this but the one i have now, if you fully depress the plunger with no coffee in it it comes out the bottom just enough to not squeeze the sides.
Just push the piston all the way in, and the rubber clicks when it comes out the other end of the cylinder. This way you can store it in a compact package.
Really? I have mine since probably 6 or 7 years and itβs still fine and I use it several times a week.
Iβve found you can extend the life of the plunger by placing the plunger rubber-side down on a table or counter top, tilting it slightly onto the edge of the rubber and then rotating it. This essentially presses the rubber and extends it outwards and seems to help achieve the seal you expect. Iβve been doing it for a while now and itβs worked well for me.
Iβm sure it wonβt last forever but itβs something worth trying to get a bit more life out of it.
Is that plastic? Gonna be a hard no for me Dawg
Theyβre working on a glass-and-metal premium version. But itβll cost a premium price, though.
$40 is already a premium price for what it is. It makes great coffee, but at the end of the day itβs a sturdy plastic plunger. Probably $4 landed.
That would be amazing. The device is cool, and seemed to work well from the reviews, but the plastic prevented me from buying it.
Itβs made of polypropylene, partially recycled, extremely durable, and again fully recyclable if it does reach end of life at some point. Itβs also certified BPA free - as opposed to the very first version (that was transparent and used a different plastic). BPA doesnβt leech into water unless exposed over a very long time anyway, and the average brew time is about 3-5 minutes; but itβs good they made the change anyway. If I remember correctly, BPA became an issue mostly due to being in baby toys that are chewed on, or bottles for beverages with a very long shelf life (e.g. water, that practically lasts forever) where it can leech out over time.
To me itβs the ideal travel brewer, since I can pre-grind my coffee and keep it in a tin box, where I can also put a stack of filter papers in to keep them from getting wet. Glass just wouldnβt work on the road, the risk of damage is simply too high. And youβll anyway need to have a plastic plunger, or at the very least a plastic coated one, since you need to have a 100% tight seal.
At home I donβt use it often since I have a decent espresso machine, but I can see the merit as a daily driver in a small kitchen.
Edit: Oh btw, if the body was made of glass, I can totally see how it would shatter someday while applying force. You have to push with quite a bit of power the water through.
Probably no worse than most drip coffee makers. Do you use a french press?
Questions: what are the perks to using this vs a pour over system (which is what I currently use when Iβm out of cold brew)? Is this easy to use if you have limited hand dexterity and strength?
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 doesnβt 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.
Theyβre 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 Iβm not sure what the βrubberβ stopper is made from.
Triton is a trade named plastic. All the microplastic concerns would still be there, but because itβs based frre, food safe, and can be made clear, it allows βfunnerβ colored food safe plastics to be used.
Honestly Iβd rather use plastic than have to press my hand down on heated glass. Itβs bound to explode one day and send glass down your wrist.
Yes, thatβs 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 βfood-gradeβ plastics, like the polypropylene used by aeropress, are used and βexposed to hot water, they release trillions of nanoparticles per liter into the water.β
The slight pressurization and the friction of the rubber plunger likely amplifies that result.
Havenβt done a lot of pour over coffee, so my ideas might be inaccurate in that regard. I still use a moka pot from time to time, and have experimented with that enough to compare these methods to some extent. However, the AeroPress is my main method of choice.
control
Based on what Iβve 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 isnβt 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 canβt use fine grind and expect to have the same amount of control. Besides, pouring extremely slowly isnβt for everyone. With the AP, fine grind isnβt a problem, because youβll be using the piston to push the water through the paper. Even if the paper is totally clogged up, because you used super fine Turkish grind, you can just push the water through anyway.
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. With the AP, itβs harder to screw up like that, because the grinds are constantly in contact with the water. Once enough has been extracted to the water, extraction rate 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.
temperature
Pour over and AP allow you to use whatever temperature you prefer, but the moka pot doesnβt. When the water is hot enough to produce steam, the pressure will begin to push the water through the grinds. High temperatures like that are good for efficient extraction, but they are also dangerously close to producing bitter coffee. Itβs very easy to screw it up with the moka pot, whereas pour over and AP are far more forgiving in this regard.
strong coffee
I have never tried to make extra strong coffee with the pour over method, so I donβt really know how well that would work out. The moka pot and AP are really good at making strong coffee, although they can also be used for making normal strength as well. In this regard, they are quite flexible.
number of drinkers
The AP and moka pot have volume limitations, whereas a pour over allows you to just pour more and continue extracting. The AP is also ideal for making one normal cup at a time, but it can also be used for making 3-4 cups of strong coffee. The same philosophy also applies to the moka pot. Ideally, you would load the basket full and fill the water reservoir to make several cups of strong coffee - thatβs what itβs designed to do. However, you can use less grinds to make normal coffee for a smaller number of people. The AP also allows you to make tiny experimental batches. This is really good if you want to compare different types of coffee, but you donβt want to drink too many cups. With the inverted method, you can easily make 100 ml batches instead and compare those with each other.
I love the Aeropress. I donβt know if Iβve ever been able to make a bad cup with it. It seems so forgiving, yet you can really dial in a recipe at the same time.
My baseline recipe is 20g of coffee ground on the Encore (18 for light, 16 for med, 10 for espresso) and 200 ml water just off boil. Mix inverted for 2 min, stirring 3 or 4 times. Add 150 ml hot water in cold weather or right from the tap in hot water.
The only other brewer I bother with now is the OXO pour over, which is a good hands off brewer that makes me a very satisfying and consistent cup without the involvement of the Aeropress. It makes what it makes though. I use the same 20g coffee ground at 16-18, unbleached filters, and all 350 ml of water at once. I typically get evenly brewed grounds, but if Iβm feeling so inclined Iβll check itβs getting all the coffee evenly, but whether I touch it or not, I feel I get the same result, so itβs more piece of mind than taste that is affected.
Nice I need to try adding the extra water next time. I have a bad habit of brewing and walking away too long before I push the plunger.
