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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Haven’t 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 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. With the AP, fine grind isn’t a problem, because you’ll 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, it’s 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 doesn’t. 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. It’s 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 don’t 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 - that’s what it’s 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 don’t want to drink too many cups. With the inverted method, you can easily make 100 ml batches instead and compare those with each other.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Haven’t 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 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. With the AP, fine grind isn’t a problem, because you’ll 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, it’s 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 doesn’t. 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. It’s 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 don’t 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 - that’s what it’s 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 don’t want to drink too many cups. With the inverted method, you can easily make 100 ml batches instead and compare those with each other.