# AeroPress Championship Grind Settings Canonical: https://brew.supply/learn/aeropress-championship-grind-settings Description: Compare WAC AeroPress grind settings without false click equivalence, including strict C40, Hammerhead, Red Clix, excluded records, and a translation test. Championship grinder settings are useful only inside a compatible grinder, burr, axle, and calibration system. In the audited 2025 sample, the strict Comandante C40 group contained 12 comparable settings from 20 to 37.5 standard-equivalent clicks, while five exact C40 Hammerhead settings formed a separate 22-to-52-click group. Those ranges must not be averaged together or copied directly to another grinder. Use a championship number as a local starting coordinate, then dial in by repeatable brew behavior and taste. Scope: The 2025 analysis covers 23 available recipes from 66 finalists and keeps every grinder record visible. Only 12 strict-C40 and 5 exact Hammerhead records enter their respective comparator groups. The separate historical archive has 46 available podium recipes, but only 10 contain numeric settings and those span incompatible systems. Neither dataset establishes an optimum grind or a winning effect. ## Key definitions ### Click One adjustment step on a named mechanism from a defined zero point. It is a device coordinate, not a universal unit of particle size. ### Strict C40 comparator Standard Comandante C40 settings plus Red Clix records with a documented mechanical conversion to standard-equivalent clicks. ### Hammerhead comparator The exact 2025 records using the Comandante C40 Hammerhead system. They stay on their own click scale and are not Pietro settings. ### Translation Rebuilding a recipe's intended grind behavior on your own calibrated grinder rather than copying an incompatible number. ## A click is a coordinate, not a grind-size unit The same number can describe different burr gaps, particle distributions, and brew behavior when the grinder, burr set, axle, zero point, or calibration changes. A grinder setting becomes interpretable only after the hardware is named. Model and burr geometry affect how coffee fractures. The adjustment mechanism controls how far the burrs move per step. Zero can mean the first point where the handle no longer falls, burr touch, or another manufacturer-defined reference. Wear, assembly, alignment, and retained coffee can add more variation. Calling every setting '24 clicks' removes the information needed to reproduce it. Comandante's current FAQ defines C40 zero operationally and tells users to dial in for their own grinder, coffee, and preference. It does not give one universal AeroPress setting. That is the right mental model for competition recipes: a documented click can be precise inside its system while remaining non-transferable outside it. Brew Supply's practical rule is to copy coordinates only when the model, burr system, adjustment mechanism, and zero definition match. Otherwise copy the recipe's purpose—faster or slower extraction, press resistance, contact schedule, and cup target—and find a local setting through controlled brews. ## The strict C40 group is comparable because the conversion is mechanical The audited strict group contains 12 records from 20 to 37.5 standard-equivalent clicks, with a median of 26. Six settings were stated directly on the standard C40 mechanism and six were mechanically converted from Red Clix. The analysis uses the documented relationship of Red Clix clicks divided by 2. A 52-click Red Clix record therefore becomes 26 standard-equivalent clicks. The conversion preserves the adjustment mechanism; it does not claim that 26 clicks equals a measured micron value. The twelve settings were 20, 22, 24, 24, 24, 26, 26, 27, 28, 32.5, 33.5, 37.5. Repeated values are retained because they are separate recipe records, not duplicates to delete. Jan Ahrend's second-place setting and Dharun Vyas's third-place converted setting sit inside this group, but two podium examples do not turn the median or any individual value into a winning optimum. The range is wide because grind works with the rest of the recipe. Dose, brew-water amount, temperature, agitation, contact time, filter resistance, bypass, pressing, particle preparation, and coffee all changed across records. A coarse setting in a highly agitated concentrate cannot be interpreted as the same choice as that setting in a fuller-volume, gentler brew. ## Hammerhead stays separate from strict C40 Five exact Hammerhead records form their own 22-to-52-click group, with a median of 28. The 2025 source uses Hammerhead as a Comandante C40 grinder or burr-system label. It is not a Pietro comparator. A shared C40 family name still does not authorize putting Hammerhead clicks on the standard C40 axis because the burr and click-system context differs. The exact Hammerhead settings were 22, 27, 28, 30, 52. Their wider numeric span does not prove that Hammerhead recipes were ground finer, coarser, or more aggressively than strict-C40 recipes. The two axes do not share a calibrated physical unit, so comparing the raw endpoints would be false precision. One additional Hammerhead-associated recipe described a split grind and carried an estimated setting. It remains outside the five exact records. A blended or sequential grind creates a particle distribution that one averaged click cannot faithfully represent, particularly when fines or chaff are deliberately removed afterward. ## The exclusions are part of the answer All 23 grinder records remain visible, but six records sit outside the two exact comparator groups for different reasons. The separate records are one estimated split grind, one Trailmaster/Tigershark setting, 3 unresolved Comandante settings, and one model-limited C40 record whose click context does not meet the strict comparator rule. These are not missing from the report; they are intentionally unpooled. Némo Pop's first-place recipe used a Trailmaster X25 with Tigershark burrs at 31 device-specific clicks. That is valuable named-recipe information, but it belongs to that hardware. Placing 31 on the strict-C40 scale would erase the winning recipe's actual grinder system rather than make it easier to reproduce. This boundary also prevents a misleading field average. Adding device-specific coordinates together can produce a mathematically valid number with no physical meaning. The honest answer to 'What was the average championship setting?' is that no single cross-system average should be published. ## Historical settings show why a universal scale fails The separate 2009–2025 podium archive contains 46 available recipes, but only 10 numeric grinder settings. Those numeric records include different Comandante contexts and older commercial or hand grinders. Other recipes supply qualitative descriptions, ranges, conflicting values, or no setting. The historical report therefore leaves grinder settings out of its field-wide numeric profile instead of treating a Ditting number, an EK43 position, a Macap dial, and a C40 click as equivalent. The historical archive answers chronological podium questions; the audited 2025 sample answers same-final comparator questions. They overlap on the three 2025 podium recipes but remain separate datasets with different denominators. This guide uses the historical archive only to show the documentation and compatibility boundary, not to expand the 2025 finalist denominator. A future archive could compare trends inside one well-identified grinder system, but it would still need stable model, burr, zero, and conversion rules. More numbers alone do not solve incompatibility. ## Translate the brew, then dial in one step at a time A useful translation preserves the recipe architecture and lets your grinder setting be the main variable. Start by recording the source grinder, burr or axle, click system, zero definition, and any sifting, chaff removal, or split-grind step. Then lock coffee, dose, brew-water amount, temperature, filter, agitation, steep time, bypass, press start, press duration, endpoint, final mass, and tasting temperature. If several of those change, the grind comparison cannot teach you which variable moved the cup. Choose a sensible AeroPress baseline on your own grinder rather than guessing a cross-brand conversion. Brew it twice. Record press resistance, total time, visible channeling or clogging, output, and taste after the cups reach a comparable temperature. If the brew is repeatable, move one small step finer or coarser and repeat. Change direction based on the complete result, not a simplistic rule that every sour cup must be finer or every bitter cup coarser. Use AeroDial to keep the source coordinate, local coordinate, and neighboring recipe variables visible. The goal is not to discover the setting that a champion used in isolation. It is to find the local setting that makes the intended recipe reproducible with your grinder, coffee, water, and service target. - Name the exact grinder, burr system, click mechanism, and zero procedure. - Keep particle preparation separate from the grinder coordinate. - Hold the recipe architecture and final beverage target fixed. - Repeat the baseline before changing the setting. - Move one local step at a time and log press behavior plus taste. ## Related research and guides - [AeroPress championship filter systems](/learn/aeropress-championship-filters): Keep layer count, material, cap, and booster hardware explicit while testing grind changes. - [Complete WAC 2025 recipe analysis](/wac-2025-recipe-analysis-report): Inspect every grinder record, comparator group, evidence state, and recipe context. - [World Championship recipe evolution](/world-aeropress-championship-recipe-evolution): Review the separate historical podium archive and its grinder-documentation boundary. - [WAC 2025 podium recipes compared](/learn/wac-2025-podium-recipes-compared): See the three named podium grinder systems beside their complete recipe architectures. - [Why championship recipes look different](/learn/why-aeropress-championship-recipes-are-different): Understand why a setting only makes sense inside the full competition method. - [Inverted vs standard AeroPress](/learn/aeropress-inverted-vs-standard): Keep orientation separate while testing grinder changes. - [Championship-prep framework](/learn/aeropress-championship-prep): Turn the translation into repeatable practice blocks. - [Log the dial-in with AeroDial](/apps/aerodial): Track source and local settings alongside the full recipe. ## FAQ ### What grind setting do AeroPress champions use? There is no universal setting. In the audited 2025 sample, 12 strict-C40 records ranged from 20 to 37.5 standard-equivalent clicks, while 5 exact Hammerhead records ranged from 22 to 52 on a separate scale. Other systems stayed unpooled. ### Can I convert Red Clix to standard C40 clicks? For the documented C40 mechanism used by this analysis, divide Red Clix clicks by 2. That mechanical conversion does not convert Hammerhead, Trailmaster/Tigershark, Pietro, EK43, or another grinder into C40 clicks. ### Are Hammerhead and Pietro settings the same? No. The Hammerhead comparator in the audited 2025 data refers to a Comandante C40 Hammerhead system. Pietro is a different grinder and must not be inferred from the Hammerhead label or placed on the same numeric scale. ### Why not publish an average championship grind setting? Because clicks from incompatible grinders are coordinates on different mechanisms. Pooling them creates a number with no stable physical meaning and hides model, burr, zero-point, calibration, and evidence differences. ### How should I copy a championship recipe with another grinder? Preserve the recipe architecture, choose a sensible local AeroPress baseline, brew it twice, then move one small local step at a time while logging press resistance, timing, output, and taste. Do not rely on an unsupported cross-brand click conversion. ## Sources - [Audited WAC 2025 research report](/wac-2025-recipe-analysis-report): 23 available finalist recipes; strict C40 n=12, exact Hammerhead n=5, other grinder systems separate; analysis 1.1.0. - [Official World AeroPress Championship recipe archive](https://worldaeropresschampionship.com/pages/recipes): Named podium recipe records and original grinder wording across championship years. - [Official Comandante C40 FAQ](https://comandantegrinder.com/pages/faq): Manufacturer zero-point procedure and model-specific dial-in guidance. - [Historical WAC recipe-evolution report](/world-aeropress-championship-recipe-evolution): 46 available podium recipes; only 10 numeric grinder settings, spanning incompatible systems. Data and copy reviewed: 2 August 2026.