does the gauge size equate to the 201 vs 304? I don't really understand the differences.
Kickstarter for SS Mash Tun, Kettle and Fermenter
- Thread starter rockernino
- Start date
Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:
does the gauge size equate to the 201 vs 304? I don't really understand the differences.
Roadliner
Well-Known Member
that's a matter of what you are using them for... 201 is actually stronger than 304. But 304 is more corrosion resistant. 201 is also more cost effective. So saying it is "better" is a matter of view. if you are looking at strength.. 201 is better.
With what we use the steel for, I don't believe the corrosion issue is too big of a deal, but I could be wrong, I've never tried to use a stainless fermenter. I'm not concerned at all for the MLT or BK since it is such a short period of time that these are in liquid.
EDIT: 201 vs 304 is the makeup of the metal. 201 has less Nickel in it than 304 does.
With what we use the steel for, I don't believe the corrosion issue is too big of a deal, but I could be wrong, I've never tried to use a stainless fermenter. I'm not concerned at all for the MLT or BK since it is such a short period of time that these are in liquid.
EDIT: 201 vs 304 is the makeup of the metal. 201 has less Nickel in it than 304 does.
I checked out your post and reviews not too long after you posted them. Thanks for taking the time to do that.
I've actually already done a test with my kettle and had no problems at all with it. It held 9 gallons of water for 30 minutes with no leaks, so I'd planned to try it out in my next brew session which should be this weekend. Of course now that Chapman says this one came with the wrong nipple too I'll probably give it another test prior to brew day just to be sure.
The only mod I plan to do to the kettle is to add a street 90 or some other sort of dip tube to it.
I sold my fermenter as it just wasn't right for me, so I obviously won't be doing any mods to that one either
As far as the Thermobarrel goes, it will probably be a while before I am able to work that into my setup (it's part of a bigger build I'm doing which involves adding a pump to my system), so I'll definitely wait until Chapman sends the O-ring and give it a water test then. If that works well then I'll probably try mashing in it once with my current setup before making any mods.
KevinP
Well-Known Member
I love to tinker with stuff. Sometimes I do make things worse than they started but not this time. I don't ever love turnkey things that I just buy. I do love things that I make my own. I knew when I joined this campaign that I would be making these modifications and right now I LOVE my ThermoBarrel.
dirkomatic
Well-Known Member
Just a quick note to say that I was able to completely solve my leak problem with the NPT close nipple I got from brewhardware. I'll be brewing tomorrow and using this fermenter. I'm definitely pleased.
Interesting about the 201 stainless steel. I guess I assumed that it was 304...
Interesting about the 201 stainless steel. I guess I assumed that it was 304...
dirkomatic
Well-Known Member
Found this page on the differences of stainless in regard to food preparation. I knew 316 was for saltwater. 201 seems to be fine for our applications.
http://sesco.biz/_blog/SESCO_Food_Service_Blog/post/Sois_stainless_steel_really_stainless/
http://sesco.biz/_blog/SESCO_Food_Service_Blog/post/Sois_stainless_steel_really_stainless/
ingchr1
Well-Known Member
Really, that's like starting off a sentence "With all due respect...".
Since you brought it up...For home brewing applications why should one use 304 vice 201? You provide no explanation in your post, other than no one else is using it. If I had to guess, a majority if not all commercial breweries don't BIAB, no sparge or use plastic coolers for MLTs either.
I don't think the average person buying brewing equipment knows or is concerned with the grade of stainless steel.
Does it hold liquid? Will our liquids corrode it? If the answers are yes and no, then does it really matter, IMO no.
ChapmanEquipment
Active Member
Shortly after the Kickstarter campaign, we started running into problems. And it became clear we had to make a decision. Either work out every single detail along the way and be a few months late or steam right ahead and send out a flawed product early.
We decided that no matter how much attention to detail we paid, we were still likely to encounter some problems with the final product. So we decided to rush and get things out early. If we had spent a few more months and a little more money, we probably could have caught some of these errors before sending out the gear. But we figured that Kickstarter backers are generally reasonable, especially if we are willing to fix the errors. So far it looks like we will be able to remedy all the problems.
At this point, our biggest issue is the nipple. We knew there was a problem at first, but everything sealed when we tested it. So we went ahead and sent it out. It seems as if the nipple has a slight taper on it, but it's not the standard NPT taper. I'm not sure if it's something like BSPT, if it's actually a straight thread, or if it was just a general error in manufacturing. Also, it appears that a straight coupling will sometimes thread all the way over the nipple. The whole situation is confusing. We are ordering a thread identification kit to figure out exactly what kind of thread it is.
Regardless, we are planning on sending replacements to every single Kickstarter supporter. I would estimate timing on that to be about two-to-three weeks. I'll send out a Kickstarter update when we are certain that a new nipple will prevent leakage for the fermenter bulkheads.
I honestly can't tell you why homebrew equipment companies aren't using ss type 201. It's more cost effective, it's stronger, and it maintains about the same level of corrosion resistance when used in cooking (or brewing) applications. The restaurant and hotel industries are dominated by type 201 while the brewing industry has yet to make the switch.
There's a possibility that because it's about 30% heavier, brew equipment suppliers worry about higher shipping costs. Also, type 201 has been associated with economy kettles, and sometimes, perception of quality is more important than reality, at least in terms of marketing. But if I were to take a guess as to why everyone uses ss type 304, it would be because everyone uses ss type 304. It's hard to break away from the industry norm.
SSbrewTech vs. Chapman
Some of you are bringing this up, and I thought I might weigh in on the situation. Obviously I am biased, but I think I can evaluate our equipment with at least some objectivity.
SteelTank vs. Brew Bucket
The SteelTank has few advantages over the Brew Bucket other than the price point, but it's quite the difference. It starts at $120 with just a port and no fittings. The brew bucket does come with a racking arm. But even adding the cost of a racking arm ($15), a 3-piece ball valve ($25), and one of Bobby's weldless bulkheads ($15)
, you are looking at $175 for the SteelTank vs. $195 for the Brew Bucket. In more detail, I don't understand why the Brew Bucket uses a one-piece ball valve. The ability to sanitize the valve for your fermenter seems fairly important, probably more important than sanitizing any other valve. Also, I don't really buy the claim that the pseudo-conical design of the Brew Bucket will significantly reduce exposure to trub. The only reason I can see to buy the Brew Bucket is if you want to stack them during fermentation. You would need to build some sort of add-on-top frame if you wanted to stack our fermenters.
Heavy Kettler vs. SS Kettles
Our kettle is heavier and more durable. Also, we have welded ports and SS brew tech doesn't. But our kettle ended up being much more expensive than anticipated.
So our kettle is a superior product, but at a much higher cost. We are going to look into ways of reducing cost in the future. But at this point, I don't think I would personally buy a Brew Tech kettle or a Chapman kettle. Our kettles were a steal at the Kickstarter prices, but there are better options out there at the current retail price.
MoreBeer's heavy duty kettle, Spike Brewing's custom kettles, and Bru-Gear's tri-clamp compatible kettles all have advantages. I would wait until the price drops for our kettles to buy one.
ThermoBarrel vs. InfuSSion Mash Tun
The main differences here are the thermometer, false bottom, and recirc port.
For the thermometer, I'm not sure why they went with digital. In my experience, digital thermometers are likely to fail after a year or two of use. Also, they give a perception of accuracy that is unrealistic. Our thermometers are adjustable and long lasting. But the issue with our thermometers is that Fahrenheit is on the inside ring and harder to read than Celsius. With everything in mind, I would say the thermometers are fairly equal. It comes down to preference.
As far as the false bottom and recirculation port goes, SS brew tech doesn have a third port, but the bottom draining design is obviously superior to the domed false bottom.
So if it's $350 for the ThermoBarrel mash tun vs $400 for the InfuSSion mash tun, the $50 in price difference is fairly negligible. It comes down to whether you prefer a recirculation port or a bottom draining false bottom.
Website and Retail Prices
I'm really trying to listen to the posts here and all the feedback from the Kickstarter to move forward in the future.
The main problems we have with our equipment are the little things - the false bottom, the weldless bulkheads and other fittings. These aren't pieces that inspired us to start producing equipment on a large scale. These are the pieces that homebrewer's will find and assemble themselves. It was filling a gaps, namely an insulated stainless steel mash tun and an affordable stainless steel fermenter, that inspired us.
So I've made some changes to the products on the website. Now you can buy everything stripped down to it's bare bones. There is still on option to buy the ThermoBarrel with the ball valve, thermometer, and false bottom for $350. But now there is an option to buy it without those things as well. This dropped the retail price to $269.99 for the 10 gallon size.
Also, I've put up options to buy two fermenters at discount, as that will significantly reduce shipping costs for us. Two 7 gallon fermenters without fittings are going for $200, or two 14 gallon fermenters for $280.
What do you guys think? We are still going to work on perfecting all the little bits that give homebrewers a smooth brewing experience, but we are going to make those available as add-ons. We want to give homebrewers an option to assemble their own equipment. Is it more appealing just to have the vessel itself available for sale, or should we just stick with including everything?
ingchr1
Well-Known Member
I think it's a great idea to have an option to purchase just the vessel. I'm assuming no ports would be drilled in them? This gives people the ability to configure them how they want or swap over fittings from their existing equipment. This may also give you an edge over other manufacturers, since some of them don't seam to have that as an option.
dirkomatic
Well-Known Member
This whole post is very informative, well written, and shows how much Steve is willing to work with customers in spite of the issues. Most impressive is the acknowledgement that his product isn't quite the best deal going. Some people would think that's not good business, but I really appreciate the honesty.
Thanks, Steve!
Joe_CraftBeerTraders
Well-Known Member
SSbrewTech vs. Chapman
Some of you are bringing this up, and I thought I might weigh in on the situation. Obviously I am biased, but I think I can evaluate our equipment with at least some objectivity.
SteelTank vs. Brew Bucket
The SteelTank has few advantages over the Brew Bucket other than the price point, but it's quite the difference. It starts at $120 with just a port and no fittings. The brew bucket does come with a racking arm. But even adding the cost of a racking arm ($15), a 3-piece ball valve ($25), and one of Bobby's weldless bulkheads ($15)
In more detail, I don't understand why the Brew Bucket uses a one-piece ball valve. The ability to sanitize the valve for your fermenter seems fairly important, probably more important than sanitizing any other valve. Also, I don't really buy the claim that the pseudo-conical design of the Brew Bucket will significantly reduce exposure to trub. The only reason I can see to buy the Brew Bucket is if you want to stack them during fermentation. You would need to build some sort of add-on-top frame if you wanted to stack our fermenters.
So let me get this straight... the SteelTank comes with nothing and is 201 stainless. I would have to buy all the fittings myself and when all is said and done you are $20 less then the bucket. Ill take a 304 stainless fermenter with a rotating racking arm and conical bottom that is stackable for the extra $20.
I appreciate you being honest here saying "I dont think i would personally buy a Chapman Kettle" Im curious why you wouldnt buy a Brew Tech Kettle? Granted Spike and Bu-Gear have some really quality kettles. When it comes to quality Brew Tech and those are the same. All are 304 Stainless with triclad bottoms. The differences is in some of their fittings and price point. Honestly buying a kettle from any of those companies you cant go wrong. The only kettle that doesnt compair is the Chapman Kettle. Its 201 stainless and not in the same league.
Spot on comparison from what i have seen on paper as the difference between the two. You are forgetting 1 big difference though. ThermoBarrel is 201 and InfuSsion is 304 stainless. For the negligible $50 i would rather have the superior quality stainless product.
Bottom line is there is a very big difference between your products and the products on the market and you are skating over that very big difference and playing it off like its nothing. That is very misleading.
All of Chapmans Equipment is 201 Stainless Steel while all others in the industry are 304 Stainless Steel. And your prices arent that much cheaper then the other products on the market. To say 201 Stainless is superior or equivalent to 304 is completely inaccurate and for you to say they are is misguiding to consumers.
The 201 grade is made from nickel, chromium and manganese. Its estimated to be 30 percent stronger than 304, plus is cheaper to make and purchase. The downside is that because 201 is stronger, its more difficult to form and weld compared to 304. Furthermore, 304 is corrosion-resistant and can be used in just about any application, whereas 201 has limited versatility.
So you are taking 201 which is harder to form and bending it and stretching it. When metal is streched and bent outside what it is designed for you end up softening the metal and producing micro cracks in the metal. 201 is also harder to weld. So there is more risk for poor welds and as brewers we all know bad welds are breeding grounds for bacteria. Lastly it is less corrosion resistant. Beer is acidic with ph levels from 3-6. Acid is corrosive. And beer is stored in fermenters for weeks to months and they are constantly filled. I personally think that you would want a more corrosive resistant product.
I get you are trying to hit a specific niche in the market. You are trying to produce a more affordable product for homebrewers and I appreciate that. But be honest with what you are selling. 201 vs 304 is a very big difference and you cant say that your products are the same or better then the guys with 304. Its like saying your honda is better then their lexus.
kcbeersnob
Well-Known Member
Very good move. This will satisfy the need that a lot of homebrewers have to customize. Note that when you click on the bare bones option on the site, it opens the fully loaded version.
Good job on being transparent regarding issues and being committed to solving problems.
chigundo
Well-Known Member
@joe_CraftBeerTraders, I think you missed Chapmans point. All the negatives of 201 vs 304 (harder to form/weld, etc) are on the manufacturers end. We the consumer see all the benefits. Just because everyone uses 304 doesn't mean it's better. And as far as corrosion resistance, I'm not a scientist but it looks like any differences are negligible in terms of brewing.
Again, very good to see Chapman chiming in here with honest, thought out responses. I really feel like they are being open about the issues that have arisen, they seem to have a genuine want to take care of their Kickstarter backers as quickly as possible, and provided that all pans out it will speak wonders about their level of customer care.
I believe right now the two big problems are the non-sealing nipples and dip tubes, and they've already spoken to other points. The other stuff (including most of the points raised by me) are more along the lines of "but it could be better if..." or "I'm going to mod mine like this..." which are all well and good, but not necessarily product problems.
I by no means have the level of knowledge necessary to competently participate in a 201 vs. 304 debate, so I will leave that to the folks that seem to know what they're talking about. Those folks do seem to have a good point though that wort/fermenting beer is an acidic liquid, and it sometimes sits in a single container for over a year or more, so logic would dictate that you would want the most corrosion resistant material available to you for that container. I'm not using their fermenters, but it would suck if you had a sour in there for a year or so, went to drain it and realized that not only is your beer ruined but so is your nice fermenter. I'm only going to be using the kettle and mash tun, but with this knowledge I will keep a close eye on things after each brew day and report back if there are any corrosion issues.
I will just say that the 201 definitely seems to be more "rugged" as the weight of the kettle and lid were one of the first things I mentioned on feedback, and now I guess I know why there's such a difference over my other 10 gallon kettle.
I'm going to do one more water test on my kettle, and provided it holds I'll be using it for my brew day on Saturday. If not, I'll sit tight and wait for the replacement parts from Chapman. I'm in no rush to get my mash tun into service, so I'll wait for the fixes for that to come in as well and then try it out during an upcoming brew day as well before making any mods. I'd really like those connections to be 1/2" all the way through to marry up with the new pump I got, but at the same time I really don't want to drill into the Thermobarrel, so I may just wind up living with the reduction to 3/8" in those two spots.
I believe right now the two big problems are the non-sealing nipples and dip tubes, and they've already spoken to other points. The other stuff (including most of the points raised by me) are more along the lines of "but it could be better if..." or "I'm going to mod mine like this..." which are all well and good, but not necessarily product problems.
I by no means have the level of knowledge necessary to competently participate in a 201 vs. 304 debate, so I will leave that to the folks that seem to know what they're talking about. Those folks do seem to have a good point though that wort/fermenting beer is an acidic liquid, and it sometimes sits in a single container for over a year or more, so logic would dictate that you would want the most corrosion resistant material available to you for that container. I'm not using their fermenters, but it would suck if you had a sour in there for a year or so, went to drain it and realized that not only is your beer ruined but so is your nice fermenter. I'm only going to be using the kettle and mash tun, but with this knowledge I will keep a close eye on things after each brew day and report back if there are any corrosion issues.
I will just say that the 201 definitely seems to be more "rugged" as the weight of the kettle and lid were one of the first things I mentioned on feedback, and now I guess I know why there's such a difference over my other 10 gallon kettle.
I'm going to do one more water test on my kettle, and provided it holds I'll be using it for my brew day on Saturday. If not, I'll sit tight and wait for the replacement parts from Chapman. I'm in no rush to get my mash tun into service, so I'll wait for the fixes for that to come in as well and then try it out during an upcoming brew day as well before making any mods. I'd really like those connections to be 1/2" all the way through to marry up with the new pump I got, but at the same time I really don't want to drill into the Thermobarrel, so I may just wind up living with the reduction to 3/8" in those two spots.
dirkomatic
Well-Known Member
I have both... I'm not sure the conical bottom gains me anything, since there is no bottom drain to capture the yeast.
The "rotating racking arm" has been problematic for me. It leaks if I rotate it, so I don't. In that regard, I just use it as a port anyway. And, like Steve, I don't like the cleanability of that valve.
I still probably wouldn't have bought either at retail price, though. And customer service from both has been excellent.
Joe_CraftBeerTraders
Well-Known Member
No I didn't miss the point. He's trying to convince people that 201 is a viable product and that is just as good as 304 which is not true. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and say sure 201 can be used for kettles. But he himself said his price point for kettles is not great. So why would you pay hundreds of dollars for equipment and is a lower quality stainless? As far as storage and fermenters I wouldn't use 201. 304 is designed to be corrosion resistant which is ideal for interaction with water and corrosive liquids like beer or other acidic things. Now like chapman said himself the price point between his fermenter and the bucket is like $20 after you purchase your fittings. So you really are going to pay hundreds of dollars for a 201 stainless when for $20 more you could have w 304 stainless?
I don't really care where you guys spend your money. If you like Chapmans equipment then buy his equipment. If you like Bru-gear or blichman or Ssbretech then buy their equipment. But understand what you are spending your money on. Realize that you are deciding to spend hundreds of dollars on a lower grade stainless steel. If you feel that it's negligible then go for it. That's your decision. But be educated when you make that decision.
That's all I am trying to do here. Is point out major differences that are being skirted over and honestly mislead.
You guys now know that ALL their equipment is 201 stainless and the REST OF THE INDUSTRY is using 304. So you can't compare Chapman to the rest of the industries products. They are on a different level just based on the material choice alone. You now have some knowledge around the differences between 201 and 304 and I urge you to read and more about the differences.
Then make your decision knowing you are either buying 201 equipment or 304 equipment.
chigundo
Well-Known Member
Chapman answers the 201 vs 304 debate here. It's like the 5th question down.
https://m.reddit.com/r/Homebrewing/comments/30ddiv/homebrew_finds_89_stainless_steel_fermenters/
https://m.reddit.com/r/Homebrewing/comments/30ddiv/homebrew_finds_89_stainless_steel_fermenters/
Roadliner
Well-Known Member
"In general, both 201 and 304 are strong, durable and versatile, so they can be used across applications. For example, you’ll find that both grades of stainless steel are used for architectural, automotive and railway projects. Both metals are also found in household appliances, cooking utensils and food prep industries. "
Also from the same website you copy and pasted your info from Joe. Cooking utensils and food prep is what we do. And our beer isn't nearly as corrosive as sea water. 201 is a stronger form of Metal. 304 has a perceived better value, which is huge in advertising. Perception that is. So as I already discussed with this information "better" is subjective here.
Also from the same website you copy and pasted your info from Joe. Cooking utensils and food prep is what we do. And our beer isn't nearly as corrosive as sea water. 201 is a stronger form of Metal. 304 has a perceived better value, which is huge in advertising. Perception that is. So as I already discussed with this information "better" is subjective here.
Joe_CraftBeerTraders
Well-Known Member
I've read the FAQ and it's entirely based on his opinion. He has not provided any testing results or proof as to his claim that 201 is the same as 304. So you have an industry who's standard is 304 and then a start up company from kickstarter comes in and says no 201 is just as good and it's accepted as truth? Come on guys... I can write a post on kickstarter and reddit too stating that brass is the newest latest and greatest for fittings based on research I did. That doesn't mean it's right. Where is the proof to back up the statement? Where is the application in a commercial setting? You mean to tell me that breweries like Sierra Nevada and Stone who make millions of dollars and invest millions into optimizing their equipment and processes haven't stumbled upon the thought of switching to 201 over 304 for cost savings? And why is it that they are still using 304? You're going to trust a kickstarter new company's word over the millions of dollars in commercial brewing? If so then 201 is for you.. Enjoy the new setup
Joe_CraftBeerTraders
Well-Known Member
Right food preparation not food storage. Look at what the food industry uses for serving and storing food and its 304 stainless. Thats why i said as a kettle sure ill give you 201. Restaurants use 201 pots to cook their grandmas sauce in. But the tray they serve it to you from is 304.
Joe_CraftBeerTraders
Well-Known Member
Look im not here to cause a revolt against Chapman products. I think its a nice little niche to be in. Lower quality "professional" home brew equipment. But dont try and sell it as being a competitor with these big name home brew manufacturers like Blichman, Bru-Gear and SsBrewTech who are all using high quality 304 stainless.
All im trying to do is make you guys aware that you are buying 201 stainless equipment as opposed to 304 stainless equipment that everyone else offers. Thats a BIG DIFFERENCE and needs to be pointed out not skirted over.
So if you are ok with buying 201 stainless then buy Chapman gear. You are committing to a lower quality material product and thats your decision. But you made the decision to do that knowing it was 201 and not assuming its "the same as 304" because thats what you read on a kickstarter FAQ or reddit post...
All im trying to do is make you guys aware that you are buying 201 stainless equipment as opposed to 304 stainless equipment that everyone else offers. Thats a BIG DIFFERENCE and needs to be pointed out not skirted over.
So if you are ok with buying 201 stainless then buy Chapman gear. You are committing to a lower quality material product and thats your decision. But you made the decision to do that knowing it was 201 and not assuming its "the same as 304" because thats what you read on a kickstarter FAQ or reddit post...
chigundo
Well-Known Member
Until someone actually cites a legitimate source, this will continue to be a Google pissing match.
Roadliner
Well-Known Member
Only time will tell on the fermenters. I believe for most of our applications they will be fine. But I'll give you, that I won't be planning on using these for 6 months of wine storage or even 2 months of a huge beer. That will be reserved for glass, and these guys will be used for shorter ferments. A serving tray wouldn't matter even a small tiny little bit about corrosion resistance, as it will be cleaned and dried and stored within a short period of time. There is no doubt that the 201 was chosen more for cost effectiveness, and at least Chapman has been honest about it being more cost effective in his posts. Really all of his posts have been honest, which is refreshing.
But at the same time, I think most of us have been on the page that the price is a driving factor for these products. It is still a tough stretch at full retail price to choose these over others.
But at the same time, I think most of us have been on the page that the price is a driving factor for these products. It is still a tough stretch at full retail price to choose these over others.
Roadliner
Well-Known Member
http://www.northamericanstainless.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Grade-201-201LN.pdf
The main advantage of 304 is corrosion resistance in marine environments. Sea water will destroy pretty much anything though. Stuff is nasty. I know beer is corrosive as well, but I'm not sure of the actual comparison to seawater.
ingchr1
Well-Known Member
Joe_Craft and NcBrewer, you seam to be very passionate, maybe overly, on the subject of the steel along with pointing out that Chapman products should be considered inferior to everything else on the market. This raises two questions:
Are you in anyway affiliated with a competitors product?
Are you two affiliated with each other?
Are you in anyway affiliated with a competitors product?
Are you two affiliated with each other?
I can't speak to that, but I do know that other manufacturers are actively monitoring this thread with great interest.
Joe_CraftBeerTraders
Well-Known Member
I am passionate about people being educated fully about what they are buying. That is why I am making a point for the 201 vs 304. You should know what you are buying. Tucked away in an FAQ with the statement in our opinion its the same as 304 is not good business. Be honest about the product and what its made of and dont try to convince people that 201 is the same if not better then 304. Thats very salesman-ish. The goal of Chapman is to create more affordable equipment which involves using lower quality stainless steel. Thats it. Thats their business plan and it fits. But once you start saying we use a cheaper quality stainless steel but its better you are misleading. Now Chapman has been honest about the issues he has had with production and from what i have read the customer service is great. So that shows that Chapman is a great business owner but doesnt make their products made of 201 better than others made of 304. Thats like saying 14k gold is the same or better then 24k gold when making a wedding ring because 14k gold isnt as soft and bendable. No 24K gold is still a better quality.
No I do not know ingchr1 and no I am not affiliated with SsBrewTech. I do however own some of their equipment and have written reviews of their products on my blog.
Im just a home brewer like you guys looking for the best products for price and all I have done is raise the awareness of 201 stainless products vs 304 stainless products and their price points. Thats my entire point. Be aware of what you are buying
ingchr1
Well-Known Member
I agree, people should be aware of what they are buying and that Chapman uses a different grade stainless than industry norm. But does that matter in homebrewing applications?
Time will tell how well their products hold up.
Time will tell how well their products hold up.
ChapmanEquipment
Active Member
Oh, a debate! This looks like fun.
In all seriousness, I'm glad someone finally brought this up on HBT. Using 201 type stainless steel was something we put a lot of research into, and we took our time making the decision to use it.
In general, Joe_CraftBeerTraders demonstrates a good knowledge of 201 and 304. But he missed the most viable point. The only advantage 304 has over 201 is resistance to pitting corrosion. This is the first point I'll address. All of the other claims that 201 is lower quality are irrelevant to the brewing/homebrewing industry.
There is some merit to the idea that 304 is better on a commercial scale, but this doesn't translate into homebrewing. Although general corrosion resistance between the two types of steel in food applications is more or less the same, the major issue arises from resistance to pitting corrosion. Here is a list of four commonly used ss types commonly used in food preparation in order of resistance to pitting corrosion: 316, 304, 201, 430
The driving power for pitting corrosion is the depassivation of a small area usually caused by a scratch or dent. If left unattended, this can result in oxidation. To prevent pitting corrosion, areas which may have been depassivated should undergo passivation again.
One reason why 304 is better suited for commercial applications is because everything is bigger. There are more areas which are hard to inspect and hard to reach. Also, small scale passivation is a fairly simple process, but it could be a hassle for a commercial brewer to passivate their equipment on site. But the truth is, pitting corrosion only becomes an issue when rust is left unattended. Both 304 and 201 will rust if passivation is removed, it's just that 201 will rust faster if unattended.
Solution:
Don't scratch the inside of your fermenter. If you do scratch it, repassivate the affected area with a 10% citric acid solution at 150 degrees F, for 30 minutes. You should be doing this regardless of whether your vessel is 201 or 304.
Micro cracks in the metal are removed in the polished or brushed finish. If you're talking about the integrity of the steel, 201 has a 30% higher tensile strength than 304.
The welders at our manufacturer are fantastic. You can see that on the kettle ports.
201 is suitable with use in corrosive environments, including exposure to organic acids.
According to North American Stainless, 201 has the same about the same general corrosion resistance as 304 for use with foodstuffs and organic chemicals. See source below.
Interesting idea. I've never heard this before. Do you have a source for this?
We have used a 201 vessel for fermenting for almost 3 years and haven't encountered any problems. But this is anecdotal evidence. So I'll have to say are correct. We haven't done any formalized testing on the equipment.
I don't think it's viable for a company as small as us to spend months or years doing controlled, side-by-side-comparison fermentation tests. Instead, we are relying on the information provided by companies that produce stainless steel, for example, North American Stainless and AK Steel.
This isn't my opinion at all. The FAQ clearly lists sources. I've listed them again below in case you missed them the first time.
Here's an example of a quote from North American Stainless:
Here is a list of uses for 201 provided by AK Steel:
On the other hand, I have never seen one reliable source which states that ss type 201 is unsuitable for brewing. I would love to see it if you could direct me to one.
At this point, we are facing a lot of problems that have been discussed earlier in this thread, and we are coming up with solutions to these problems. Using ss type 201 is not one of these problems.
More on pitting corrosion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitting_corrosion
British Stainless Steel Association http://www.bssa.org.uk/topics.php?article=45
North American Stainless: http://www.northamericanstainless.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Grade-201-201LN.pdf
AK Steel: http://www.aksteel.com/pdf/markets_products/stainless/austenitic/201_data_sheet.pdf
In all seriousness, I'm glad someone finally brought this up on HBT. Using 201 type stainless steel was something we put a lot of research into, and we took our time making the decision to use it.
In general, Joe_CraftBeerTraders demonstrates a good knowledge of 201 and 304. But he missed the most viable point. The only advantage 304 has over 201 is resistance to pitting corrosion. This is the first point I'll address. All of the other claims that 201 is lower quality are irrelevant to the brewing/homebrewing industry.
There is some merit to the idea that 304 is better on a commercial scale, but this doesn't translate into homebrewing. Although general corrosion resistance between the two types of steel in food applications is more or less the same, the major issue arises from resistance to pitting corrosion. Here is a list of four commonly used ss types commonly used in food preparation in order of resistance to pitting corrosion: 316, 304, 201, 430
The driving power for pitting corrosion is the depassivation of a small area usually caused by a scratch or dent. If left unattended, this can result in oxidation. To prevent pitting corrosion, areas which may have been depassivated should undergo passivation again.
One reason why 304 is better suited for commercial applications is because everything is bigger. There are more areas which are hard to inspect and hard to reach. Also, small scale passivation is a fairly simple process, but it could be a hassle for a commercial brewer to passivate their equipment on site. But the truth is, pitting corrosion only becomes an issue when rust is left unattended. Both 304 and 201 will rust if passivation is removed, it's just that 201 will rust faster if unattended.
Solution:
Don't scratch the inside of your fermenter. If you do scratch it, repassivate the affected area with a 10% citric acid solution at 150 degrees F, for 30 minutes. You should be doing this regardless of whether your vessel is 201 or 304.
Micro cracks in the metal are removed in the polished or brushed finish. If you're talking about the integrity of the steel, 201 has a 30% higher tensile strength than 304.
The welders at our manufacturer are fantastic. You can see that on the kettle ports.
201 is suitable with use in corrosive environments, including exposure to organic acids.
According to North American Stainless, 201 has the same about the same general corrosion resistance as 304 for use with foodstuffs and organic chemicals. See source below.
Interesting idea. I've never heard this before. Do you have a source for this?
We have used a 201 vessel for fermenting for almost 3 years and haven't encountered any problems. But this is anecdotal evidence. So I'll have to say are correct. We haven't done any formalized testing on the equipment.
I don't think it's viable for a company as small as us to spend months or years doing controlled, side-by-side-comparison fermentation tests. Instead, we are relying on the information provided by companies that produce stainless steel, for example, North American Stainless and AK Steel.
This isn't my opinion at all. The FAQ clearly lists sources. I've listed them again below in case you missed them the first time.
Here's an example of a quote from North American Stainless:
Here is a list of uses for 201 provided by AK Steel:
On the other hand, I have never seen one reliable source which states that ss type 201 is unsuitable for brewing. I would love to see it if you could direct me to one.
At this point, we are facing a lot of problems that have been discussed earlier in this thread, and we are coming up with solutions to these problems. Using ss type 201 is not one of these problems.
More on pitting corrosion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitting_corrosion
British Stainless Steel Association http://www.bssa.org.uk/topics.php?article=45
North American Stainless: http://www.northamericanstainless.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Grade-201-201LN.pdf
AK Steel: http://www.aksteel.com/pdf/markets_products/stainless/austenitic/201_data_sheet.pdf
sleepy_brewer
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2014
- Messages
- 51
- Reaction score
- 3
I need a good kettle.....anyone have a Chapman that they won't be using?
Has anyone else had any problems with their boil kettle draining?
Basically I installed a street 90 inside mine today to act like a dip tube, and when I went to drain it, it slowed to a trickle and then stopped as soon as it met where the street 90 attached to the inside of the welded on coupler.
If I tilted the kettle so the water covered the connection it would start to drain again.
Basically I installed a street 90 inside mine today to act like a dip tube, and when I went to drain it, it slowed to a trickle and then stopped as soon as it met where the street 90 attached to the inside of the welded on coupler.
If I tilted the kettle so the water covered the connection it would start to drain again.
Roadliner
Well-Known Member
Sounds like you don't have a good seal on it. Not making a vacuum.
Yeah, that's what I was thinking, but it has a healthy amount of teflon tape on the threads, and I don't think you couldn't get it any tighter. It's really in there good.
That's why I asked, on my other kettle, my street 90 is just in there finger tight, and it drains nearly all the way every time.
I tried this one like that, met those results, and then I tightened it as tight as I could, and got the same results.
Was thinking maybe there was a problem with the coupler that's welded on.
That's why I asked, on my other kettle, my street 90 is just in there finger tight, and it drains nearly all the way every time.
I tried this one like that, met those results, and then I tightened it as tight as I could, and got the same results.
Was thinking maybe there was a problem with the coupler that's welded on.
Roadliner
Well-Known Member
could be on the other side maybe? there has to be an air leak somewhere to stop it from pulling the liquid.
It seems tight as a drum from the other side. Did a water test with 10 gallons for 4 hours, and not a drop.
Maybe something with the street 90? I'll try swapping it out with something else and see if I get the same results.
I know the nipples ended up not being NPT, it'd be a shame if the couplings ended up not being either.
Maybe something with the street 90? I'll try swapping it out with something else and see if I get the same results.
I know the nipples ended up not being NPT, it'd be a shame if the couplings ended up not being either.
Roadliner
Well-Known Member
that's a possibility. You could be losing something in the threads even with plumbers tape. Water tight isn't necessarily air tight.
Hmmm... well at this time I'm inclined to say it's the kettle. I have tried 2 different street 90s as well as a 3/8" hose barb that has a 90 degree bend in it, and all 3 met with the same results.
They basically stop draining once the water level gets to the bulkhead. I moved all 3 to my other kettle, tightened them finger tight, and they worked as expected.
There is no way you could tighten the things on the outside any tighter, so I don't think they could be playing any part.
I'm using way more nylon thread than you should have to, and the last time I didn't dare tighten the street 90 any more, or I'm certain it would have been permanently attached.
Anyone else run into anything like this?
I did notice that where the bulkhead meets the kettle on the inside it's a bit "janky" if you know what I mean, and it seems to cut up the tape a good bit by the time I take the street 90 back off.
Also, I was really surprised to see some sort of discoloration around the bulkhead and in a few places on the inside of the kettle, along with what appears to be a small rust spot on the bottom of my kettle this morning. It was upside down drip drying overnight, and that's what I discovered when I flipped it over this morning.
The only thing I've done with this kettle so far is wash it with PBW and a soft wash cloth one time and let water sit in it once for about an hour, and then for 4 hours as a water test yesterday.
I'll check it out more and post pics later if I have time. Home with a sick baby and wife today, so I was lucky to be able to make it this far.
They basically stop draining once the water level gets to the bulkhead. I moved all 3 to my other kettle, tightened them finger tight, and they worked as expected.
There is no way you could tighten the things on the outside any tighter, so I don't think they could be playing any part.
I'm using way more nylon thread than you should have to, and the last time I didn't dare tighten the street 90 any more, or I'm certain it would have been permanently attached.
Anyone else run into anything like this?
I did notice that where the bulkhead meets the kettle on the inside it's a bit "janky" if you know what I mean, and it seems to cut up the tape a good bit by the time I take the street 90 back off.
Also, I was really surprised to see some sort of discoloration around the bulkhead and in a few places on the inside of the kettle, along with what appears to be a small rust spot on the bottom of my kettle this morning. It was upside down drip drying overnight, and that's what I discovered when I flipped it over this morning.
The only thing I've done with this kettle so far is wash it with PBW and a soft wash cloth one time and let water sit in it once for about an hour, and then for 4 hours as a water test yesterday.
I'll check it out more and post pics later if I have time. Home with a sick baby and wife today, so I was lucky to be able to make it this far.
Roadliner
Well-Known Member
It could be the threads... if those are wrong, it won't matter if you try a different elbow. Same if there is an imperfection in the weld. I'm not really knowledgeable about welding though.. I'm not sure if there are imperfections in welding small enough to be air permeable but not water..
Yeah, I'm really starting to think it's the threads. It's rather difficult to get anything to start so screw in there, and then when I take any part off the tape is pretty beat up looking.
Then when I take those same parts out, re-tape them, and try them in another kettle, the go right in and work at finger tightness.
Of course if that's the case, I think it pretty much ruins the whole kettle. That bulkhead comes in at about the 1 1/2 gallon mark, so that's far too much to leave behind.
I'm also spotting what I'd call a pockmark on the inside back of the kettle where one side of the handle is welded on. I didn't notice it before, but now that the discoloration is setting in it's very obvious.
Pictures coming soon!
Has anyone else water tested their kettle and ran into these sorts of things?
Is the drain on the outside lower than the bottom of the kettle? You have to have the liquid actually pulling, which means if you don't have a hose or something hanging lower on the outside of the kettle, it will just stop when pressure on both sides equalize.
Similar threads
