American double IPA recipe feedback

Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

motorneuron

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
561
Reaction score
55
Location
New York
Hey guys--

My brew buddy and I wanted to brew a ludicrously hoppy American double IPA, along the lines of a Heady Topper or Pliny the Elder type, but with a more citrus/fruit flavor profile. (Not exactly original at this point, but everyone has to try it at least once!) This recipe is based on one of the Pliny homebrew recipes that Vinnie himself posted (https://www.homebrewersassociation.org/attachments/0000/6351/doubleIPA.pdf), and in fact is basically identical in the malt bill, though modified to meet a 5.5 gallon batch, so it has slightly lower pale (base) malt.

But for a few reasons, we changed the hop types and schedule. First, I had a pound of Summit and a pound of Meridian in the freezer that I wanted to use. Second, we thought a slightly more citrus/fruity/floral flavor profile would be nice for a spring/summer beer, rather than the pine/resin character that Pliny itself captures. So this recipe uses Amarillo, Summit, and Meridian. The third difference is a change to the hop schedule to achieve a more uniform usage of the different hop types. This includes also a first wort addition, which I'm a big believer in.

Finally, we may use Conan harvested from a Heady Topper can in my fridge (haven't done that yet, but hope to this week), or else WLP001/California Ale. If it's Conan, I expect the attenuation to be a few points higher.

Okay, so here's the recipe:

VITALS:
OG: 1.072
FG: 1.017? but could and should be lower with Conan. targeting ~1.11
ABV: 7.2-8.0, depending on attenuation
IBUS: calculated at 336, but of course this is not reliable; the final beer will be much lower, for sure

GRAIN BILL:
12 lbs American Pale
.6 lbs Crystal 40L
.6 lbs Carapils/dextrine
.75 lbs white sugar

MASH:
mash at 151F for an hour, sparge, collect ~7 gallons of wort, and add first wort hops: 1 oz each of summit (18.1 AA), Meridian (6.7AA), and Amarillo (8ish AA, haven't bought yet)

BOIL:
Boil for 90 minutes; whirlifloc at 10 mins

HOP SCHEDULE:
90: 3 oz summit
20: 1 oz each of summit, meridian, and amarillo
0: 1.5 oz each of summit, meridian, and amarillo

FERMENTATION:
if it's Conan, pitch at about 62F and ferment at that temperature for at least the first 72 hours; if it's WLP001, pitch a little warmer; I may rouse the yeast, too

DRY HOP SCHEDULE:
after fermentation: 1.25 oz each of summit, meridian, and amarillo for a week; then add another .25 oz of each, and after five more days, bottle.


So, what do you think? I'm pretty psyched. But I welcome feedback to make it better!
 
I wouldn't FWH a forwardly bitter and dank IIPA similar to Elder or Heady. I wouldn't use fruity hops early on either... Actually, I would limit the fruity hops altogether and focus on the dank ones like Columbus, Summit, Apollo, Simcoe and Chinook. This is the approximate the target hop group for that signature marijuana aroma. You'll need wayyy more overall hops, like 12-15 total oz. The dryhop should also be around 5-6 oz. (3 oz. is quite weak).

You'll also be better off fermenting w/Conan in the low 60s, then free rising to 66 F and dryhopping around here. It should definitely chew the FG down to 1.011 or less.
 
I wouldn't FWH a forwardly bitter and dank IIPA similar to Elder or Heady. I wouldn't use fruity hops early on either... Actually, I would limit the fruity hops altogether and focus on the dank ones like Columbus, Summit, Apollo, Simcoe and Chinook. This is the approximate the target hop group for that signature marijuana aroma. You'll need wayyy more overall hops, like 12-15 total oz. The dryhop should also be around 5-6 oz. (3 oz. is quite weak).

You'll also be better off fermenting w/Conan in the low 60s, then free rising to 66 F and dryhopping around here. It should definitely chew the FG down to 1.011 or less.

Thanks for the feedback. I understand that if we want something more dank, we should go for Columbus/Simcoe/Chinook etc. But I was hoping to do this beer a little different and get something with a bit more fruit. So do you think that fruity hops just won't work in a very bitter, pretty big beer? I guess what I'm saying is that I'm less interested in just cloning those beers than I am in making a successful very hoppy double IPA.

Likewise, why do you think doing the FWH is a bad idea? I hoped this would be a way to get significant hop flavor in the final product and keep the bitterness smoother (rather than doing all of these at 90 minutes instead). But again, I could just be wrong about this.

And thanks for the Conan advice. Yeah, I read that Conan likes the lower 60s. Assuming I get the Conan cultured successfully, I will keep it around there.
 
I understand that if we want something more dank, we should go for Columbus/Simcoe/Chinook etc. But I was hoping to do this beer a little different and get something with a bit more fruit. So do you think that fruity hops just won't work in a very bitter, pretty big beer?

Oh, well in that case it will work out, but you still need more hops. You just won't have anything near "dank", like you said.
7 oz. total hops is not ludacrously hopped for 5.5 gallons of Double IPA. It's quite weak actually. Vinnie's recipe uses 12.5 total oz. (or even more now supposedly).

I guess what I'm saying is that I'm less interested in just cloning those beers than I am in making a successful very hoppy double IPA.

Then why compare them in your opener? I guess I was confused when you wrote, "along the lines of a Heady Topper or Pliny the Elder type". I understand you're using the Pliny grist and the Heady yeast, but this will be a completely different animal than either of those beers with a very different hop character and schedule.

Likewise, why do you think doing the FWH is a bad idea? I hoped this would be a way to get significant hop flavor in the final product and keep the bitterness smoother (rather than doing all of these at 90 minutes instead). But again, I could just be wrong about this.

Because Double IPA's are innately bitter beers. Look at the majority of top rated IIPA clone recipes for these commercial examples and you will notice a trend of 10-13 oz. total hops with something like 90/30/0/DH schedule.

Despite your belief that FWH adds more flavor than a bittering addition of equal or greater value, because that is what is regurgitated by many of amateur brewers, it is simply not true. The technique is not a replacement for 20 minute additions. Studies by Denny Conn and Jamil Z. showed inconclusive results on the benefits of FWH, especially in hoppy pale beers, as it pertains to flavor and aroma. The only true result was less perceived bitterness despite a 10% greater IBU contribution from FWH vs. a traditional bitter.

FWH was invented decades ago for the German Pilsner style...a complete antithesis of the AIIPA. One of it's only benefits is a complete smoothness (no hop bite), which can be softened in many other ways than following the FWH technique. It just makes no sense for the American Double IPA style... It's like putting training wheels on a Monster Truck.

Here is a more elaborate input from a fellow HBT member on the origins of FWH and why it results in increased smoothness:

The process is used to make another process better. It has very little to do with hop bittering or flavoring contributions from the hops added during FWH. It is used for the reason that the wort gravity is at the highest during the 1st run off. Adding hops as soon as the bottom of the boiler is covered with high density wort, breaks the surface tension of the wort and reduces the amount of hot break foam. This allowed the brewer to fill the boiler with a larger quantity of wort, without worrying about boil over. The krausen will be cleaner during fermentation. A decoction uses 5% of the weight of the bittering hops. An infusion uses 10-15%. The reason for the difference in weight, is that during the rests and boiling of the mash in a decoction, proteins that hops need to overcome, are reduced. The process of FWH is for producing a smooth, clean beer. Nothing more. If the finished beer has a smooth, clean hop profile, the process was done correctly. If a rough bitterness is detected, the process failed.
 
You're right. I have edited the description to make clear I'm going less for the pot taste and more for citrus.

On the amount of hops, I'm totally fine increasing it. My amounts were based on Vinnie's recipe, but with some schedule changes--mostly by making some of the hop additions FWH ones. I will take a look and add additional hops. As is, though, the calculated IBUs for this recipe are still over 200 (the summit hops are 18.1% AA, don't forget). So I think it's going to be pretty bitter even with this schedule.

My beliefs about FWH are based on limited experience--I'm still pretty new to homebrewing--so I was mostly basing it on Gordon Strong's advice in Brewing Better Beer.

After looking back at a few other double IPA recipes, I will also increase the dry hop amounts.

Thanks again for your feedback.
 
When you brew big IIPAs like this, don't pay attention to calculated IBUs. Once you exceed 100+, there's really no sense in worrying about the final count since the top limit of actual IBU absorption is less that 110 total IBUs. What is quoted theoretically by calculators is not what else up in your beer and not what you can even taste as a human being anyway. For instance, Pliny the Elder is about 340 IBUs Rager. In actuality, it's like 75-90 IBUs in the glass. And guess what?... it still tastes really smooth.
 
I've updated the recipe to double the 90-minute addition, as well as increase the 20-minute additions and the dry hop additions. I've kept in the FWH additions, though. It may not add anything, but some people still seem to find it a useful practice, and I guess I feel like the worst it could do is be a waste, while the best it could do is add a bit more hop flavor (a good thing in this beer).

And yes, good point on the calculated IBUs. This will undoubtedly not reach 340 or whatever. It will be bitter, but I hope still smooth and--most important--flavorful.
 
Your 20 minute addition is larger than your hopstand, and equal to your dryhop. In IIPAs, the most important emphasis by weight should be placed on the dryhop, hopstand, early additions, middle additions... in that order. This is what will give you more flavor and aroma.

For a loose reference:

90-60= early
45-20 = middle
15-0 = late

Again, I wouldn't be too concerned with total IBUs for this style of beer, particularly when you exceed 100 IBUs. If your grist can stand up to it, and you design your recipe in a sensical manner, then you will still have something rather smooth and nothing remotely close to harsh bitterness, despite avoiding FWH.
 
Haha, you win again. I've moved the 45-minute Summit to 90, giving 3 oz all at the start of the boil, and reallocated .5 oz each of the 20-minute additions to knockout. So I now have:

4.5 dry hop
4.5 knockout
3 early
3 middle

...and 3 oz FWH. I have officially broken the pound barrier, too.
 
I'm not trying to win, or force you to brew my way... Just shedding some light on my experience with these types of beers. Take it all with a grain of salt and report back on what you actually did, and how it turned out... or compare both schools of thought.

Here is what I'd do (by % hop weight):

15-30% early (no FWH)
0-15% middle
20-30% warm hopstand
35-45% dryhop
 
No, I know you're not trying to "win," and I very much appreciate the feedback, so thanks. I do think I am probably going to stick with what I have posted now, though. Having looked at a few other double/Imperial/strong/whatever IPA recipes, I think I'm more or less in line on the hop additions. It seems like people have had success with different allocations of hops (e.g. https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f69/keiths-imperial-ipa-hbt-comp-winner-141068/#post1602453, which has 1 oz of FWH and a lot of middle additions). And in particular, it's pretty close to Vinnie's recipe (which has 3.5 oz early, 1.75 middle, 3.5 at knockout, and 3.75 as dry hops). Or at any rate, I am willing to try this and see how it goes. But thanks, and I will report back on how it goes. Though of course that will be in a while.
 
Okay, cool. Just an FYI... That PDF for Pliny the Elder is very close to the original beer, but it is not an exact clone. Vinnie most likely uses more like 5 oz. dryhops during the course of 3-4 multiple stages, less Centennial overall, and in the past few years he has included a dash of Amarillo in the DH. He doesn't FWH it either.
 
Back
Top