Imperial IPA hop addition and schedule advice

[Bradinator]

Hey all,

I am planning my first IIPA for next weekends brew session and I am planning to make it very, very hoppy.

Assuming I am planning to hit 1.075-1.080 brew, what does everyone think of these hop choices and schedule?

1.0oz Amarillo FWH
0.5oz Chinook FWH
0.5oz Chinook @ 60min
0.5oz Willamette @ 30min
0.5oz Tettnang @ 20min
0.5oz Willamette @ 15min
0.5oz Tettnang @ 10min
0.5oz Centennial @ 5min
0.5oz Centennial @ Flame out
(Estimated IBU from BeerSmith shows 112)

I have yet to pick up any of the ingredients so I can change the hops easily. Recommendations welcome!

 

[dchmela]

I am a little confused by some of the hop choices, as I think of Willamette and Tettnang as more subtle aroma hops. I see the Centennials and Chinook overtaking them. I would stick with the higher alpha hops because of the style of beer your going for. Maybe something like this:

1oz Amarillo FWH
.5 oz Chinook FWH
.5 oz Chinook 60
2 oz Centennial 10
2oz Centennial 5
2oz Centennial Flamout

I get around 100 ibu for this

 

[Bradinator]

Thanks for the advice. I was considering the use of the Willamette and Tettnang because of they are a pair of may favorite hops, though to be fair I have never used them in a heavily hopped beer before.

I guess I will load up on the Centennial!

 

[bwomp313]

And no dry hop?

 

[Bradinator]

I was not planning to dry hop, though to be honest I have never tried it before with any brews I have done. If all it does is add some aroma, I really could don't see the value spending the extra money to do it.

If its going to add more hoppy-flavour goodness, then I am down with trying it in this batch.

Your experience with dry hopping? Does it make a better tasting final product?

 

[CastleHollow]

To be true to the IIPA style, you need hop aroma. You'll get some from the last ounce of Centennial in the boil of your original recipe, but you should probably plan on dry hopping at least another ounce. It's worth the $2 investment.

 

[Bradinator]

Would you recommend Centennial or possibly something else for the dry hopping? I put my order in early today, but I can get some hops from the LHBS in town. Unfortunately Centennial is never in stock. Maybe Cascade?

 

[chickypad]

I would definitely dry hop this - remember that a good portion of what we perceive as taste comes from our sense of smell. Centennial, cascade, or amarillo are all possible choices.

 

[bwomp313]

I think dry hopping is a necessity in IPA's and IIPA's. Honestly I think it'd be a sin not to dry hop it. And yes, as stated above, centennial, cascade, and amarillo are all great for dry hopping. I think you should dry hop with AT LEAST 2 oz if not 5 or 6. But that's how I role with IIPA's.

 

[bobbrews]

In addition to the recommendations everyone else gave, FWH additions are traditionally supposed to be removed and discarded pre-60 minute boil addition. They are meant to be steeped for a certain amount of time between 150-170 F to provide a smoother bitterness than opting for a standard 60 minute addition. In other words, the leftover hop oils in the wort provide a rounder bitterness than simply boiling the actual hops for an hour. You can however, if you decide, to leave the FWH in for the duration of the boil. This is not traditional, but it's not wrong either.

The FWH method alone will only give you about 10% more bitterness, something that could just as easily be achieved by boiling the wort for 5 minutes longer. Therefore, I suggest skipping FWH and simply bittering this IIPA. It will fit your goal much better, i.e. "I am planning to make it very, very hoppy."

 

[Bradinator]

I was under the impression that FWH'ing gave a much more pronounced hop flavour in a beer, which is something I would like to see in the final product. I guess I should have been a bit more clear in my initial statement; I definitely want lots of bitterness, but hop flavour is more important.

 

[bobbrews]

I definitely want lots of bitterness, but hop flavour is more important.

Skip FWH, bitter at 60, and overload on late additions (10 and flameout plus dryhop).

 

[Bradinator]

Thanks for the advice everyone. I re-jigged the recipe to look like this, the IBU is quite a bit less (~60) but I am expecting a lot more hop flavour:

1oz Chinook @ 60min
1oz Centennial @10min
1oz Centennial @5min
1oz Centennial @ Flameout

2oz Amarillo Dry hop

I have never done dry hopping before so I am unsure how to approach the schedule. What is your recommendations?

 

[bobbrews]

For a 5 gal batch of 1.080 OG IIPA that finishes rather dry, I would do more along the lines of this:

1.5 to 2 oz Chinook @ 60min
2 to 3 oz Centennial @10min
2 to 3 oz Centennial Flameout
4oz Amarillo Dry hop

6 total oz. hops for an IIPA this beastly is simply not enough if you want the hops to be the star.

 

[Bradinator]

That is a ton of hops! Makes me re-think my whole recipe. Thanks for all the input. I am going to need to put a second order of hops in for this bad boy.

 

[bobbrews]

You're brewing a double IPA... not some sissy single IPA. Just kidding Good Luck.

 

[dcp27]

I suggest skipping FWH and simply bittering this IIPA. It will fit your goal much better, i.e. "I am planning to make it very, very hoppy."

that makes no sense. how would opting for something that provides less hop character better fit his goal? also, FWH is most certainly meant to be boiled. mash hops are what gets removed

 

[bobbrews]

It doesn't provide less hop character; it provides different hop character. Instead of doing 50% FWH, 50% bittering...or 100% FWH... you can simply choose a 100% bittering route. Since this is a Double IPA and the OP voiced his goals, it doesn't seem that he wants an extremely smooth, round, tame bitterness. So opting out of a FWH entirely is more along the lines of what he's looking for... especially considering the beer style he's brewing.

Lastly, there are a lot of unique tweaks on Mash hopping and FWH, which can become intertwined with one another. That is, keeping the hops in or discarding them, FWH'ing without a bittering addition, adding both FWH and bittering additions, etc. No method is wrong. But classically, the hops in FWH'd pilseners were discarded after the steep... at least that's what I learned after visiting a brewery in Europe. Things however may have changed with modern brewing methods as well as incorporating FWH in American styles.

I guess the same can be said for flameout additions. I don't typically leave these hops in the primary, but I'm sure some people do. I just let them steep in a nylon bag and when it's time to siphon from kettle to primary, I discard them.

 

[dcp27]

Since this is a Double IPA and the OP voiced his goals, it doesn't seem that he wants an extremely smooth, round, tame bitterness. So opting out of a FWH entirely is more along the lines of what he's looking for... especially considering the beer style he's brewing.

maybe im missing it, but im not seeing anything that would make me believe the OP would prefer 100% bittering instead of FWH. I see "very, very hoppy" and "lots of bitterness, but hop flavor is more important". I also, fail to see how this being a DIPA would somehow make a bittering add better suited than a FWH. IMO, all these things seem like more reason to FWH since you're squeezing in that much more flavor with the same amount of hops.

 

[Yooper]

In addition to the recommendations everyone else gave, FWH additions are traditionally supposed to be removed and discarded pre-60 minute boil addition. They are meant to be steeped for a certain amount of time between 150-170 F to provide a smoother bitterness than opting for a standard 60 minute addition. In other words, the leftover hop oils in the wort provide a rounder bitterness than simply boiling the actual hops for an hour. You can however, if you decide, to leave the FWH in for the duration of the boil. This is not traditional, but it's not wrong either.

The FWH method alone will only give you about 10% more bitterness, something that could just as easily be achieved by boiling the wort for 5 minutes longer. Therefore, I suggest skipping FWH and simply bittering this IIPA. It will fit your goal much better, i.e. "I am planning to make it very, very hoppy."

I've honestly never heard one other brewer say to remove the FWH after draining the MLT. I think you may mean remove any mash hops, but the FWH are never removed. I rarely do mash hopping any more, since the price of hops has more than quadrupled in the last few years and it seems like a waste of hops. But FWH is a good and effective use of hops.

I use FWH for most of my IPAs and APAs, but eliminate the 60 minute addition (as the FWH replaces it). It gives a "smoother" bitterness while increasing the IBUs slightly.

 

[bobbrews]

maybe im missing it, but im not seeing anything that would make me believe the OP would prefer 100% bittering instead of FWH. I see "very, very hoppy" and "lots of bitterness, but hop flavor is more important". I also, fail to see how this being a DIPA would somehow make a bittering add better suited than a FWH. IMO, all these things seem like more reason to FWH since you're squeezing in that much more flavor with the same amount of hops.

I think FWH is great for certain styles, and even IPAs that you almost want to pass off for APAs with that smoother, tamer bitterness. I think for Double/Imperial IPAs however, you kind of want them to be bitter monsters. You want some of that abrasiveness and dominance towards bitterness, which is true to the style. By following this advice, plus adding a ton of late hops, you get the characteristic of a monster double IPA along with all the flavor and aroma. I interpreted that this was the kind of beer the OP desired.

FYI - Doing FWH vs. Bittering does not give more flavor. So I interpret your last sentence above as being wrong. I honestly don't know where you came up with that. Even if the hops are left in the boil, you would be boiling these hops for 60+ minutes and "flavor" is not something that would come through as well as a late addition.

I use FWH for most of my IPAs and APAs, but eliminate the 60 minute addition (as the FWH replaces it). It gives a "smoother" bitterness while increasing the IBUs slightly.

I agree with FWH and no Bittering if your goal is to create a very tame, smooth, round IPA or APA... Much more so than adding both FWH + Bittering. If you want to get it even smoother, you can use a lot of FWH hops to steep in the 150-170 F wort, but then remove them preboil. However, for a heftier, harsher, more potent IIPA then I would skip FWH and focus on Bittering... or use FWH in conjunction with a Bittering addition. Removing the FWH pre-boil is up to you... I know some people who do it and some people who don't... just like Flameout additions. You could even "Mash Hop" in a bag, move that bag to FWH, and then proceed to leave those hops in throughout the length of the boil. I don't know what you would call that process, or if it's an actual technique, but it's certainly doable.

 

[stevedasleeve]

I have not noticed any difference between FWH and a bittering charge of the same IBUs myself. My tendency these days is to bitter with as little time as is reasonable - so instead of say 1/2 oz at 70 mins, I might do 1 oz at 35 mins. FWIW and YMMV

 

[dcp27]

FYI - Doing FWH vs. Bittering does not give more flavor.

FYI, I completely disagree. It's been debated alot whether it really does add more so YMMV, but IME it adds more. If the OP wants a more aggressive bitterness I agree traditional bittering is the better option.

 

[Bradinator]

Hey all, thanks for all the input on this!

Its interesting seeing everyone's thoughts on this topic on FWH. Like I said I would like this beer to have the hop flavour be the star, but realize that a strong bitter backbone is needed to balance the amount of malt its going to have.

After reading through all these posts I am unclear if FWH adds more flavour or a smoother bitterness or maybe even both. It would appear that dry hopping is necessary if I want for more hop aroma/flavour so I am planning on doing that.

I guess in the end there is probably half a dozen ways to do this, so maybe its better to look at how to make this beer using hops the most efficiently. I could probably drown it in hops and achieve the flavour I want, but odds are that proper placement of the additions could achieve the same result with less. Maybe the best way is to drown it in delicious hops to achieve a hopgasmic flavour...

I think I know what I am going to name this beer...