My first IPA

[jonmohno]

So.................? Im feeling a conclusion,maybe..? Or no?

 

[Pappers_]

Bob, how do you explain the many award winning IPAs made with FWH? Clearly, great IPAs can and are made using FWH.

 

[Pappers_]

So.................? Im feeling a conclusion,maybe..? Or no?

The conclusion is great IPAs can and are made using FWH and without it. Bob's contention that great IPAs cannot be made with FWH is wrong - as demonstrated by the many award winning IPAs made with FWH.

 

[bottlebomber]

I make all IPAs with FWH. I haven't entered any contests, but everyone at my homebrew club is blown away by my IPAs. If you want a gratingly bitter IPA, use Chinook hops to bitter. It will be unpleasantly(in my opinion) firm/harsh/forward/upfront/strong whether you FWH or not. To say that IPAs can't be balanced is just wrong. IPAs have changed a lot in the last ten years, and one of the great things about the style is that it is very interpretive.

 

[ukeedogs]

id for sure drop the honey malt before i dropped the caramel

 

[Yooper]

Just address the questions and details presented (instead of general blanket statements about how FWH works for you). You managed to bypass the whole sulfate thing and your fallacy about its relationship to "harsh" bitterness. The IBU comment I made was even overlooked by you, who seems to believe that IBUs are always to blame for any harshness sensed in a bitter beer. Nor did you care to comment as to why you're promoting a method (FWH) so much that you can't even explain. Just because someone has 100% faith in something which they can't explain, yet they urge others to follow in their footsteps, doesn't mean that others should follow... Well, come to think of it, I guess that explains organized religion too.



I guess I should've used the word "harsh" there so that people wouldn't be mislead. For me... firm/harsh/forward/upfront/strong all mean the same thing when we're talking about hop bitterness in an IPA. The FWH technique mutes that type of bitterness to give you something smooth/delicate/balanced/level/restrained. Balanced and restrained are pretty much horrible words to describe an inherently bitter, hop forward style of beer.

I don't know how I'm "bypassing the whole sulfate thing" by stating that I prefer a brewing water, even for IPAs by using a modest sulfate water of approximately 75-100 ppm for most hoppy beers because I prefer it.

I can give you links to the science behind it (and FWH, too) but you're too obstinate to want to hear facts. You give your opinion with a ramrod, as if it was fact. The truth is your preference is to not use FWH in a hoppy beer. My preference is often to use FWH along with a modest sulfate level. I explained that it gives plenty of bitterness to me, but that the bitterness is not harsh and instead smoother and that is something that is pleasing to me.

I'm also not "name dropping" by telling you that many of my fellow brewers, including award winning ones, agree with me. I personally know that to be true, as they have told me.

 

[Yooper]

I'll repeat... The FWH 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.

You can repeat it a million times. That doesn't make it true.

The sky is yellow.

The sky is yellow.

The sky is yellow.

See? Repeating something you believe doesn't make it true.

You later said in the same paragraph that "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."

See, a "rough bitterness" IS a bittering aspect. But you stating unequivocally that "It has very little to do with hop bittering" is a direct quote by you, when the truth is (and you acknowledge) is that "if a rough bitterness is detected, the process failed".

FWH is all about bittering and hops flavor.

You're making yourself look really silly.

 

[bobbrews]

Bob, how do you explain the many award winning IPAs made with FWH? Clearly, great IPAs can and are made using FWH.

What the 2 or 3 mentioned in this thread? Because these are all homebrewers you are referencing. A mixed lot who is brewing anywhere from subpar, to average, to somewhat good, to good IPAs. If you put 10 ugly women in a beauty contest, and the prettiest one of the lot wins, does that still make her a beauty queen by comparison to the rest of the worlds prettiest women?

Can you name some commercial examples of top-rated FWH'd IPAs/IIPAs?

------

So jonmohno... in short, we've learned that there are a few stubborn brewers who are really passionate about FWH despite even understanding it or taking the time to dissect the process. I offered my insight, which has merit and makes sense. Yooper seems to believe that my contributions on the topic hold as little value as saying "the sky is yellow", but she cannot even provide any insight of her own pertaining to the above bold clause.

I'm beginning to think discussing the concept of FWH for IPAs is a lost cause. You're either all in or completely out. I hope you guys get some more awards on your beers to further convince you that you are among the brewing gods who knows all and requires no room for improvement. Keep in mind, awards & records are always broken. Just because you brewed the best beer out of a handful of people and received a shiny plaque for it doesn't mean that other people cannot do it much better than you. So name dropping and posting pictures to prove a point is really pathetic.

There are and always will be better brewers than you or I. That is just the reality of things. But when you take one side of an argument without providing insight as to why you think that method is superior, then you better give more reasoning than "Because it works for me" or "Because I've won awards doing it". THAT makes YOU look SILLY.

Is this resonating with anyone, or did I enter brewer La La Land where proving that a certain method is superior for a certain style because you won awards for it means that we should all kneel before you and, accept your brewing methods at face value, and realize that we brew lesser quality IPAs than you??

I understand that HBT is a community and that some of us have friends here and we stick by certain people's words more than others. But I'm not trying to start a fight here. I just want us to use our heads and take the emotion out of it. Your personal belief in the FWH process is fine. But if you're trying to convince others to do it by saying that you won awards for your FWH'd IPAs, well then that's just non-sensical.

 

[mmb]

So, jonmohno, in short we've learned that there are MANY stubborn brewers that are constantly presenting their opinions as facts and shouting down anyone who disagrees with their incidental observations in relation to their personal brewing experience.

We've also learned that you can use John Palmer's name in retaliation for "name dropping" without realizing that said "name dropping" is just mentioning conversations held with friends and acquaintances on topics of mutual interest.

We've also been either expertly trolled for over two years or have an embarrassingly high number of "facts" littering the forum.

 

[TahoeRy]

I think it's a ridiculous point that a great IPA cannot be made with a FWH. That's like saying you can't make a great steak using only salt and pepper. Of course you can and its just wrong to state great beers can only be made one way. There's lots of ways to accomplish a great beer. Personally, I think some home brewed IPA's are better than commercial ones. When I brew mine I use both FWH and traditional 90 & 60 min additions to get an overall better bitterness. It's a great debate, but to speak in absolutes is just stupid.

 

[bobbrews]

So, jonmohno, in short we've learned that there are MANY stubborn brewers that are constantly presenting their opinions as facts and shouting down anyone who disagrees with their incidental observations in relation to their personal brewing experience.

Sorry your feelings are hurt and that you took it that way. Did you read my disclaimer?

We've also learned that you can use John Palmer's name in retaliation for "name dropping" without realizing that said "name dropping" is just mentioning conversations held with friends and acquaintances on topics of mutual interest.

I think you need to brush up on your reading comprehension skills. It's one thing to name drop for the purposes of heightening your own self worth and to prove a point that your brewing methods are superior because the pro's enjoyed them. It's another thing to use a pro brewer as a reference for homebrewers just as clueless on the topic:

People (and yes even veterans) don't understand it. John Palmer tells us this, "Only low alpha finishing hops should be used for FWH, and the amount should be no less than 30% of the total amount of hops used in the boil."

 

[BierMuncher]

Just because you brewed the best beer out of a handful of people and received a shiny plaque for it doesn't mean that other people cannot do it much better than you. So name dropping and posting pictures to prove a point is really pathetic.

...if you're trying to convince others to do it by saying that you won awards for your FWH'd IPAs, well then that's just non-sensical.

Well now you're just hurting my feelings. Ya big meany.

 

[bobbrews]

Sorry Bier Just telling it like it is without any emotion in the equation.

 

[WesleyS]

I've been reading through this argument as it has progressed and I think if certain individuals would listen to what's being said by respected, long time members of this site it would benefit the advice that is given in this forum.
First of all, speaking in absolutes when giving advice is just wrong. Unless someone is trying to make beer using cream of wheat and corn syrup while fermenting in a boot, a lot of things can be open to experimentation. We have to remember that people are wanting to make a beer of their own and if their plan is not completely out of line then let them go for it. When someone asks for advice on a recipe, it's okay to give opinions and the reason behind it and why you prefer it, but it's all about the individual and what they want out of the beer. Bobbrews likes a good, upfront bitterness in his IPAs. Yooper likes the smooth bitterness that comes with FWH. Neither of those preferences are wrong, just different.
To say that a FWH beer cannot be an IPA is just ridiculous. Someone told me the same thing about doing my bittering charge at 30 min instead of the traditional 90/60 min, that an OG in the 1.090s is too high for a DIPA. I knew that was their opinion, I know what the style guidelines are and I'm an experienced enough brewer to go for my original plan. And guess what. It worked out and it's definitely bitter enough and nothing like the barleywine they said it was going to be closer to.
I've seen a lot of "advice" given in an arrogant, condescending way and there's no call for that. It seems those people come and go and they always play victim and attack those that are truly trying to be helpful when they're called out on their attitude or BS.

 

[Homercidal]

Ok, so wait. I want smooth bitterness in my IPAs, so tell me how do you do this FWH thing?? I'm already keeping the sulfate amounts down into balanced territory, (I didn't like the bitterness I got from jumping them up), and using late hap additions to provide more flavor. After all, an AIPA isn't THAT much more bitter than a regular IPA. (BJCP recommends 40-60 for English IPA and 40-70 for American IPA). So far that's been working great for me, especially the late hops additions.

What I've noticed, though, is that my IPAs are usually a bit harsh right at the beginning, and after 2-3 weeks in the keg they mellow out to where I prefer them, with plenty of flavor. I also prefer a more balanced profile. The BJCP says, " Hop flavor is medium to high, and should reflect an American hop character with citrusy, floral, resinous, piney or fruity aspects. Medium-high to very high hop bitterness, although the malt backbone will support the strong hop character and provide the best balance."

I know others who prefer a drier malt presence and a stronger bitterness in their IPAs, but I just like mine to be well balanced, with plenty of American hop variety flavor. So will this FWH technique maybe help me achieve a smoother hop flavor without having to wait 2-3 weeks for my beer to mellow? I just brewed a batch, so it might be a couple of months before I get to try this.

 

[BierMuncher]

Sorry Bier Just telling it like it is without any emotion in the equation.

No worries. All totaled, my FWH Tits Up beat out a combined 64 other entrants to take home two golds, a silver and a grand champion high gravity brew-off in three separate competitions.

I know pointing this out is a pathetic display in your eyes, but unless you were that one person out of 65 who beat me out of that gold I missed (with a score of 41), I have to dismiss your claim for lack of anecdotal or empirical evidence and again…go with what’s proven successful for me.

(now....if you were that one person that beat me out....I'd love to have your recipe.)

 

[Pappers_]

What the 2 or 3 mentioned in this thread? Because these are all homebrewers you are referencing. A mixed lot who is brewing anywhere from subpar, to average, to somewhat good, to good IPAs. If you put 10 ugly women in a beauty contest, and the prettiest one of the lot wins, does that still make her a beauty queen by comparison to the rest of the worlds prettiest women?

Wow, that is the most arrogant statement I've read in a while. Sorry, when an IPA (made with FWH) wins the gold medal at the AHA National Homebrew Competition, I'll take that over your self-proclaimed expertise.

Also, you should take heed of your new signature/disclaimer. Your statement that great IPAs cannot be made with FWH is incorrect and misleading to other brewers. Try not to take that personally, ok?

 

[mmb]

Sorry your feelings are hurt and that you took it that way. Did you read my disclaimer?

I think you need to brush up on your reading comprehension skills. It's one thing to name drop for the purposes of heightening your own self worth and to prove a point that your brewing methods are superior because the pro's enjoyed them. It's another thing to use a pro brewer as a reference for homebrewers just as clueless on the topic:

If you consistently need a disclaimer, you need to change your approach. Either way, this tempest in a teapot is certain to keep me awake at night.

None of the home-brewers Yooper referenced are "pros". Even Palmer is "just" an author and not a "pro brewer". That's the Internet cult of personality talking.

But I'd love to see your published scholarly works on hop utilization and effects based on boil processes to back up these facts of yours, as you've made it clearly obvious that multiple tastings and medals are not an accurate gauge of a beer's qualities.

 

[JoeMomma85]

Ok, so wait. I want smooth bitterness in my IPAs, so tell me how do you do this FWH thing?? I'm already keeping the sulfate amounts down into balanced territory, (I didn't like the bitterness I got from jumping them up), and using late hap additions to provide more flavor. After all, an AIPA isn't THAT much more bitter than a regular IPA. (BJCP recommends 40-60 for English IPA and 40-70 for American IPA). So far that's been working great for me, especially the late hops additions.

What I've noticed, though, is that my IPAs are usually a bit harsh right at the beginning, and after 2-3 weeks in the keg they mellow out to where I prefer them, with plenty of flavor. I also prefer a more balanced profile. The BJCP says, " Hop flavor is medium to high, and should reflect an American hop character with citrusy, floral, resinous, piney or fruity aspects. Medium-high to very high hop bitterness, although the malt backbone will support the strong hop character and provide the best balance."

I know others who prefer a drier malt presence and a stronger bitterness in their IPAs, but I just like mine to be well balanced, with plenty of American hop variety flavor. So will this FWH technique maybe help me achieve a smoother hop flavor without having to wait 2-3 weeks for my beer to mellow? I just brewed a batch, so it might be a couple of months before I get to try this.

What have you been using to bitter with? Certain hops to me don't change much between FWH and 60minute additons like Chinook or Columbus. Both taste overly harsh and bitter, like someone is scraping my tongue rough kind of bitter regardless of the amounts used.

 

[JuanMoore]

FWH completely prevents any ability to obtain an upfront bitterness.

That's an absurd statement. FWH simply oxidizes some of the hop compounds, primarily cohumulone, which is a major component of the "harsh" or "upfront" bitterness. It doesn't eliminate it completely, or prevent any of it from being present. Too much cohumulone creates an unpleasant overly harsh bitterness, and FWH can help keep cohumulone levels in balance to prevent this. It's very easy to achieve high cohumulone levels and the upfront bitterness they create while using the FWH technique if hop varieties high in cohumulone are used. In fact, it's easy enough to get more harsh, upfront bitterness than most commercial examples of the style, even using FWH.

And your assertions elsewhere in this thread that a lot of the "upfront" or "harsh" bitterness is required for the style seems a bit off. I've not seen any wording remotely similar in any style guideline for American IPA. Several well known commercial breweries use hops low in cohumulone for their IPA's, and often use a bittering charge so small that it only contributes 3-6 IBU's, specifically to reduce the harsh bitterness from cohumulone. Matt Brynildson (Firestone Walker) and Peter Zien (Alesmith) both use these techniques and others to keep cohumulone levels in check. I don't hear any complaints that Union Jack (back to back gold medals in the IPA category at GABF) or Alesmith IPA don't have enough upfront bitterness, and aren't brewed to style. In fact, Alesmith IPA is listed by BJCP as a commercial example of the style.

 

[JuanMoore]

I know others who prefer a drier malt presence and a stronger bitterness in their IPAs, but I just like mine to be well balanced, with plenty of American hop variety flavor. So will this FWH technique maybe help me achieve a smoother hop flavor without having to wait 2-3 weeks for my beer to mellow? I just brewed a batch, so it might be a couple of months before I get to try this.

I have similar tastes, and use a combination of FWH, hop-bursting, and avoiding hops that are really high in cohumulone, like Chinook and Columbus. I think of those, the FWH has the smallest impact though.

 

[Bigcorona]

Anyone else expecting AlterBrewer or Moshiach weigh in on this issue?

 

[JuanMoore]

Anyone else expecting AlterBrewer or Moshiach weigh in on this issue?

Hah! It would be epic if either of them did.

 

[passedpawn]

I've FWH before, didn't notice a difference. It wasn't a scientific study, so I make no claims.

I don't ever do it now since I like to add my first hop addition after the hot break. The polyphenols from the hops make the initial boil much, much more messy.

 

[HawksBrewer]

I like beer. And IPAs. Sometimes I do FWH. Sometimes I don't. They all taste good. Am I doing something wrong? Hmmmm.... beer.

 

[TahoeRy]

You know what, you can not eat mac n' cheese with a spoon. You just can't! You can only eat it with a fork. You see, the fork allows the cheese to flow between the fingers of the fork allowing for a betting flavor uptake on your palette. Anybody who eats mac n' cheese with a spoon is just eating it wrong and will never be able to have the same flavor that people who use forks will have. I don't care what anybody else thinks or anybody else's opinion on the subject as you are wrong! Spoons will never have the same effect on the flavor of the mac n' cheese that can be obtained with using a fork. Don't try to argue your point with me or even try to give me your opinion as your just wrong.

mmmmmmmm....Mac n' cheese! -> with a fork!

 

[one-L]

It has generally been my life experience that if you need to add a disclaimer to anything coming out of your mouth (or your keyboard) you should probably reconsider. Along the lines of starting a sentence with, "I'm not trying to be an a$$hole, but...." If you start a sentence in this manner, you are, and you are. Doesn't matter if the qualifier comes before, during, or after your declaration.

 

[bottlebomber]

It has generally been my life experience that if you need to add a disclaimer to anything coming out of your mouth (or your keyboard) you should probably reconsider. Along the lines of starting a sentence with, "I'm not trying to be an a$$hole, but...." If you start a sentence in this manner, you are, and you are. Doesn't matter if the qualifier comes before, during, or after your declaration.

Well, you just have to add "I'm just sayin is all" at the end, and it totally puts you in the clear and disassociates you from anything negative you might have said.

 

[iBrewR]

or a smiley face .....

 

[one-L]

Well, you just have to add "I'm just sayin is all" at the end, and it totally puts you in the clear and disassociates you from anything negative you might have said.

Oh, but of course. I mean, I thought that was generally understood and went without saying. I mean everybody who's anybody already knows that you can say whatever you want, to whoever you want, in any manner, so long as you add the magic words. Anyone that doesn't know that must be retarded. I'm just saying.

Aiming somewhere back in the vicinity of on topic, like the recipe, though I haven't tried FWH yet. I have been inspired by this thread (and the fact that I now have my equipment (mostly) finalized), to give it a shot on my next IPA. You might consider splitting that last Citra addition up though and maybe do half at 10 and half right at flameout. Late citra FTW.