- Joined
- Nov 16, 2013
- Messages
- 3,237
- Reaction score
- 2,552
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Upper Michigan/S. Florida
That’s a good question. I guess my old school way recognizes that the IBU estimation via calculations involving break material, the SG, etc is not accurate, but it’s MY not-accurate. 
Does that make sense? I know in my system that 75 IBUs tastes like XXXX, and while it may be totally different when scientifically measured, I know what that 75 IBUs (Tinseth) bitterness on my system will result in. And that’s all I really care about- the consistency among my beers in my system. It might be sort of the lazy way of thinking about it but I’m satisfied with the results.
Does that make sense? I know in my system that 75 IBUs tastes like XXXX, and while it may be totally different when scientifically measured, I know what that 75 IBUs (Tinseth) bitterness on my system will result in. And that’s all I really care about- the consistency among my beers in my system. It might be sort of the lazy way of thinking about it but I’m satisfied with the results.
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2012
- Messages
- 434
- Reaction score
- 648
- Points
- 93
In the end it probably doesn't matter which system you use, the most important thing is to choose a system and stick with it. Personally i don't care how many actual IBUs I have in my beer, I just need a calculator that will give me an idea of how bitter a recipe will be relative to other recipes I make. The same goes for any measuring tool in my brewery, I don't care if my thermometer reads a degree high or low, or if my refractometer is off a bit, all I care is that it is consistent. As long as I use the same tools every time, I will know how my beers will turn out.
To actually answer your question, yes, it does seem to make more sense, but for me I've been using Tinseth for so long that I see no reason to switch.
To actually answer your question, yes, it does seem to make more sense, but for me I've been using Tinseth for so long that I see no reason to switch.
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2012
- Messages
- 10,254
- Reaction score
- 8,365
- Points
- 113
We're really just guessing at our IBUs anyway so I'm in Yooper's camp: Do what works. As I mentioned Saturday, for years I always brewed to the high end of IBUs for a style, then the altitude adjustment came. Had to reformulate a lot of recipes! If I really wanted to know, I guess I could pay for tests, not that important to me. Tinseth works for me and that's good enough.
It's likely more accurate and certainly has some flash-bang points but if you think about it, the current methodology does about the same thing, just set at a point in time. I don't see why it couldn't be implemented as an option but it's not something I need or would use. I just don't need to know something I can't measure that precisely.
It's likely more accurate and certainly has some flash-bang points but if you think about it, the current methodology does about the same thing, just set at a point in time. I don't see why it couldn't be implemented as an option but it's not something I need or would use. I just don't need to know something I can't measure that precisely.
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2017
- Messages
- 1,819
- Reaction score
- 2,386
- Points
- 113
Seems a better approach to me, but still with it's problems. At least it should give a better estimate for a wider range of hopping approaches. Current IBU calculations may be worthwhile for boil additions, but they're useless for very late boil additions or dry hops. Though in those later additions I'm generally not worried about bitterness as much as I am about flavour extraction and that's an even murkier picture.
People are talking about better CoA details with the hop batch that may give indications of how well the key ingredients will survive, boil, late boil or dry hop. Then there's the GM yeast that are creating turpenes to add to the mix. It's got to be an interesting time for hop growers/cooperatives working out how much do they spend on getting that extra chemical information when the ground is constantly moving.
People are talking about better CoA details with the hop batch that may give indications of how well the key ingredients will survive, boil, late boil or dry hop. Then there's the GM yeast that are creating turpenes to add to the mix. It's got to be an interesting time for hop growers/cooperatives working out how much do they spend on getting that extra chemical information when the ground is constantly moving.
On one hand, I really appreciate the level of detail and effort and science that it took to put that stuff together. On the other hand... IBU estimation is never more accurate than plus/minus 5 IBUs, maybe closer to 10... AND, I am a lazy lover of simplicity so.... I probably will not use the new mIBU method much. I'll play around with it for a few batches to see if I change my mind, but.... probably will stick to good old Tinseth, and my own Taylor method which is a simpler form of Tinseth but precise within like I said 5-10 IBUs.
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2019
- Messages
- 2,545
- Reaction score
- 7,661
- Points
- 113
I would be all for mIBU's if it's as easy to work with as Tinseth, if it's more accurate than Tinseth, and if it's consistent. Because consistent and accurate has to be better than just consistent, right?
What follows are not smart-ass questions at all, I promise.
How do you know how precise your method is or Tinseth is, as it applies to your brewing? Have you ever had any beers tested or are you basing this off comparisons to well known commercial beers?
I ask because I also have my own method of calculating IBU's, a method not based on science but more on what I think I'm going to get from experience and how I personally perceive bitterness. My method and Tinseth's always start off similar but start to veer off once IBU's get up past 25-30 and really aren't all that close for something that Tinseth would calculate at 50 or so. My method always calculates IBU's higher and I *think* it's a better guestimate as to what I'm actually getting...but I really have no idea.
On one hand, I really appreciate the level of detail and effort and science that it took to put that stuff together. On the other hand... IBU estimation is never more accurate than plus/minus 5 IBUs, maybe closer to 10... AND, I am a lazy lover of simplicity so.... I probably will not use the new mIBU method much. I'll play around with it for a few batches to see if I change my mind, but.... probably will stick to good old Tinseth, and my own Taylor method which is a simpler form of Tinseth but precise within like I said 5-10 IBUs.
What follows are not smart-ass questions at all, I promise.
How do you know how precise your method is or Tinseth is, as it applies to your brewing? Have you ever had any beers tested or are you basing this off comparisons to well known commercial beers?
I ask because I also have my own method of calculating IBU's, a method not based on science but more on what I think I'm going to get from experience and how I personally perceive bitterness. My method and Tinseth's always start off similar but start to veer off once IBU's get up past 25-30 and really aren't all that close for something that Tinseth would calculate at 50 or so. My method always calculates IBU's higher and I *think* it's a better guestimate as to what I'm actually getting...but I really have no idea.
Probably not at all what you were expecting, but here you go.
To come up with my own IBU estimation method, I first graphed a few utilization numbers from Palmer, then I was able to come up with a square-root approximation curve which, although it isn’t perfect, it’s like my motto, still “close enough for most intents & purposes”. It becomes easy enough to memorize and calculate on the back of a napkin or with a few punches on a calculator, which was exactly my goal. This is not a fancy equation, and I’m not going to HTML it, or publish an article in Zymurgy, or become a household name, or anything like that. This is a crazy simplistic “equation” for calculations on the fly. Unlike Palmer or Tinseth where you have to use utilization tables or remember a complex equation with factors like 1.65 and 4.15 and e to the whatever, I made some assumptions to make it as easy as this:
IBU = oz * AA% * [sqrt(5*Boiltime)/V + sqrt(2*Whirlpooltime)/V]
Where the times are in minutes, and the V is flameout volume in gallons. In retrospect, I guess I could have taken the V out of the brackets. Whatever.
Calculate that for each hop addition and add them all together. I bet you’ll match Tinseth’s estimate within about 5 IBUs, maybe 10 at worst (at least for boiled hops). And very often you’ll be within 1 or 2 IBUs. It’s pretty cool I think.
So no, I don’t have a laboratory to actually measure IBUs like Tinseth did, nor do I wish I did. I’m just trying to emulate his equation, but via a much simpler method. It’s definitely reasonably consistent with Tinseth, and about as accurate as Tinseth -- which ain’t at all bad for the 1990s, we’re still using his equation today because… it really ain’t all that broke!
My calc does get wonky if you use boiltimes greater than ~80 minutes. Probably okay at 90 minutes but it starts to get really weird above that. But, not too many people are going to (1) use my method, much less (2) use it for batches boiled more than 90 minutes, are they?! Only a couple dozen people on earth probably know about my IBU calc methods at the moment, and nobody else seems to love them as much as I do. Okay whatever, I don’t really care. It works for me in my brew house, and helps me to respond to questions on the fly when I don’t have brewing software handy to do all the math. I’ll bet I can estimate IBUs faster than anybody, anybody. One or two minutes tops. Not that that matters AT ALL. But I enjoy math so it’s just fun for me, especially when it’s easy math.
If you don’t like my square-root method above, I have a second method that works just as well, which I basically refer to as “Remember the Sixes!” There’s way more nerdy details here about both methods, if anyone is really interested (I doubt it). From a spreadsheet, but it’s also not a spreadsheet:
https://live.staticflickr.com/7891/45991029004_df99d89bc1_o.png
Enjoy, or don't. I don't care. Cheers.
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2019
- Messages
- 2,545
- Reaction score
- 7,661
- Points
- 113
Probably not at all what you were expecting, but here you go.
To come up with my own IBU estimation method, I first graphed a few utilization numbers from Palmer, then I was able to come up with a square-root approximation curve which, although it isn’t perfect, it’s like my motto, still “close enough for most intents & purposes”. It becomes easy enough to memorize and calculate on the back of a napkin or with a few punches on a calculator, which was exactly my goal. This is not a fancy equation, and I’m not going to HTML it, or publish an article in Zymurgy, or become a household name, or anything like that. This is a crazy simplistic “equation” for calculations on the fly. Unlike Palmer or Tinseth where you have to use utilization tables or remember a complex equation with factors like 1.65 and 4.15 and e to the whatever, I made some assumptions to make it as easy as this:
IBU = oz * AA% * [sqrt(5*Boiltime)/V + sqrt(2*Whirlpooltime)/V]
Where the times are in minutes, and the V is flameout volume in gallons. In retrospect, I guess I could have taken the V out of the brackets. Whatever.
Calculate that for each hop addition and add them all together. I bet you’ll match Tinseth’s estimate within about 5 IBUs, maybe 10 at worst (at least for boiled hops). And very often you’ll be within 1 or 2 IBUs. It’s pretty cool I think.
So no, I don’t have a laboratory to actually measure IBUs like Tinseth did, nor do I wish I did. I’m just trying to emulate his equation, but via a much simpler method. It’s definitely reasonably consistent with Tinseth, and about as accurate as Tinseth -- which ain’t at all bad for the 1990s, we’re still using his equation today because… it really ain’t all that broke!
My calc does get wonky if you use boiltimes greater than ~80 minutes. Probably okay at 90 minutes but it starts to get really weird above that. But, not too many people are going to (1) use my method, much less (2) use it for batches boiled more than 90 minutes, are they?! Only a couple dozen people on earth probably know about my IBU calc methods at the moment, and nobody else seems to love them as much as I do. Okay whatever, I don’t really care. It works for me in my brew house, and helps me to respond to questions on the fly when I don’t have brewing software handy to do all the math. I’ll bet I can estimate IBUs faster than anybody, anybody. One or two minutes tops. Not that that matters AT ALL. But I enjoy math so it’s just fun for me, especially when it’s easy math.
If you don’t like my square-root method above, I have a second method that works just as well, which I basically refer to as “Remember the Sixes!” There’s way more nerdy details here about both methods, if anyone is really interested (I doubt it). From a spreadsheet, but it’s also not a spreadsheet:
https://live.staticflickr.com/7891/45991029004_df99d89bc1_o.png
Enjoy, or don't. I don't care. Cheers.
A Tinseth shortcut. I love it. Thanks for sharing!
My only problem with Tinseth is that I find it comes up short when calculating beers with more complex hop schedules. It seems to underestimate those mid and late additions. At least in my beers, on my equipment, to my taste buds.
Cheers!
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2020
- Messages
- 101
- Reaction score
- 119
- Points
- 43
FWIW I used mIBU to calculate the hops on a Dunkleweizen I brewed two days ago. By anyone else's scale the IBUs would be off the scale, but by the mIBU scale they were lower middle range. I'll do d out what I think I. A few weeks.
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2012
- Messages
- 8,798
- Reaction score
- 6,961
- Points
- 113
I've said this before, Ibu's are relative not actual, they are relative to your water, your minerals and everything you add to your mash and boil also relative to your pallet, you cannot measure and state ibus extatically to everyone, that's why this site is scalable to anyone's ibu levels
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2012
- Messages
- 10,254
- Reaction score
- 8,365
- Points
- 113
Agreed, the best we can do is estimate IBUs. The new formula may be a better estimator, it may not, and is an increase in complexity worth it? Remains to be seen.
U.S. gallon, U.S. dry gallon, or Imperial gallon?
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2021
- Messages
- 3,829
- Reaction score
- 5,736
- Points
- 113
No i mean three different liquid gallons, all here.U.S. gallon, U.S. dry gallon, or Imperial gallon?
I like my gallons wet!U.S. gallon, U.S. dry gallon, or Imperial gallon?
An IBU is an actual, empirical number determined by measuring the amount of isomerized alpha acids in the wort. Bitterness is absolutely subjective, and is affected by many factors, like late boil hopping, whirlpool additions, dry hopping, etc. but as far as IBU's go, that is a number that can be theoretically calculated or empirically measured using equipment.
Maybe a useful analogy would be the Scoville scale for capsaicin in hot peppers. A jalapeño may only be 2,500 on the Scoville scale, but if you're accustomed to spicy foods that pepper is going to have a significantly lessened effect on your palate than someone who is sensitive to spicy foods or has little to no experience with spicy foods. The actual Scoville number can be measured, but it's affect on the consumer will vary from person to person.
And then of course on the homebrewing scale IBU's are typically only calculated and never measured with equipment, which adds another layer of complexity to the problem. If we all had affordable access to the equipment to measure our beer then we would have a much better idea where the bitterness in our beer was coming from.
Maybe a useful analogy would be the Scoville scale for capsaicin in hot peppers. A jalapeño may only be 2,500 on the Scoville scale, but if you're accustomed to spicy foods that pepper is going to have a significantly lessened effect on your palate than someone who is sensitive to spicy foods or has little to no experience with spicy foods. The actual Scoville number can be measured, but it's affect on the consumer will vary from person to person.
And then of course on the homebrewing scale IBU's are typically only calculated and never measured with equipment, which adds another layer of complexity to the problem. If we all had affordable access to the equipment to measure our beer then we would have a much better idea where the bitterness in our beer was coming from.
