Glacial Gumballhead?

I don't think I've ever mashed above 155 deliberately. I think by this point I start critiquing the recipe instead of the mash temp. Jamil Z. did a segment on modifying recipes to make big beer into small beers (session beers) and vice versa. I think he recommended a very high mash temp at some point. Maybe it will work out for you.

I think APAs and IPAs are among the most arguable styles. Lots of people like them thinner and overly hoppier than I do. If you end up going down that road, and you end up with something that doesn't have a lot of malt, or seems thin, I think it helps to dryhop the shit out of the beer. Maybe it's that extra head retention, and maybe it's just that push over the edge in the other direction. I've noticed when this happens I have like a 1:1 GU:BU ratio and not enough dry hop additions.

Good luck!

 

For the original recipe you posted, your FG will be about 1.008, ABV ~ 4.8%.

If you were to mash the same recipe at 158, your FG would be 1.011, ABV ~ 4.4%.

If you were to double the Carapils and mash at 158, your FG would still be at 1.011, ABV ~ 4.4%. But, I'd expect you'd have just a little more mouthfeel and retention.

The sweetness you will get from upping mash temp will not be same sweetness you get from adding Cara-malt. If you are trying to increase body without appreciably increasing sweetness, I think it's ok to up the mash temp.

Personally, for a session IPA, I wouldn't mind the dryness. But, to each his own...!

 

You take your OG and multiply it by your attenuation rate of your yeast. Subtract this number from your OG.

Say you have a 1.050 beer. You have 50 points of sugar available (per gallon). If you use a yeast that has a 75% attenuation rate then you'll ferment out 50x0.75 of your gravity. 50x0.75= 37.5 points of gravity that the yeast will eat. You subtract that from your OG
50-37.5=12.5
(1.050) to get 12.5 remaining gravity points, or 1.0125 FG

That's my first time explaining that on here. It's a bit sloppy. Just because it makes sense to me.... Write back if I missed something.

 

US 05 should get you there, and maybe a little drier.

 

I don't use published yeast strain attenuation values to estimate FG. These numbers are not at all accurate. They don't account for fermentability of the various grains used nor do they account for changes in fermentability as a function of mash temp.

I now use published historical data from Kai's work, and some home made correlations. I have found I can estimate FG +/- 2 points as a function only of grain bill, mash temp, and efficiency. This model accounts for a wide range of yeast strains, although does not account for very poor or very high attenuators (eg 3711.)

BM me with your email and I'd be happy to forward the spreadsheet along.

 

Is your model yeast strain specific? Or does it use the 'average' attenuation numbers for each strain and adjust from there (based on grain bill, mash temp)? Or does it ignore the strain?

Edit: Also, how does efficiency, per se, affect attenuation %?

 

It is not yeast strain specific, as Kai's was not (his experiment used bread yeasts, which he stated "attenuated similar to other ale yeasts.") Most published values are around 75%, so the effects of strain to strain variation are usually minor, save for a few English strains (low) as well as saison (high). Although, I am thinking I could probably account for this if I multiply my calculated attenuation % by a correction factor of published value over 75%.

The efficiency only matters as far as I use it to first calculate OG. The FG will depend upon the OG. The attenuation % itself will not.

 

That's how I would go about it (start with a published or otherwise well know Average, and adjust from there based on mash temp and grain types). I mean, that's how I would do it if I weren't too lazy to build a model. So I basically swag it in my head. But if you take it to that next level, I'd love a copy of your sheet to append into my own brewing spreadsheet.