"Hoppiness" = Bitterness? (DIPA's)

Jealous I've never had any older than 2yr, but it was noticeably different; definitely getting sweeter and smoother. I'd like to get a vertical going, but for some reason, I can never make the stuff last.. Fortunately for me, I prefer it fresh. Cheers!

 

Also, I don't know if this was mentioned, in order to get the abv up, more malts need to be added to make more fermentables. Correct me if I am wrong, but they may seem sweeter because in order to get the abv up, you need to add them, thus making it, sometimes, sweeter.

 

I tried hoptimonium at the beer camp. wasnt my favorite. Im a big IPA guy and i find that a lot of DIPA beers dont have the same balance because of the boost of malt for the alcohol content. A good local DIPA for you to try is Banded Horn Bineary. Pretty similar to there Veridian IPA but still very good.

 

Easy question for a home brewer.

Hops introduced during the boil (flavoring/aromatic) are where bitterness come from. Dry hops (added during fermentation, or further down the road), add "hop flavor" without bitterness.

DIPA/Imperial are a challenge for the brewer because the have to balance out the additional malt/alcohol with hops (which can be done a variety of ways). That's where the art comes in.

 

I find that I like DIPAs more than most IPAs because of the malt/hop balance

 

Weird, I bought and consumed Hoptimum reasonably fresh about 2 months ago, and as I recall it was pretty damn hoppy, quite bitter, and unfortunately, noticeably hot. Like most DIPAs, Hoptimum does have a medium-full-heavy body, usually with noticeable malt sweetness to balance out the ludicrous amount of hopping.

While not my favorite example of the style (mostly due to the alcohol presence), Hoptimum is indeed a decent hop blast. I can't help but feel you got an old bottle or something happened to the beer prior to consumption.

Also, pretty much everyone commenting on the relationship between IBUs (more accurately, perceptible bitterness) and malt sweetness is on the money. Often, single IPA's will be perceived as hoppier and more bitter because they don't have nearly as heavy a malt backbone.

 

Being a home brewer, agree with @TrojanRB, it's a delicate balance between a malt bill and hop additions, it's all chemistry - take the same recipe ingredients and additions, boil them at two different times, it will make a difference and not the same beer in the end. One of the first D-IPA's is Pliny the Elder and when it's fresh (especially at / from the source), it's not cloying or sweet, another one that comes to mind is Pure Hoppiness from Alpine. Freshness/distribution is also a factor and preaching to the choir.

 

The OP's post is the exact reason why I think we need to have a style designation between Imperial IPA's and Double IPA's, rather than lumping them into one big category.

Imperial implies a thicker, heavier malt base (since the term essentially was adopted from the first imperial beer, the RIS), while double could imply the massive, dryer hop bombs.

Think 90 minute vs. Dirtwolf. 90 minute is a heavy, syrupy malt base (although still very hoppy), while DW is a dryer, in your face hop explosion.

 

I don't think you can easily seperate the two. 90 minute comes in at 9.0% alcohol, and Dirtwolf is 8.7...so basically the same from an ABV perspective.

In my mind, the difference between a single IPA and a double/imperial is "more malt", which leads to higher alcohol levels, which necessitates more balancing hops. And the differences between the beers you chose may not be in the quantity of the ingredients, but instead in their execution.

I really don't think there is a fundamental difference between DIPA/Triple IPA/Imperial....it's just nomenclature