I am fairly new to making beer and I have a question about beer styles.
What makes the different styles what they are? For example if you do a
search for Belgium Trippel to will find hundreds of recipes with a large
variance in ingredients. What is it that makes it a Trippel? I find this for
every style I have come across. Is there a site out there that will clarify
this. I have the Brewers Association document on Beer Styles but it is
pretty vague in this respect. I find this with all of the sites and
documents I have come across. someone enlighten me or please point me in the
right direction.



--
"The speed of light is faster than the speed of sound. This explains why
some people appear to be bright until they open their mouth."

Walter Venables <wvenables@charter.net> wrote:
[color=blue]
> I am fairly new to making beer and I have a question about
> beer styles. What makes the different styles what they are?
> .....[/color]

Beer styles are defined at
[url]http://www.bjcp.org/styles04[/url]

The Belgian Tripel is defined at
[url]http://www.bjcp.org/styles04/Category18.html#style18C[/url]

If I were going through the efforts to make a Belgian
Tripel, I would go further and make a Belgian Dark Strong
Ale - specifically a Chimay Grande Reserve clone.
[url]http://www.bjcp.org/styles04/Category18.html#style18E[/url]

Dick

[BierNewbie]

Get the book "Designing Great Beers" by Ray Daniels. It's a good place to start.

Trippels are pretty easy. Use a good Belgian yeast strain and all pale
malts. Tripples are named (though there is some debate) because they
are generally triple the strength of a more normal beer.

Use all 2 row, or pale malt extract. Shoot for about 1.080-90, but dont
do that will all malt. Shoot for about 1.050 with malt and add corn
sugar to the boil to boost the gravity. Use promash to do the
calculations...or email me with your desired batch size and I'll do it
for you. The corn sugar will make a drier beer.

Use plenty of oxygen before you pitch the yeast for a vigorous ferment
and allow it to ferment warm...around 80 or so. This will highlight the
phenolics and esthers of the belgian yeast strain. I prefer Wyeast
3944.


Walter Venables wrote:[color=blue]
> I am fairly new to making beer and I have a question about beer styles.
> What makes the different styles what they are? For example if you do a
> search for Belgium Trippel to will find hundreds of recipes with a large
> variance in ingredients. What is it that makes it a Trippel? I find this for
> every style I have come across. Is there a site out there that will clarify
> this. I have the Brewers Association document on Beer Styles but it is
> pretty vague in this respect. I find this with all of the sites and
> documents I have come across. someone enlighten me or please point me in the
> right direction.
>
>
>
> --
> "The speed of light is faster than the speed of sound. This explains why
> some people appear to be bright until they open their mouth."[/color]

"Dick Adams" <rdadams@smart.net> wrote in message
news:12meeasf7kn0t02@corp.supernews.com...
[color=blue]
> Beer styles are defined at
> [url]http://www.bjcp.org/styles04[/url]
>
> The Belgian Tripel is defined at
> [url]http://www.bjcp.org/styles04/Category18.html#style18C[/url][/color]

Only for the purposes of American brewing companies. The Belgians would be
highly unlikely to agree with that definition.

-Steve

"Walter Venables" <wvenables@charter.net> wrote in message
news:9BG9h.215$Th4.172@newsfe07.lga...
[color=blue]
>I am fairly new to making beer and I have a question about beer styles.
> What makes the different styles what they are?[/color]

The character of the resulting beer. And, no joke, whatever the brewer calls
it, within reason. It's like asking what makes French bread what it is?
[color=blue]
> For example if you do a
> search for Belgium Trippel to will find hundreds of recipes with a large
> variance in ingredients. What is it that makes it a Trippel?[/color]

You've chosen a particularly problematic example. There is no definition of
tripel, and historically there was no choesive style. The name was a simple
indicator of strength, reflecting the older brewing technique of pulling
multiple worts from the same mash. If, for example, three worts would be
pulled, the first (and therefore strongest) would be called tripel.

In modern times, it tends to follow the example set by Westmalle and their
tripel. But historically (and IIRC there are some extant modern Belgian
examples) a tripel didn't have to be light-colored, relatively dry and
having a light character for its alcohol content due to the use of a
significant portion of sugar in the boil.
[color=blue]
> I find this for
> every style I have come across.[/color]

That's because outside of competitions, some homebrewers, and some
excessively anal beer geeks, nobody is terribly concerned with nailing down
styles with absolute precision. Take porter and stout: in general, the only
things the names will tell you is to expect a dark beer with varying degrees
of roast character, and that within the same brewery the stout is likely to
be the stronger of the two. But beyond that, whatever the brewer decides to
call it is what it is.

That's not to say that the broad styles don't have meaning: an IPA that
tasted like a doppelbock would be a crap IPA. But trying to make a firm
distinction between an IPA and a pale ale is like trying to decide how many
angels can dance on the head of a pin.
[color=blue]
> someone enlighten me or please point me in the
> right direction.[/color]

Here's the best enlightenment I can give you: brew beer you like to drink
and that tastes good to you. That's far more important, and rewarding, than
trying to shoehorn it into what are in many cases totally arbitrary style
definitions.

-Steve

"Steve Jackson" <see.headers@figureitout.com> wrote in message
news:Qkaah.13080$w37.9623@trnddc08...[color=blue]
> "Dick Adams" <rdadams@smart.net> wrote in message
> news:12meeasf7kn0t02@corp.supernews.com...
>[color=green]
>> Beer styles are defined at
>> [url]http://www.bjcp.org/styles04[/url]
>>
>> The Belgian Tripel is defined at
>> [url]http://www.bjcp.org/styles04/Category18.html#style18C[/url][/color]
>
> Only for the purposes of American brewing companies. The Belgians would be
> highly unlikely to agree with that definition.[/color]

I've heard the same thing. The Belgians are blessed with such good yeast
that they don't subscribe to any one description for a particular beer
style. They just make whatever tastes good (which is darn near everything).

--
Dave
"Fill your cup with whatever bitter brew you're drinking." -- Brad Paisley

"Steve Jackson" <see.headers@figureitout.com> wrote in message
news:braah.13135$w37.956@trnddc08...[color=blue]
>
> That's because outside of competitions, some homebrewers, and some
> excessively anal beer geeks, nobody is terribly concerned with nailing
> down styles with absolute precision.[/color]

Hey, a few of us resemble that remark. Well, I don't know about
"excessively", but a little anal perhaps. And for good reason, I think.
[color=blue]
> Take porter and stout: in general, the only things the names will tell you
> is to expect a dark beer with varying degrees of roast character, and that
> within the same brewery the stout is likely to be the stronger of the two.
> But beyond that, whatever the brewer decides to call it is what it is.[/color]

I agree with you on the porter vs. stout thing. However, I can call a
feather "macaroni" and it still doesn't make it macaroni to anyone but
myself.
[color=blue]
> That's not to say that the broad styles don't have meaning: an IPA that
> tasted like a doppelbock would be a crap IPA. But trying to make a firm
> distinction between an IPA and a pale ale is like trying to decide how
> many angels can dance on the head of a pin.[/color]

Ha! You must be talking about McEwan's IPA. Nothing like an IPA, nothing
like it at all, English or otherwise. Very little hops to speak of. But
still a splendid beer.
[color=blue]
> Here's the best enlightenment I can give you: brew beer you like to drink
> and that tastes good to you. That's far more important, and rewarding,
> than trying to shoehorn it into what are in many cases totally arbitrary
> style definitions.[/color]

I tend to agree with you, that if it tastes good to you, then it is good,
for you. However, I do think there is a good reason for specific style
guidelines. The main reason for categorization of beers is so you can tell
an outsider with confidence, before they try it, "This is an English IPA,"
where if they're knowledgeable at all about beer, they're expecting a
certain thing... an elevated degree of floral English hops balanced by
caramel malt or whatever. If you instead handed them an American IPA, with
a blast of grapefruity, resiny hop flavor and aroma, that just ain't right.
There is a huge difference between the two, and lumping it all together and
just calling it "IPA", or even "good beer", is not fair to the beer
enthusiast. We need these definitions so we have a general sense of what
we're getting. And Lord knows, when you're spending, for example, $8,
whether it be for a 6-pack or even a single bottle of beer (and occasionally
even more than that), it sure would be nice to have a general idea in
advance of whether you'd like it or not.

And, if you're a homebrewer craving a little bit of objective feedback and
perhaps the occasional ribbon, I think you deserve to know if your beer is
good or bad. We can all make decent beer that makes ourselves happy. But
it is another thing to make a brew that someone else agrees is really good.
It just makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside. We all need a little bit
of recognition from time to time. Some of us get that feeling in other
ways, outside of brewing. Likewise, for some of us, brewing is a
significant part of our lives and it's nice to get some recognition that
we're not wasting our time giving beer away to friends, who perhaps secretly
think it tastes like crap. I would like to know if my beer tastes terrible,
and how to improve it for next time. Beer styles provide a basis of
comparison for brewers and judges alike. It's an unavoidable means of
comparison for people craving just the slightest bit of recognition. Myself
included. That's my thought on it.

--
Dave
"Fill your cup with whatever bitter brew you're drinking." -- Brad Paisley

On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 06:18:24 GMT, <see.headers@figureitout.com> wrote:[color=blue]
> "Dick Adams" <rdadams@smart.net> wrote in message
> news:12meeasf7kn0t02@corp.supernews.com...
>[color=green]
>> Beer styles are defined at
>> [url]http://www.bjcp.org/styles04[/url]
>>
>> The Belgian Tripel is defined at
>> [url]http://www.bjcp.org/styles04/Category18.html#style18C[/url][/color]
>
> Only for the purposes of American brewing companies. The Belgians would be
> highly unlikely to agree with that definition.[/color]

The only people who really pay attention to the BJCP styles are homebrewers
(even then, not all of them). Most commercial brewers, American or not, tend
to pretty much ignore the style definitions and call their beer whatever they
want to.


John.

John 'Shaggy' Kolesar <spam@shagg.net> wrote:[color=blue]
>Most commercial brewers, American or not, tend to pretty much ignore the
>style definitions and call their beer whatever they want to.[/color]

I'd disagree with that. Brewers in general label their
beers in a way that will not confuse their customers. And
while they may not be as limited as judges in a homebrew
competition, the main way they do that is to use stylistic
designations. For instance, what style if Rogue's Shakespear
Stout? Bigfoot Barleywine-style Ale? New Begium Trippel?
Now, I'm sure you can come up with a lot of examples of
beer that doesn't have a stylistic designation, but that
doesn't mean brewers go at it completely at random.
--
Joel Plutchak

"Things just fall apart." - Now They'll Sleep (Belly)