# 92 % Efficiency



## MattC (10/10/10)

Hi all, My brewhouse efficiency has been running at a constant 75%, but not today!!, Today 92%???

Im brewing a beer ATM with about 40% wheat, I milled the wheat quite fine in an attempt to enhance the cloudiness of the final product. I also milled the barley slightly finer than i usually do. I was expecting a slightly higher efficiency becuase of this, however an increase of 17% was not what I was expecting. 

I have checked it 3 times and corrected for temp etc etc, so I havnt made a mistake. So rather than keep the beer as is (which would be approx. 1.059 instead of the targeted 1.048) i have decided to dilute the wort in the boiler with 6 litres of water and adjust my hop additions to maintain hop character and IBU's. This acording to my calcs should bring the OG down to 1.050. I would rather finish higher and add more sanitised water, instead of finishing lower and having to add LDM or drink a weaker beer.

Cheers


----------



## Nick JD (10/10/10)

Welcome to the world of finely milled grain!


----------



## MattC (10/10/10)

Nick JD said:


> Welcome to the world of finely milled grain!



You must be of the BIAB clan nick?


----------



## Swinging Beef (10/10/10)

Tea


----------



## Nick JD (10/10/10)

Swinging Beef said:


> Tea



If you are refering to the tannins myth - try it. It's a myth. 

For starters get a bunch of halved grain husks and steep them in 70C for an hour water and taste it. Now finely mill those husks and taste it again. 

What? The tannins leach out through undamaged cells as quickly as damaged ones? Well I never - here was I thinking that I'd get no tannins in my tea (or my wine) unless I pulverised.

MYTH. BUSTED. Still perpetuated by those who simply can't mill finely because of their gear.


----------



## MattC (10/10/10)

Swinging Beef said:


> Tea



Apart from about 750g of wheat which i milled very fine, the remainder was not super fine, but I what I would call a med-fine crush. What's your thoughts on Tannin extraction?

Cheers


----------



## MHB (10/10/10)

To get a brewhouse yield in the 90's just means you probably did EVERYTHING right (assuming the beer is still good). Milling is one part of the equation, the mineral content; temperature of the mash, pH, lautering temperature and speed of lautering are all just as important.

As to the idea that fine grinds and high efficiency extraction will result in tannin extraction, well that's just rubbish. There are several breweries in Australia using mash filters, the grist is hammer milled to talc; brewhouse yields around 100% are expected from these systems. Larger commercial breweries operate on BhY's well into the 90's. Tannin extraction is more related to temperature, pH and wort water chemistry.

Importantly with a very fine grist if you don't get everything else right you will exacerbate all the potential problems - including tannin extraction.
As an exercise I once achieved 102% BhY; it was one of the most painful 10 hours of my life and the beer wasn't all that good. Much easier to accept a lower yield (for me 80% is typical) and enjoy the brewing knowing your making beer your happy with.

Congratulations 90+% is an achievement and a credit to the brewer.
Reminds me of when I was starting Archery, about the 8th arrow I let fly on the 60 meter range smack in the X, the coach said " Remember exactly what you did now do it again", not having a shot, just look long and hard at what you achieved and what you can learn from that brew.

MHB


----------



## Guest Lurker (10/10/10)

In my experience a sudden 17% increase in efficiency is almost always not related to the crush or the minerals or the pH or the lautering, but to mis-weighing the grain.


----------



## Batz (10/10/10)

Guest Lurker said:


> In my experience a sudden 17% increase in efficiency is almost always not related to the crush or the minerals or the pH or the lautering, but to mis-weighing the grain.




:lol: A couple of us thought it but he said it.

Batz


----------



## MHB (10/10/10)

Its a very good point I keep assuming people are competent I know makes an ass out of...
Probably the first place to look

MHB


----------



## MattC (10/10/10)

Gee thanks for the vote of confidence fellas!!!!

To be truthful, i thought that myself first, however I have become quite pedantic with my grain measurements of late, so Im pretty confident that I got that much correct!! If I had put in too much grain, one would assume it would take about 1 extra kg of grain to reach the increase of 17% which would mean an increase in grain absorption of 1L. This didnt happen. The pre boil volume was spot on.

Oh I also forgot to mention that it was my first attempt at a double infusion. Protein rest @ 50C for 30 min, Sacc @ 65 C for 40 min, and mash out @ 75 C for 10 min.
So I will put the eff increase down to a variety of variables, one of which was not, incorrect grain weighing. But thanks for the input. 

Cheers


----------



## Nick JD (10/10/10)

MattC said:


> Gee thanks for the vote of confidence fellas!!!!



I can get in the 90% range every damn time if I can be arsed. I settle for 75-80% just squeezing the bag - no sparge. 65% is shit efficiency.


----------



## MHB (10/10/10)

Well if you have put in the extra work then good, you deserve the improved yield.

It's not that hard to get better yields but as a pursuit in its own right, the results can be mixed. At some point there are diminishing returns for the extra time and effort, often brewers feel that their beer is suffering. For me getting to know your system, experimenting with your ingredients and processes are what it's all about.

A happy median where you enjoy the brewing process and the beer is the place to be.

MHB


----------



## potof4x (10/10/10)

I have just had the opposite experience. After ussng my three roller mill for the 1st tine and doing a superfine fine crush for BIAB, look like coming in for about 65 % efficiency, after being about 75%. Seems to be a lot of compacted grist in the bottom of my bag, and also grain seems to have absorbed less liqiud, throwing volume and gravity out. 
Will try sparge in a bucket and less total water next batch and see what happens


----------



## Nick JD (10/10/10)

MHB said:


> A happy median where you enjoy the brewing process and the beer is the place to be.



Tis true. I've used a shop-milled batch and changed no other part of my process and I lost 12% efficiency - I'd probably need to run it through one more time to be completely sure, but in my case the fine ground malt = at least 10% free efficiency. 

And as you've said, I use this 10% so I don't have to do any sparging fluff. :icon_cheers:


----------



## bradsbrew (10/10/10)

I changed the gap size on the Marga and picked up 10% and all is good. I uped the sparge temp and picked up astringency big time.


----------



## Acasta (10/10/10)

How hot should you sparge?


----------



## mxd (10/10/10)

my efficiency is 67 to 70, I think I will buy cracked grain for a "standard" brew to see if that helps, then I know what to start fixing.


----------



## beerbog (10/10/10)

Nick JD said:


> Tis true. I've used a shop-milled batch and changed no other part of my process and I lost 12% efficiency - I'd probably need to run it through one more time to be completely sure, but in my case the fine ground malt = at least 10% free efficiency.
> 
> And as you've said, I use this 10% so I don't have to do any sparging fluff. :icon_cheers:




Nick, what gap are you milling with? I've just got an MM2 from Monster and have set the gap to 0.040". Yet to use it in anger though. Only done a test run. I am BIAB also. :beerbang:


----------



## Banshee (10/10/10)

Acasta said:


> How hot should you sparge?


About the 76c is good.


----------



## bradsbrew (10/10/10)

Gibbo1 said:


> Nick, what gap are you milling with? I've just got an MM2 from Monster and have set the gap to 0.040". Yet to use it in anger though. Only done a test run. I am BIAB also. :beerbang:



I'd like to know the gap of a coffee grinder too.


----------



## marksfish (10/10/10)

bradsbrew said:


> I'd like to know the gap of a coffee grinder too.



what brand is the grinder?


----------



## MattC (16/10/10)

Second brew using double infusion 30min @ 50C / 40min @65 C / 10min @ 75C.

Triple checked grain amounts...

Crushed grain a little finer than usual again...

and guess what??

92% efficiency again.


----------



## razz (17/10/10)

Well done MattC, when I tried a similar step mash my eff jumped about 7-8 %.


----------



## yardy (17/10/10)

Swinging Beef said:


> Tea






Nick JD said:


> If you are refering to the tannins myth - try it. It's a myth.
> 
> For starters get a bunch of halved grain husks and steep them in 70C for an hour water and taste it. Now finely mill those husks and taste it again.
> 
> ...





http://itunes.apple.com/au/podcast/the-bn-...ong/id288838352

check out podcast #26


----------



## Nick JD (17/10/10)

After about 5 minutes they were still talking crap so I hit stop. 

What did they say when they stopped verbally mastebating?


----------



## felten (17/10/10)

Probably something useful, you should take notes.


----------



## Nick JD (17/10/10)

felten said:


> Probably something useful, you should take notes.



Nah - can't be fucked. My beer doesn't taste like tannins. 

If Yardy wants to prove a point he can do the work, or at least let me know _when _the Yanks are actually going to start talking about what he was mentioning, if indeed he was mentioning anything at all, just making me listen to guys talk about advertising. 

Tell me where they mention what you want me to hear them mention or piss off.


----------



## gregs (17/10/10)

Nick JD said:


> After about 5 minutes they were still talking crap so I hit stop.
> 
> What did they say when they stopped verbally mastebating?



The only one masturbating here is you, into your puny brew pot. :lol:


----------



## Guysmiley54 (17/10/10)

gregs said:


> The only one masturbating here is you, into your puny brew pot. :lol:



Ew :icon_vomit:

I'm trying to drink a beer here, I nearly had a spit take when I read that!!


----------



## Nick JD (17/10/10)

gregs said:


> The only one masturbating here is you, into your puny brew pot. :lol:



If humour was measured like cocks, you'd be both a small male chicken and a little cock.


----------



## gregs (18/10/10)

Nick JD said:


> If humour was measured like cocks, you'd be both a small male chicken and a little cock.



Humour is measured every time you open your mouth. :lol:


----------



## MHB (18/10/10)

Back to the old tricks I see Nick, making an ambit claim, present spurious evidence (bullshit) in support then squeal like a stuck pig when people don't agree with you.
There is such a thing as Tannin it can be extracted into a wort, and it won't improve the beer. Some people here want to understand the process so they can control it; maybe they are more interested in the quality of their beer than the ease of production or the price.
You crapping on about how it can't, especially when the little experiment you propose as "evidence" doesn't address the parameters where tannin extraction becomes an issue, proves nothing and helps nobody.
Time to put it away and do up your fly.

MHB


----------



## argon (18/10/10)

Nick JD said:


> Nah - can't be fucked. My beer doesn't taste like tannins.
> 
> If Yardy wants to prove a point he can do the work, or at least let me know _when _the Yanks are actually going to start talking about what he was mentioning, if indeed he was mentioning anything at all, just making me listen to guys talk about advertising.
> 
> Tell me where they mention what you want me to hear them mention or piss off.



Listen from around 13.07 talks about how higher efficiency may effect beer quality. 
They talk about ;
- extracting more solutes out of the grain other than the sugars
- efficiencies around 70 - 80% giving cleaner and fuller bodied beer

Essentially it's not about crush , rather than over sparging / poor lautering

For a commercial example of this also look into Fuller's Partigyle brewing. They do the ESB as first runnings for full body rich beer and the London Pride as second runnings for a paler and sharper style.



Nick JD said:


> If sparging excessively extracts tannins I haven't noticed, but I think my higher efficiency comes through over-milled grain, not mashouts and crazysparging.


----------



## Howlingdog (18/10/10)

Nobody has asked the OP what software he is using and what efficiency he has dialed into the system for his recipe formulation. I use Promash and after many batches for normal gravity beers set the program efficiency at 80%. Usual batches are in the vicinity of 96 - 102% when final figures for brew length and OG into the FV are input into the Efficiency module.

Batch 477 yesterday showed spot on 100% that is my 80% was achieved as anticipated.

Hope this will help the discussion 

HD


----------



## mxd (18/10/10)

I just did a boh pils, I either had 46% (normally 68%) efficiency  or put in 7 kg of grain instead of 9kg, Hopefully it's the later as I can make sure I measure correctly if it's the first then I really need to film every thing I do 

I didn't add any malt to the boil, I thought I would see what it was like, it could be a "great" mid strength  or more likely crap.


----------



## potof4x (18/10/10)

I have been using brewmate, and over the last 4 batches have realised that the brew day calculator is giving spurious results. 
Particularly when upping the_ losses to trub and chiller_, the_ preboil volume _ increases without a corresponding decrease in the _preboil gravity_.
This caused me to think I was not getting good extraction - I was grinding grain to allow for 70% efficiency and not getting it.
Bit more experience and tinkering with the software, showed the last couple of batches to be over 80%. 

I also had a major hole in my procedure at the same time, I was not mixing the much finer mash enough at mash in, leaving big lumps and also not getting accurate temp readings, I only figured this mistake when adding a seperate cereal mash to the main mash trying to make BribieGs malt liquor. 

I think these couple of crucial technique mistakes would have a biggger effect on my beer than the 5 - 10% efficiency difference due to the program I was using.


----------



## MattC (18/10/10)

HowlingDog said:


> Nobody has asked the OP what software he is using and what efficiency he has dialed into the system for his recipe formulation.
> HD



I use Beersmith and have 75% as my default efficiency. As mentioned I have tried a finer crush and a different mash schedule. I batch sparge at 75C. Will scrutinise these latest 2 beers heavily when they are ready to try and detect any hint of tannins.

Thanks all for your input. I havnt had a chance to listen to that podcast but will surely do so when i can.

Cheers


----------



## Nick JD (18/10/10)

argon said:


> Essentially it's not about crush , rather than over sparging / poor lautering



Thanks Argon.


----------



## yardy (18/10/10)

Nick JD said:


> Nah - can't be fucked. My beer doesn't taste like tannins.
> 
> If Yardy wants to prove a point he can do the work, or at least let me know _when _the Yanks are actually going to start talking about what he was mentioning, if indeed he was mentioning anything at all, just making me listen to guys talk about advertising.
> 
> *Tell me where they mention what you want me to hear them mention* or piss off.






http://itunes.apple.com/au/podcast/the-bn-...ong/id288838352

podcast 18, stop flapping your gums long enough to listen and learn.


----------



## Nick JD (18/10/10)

yardy said:


> http://itunes.apple.com/au/podcast/the-bn-...ong/id288838352
> 
> podcast 18, stop flapping your gums long enough to listen and learn.



You still haven't even told me what you want me to learn - sorry, but I don't listen to shit just because someone tells me to unless they tell me what kind of shit it is.

Anyway, here's a youtube video I think you need to see about fine crushing in brewing and tannins.


----------



## MHB (18/10/10)

Nick JD said:


> If you are refering to the tannins myth - try it. It's a myth.
> 
> For starters get a bunch of halved grain husks and steep them in 70C for an hour water and taste it. Now finely mill those husks and taste it again.
> 
> ...


First mention of tannin in this thread is by YOU, no one else seems to be confused about the subject. It's been clearly said by several posters that fine grinding isn't the issue, the main causes are over sparging and sparging too hot (other factors contribute).
Please try reading first, try to understand the discussion then post if you don't understand (often the case apparently) or have something useful to contribute (vanishingly small chance).

Once more for the slow ones Tannin isn't a myth, milling fine isn't the issue, I'm dam sure I have a better mill than any you've ever used, just because I can doesn't mean I want or need to reduce my malt to dust, different systems need different crushes.

MHB


----------



## yardy (19/10/10)

Nick JD said:


> You still haven't even told me what you want me to learn - sorry, but I don't listen to shit just because someone tells me to unless they tell me what kind of shit it is.




http://itunes.apple.com/au/podcast/the-bn-...ong/id288838352


podcast 18, somewhere in there is a little rant about congress mashing and the drawbacks of fine milling etc, go to your phone-booth, change back into your street clothes (undies on the inside) and have a listen, and then listen to the Efficiency podcast also, # 26 i believe.


----------



## Thirsty Boy (19/10/10)

All this stuff comes with unstated "conditions" and people forget about them when they quote stuff.

1st - this is applicable almost exclusively to continuous/fly sparge systems. If you batch sparge, no sparge, BIAB and you aren't doing anything truly outlandish, this discussion simply is not about you or your brewing.

2nd - the underlying assumption in saying something to the effect of "high efficiency will cause tannin extraction or beers of less quality" is that your brewery is crappy.

The truth is, that (and MHB said this earlier) if you have a continuous sparge system, you get your mash right, you get your sparge right and you have a good mash tun with good fluid dynamics then you _should_ be getting efficiencies into your kettle, on the order of 90%+ Your efficiency is high because you are doing everything right.

You _should_ get your pre-boil volume, your final runnings pH _should_ be less than 6ish, your final runnings gravity _should_ be on or about 1.005-1.010. And without getting to the point in your sparge where you over extract the grain and start getting unacceptable levels of tannin or anything else - you _should_ get an extraction efficiency the order of 90%.

If you have on the other hand, a less than great lauter tun - then you will probably be getting channeling, some parts of your grain bed will be being under sparged, others over sparged... The under sparged areas mean your efficiency will be poor, the oversparged areas mean that in those areas.. you probably are over extracting the grain and pulling tannins.

So if you build a system, you stick within the brewing norms, you make sure you don't sparge past a runnings pH of about 6 and the efficiency that pops out is in the 90s... Well done, you've built a great system and you know how to brew. There will simply not be quality issues attached to your high efficiency. Trying to lower your efficiency (and i'm not even sure how you would go about doing that??) will achieve nothing more than willfully wasting good fermentables.

If your system gets 75% - there's are signal for you that it isn't working properly. You aren't magically sticking to the limits suggested by the brewing gurus from afar... You've just built a crappy mash tun, that's all. If you then try to flog that mash tun into a high efficiency by an intensive sparge...then what's going to happen is that you will very likely make crappy beer with your crappy mash tun.

Your system efficiency is what it is... As long as you are actually bothering to make sure you aren't oversparging.... Then, well, you aren't and you wont have any of the quality issues associated with it. I find the assumption that high efficiency means you must be oversparging to be a little bit rude as well as a little bit bullshit.


----------



## argon (19/10/10)

Couldnt have been better said I reckon What I was getting from listening to the JZ podcasts was that these high efficiencies were leading to higher tannin extraction. This was all a bit perplexing to me, seeing that commercially the aim is to get high efficiencies for the sake of economics. 

JZs blanket statement of purposefully aiming for the 70s was based on flavour just never sat right.

I think youre spot on with explaining MT design and lautering... thanks for clearing this up... at least for me anyway. :icon_cheers:


----------



## speedie (7/11/10)

this topic has been discussed in other sites thought that this may be good reading for your digestion
given that grain rated @ even 80% yeild could produce 92% seems Mathematically improbable


http://www.hbd.org/uchima/tech/efficiency.html

speedie


----------



## MHB (7/11/10)

speedie
This has been discussed to death; but once more for those incapable or unwilling to use the search function.
Yield is compared to the result of a congress mash, that's the universally accepted way to test the extract potential malt. 100% means you are getting the same yield as the test did. It is possible (not even all that hard really) to get over 100%.

MHB
Congress MashView attachment Congress_Mash.PDF


----------



## warra48 (7/11/10)

Good thread, useful information, particularly the posts by MHB and Thirsty Boy.

MHB's post explains how I got 101% into the kettle for my last brew, a generic Pils.
I regularly get over 90% without trying to do anything out of the ordinary.
My method is to batch sparge, and I can't say I've ever noticed tannins in my brews.
I'm a dedicated tea drinker and a fan of red wines, so I'm well aware of what tannins taste and feel like.


----------



## speedie (7/11/10)

If 100% extract is achievable in chemist labs how do you propose too better that with amateur equipment?


----------



## warra48 (7/11/10)

speedie said:


> If 100% extract is achievable in chemist labs how do you propose too better that with amateur equipment?



I don't.

I don't claim to do that.

As MHB said, what we measure is the % of our yield compared to the laboratory test results. 
The test results are how the maltster describe the potential of their varying batches for real world conditions. 
No one said, nor can they say, the test results must equal 100% of the absolute total sugar extraction from the grains.

Speedie, for goodness sake, stop arguing semantics, and start living in the real world. We've been through this on a different forum, with the same tired old argument. Leave it alone.


----------



## MHB (7/11/10)

*speedie *I would have thought anyone who knew how to brew wouldn't have to ask that question!
For starters the test is done in distilled water, what if you added some Calcium and Zinc (and/or a bunch of other salts or minerals)?
What about a B-Glucan rest at 40oC instead of mashing in at 50oC?
How about a mash regime with rests at 40, 50, 63-4, 72-4 and a mash out at 79oC, rather than just ramping through to 70oC?
What makes you think mashing in at 4:1 is ideal?
You think changing the pH won't have any impact?

It's a test, just adding a pinch of salts and running the same test on the same equipment would give better extraction. The point is it's a standardised laboratory test that is used to give us all a benchmark to compare to. It isn't how you (well I) brew beer.

MHB


----------



## speedie (7/11/10)

MHB

So it seems to me from your point that it is all a assumption that yield is yield so why benchmark congress if we dont use it in practice (stated 70% in that read)



Apple for apple 

So what are you expressing with regard to ph etc 



What if we wear a different colored shirt on a different day at the brewery then brew the same format do we get different extract figures (only hypothetical)



From what I have accrued it seems that if you achieve mid to low 70s extract efficiency 

Your brew rig is doing well 

My grist ratio is generally 2.5 to 1

I adjust ph to 5.5 mashed in always (food grade phosphoric acid)

Generally direct fired three step 45-(63_68)-70 mashout77

I know that my depth to height ratio is wrong for my sparge vessel but still manage 74% extract

Cheers speedie


----------



## MHB (7/11/10)

> So it seems to me from your point that it is all a assumption that yield is yield so why benchmark congress if we don't use it in practice (stated 70% in that read)


The whole point appears to have either escaped you or be beyond you comprehension. The result of the Congress Mash creates the bench mark; the 70% you mention is compared to the Congress Mash.
So in making the above statement you are in fact using it in practice while denying it usefulness.
I suspect (hope) your posting while pissed, that's the kindest possible explanation for your incoherent mishmash of misstatements. It's also just possible that you need to stop what you're doing right now or risk going blind.
When you are ready to ask a sensible question I will do my best to help.

MHB


----------



## Thirsty Boy (8/11/10)

I assume that speedie is thinking, where he is thinking at all - like a German. They express efficiency and yield differently than the English or Americans. Basically as a percentage of the whole grist weight. How much sugar do you get vs the weight of grain itself.

Mind you, they also know what % of the grain is extract... so you can either look at it as though the grain is 80% extract and you get 74% extract... so you have 6% between you and a perfect system (and thats pretty much how the Germans think about it) - OR - you can think like an American or English brewer and say that 74% is, if you express it as a percentage of the possible 80% in the grain 92.5% efficiency. So bizarrely enough at 92.5% Speedie's extraction is almost exactly at the level that we have been discussing in this thread.

Of course, the point still remains, that the Germans know that the grain is 80% extract (or whatever figure it is) because they did a congress mash on it (although they'd call it an EBC mash instead) and an EBC mash is far from the most efficient way you can extract sugars from a given amount of grain. Its a convention... not a best practise technique. Whereas a brewer, _can_ try for best practise and get greater than the congress level of extract. Its not even all that hard. Congress/EBC/IBD mashes and their results are tools provided by maltsters to assist brewers in predicting their results.. they are not and are not intended to be interpreted as laws of nature.

IMO - the German way of looking at it is nice and simple; if you are using grists that are primarily all base malt and all at the same level of extract value. Falls down a little if you are using complicated grain bills where you may have highly toasted or roasted malts/grains or adjuncts with considerably lower or higher extract values. The Germans aren't even allowed to use half the stuff that has significantly different extract levels... why would they care? But if you happen to live somewhere in the world where roast barley, or six row, or raw wheat, or corn, or chocolate malt etc etc is more commonly used, it throws your calculations out some, or at least takes away from the simplicity of the model when used for a beer that is fundamentally all base malt.

Edit: spelling and because I just read Warra's second post properly... seems that no matter what reasoning is used, its likely to be a waste of time. No changing the mind of a brewer with a bee in their bonnet. Sorry I bothered now.


----------



## bcp (8/11/10)

This thread has everything that makes up AHB - some drivel, some abuse, some annoyance at the drivel and abuse, and then also some really great information. 

Just to say thanks for an interesting thread - particularly MHB & thirstyboy.


----------



## mje1980 (8/11/10)

Who really cares? some people love bling, some people love to keep it simple. One of our IBU members ( maybe more than one! ) measures his grain "by the bucket", makes great beer, and another has a full on bling setup ( pumps, probes and push buttons ), and makes great beer. It all works guys. 

I suspect that a lot of people don't really know how to calculate efficiency. Well, maybe they know how to do it on paper, but do the calcs suit every quirk of a particular system? ie, mash tun geometrey?. I have a ss braid, how do i work out what's left in the tun, when the braid moves around?. 

BTW i calculate at 68-72% efficiency, never really been sure if im applying the calcs right, but i really couldnt care less what the number is at the end of the day. Im happy with my beers, and isn't that the point?? It is for me.


----------



## speedie (8/11/10)

Mhb I wasn't pissed and wont go blind either even after all these years of pulling



Brewhouse efficiency must be the reciprocal of extract efficiency

Should be more regard given to which term is used



Thirsty B I have always used the math of plato x knocked out wort / Kgs of grain for extract results

And yes most of the brews are all base malt 

Maybe I am thinking German (prost!)

Cheers speedie


----------



## WarmBeer (8/11/10)

speedie said:


> Thirsty B I have always used the math of plato x knocked out wort / Kgs of grain for extract results


Therein lies the difference in the calculation.

Beersmith, and most texts, calculate efficiency as:


mass of sugars in the final beer 100
--------------------------------- x ---
mass of potential sugars in grist 1

As the % of extract in the grist is ~ 70-80%, depending on the maltster/malt, your calculation is based on a different denominator.

Without a consistent, known methodology, you are comparing apples with bananas.


----------



## rotten (8/11/10)

He won't like that at ll, a computer can work that out for you??? Can't be right.


----------



## bum (8/11/10)

Dude picks a technical argument with TB and MHB. Gold.


----------



## Nick JD (8/11/10)

bum said:


> Dude picks a technical argument with TB and MHB. Gold.



Dude picks bum with stinky finger. Silver.


----------



## Brauhaus007 (8/11/10)

For what its worth the only problem I can see from a fine mash is the possibility of a stuck mash due to the compaction of the grist. The tanin issue is not about the size of the grist. :beerbang:


----------



## bum (8/11/10)

Nick JD said:


> Dude picks bum with stinky finger. Silver.



Dude talks about something with no clue. Iron (the most common metal I could think of).


----------



## speedie (9/11/10)

My reference to the shirt stuff was similar to yours re salts ph etc mash for mash so to speak

We dont mash and sparge with congress application (distilled water coffee filters etc) so it is as you stated only a data point to base what is happening in the process 





I am not trying to bring variables into equation like scarification temp time ph I know that these present different constants 

Just use a given regime of preparation for mashing which most have adapted and present what extract is possible with basic tools



If one hundred percent was achievable from said mash with amateur equipment using only grain as base for conversion where do the extra points come from 

As much as to say possible 80% from grain yields 100% extract how do we arrive at anything beyond 100%



Is this a reasonable question mhb


----------



## speedie (9/11/10)

bum take the middle finger and stop babbling why dont you present some discussion!


----------



## felten (9/11/10)

speedie said:


> As much as to say possible 80% from grain yields 100% extract how do we arrive at anything beyond 100%



Your whole post is impossibly confusing (and bold font hurts my eyes), so I'm not sure exactly what you are talking about, but I'll take a guess. If you get the same extract as the congress mash that's 100% efficiency. If you extract more than the congress mash that's over 100%.


----------



## manticle (9/11/10)

speedie said:


> My reference to the shirt stuff was similar to yours re salts ph etc mash for mash so to speak
> 
> We don't mash and sparge with congress application (distilled water coffee filters etc) so it is as you stated only a data point to base what is happening in the process
> 
> ...



But if you know what parameters you are mashing within, the actual numbers don't matter so much - as long as you understand what they give you and how to get consistency with you process.

What I understand extraction efficiency to be as far as the above explanations go is in your extractionrelation to a constant. That constant is set by the maufacturer under certain conditions. You may extract more than that specification because your conditions will be different (hence the salts - I doubt the shirt will change a lot). You may also extract less.

100% isn't actually 100% of total ever in the world possible - just what has been set by the manufacturer. One thing in relation to another.

_Just use a given regime of preparation for mashing which most have adapted and present what extract is possible with basic tools_ is exactly what people are doing. Basic tools at people's disposal, coupled with a regime that a lot of people use gives a certain number. Getting 101% doesn't make you win any special prize- it just gives you a number from which you can work, streamline your process and make consistent beer on your system.


----------



## bum (9/11/10)

speedie said:


> bum take the middle finger and stop babbling why dont you present some discussion!



As far as I can tell, speedie, you're getting the "middle finger" here, not me. It also appears to be you doing the babbling (as per), not me. I think most might like it if you'd hold off on presenting more "discussion" until you did a bit more reading.

For everyone else: speedie thinks efficiency is something that is worked out on paper with a pencil and not something that happens on brew day. Avoid this topic like the plague.

[EDIT: By "avoid this topic like the plague" I mean avoid discussing it with him - this thread/topic itself has lots of good info and most certainly should not be ignored.]


----------



## MHB (9/11/10)

speedie said:


> Snip
> If one hundred percent was achievable from said mash with amateur equipment using only grain as base for conversion where do the extra points come from
> As much as to say possible 80% from grain yields 100% extract how do we arrive at anything beyond 100%
> Is this a reasonable question mhb


No it isn't, because your starting premise is fundamentally flawed. The congress mash isn't the best way to get extract from malt it's just a test!
Making one last attempt to penetrate you wilful ignorance with an example
Go and look at new cars, they have two fuel consumption figures, a city and highway cycle. Now no one gets in the car and drives it for a couple of hundred Km then swings by the garage and tops it up, to work out the fuel consumption.
The car goes to a lab where it sits on dyno and a computer manages the engine, all cars get the same test, the results let you compare "apples with apples".
No one really thinks you will get the exact same result when you drive the car, if you lead-foot it you will use more, if you drive like your-mum you can easily burn less fuel.
Likewise the congress mash, it isn't anything other than a test designed to give a comparison figure. It isn't the "ultimate obtainable yield", or anything like that, it's just a test that is used as a comparison.
Now back up and have a think, sadly every time you post your making yourself look like a complete retard, if in future you ever have anything to say that is worth reading it's likely that no one will take any notice.
I for one give up.

MHB


----------



## argon (9/11/10)

I for one have learnt heaps from this thread I now understand the principle of efficiency and how the test figure is generated. 

Ive always had a general understanding of the relationship of theoretical maximum and the actual yield, but now that it has been explained over and over and over again its crystal clear.

I think if you dont get it after reading MHB and TB youre either not willing or not able.

Thanks guys


----------



## rotten (9/11/10)

More popcorn please?


----------



## Lecterfan (9/11/10)

rotten said:


> More popcorn please?




hee hee...saves having to swap between sites to keep up with the story. :blink:


----------



## Ronin (9/11/10)

Thirsty Boy said:


> I assume that speedie is thinking, where he is thinking at all - like a German. They express efficiency and yield differently than the English or Americans. Basically as a percentage of the whole grist weight. How much sugar do you get vs the weight of grain itself.



Thank you Thirsty boy, I've been reading a brewing textbook by Wolfgang Kunze and haven't been able to figure out why their efficiency calculations don't mesh with other texts. It's simply because they compare it to grain weight whereas others compare it to a congress mash. Makes much mores sense to me now.

Regarding the fine grind, I'm pretty sure those breweries that use mash filters and hammer mills (they grind the malt very fine) don't have a tannin extraction problem. I think Coopers use a high pressure mash filter and I've never noticed tannin problems in their beers. As MHB said, there are other reasons.

Thanks TB,

James


----------



## Silo Ted (9/11/10)

Despite the tone of new member's posts, for me the responses are really valuable info wise. I often wondered if the brew software was measuring % of total weight, husk, unusable bits etc. So for everyone except the germans measure % against a congress mash, Im interested as to why and how the 100% can be exceeded, which has been nicely covered already. As was suggested, the congress mash is the (almost, unless your a kraut) universal standard against which efficiencies are measured. At those temps, with the step mashing etc, its not really emulating a brewday, so its not a stretch to at least consider that other peoples brewday experiences match or exceed the efficiencies. 

A question for speedie, why do you insist on doubting other people's actual experiences in this matter ? There's some knowledgeable members responding to you in a way that's very clear, even to a non-scientific bloke like myself, so I cant understand why you continue with your challenges. MHB even went to the trouble of thinking up an analogy, so that might satisfy your doubts in another way. If you cant get amazing efficiencies, so be it. Its a limitation of your equipment and technique. Neither can I, but happy to exist around the 75% mark. 

In the end, many of us don't know everything about the brewing science (including you, clearly) so just be open minded about what you read that may challenge your existing ideas. There's a lot to be gained, and in the end it will make us better beer-makers if we stop to reconsider things every now and again :icon_cheers:


----------



## drew9242 (9/11/10)

So i am assuming from reading all this that beersmith works on a congress mash. And my 75% efficency isn't that good. Oh well there is always room for improvement.

Good thread though it has helped me understand a lot. 

Thanks Drew


----------



## manticle (9/11/10)

Drew9242 said:


> And my 75% efficency isn't that good.



Why? Do you make beer with it? Can you hit that figure consistently? Is your beer tasty? Do you think you can make a huge saving by getting up to 80 or 85?

Nothing wrong with improving your processes especially if the results follow suit but don't get too bogged down in numbers. For a commercial brewery where extraction deficits = lost dollars on a large scale it's important, for hb probably much less so.


----------



## drew9242 (9/11/10)

manticle said:


> Why? Do you make beer with it? Can you hit that figure consistently? Is your beer tasty? Do you think you can make a huge saving by getting up to 80 or 85?
> 
> Nothing wrong with improving your processes especially if the results follow suit but don't get too bogged down in numbers. For a commercial brewery where extraction deficits = lost dollars on a large scale it's important, for hb probably much less so.




I'm not stressed about it at all. And i am getting very confident in my process at the moment, so i won't be changing anything any time soon. I was just wondering what other people get. Might do a search for a poll which i am sure has been done.


----------



## manticle (9/11/10)

It was the phrase 'isn't very good' I was responding to really. If you like your beers then that indicates your processes are good for you and your system.

I hit around 70 and am pretty fine with that. Have been on that give or take a few points since I first started AG. Means I can confidently plan recipes.


----------



## MHB (9/11/10)

Ben (my staff guy) recently went through an exercise of trying to improve his brewhouse efficiency (he is sitting his IGBD Brewing Certificate on Friday) using a combination of the shop's resources and what he was studying managed to get his BhY up into the mid 90's. Then promptly went back to aiming for 80% - because the beer tasted better.
That's what it is all about; a 75% yield is very good if you are happy with the beer you are making.
Personally I sit on about 80%, I can get more if I want to but couldn't be bothered.
Understanding the basics of how the calculations are done can be a valuable tool in improving your brewing and you processes. If you look at what your efficiency is into kettle, at end of boil and into fermenter, you will pretty quickly identify where you could maybe make some improvements.

I would never chase efficiency at the cost of quality.

MHB


----------



## mckenry (9/11/10)

manticle said:


> Can you hit that figure consistently?
> Do you think you can make a huge saving by getting up to 80 or 85?
> 
> ....... but don't get too bogged down in numbers.



These are the important things.
Raising eff from 65 to 85 isnt going to save much $$$ on a 5% beer.
All you want to know is what your system does and design your recipes around that.
DO NOT get bogged down with numbers - even if they are 105% eff <_<


----------



## peaky (9/11/10)

My system seems to run 68% efficiency no matter what I do. Mill the grain really fine, fly sparge, batch sparge, 60min mash, 90min mash, check mash Ph, I think I've tried bloody near everything my system will allow me to do. Sometimes I'm slightly under or over 68%.



I've come to the conclusion that it must just be the way my system is designed, (esky mash tun, 3 tier grav) the good thing is it dosen't really seem to matter what I do when I'm brewing, I hit my targets pretty much bang on every time! 

Gotta be happy with that :icon_cheers:


----------



## rotten (9/11/10)

I'm relatively new to this game compared to most here. I get 75-80% every time, and I'm happy with that. Improving beyond that will not change things much for me. My beer tastes great BTW at those numbers.
Cheers :icon_chickcheers:


----------



## speedie (10/11/10)

I used an analogy with brewers t - shirt colors similar to mhb s car fuel consumption figures ie one will utilize the process to maximize the return the other is your leadfoot running heavy on the extraction losses and it seems in dont understand what I was talking about according to mhb 

Most of the world class breweries manage at best 97% recovery from a possible 75-80% conversion from grain

Having said that mathematically it is not possible to get past the whole, entire, 100%,one



Most of you readers are experiencing the same figures of around 70 plus % from rudimentary equipment which is to be appreciated we dont have vibrating pods in the mash tun to minimize or shake out oxygen nor six roller mills wet or dry, trub recycling lauter tuns etc etc



 But if we use the numbers gathered from subsequent brewing sessions then these numbers are the building block for formulation of grain bills



As others have said without discussion where do you look for answers?

Cheers speedie


----------



## bum (10/11/10)

speedie said:


> Having said that mathematically it is not possible to get past the whole, entire, 100%,one


Hasn't it already been explained that this 100% you're talking about is a standard and not an actual representation of the maximum sugaz present in a given grain?

Yes it has.

What is your point? Your point is that you're right and it doesn't matter what anyone else ever says? Yeah, we get that. No analogy required.


----------



## felten (10/11/10)

Maybe English isn't his first language, I think something was lost in translation.


----------



## Thirsty Boy (10/11/10)

speedie said:


> Most of the world class breweries manage at best 97% recovery from a possible 75-80% conversion from grain
> 
> Having said that mathematically it is not possible to get past the whole, entire, 100%,one



You are plainly and simply incorrect.

It doesn't get any simpler than that folks... Speedie is wrong. He is either incapable or unwilling to have the facts of the situation explained to him, and I have no intention of making a further attempt.

But for other people out there, who may have been following the reasoning with more success, be in no doubt - He is wrong and you should in no way let his opinion in this matter influence the way you think about this stuff.

We were warned I guess.... It took a couple of posts for it to sink in properly, but it finally has. I'm done.


----------



## goomboogo (10/11/10)

The concept being discussed is not complicated. It has been discussed many times before in many different places. TB and MHB have given some good background and information as well as clear and concise explanations of both the process and the reasoning behind the process. I reiterate, it's not that complicated. I'm thick and even I understand it. To those who have attempted to edify in this thread, rest assured that your explanations were excellent. The failure of a particular individual to understand in this situation is a reflection on the particular individual only.


----------



## pk.sax (10/11/10)

speedie, I'll build on your own analogy here.

Let say a car manufacturer says that you can convert 50% of the energy stored in petrol hydrocarbons into mechanical energy in your car engine. This represents the theoretical 100% achievable conversion.

Depending on your driving style, you might convert only 80% of that possible 50% (shame on you leadfoot).

Now, a mate comes along and says you should get your engine tuned. While you are at it, you have a spoiler fixed and a new air intake and turbocharger fitted as well. Seeing how much money you spent on the car, you buy yourselves some advanced driving lessons. You made changes to both your equipment and process here. Turns out that now your engine can convert 60% of the stored hydrocarbon energy if you drive exactly like they do in the test lab. Your driving lessons helped and you are now convereting 90% of the car's new capability.

So, to summarize,

before changes, total energy converted = 0.8 X 0.5 = 40% of the energy stored in the fuel, this is 80% of the maximum energy obtainable specified by the manufacturer.

after changes, total energy converted = 0.9 X 0.6 = 54% of the energy stored in the fuel, this is 108% of the original maximum energy obtainable specified by the manufacturer.

If you followed this, you might have noticed that the manufacturer did testing and specified performance using criteria that might OR might not apply to you. YOUR choice of how to handle said equipment made all the difference. Just because you chose to operate your car in a way that is more efficient than what the manufacturer specified does not make you magical, its just that the manufacturer is selling something at a rating HE thinks is the right benchmark.

There are road bridges in this world that had stamped expiry dates 100s of years ago, by rights they should not be standing anymore. And yet, they are. And there are those that don't stand long enough for the tar to dry.

Oh wait, I made two analogies! Hopefully not too confusing. Let me know if it was and I'll split the post up so that it is only as effective as the one analogy per post standard should ALLOW it to be, can't get better than the standard you know, dire sin.


----------



## Silo Ted (10/11/10)

speedie said:


> Having said that mathematically it is not possible to get past the whole, entire, 100%,one



What's wrong with your comprehension of this subject, its been explained in several forms already. To put it simply for you (again), *a congress mash isn't the maximum yield potential, it's a figure representing a standard of measurement upon which brewers measure their own efficiencies. *



speedie said:


> As others have said without discussion where do you look for answers?



Reading this thread properly would be a start. Guys here have told you that they have achieved >%100% and you continue to argue that it's incorrect.


----------



## DJR (10/11/10)

speedie said:


> Most of the world class breweries manage at best 97% recovery from a possible 75-80% conversion from grain
> 
> Having said that mathematically it is not possible to get past the whole, entire, 100%,one



I don't know why i'm doing this but you are obviously in need of a practical example (pragmatists are funny)

Let's say a congress mash got out 80% of the dry weight of grain into solution, therefore the bar was set as the "maximum brewhouse yield" by most regimes - 80% is the "target" corresponding to a yield of 100%.

Now let's say our theoretical brewhouse with a mash filter and hammer mill, let's call them Schloopers, get 82.5% of the dry weight of the grain into solution, due to the pressure effect of the mash filter, the (hypothetically) finer crush, water adjustments including calcium adjustments, and whatever else they want to employ (let's say they borrow a mate's tricks and add some beta-glucanase into their mash and help get some more of the sugars out) over and above a standard lab congress mash.

Now our 82.5% is a bit more than the "theoretical max" of 80%, about 103% in our example.

That's it.


----------



## Ronin (10/11/10)

MHB said:


> If you look at what your efficiency is into kettle, at end of boil and into fermenter, you will pretty quickly identify where you could maybe make some improvements.



Yep I found the same thing.

I was getting 90% efficiency out of the mash tun, but I had 65-70% brewhouse efficiency. Reducing the deadspace of the kettle with a pickup tube bumped my brewhouse efficiency up to 80% which I hit pretty consistently. Just by reducing wastage.

James


----------



## earle (10/11/10)

speedie said:


> Having said that mathematically it is not possible to get past the whole, entire, 100%,one



Just so you know why you're worng - a percentage is simply a way of expressing a fraction of 100. There is no mathematical rule that says that the numerator cannot be greater than the denominator giving a percentage larger than 100.


----------



## Ronin (10/11/10)

speedie said:


> Having said that mathematically it is not possible to get past the whole, entire, 100%,one



I was struggling with this concept too during the first unit of the brewing course at Ballarat University, untill the lecturer helped me figure it out.

Say you do a congress mash (which is a standard grain crush then laboratory mash) and get 100g/L sugar extracted. That is your set point for 100% efficiency, when compared to a congress mash.

A brewery running a mash tun setup performs their mash (coarser grind because a mash tun requires it), and gets 90g/L sugar extracted. Their mash tun efficiency is therefore 90% (compared to a congress mash)

A second brewery running a high pressure mash filter and hammer mill crushes their grain finer than the brewery using the mash tun, even finer than the laboratory does for the congress mash. So because of the finer grind and the mash filter they manage 110g/L extract. That's 110% extract compared to a congress mash.

The point is the congress mash does not indicate the absolute total amount of extractable sugars from the grain, it is just a standard by which everyone can compare. If you performed biochemical analysis on the malt for the congress mash to determine the total amount of potential extractable sugars, it might come back as 130g/L or 140g/L (actually starch because it hasn't been hydrolysed, but that's just complicating things).

At the risk of confusing the issue (ignore this if it does). Say a congress mash might extract 80% of the malt's weight in sugar, so:

From 1kg of malt, congress mash gives 800grams of extract

In the brewery you get 80% efficiency compared to the congress mash:

80% of the above 800grams = 640 grams from 1 kg malt

Another brewery might get 110% compared to the congress mash:

110% of the above 800grams = 880 grams from 1 kg malt

Notice both are below the 1kg of malt that was added.

So yes in brewing it is possible to get greater than 100% extract when compared to a congress mash. And the important part is when compared to a congress mash. 

Of course it's nonsense to say you can put in 1 kg of malt and get back 1.1kg of extract. Nobody is saying that.

James


----------



## drew9242 (10/11/10)

Well explained James, thanks for the input.


----------



## beerbrewer76543 (10/11/10)

Ronin said:


> So yes in brewing it is possible to get greater than 100% extract when compared to a congress mash. And the important part is when compared to a congress mash.
> 
> Of course it's nonsense to say you can put in 1 kg of malt and get back 1.1kg of extract. Nobody is saying that.
> 
> James



*WIN*


----------



## bum (10/11/10)

DJR said:


> I don't know why i'm doing this but you are obviously in need of a practical example (pragmatists are funny)


The funny thing is that he's pretty well read on the science of brewing and does have a broad knowledge but he seems to read these texts the same way he reads other peoples' posts and just picks out the bits he wants, defends them as eternal truths and says "la-la-la-la-I'm-not-listening" to the rest.

Quick potted history of speedie for anyone interested: single vessel BIAB is not possible; 3V brewing is stupid (direct fired mash then transfer to lauter tun is the ONLY way to brew); stepping up the yeast from a single bottle of imported beer to a 22L _starter_ (yes, you read correctly) is better than using wyeast because you save $3 on a 220L batch; brew length is the same thing as a sports car in the west; there's no point in having a brew in primary for a second longer than fermentation takes - the alcohol is already made. This is the tip of the iceberg and all these issues have generated similar "discussions" as the one in this thread. I'm sure he can brew a beer but he is pig-ignorant and completely close-minded to the idea that there is anything left for him to learn about brewing - he's only here to educate us.


----------



## Ronin (10/11/10)

Lol I didn't realise how long that post would end up. :unsure: 

To summarise, because the congress mash itself isn't 100% efficient, it is possible to beat it.

@bum. Doesn't always matter how well read you are if you don't understand what you are reading and if we aren't discussing the same efficiency

Especially because the texts don't all use the same benchmark for efficiency, as TB said earlier. If you read Kunze's "Technology Breiwng and Malting", he compares the total extract to the amount of grain added, in which case it would be impossible to get >100%. If you read Briggs' "Brewing, Science and Practice", he compares the total extract to a congress mash, in which case you can get >100%. Took a while (and TB's above post) for me to get that.

James


----------



## speedie (10/11/10)

could wolfgang kunzes be german
and think german


----------



## Florian (10/11/10)

speedie said:


> could wolfgang kunzes be german
> and think german



That's it.


----------



## hirns (11/11/10)

"la-la-la-la-I'm-not-listening


----------



## Ronin (11/11/10)

speedie said:


> could wolfgang kunzes be german
> and think german



Yep that's what TB said and that's when I understood his book a lot better. And I ignored his efficiency calculations and went by what my lecturer uses.

So you do your efficiency the German way which does not allow for >100% efficiencies.

Everyone else here does efficiencies the other way, which does allow for >100% efficiencies.

So stop trying to argue that the non-German way is wrong...it simply isn't. You can't compare the two without doing some calculations based on the potential extract of the grain, but neither is wrong.

James


----------



## earle (11/11/10)




----------



## speedie (12/11/10)

thanks james 
it was stated that i was wrong 
there are different ways to cut a cat though


----------



## WarmBeer (12/11/10)

speedie said:


> there are different ways to *cut* a cat though


That must be the German way of doing things.

The rest of the brewing world is content with *skinning* cats.


----------



## earle (12/11/10)

speedie said:


> thanks james
> it was stated that i was wrong
> there are different ways to cut a cat though



Actually I think the problem is that you're telling everyone else that they are wrong but I'm sure you'll correct me about that.


----------



## Ronin (12/11/10)

earle said:


> Actually I think the problem is that you're telling everyone else that they are wrong but I'm sure you'll correct me about that.



Yep that's what I had the problem with. And the fact that, in this calculation, you can have more that 100% efficiency.

You are doing the calculation right speedie, just not in a way that is directly comparable with other peoples efficiencies.

Everyone else is also doing it right. Just different.


----------



## np1962 (12/11/10)

WarmBeer said:


> That must be the German way of doing things.
> 
> The rest of the brewing world is content with *skinning* cats.


Damn it, I have been shoving mine into my airlock


----------



## speedie (14/11/10)

this may sound strange but what are you doing with your cat!


----------



## earle (15/11/10)

speedie said:


> this may sound strange but what are you doing with your cat!



It's what all the best brewers do speedie. I'm surprised you don't.


----------



## np1962 (15/11/10)

earle said:


> It's what all the best brewers do speedie. I'm surprised you don't.


Bloody newcomers :lol:


----------



## Lecterfan (15/11/10)

Yes, I went from airlocks to glad wrap to cat skin within a matter of weeks...


----------



## warra48 (15/11/10)

I mailed the neighbour's cat to buttersd70.......


----------



## jonocarroll (15/11/10)

warra48 said:


> I *N*ailed the neighbour's cat to buttersd70.......


fixed.

The single most overrated, out-of-context, done-to-death meme on the entire interwebs (plus or minus 50% exaggeration).

@Mods - closing time?


----------



## bum (15/11/10)

earle said:


> It's what all the best brewers do speedie. I'm surprised you don't.


You're forgetting that any cat that would fit his airlock is on the endangered species list. Quite noble of him to go without, IMO.

I reckon you could substitute a great dane or a shetland pony though, speedie. Wouldn't want anyone thinking you weren't the best brewer in the country...


----------



## Pennywise (15/11/10)

warra48 said:


> I *N*ailed the neighbour's cat




Fixed properly


----------



## yardy (15/11/10)

> I Nailed the neighbour


----------



## leiothrix (15/11/10)

MHB said:


> No one really thinks you will get the exact same result when you drive the car, if you lead-foot it you will use more, if you drive like your-mum you can easily burn less fuel.
> 
> MHB




I don't know much about the rest of this thread, but in this I can say MHB that you are absolutely, categorically wrong. My Mum _is _a leadfoot. Bit scary really.


----------



## MHB (15/11/10)

Ok, My Mum then  
Mark


----------



## speedie (15/11/10)

It seems that it has been a catastorphy that blasted lead foot


----------

