1
The Pub / Re: A bomber is rarely a good deal
« on: May 18, 2013, 02:00:12 PM »
So they are more expensive so the distributor can be assured of making money...gotcha...thank goodness that 3-tier distribution system is in effect! 
News: Welcome to the American Homebrewers Association Forum. Though you do not need to be a member to participate, we would love for you to join us!
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
3
The Pub / Re: NTSB Recommends 0.05% BAC Limit
« on: May 14, 2013, 05:22:26 PM »
Penalties in the US do little IMO to deter crime. You see the sign driving down the road which says, "Penalties Increased Ahead" or "Fines Doubled In Work Zones". Sometimes it even tells you how much. Do you slow down because of a penalty or because you don't want to kill someone? Do you slow down at all? (Rhetorical question, but as I drive 40K miles per year I do feel qualified to answer few slow down at all.)
4
The Pub / Re: NTSB Recommends 0.05% BAC Limit
« on: May 14, 2013, 05:02:59 PM »
I did a little quick research. When the law dropped from 0.10 to 0.08 a study (insert eye roll emoticon) found the drop in drivers with 0.10 or greater in fatal crashes to decrease by 6%. That was right after the laws changed in some states.
I found a neat 1999 analysis from CT (more eye roll emoticons).
49% of fatalities in motor vehicles has zero alcohol in their system. So sober drivers.
3% were in the 0.01 to 0.04 range
5% in the 0.05 to 0.10 range
So 57% of all traffic fatalities involved legal amounts of alcohol to zero alcohol
If you took out the sober drivers, 54% of those with any alcohol had a BAC more than 0.16
http://www.cga.ct.gov/ps99/rpt/olr/htm/99-r-0154.htm
Fast forward to 2010 and the NTSB found 75% of fatal crashes involving drunk drivers had BAC more than twice the legal limit.
http://www.drugfree.org/join-together/alcohol/most-drunk-drivers-causing-fatal-crashes-have-almost-twice-legal-blood-alcohol-limit-2
You simply are not going to stop those drivers with a change to the BAC.
Nebraska has an interesting fact sheet. 18% of alcohol impaired drivers are under 21. So lemme get this straight, we have a law which states zero alcohol until 21 (in most states) and a certain BAC. Those laws are being broken so changing a limit and ultimately changing a law is going to stop the law from being broken? That's the kind of thinking that will get you elected!
http://www.transportation.nebraska.gov/safetysummit/2012/presentations/3-Fatal-Crashes-Alcohol.pdf
I found a neat 1999 analysis from CT (more eye roll emoticons).
49% of fatalities in motor vehicles has zero alcohol in their system. So sober drivers.
3% were in the 0.01 to 0.04 range
5% in the 0.05 to 0.10 range
So 57% of all traffic fatalities involved legal amounts of alcohol to zero alcohol
If you took out the sober drivers, 54% of those with any alcohol had a BAC more than 0.16
http://www.cga.ct.gov/ps99/rpt/olr/htm/99-r-0154.htm
Fast forward to 2010 and the NTSB found 75% of fatal crashes involving drunk drivers had BAC more than twice the legal limit.
http://www.drugfree.org/join-together/alcohol/most-drunk-drivers-causing-fatal-crashes-have-almost-twice-legal-blood-alcohol-limit-2
You simply are not going to stop those drivers with a change to the BAC.
Nebraska has an interesting fact sheet. 18% of alcohol impaired drivers are under 21. So lemme get this straight, we have a law which states zero alcohol until 21 (in most states) and a certain BAC. Those laws are being broken so changing a limit and ultimately changing a law is going to stop the law from being broken? That's the kind of thinking that will get you elected!
http://www.transportation.nebraska.gov/safetysummit/2012/presentations/3-Fatal-Crashes-Alcohol.pdf
5
The Pub / Re: NTSB Recommends 0.05% BAC Limit
« on: May 14, 2013, 01:15:03 PM »
This may not be popular, but...
Nothing that every begins with "A recent study" or "A recent survey" ends well and has much validity. This will not end drunk driving, it will just lower the threshold at which someone can be ticked/cited. The people who are going to drink a fifth of liquor and drive are still going to drink a fifth and drive. Those who slam a 12 pack and cut doughnuts are still going to do it. What it might do is make those of us who do have a beer and go home think should I have that next beer or not. Will I have enough time to absorb the alcohol or should I race home immediately to be sure the alcohol has not been absorbed yet. Many of us already use a similar litmus test and for those of us who do it really won't be that much of a change.
I gotta say I despise stuff like this. I do realize driving drunk can hurt others, but driving at a 0.06 vs a 0.05 probably would not. Certainly it has been proven talking on a cell phone or sleep deprived is more dangerous than 0.08, but there I go pointing out a survey. I have always worn a seat belt since my very first car came without them and I asked my father to help me install them so I could stop sliding across the vinyl. I don't need a law to tell me to wear my seatbelt. If I choose not to wear it, that should be my choice to be stupid. Same thing with motorcyle helments. If you want to be an idiot, more power to you. Now I don't condone someone blowing 0.20 when the legal limit is 0.08, but choosing a number because "more than 100 countries" have done it is about as smart as you jumping off the cliff because your friends think it is a good idea.
I see a blog post in the making.
Nothing that every begins with "A recent study" or "A recent survey" ends well and has much validity. This will not end drunk driving, it will just lower the threshold at which someone can be ticked/cited. The people who are going to drink a fifth of liquor and drive are still going to drink a fifth and drive. Those who slam a 12 pack and cut doughnuts are still going to do it. What it might do is make those of us who do have a beer and go home think should I have that next beer or not. Will I have enough time to absorb the alcohol or should I race home immediately to be sure the alcohol has not been absorbed yet. Many of us already use a similar litmus test and for those of us who do it really won't be that much of a change.
I gotta say I despise stuff like this. I do realize driving drunk can hurt others, but driving at a 0.06 vs a 0.05 probably would not. Certainly it has been proven talking on a cell phone or sleep deprived is more dangerous than 0.08, but there I go pointing out a survey. I have always worn a seat belt since my very first car came without them and I asked my father to help me install them so I could stop sliding across the vinyl. I don't need a law to tell me to wear my seatbelt. If I choose not to wear it, that should be my choice to be stupid. Same thing with motorcyle helments. If you want to be an idiot, more power to you. Now I don't condone someone blowing 0.20 when the legal limit is 0.08, but choosing a number because "more than 100 countries" have done it is about as smart as you jumping off the cliff because your friends think it is a good idea.
I see a blog post in the making.
6
The Pub / Re: A bomber is rarely a good deal
« on: May 11, 2013, 05:24:18 AM »Show me a brewery selling 12ouncers for a better deal than bombers, then you have an article.
I don't get it. The most I've seen a 6-pack of beer go for is roughly $15, which works out to $4.58 for a 22 fl oz bomber. At least around here, bombers bottom out at $4.99, so the same beer in a 6-pack is always going to be cheaper, per unit volume.
A 6-pack is not 12 ounces its 72. Yes as you go up in volume, price goes down per unit volume. If the brewery sold you a 12 ounce beer for a better deal than the 22 ounce bomber, the bomber would never sell and cease to exist. IME you can get a 6 pack for about the same a 2 bombers. Bombers are a really bad deal.
I agree with your last statement 100%. Bombers are a really bad deal!
7
Commercial Beer Reviews / Re: Oskar Blues ...
« on: May 11, 2013, 05:17:54 AM »
If there was a genetic link I would think people who hated it when first released (me) and now don't find the onions and garlic to be present would still perceive those characteristics at some level.
Much of tasting is memory. If someone gave you a fruit you had never had before you would say it tastes similar to something else. It could be those who did not find garlic and onions had a different taste memory.
Much of tasting is memory. If someone gave you a fruit you had never had before you would say it tastes similar to something else. It could be those who did not find garlic and onions had a different taste memory.
8
Commercial Beer Reviews / Re: Oskar Blues ...
« on: May 10, 2013, 04:46:42 AM »
Resurrecting this old conversation. OB revised the Gubna recipe and now uses a blend of Cascade and Summit hops instead of only using Summit. The onions and garlic are gone and it is now a darn respectable double IPA.
http://mashbang.wordpress.com/2013/05/10/if-you-liked-the-onions-and-garlic-you-are-out-of-luck/
http://mashbang.wordpress.com/2013/05/10/if-you-liked-the-onions-and-garlic-you-are-out-of-luck/
9
The Pub / Re: A bomber is rarely a good deal
« on: May 09, 2013, 09:37:02 AM »
Joe - regarding my freshness comment.
I think I misread repo's post. I believe he was saying a $5 IIPA from a brewery 2,000 miles away will not be good/outstanding.
Still seems like a suspect comment. I've had expensive beers which were awful and inexpensive beers which were phenomenal. Some from close and some from very far away.
I think I misread repo's post. I believe he was saying a $5 IIPA from a brewery 2,000 miles away will not be good/outstanding.
Still seems like a suspect comment. I've had expensive beers which were awful and inexpensive beers which were phenomenal. Some from close and some from very far away.
10
The Pub / Re: A bomber is rarely a good deal
« on: May 09, 2013, 09:15:26 AM »
Oh my bad I didn't realize you were in Fort Collins.
You're correct of course, but maybe you heard the news New Belgium will open in NC in 2015. Perhaps I should revisit the topic in about 2 years and see just how much the Rampant prices change when they are just up the hill.
FWIW - Oskar Blues has opened in Brevard already and I have not seen retail prices drop in NC, although the packaging now has a nice brewed in Brevard, NC line on it. I doubt when Sierra Nevada opens next year (or is it later this year?) in Mills River, NC (near Asheville) their retail prices drop either.
I really don't get the 2,000 mile freshness comment. Are you implying beers we get on the East Coast from say Escondido are aged and not fresh? Wow, I guess that Enjoy By 5/17 I had back in April was past it's prime.
11
The Pub / Re: A bomber is rarely a good deal
« on: May 09, 2013, 09:07:39 AM »
Major -
But what does/would your IPA sell for at the brewery? (can you even do that in Alabama?)
I know plenty of breweries who do not undercut local stores when they sell direct and they make a killing. One local kept the brewery running with their tap room when it was undergoing some reorganization and dumping a distributor and sold 1500bbl out the door that year at a whopping margin that got them in the black quickly.
I'm sure the blog post was not meant to suppose a conspiracy theory that breweries were packaging in 22 ouncers to draw in some magical profit, rather to say the bomber is generally not a good deal.
But what does/would your IPA sell for at the brewery? (can you even do that in Alabama?)
I know plenty of breweries who do not undercut local stores when they sell direct and they make a killing. One local kept the brewery running with their tap room when it was undergoing some reorganization and dumping a distributor and sold 1500bbl out the door that year at a whopping margin that got them in the black quickly.
I'm sure the blog post was not meant to suppose a conspiracy theory that breweries were packaging in 22 ouncers to draw in some magical profit, rather to say the bomber is generally not a good deal.
12
The Pub / Re: A bomber is rarely a good deal
« on: May 09, 2013, 09:01:38 AM »Show me a brewery selling 12ouncers for a better deal than bombers,
BLAM!
13
The Pub / Re: A bomber is rarely a good deal
« on: May 09, 2013, 08:42:00 AM »
Thirsty -
So let's assume a 22 ounce bottle is 2X the packaging cost. That would make it equivalent to two 12 ounce bottles with labels and caps, correct? Still makes two 12 ounce bottles the equivalent packaging materials cost of a 22 ounce.
Anyone know the actual numbers of the packaging of a 12 ounce vs a 22 ounce?
I checked Northern Brewer to see what the difference is in their pricing and they are $0.50 per 12 ounce and $1.08 per 22 ounce, so from a homebrewer's standard the 22 ounce would be 2.16X the cost since the cap is the same and the label is essentially the same. FWIW - MoreBeer is $0.54 per 12 and $1.08 per 22 or 2X the bottle cost.
I do know some breweries who fill their 22 ounce by hand, but most are now using equipment to improve consistency and quality.
So let's assume a 22 ounce bottle is 2X the packaging cost. That would make it equivalent to two 12 ounce bottles with labels and caps, correct? Still makes two 12 ounce bottles the equivalent packaging materials cost of a 22 ounce.
Anyone know the actual numbers of the packaging of a 12 ounce vs a 22 ounce?
I checked Northern Brewer to see what the difference is in their pricing and they are $0.50 per 12 ounce and $1.08 per 22 ounce, so from a homebrewer's standard the 22 ounce would be 2.16X the cost since the cap is the same and the label is essentially the same. FWIW - MoreBeer is $0.54 per 12 and $1.08 per 22 or 2X the bottle cost.
I do know some breweries who fill their 22 ounce by hand, but most are now using equipment to improve consistency and quality.
14
The Pub / Re: A bomber is rarely a good deal
« on: May 09, 2013, 07:43:28 AM »
No, no shooting AFTER drinking. You can shoot BEFORE drinking, but you need to wash your hands and face to avoid the potential for lead contamination. There's your PSA for the day!