"Session IPA"

Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

rodwha

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2011
Messages
5,028
Reaction score
306
Location
Lakeway
I don't quite get this "session IPA" phase going on. Ultimately these all seem to fit in the pale ale nook. I'm guessing it doesn't have the catchy name many have come to love and wouldn't bother with just some pale ale? What's the point?
 
I'm not sure it is technically a pale ale or an IPA. Too hoppy for a pale, not enough alcohol for an IPA. Going by style guidelines, of course.

So the choice of a reasonable description would have been "hoppy pale ale" or " session IPA." Not that different from "black IPA" (or CDA, or IBA, or whatever the hell people call them) before it was an official style (I think it's official anyway).

I guess you just call a beer that doesn't fit any style <descriptor-stepping-out-of-style> + <closest-style> and call it a day. For example, strawberry blonde is a blonde that's not a blonde because of the strawberry.
 
I'd expect an APA to be maltier and less hops.

I'd expect a session IPA to be a sub -5% hop delivery medium... no malt character and tons of flavorful and aromatic hops.

Session IPAs aren't the problem. APAs are the problem. Nobody brews proper ones anymore.

That's my $0.02
 
Have to disagree here. Infact i believe hops "shine" best on lower alcohol beers, just my theory. The problem is i want the most bang for my buck at 10 a six pack. If these came down in price they would be more lucrative to me at least, but make no mistake, some of these low abv beers are nice. Lil citra comes to mind.
 
I'm not sure it is technically a pale ale or an IPA. Too hoppy for a pale, not enough alcohol for an IPA. Going by style guidelines, of course.

So the choice of a reasonable description would have been "hoppy pale ale" or " session IPA." Not that different from "black IPA" (or CDA, or IBA, or whatever the hell people call them) before it was an official style (I think it's official anyway).

I guess you just call a beer that doesn't fit any style <descriptor-stepping-out-of-style> + <closest-style> and call it a day. For example, strawberry blonde is a blonde that's not a blonde because of the strawberry.


I've not seen one of these session IPAs over 45 IBUs, which would indeed make it a pale ale. Of course this is from a somewhat small sampling considering Texas doesn't get far flung or small brewery beers so much despite being Austin.
 
I'd expect an APA to be maltier and less hops.

I'd expect a session IPA to be a sub -5% hop delivery medium... no malt character and tons of flavorful and aromatic hops.

Session IPAs aren't the problem. APAs are the problem. Nobody brews proper ones anymore.

That's my $0.02

Sierra Nevada made one of our first APAs and it is rather hoppy.

All depending on what I'm after I'll make some of my hoppier pales as basically opening the doors to IPAs where I reach for about 45 IBUs and 5.5% with a mid sized whirlpool but no dry hop. Technically it is also an IPA, though it's missing the dry hop. They aren't hop bombs but are fairly hop flavorful.
 
I've not seen one of these session IPAs over 45 IBUs, which would indeed make it a pale ale.

Not completely true. According to BJCP style guidelines, minimum IBU for an AIPA (Cat. 16A) is 40 IBU. APA tops out at 50 IBU, so while you could make the case for an APA, it's still within the guideline for an AIPA. Brewers Association guidelines has a specific category for Session IPA, and it states IBU between 40-55.

With all of that said, I've yet to taste a good session IPA--homebrew OR commercial. Heavy hop additions with very little to-no malt supporting said hops is the definition of an unbalanced and poorly conceived beer. This is a fad clearly marketed to palateless homers who care about nothing else other than stats on a bottle.
 
Not completely true. According to BJCP style guidelines, minimum IBU for an AIPA (Cat. 16A) is 40 IBU. APA tops out at 50 IBU, so while you could make the case for an APA, it's still within the guideline for an AIPA. Brewers Association guidelines has a specific category for Session IPA, and it states IBU between 40-55.

With all of that said, I've yet to taste a good session IPA--homebrew OR commercial. Heavy hop additions with very little to-no malt supporting said hops is the definition of an unbalanced and poorly conceived beer. This is a fad clearly marketed to palateless homers who care about nothing else other than stats on a bottle.

I feel as though it's those 3 letters that they are wanting to identify with. It defines that it should be hop forward.

I haven't tried but a few, mostly on accident, as I don't care for weak beer as I don't down but about 1 in an hour anyway, and I do like a little buzz.

I've not seen one over 45 IBUs. Apparently the "sessionable" style was added to the BJCP recently. Prior to this inclusion it would (the few I've seen) have been a pale ale and nothing more.
 
I'd expect an APA to be maltier and less hops.

I'd expect a session IPA to be a sub -5% hop delivery medium... no malt character and tons of flavorful and aromatic hops.

Session IPAs aren't the problem. APAs are the problem. Nobody brews proper ones anymore.

That's my $0.02
Agree with Weezy. Very few are making nice APA's these days, perhaps because the masses think they're too boring as a good one is well balanced and drinkable. APA just isn't flashy enough for most consumers (pearls vs. rhinestones and glitter). But that doesn't mean I don't like a good session IPA as well.

I think the appeal of a session IPA is for those of us who enjoy lots of hop flavor but want a lower alcohol beer. I like all different styles of beer just like I enjoy different foods, depends on my mood, appetite, etc., I don't have a favorite beer style (or a favorite food). Sometimes I want lots of hops and little alcohol. Just because....

I must say though, I have had very few drinkable session IPA's. Our HBC did a blind tasting of both commercial and homebrewed session IPA's and found that it's difficult to make a drinkable session IPA. Not as difficult as making an American lager but still, a challenge to get lots of hops and enough malt to support all those hops in a less than 5% beer.

Personally, I'll be happy when the fad moves on to something more interesting for a low alcohol beer, like Grodziskie.
 
With all of that said, I've yet to taste a good session IPA--homebrew OR commercial. Heavy hop additions with very little to-no malt supporting said hops is the definition of an unbalanced and poorly conceived beer. This is a fad clearly marketed to palateless homers who care about nothing else other than stats on a bottle.
While I agree that there are subtle differences between a session IPA and an APA, I couldn't disagree more. I haven't had many commercial session IPAs I have been impressed with, but a friend in my homebrew club nailed it, and passed on his recipe and "secrets" to me, which I have been able to build on.

Because of the low ABV, the bitterness of a session IPA can't be too high, but the hop flavor and aroma from heavy late additions can be exceptional. The trick is in obtaining body and mouthfeel at low gravity, while providing a good base for those hops. I view a good session IPA as an in-your-face hop burst of flavor and aroma with just enough bitterness to balance the lower malt content. I guarantee you this fad will keep growing as brewers figure out how to obtain that balance.
 
Sierra Nevada made one of our first APAs and it is rather hoppy.

Yes and Sierra Nevada has a malt and hop balance, and is not dry hopped for that same reason. Dry hopping is overpowering.




Imho,
When building a session IPA recipe, and specifically in the selection of the grain bill, I'm looking to build body and not malt flavor: 2-row, flaked barley, carafoam, etc. Its not hard to make a very good 4.5% beer. I think people's palates are just wrecked from the high abv, high hopped, and high flavor beers we also really like. (I've been one a big SN Bigfoot kick for the past month)
As far as hops, I shoot for a BU:GU of 1.0.
 
While I agree that there are subtle differences between a session IPA and an APA, I couldn't disagree more. I haven't had many commercial session IPAs I have been impressed with, but a friend in my homebrew club nailed it, and passed on his recipe and "secrets" to me, which I have been able to build on.

Because of the low ABV, the bitterness of a session IPA can't be too high, but the hop flavor and aroma from heavy late additions can be exceptional. The trick is in obtaining body and mouthfeel at low gravity, while providing a good base for those hops. I view a good session IPA as an in-your-face hop burst of flavor and aroma with just enough bitterness to balance the lower malt content. I guarantee you this fad will keep growing as brewers figure out how to obtain that balance.

This.
 
I think people's palates are just wrecked from the high abv, high hopped, and high flavor beers .

Wrecked or enlightened and inspired? Do you mean wrecked as in other beers we used to like suck now? I was chuckling a little at this. Picture someone saying, "no not that beer, it has too much hops and flavor." I dont mean any offense and sure eating saltines and drinking water would create a cleaner palate.
 
Wrecked or enlightened and inspired? Do you mean wrecked as in other beers we used to like suck now? I was chuckling a little at this. Picture someone saying, "no not that beer, it has too much hops and flavor." I dont mean any offense and sure eating saltines and drinking water would create a cleaner palate.

I like how you truncated my sentence to change the context.

anyway,"enlightened"? Now that's funny. You can't learn the difference between US and continental pilsner, or 15 and 20 IBUs, behind all that IIPA double bourbon barrel peanut butter russian imperial stout. Enlightened? No. Like I said and you chopped off, I enjoy the big flavorful beers as much as the next guy, but the fact that someone can't appreciate delicate, small beers doesn't mean they can't be brewed well and enjoyed by others. It would be selfish ignorance to discount them. If you don't like session beers, don't brew them, don't order them, an don't drink them. The value of jumping into a thread to say" lol you're wasting your time cuz I said so" isn't helpful either.
 
this so far has been interesting

and if you read through it without a point to push you will see that what is being said id the reason we have a craft brew industry today

about WWII we started brewing bland beers in America, then came the fitness movement and lite beers, some thing had to give and a few very small regional brewers started to point to the way.

Now we are a generation past when they started, and in that time we have raised a generation of people who forgot when out choices were bud, falstaff Schlitzs or miller. they know about better beer but want new stuff.

A huge amount of the original craft breweries are now owned by the Majors.

So the marketing geniuses come around and convince them to create a beer they can make cheaper, they will market it in the way craft beers are marketed, under the radar and make it popular. Everyone will go nuts and buy it at premium prices but it cost lots less to brew.

OH, whats that

my popcorn just finished popping

I need to go get it out of the microwave

Later
 
So the marketing geniuses come around and convince them to create a beer they can make cheaper, they will market it in the way craft beers are marketed, under the radar and make it popular. Everyone will go nuts and buy it at premium prices but it cost lots less to brew.

I don't think that's necessarily accurate in this case. We were brewing session IPAs as and flavorful small beers as homebrewers before we saw commercial examples.

Burr coke and Pepsi are making a killing on bottled water, as soda dies and diet soda is dead. :)
 
How are session IPAs cheaper though? The difference between 5% and 7% is nothing in the scheme of things, and a good session IPA still has lots of late hops which is the expensive part of the ingredient list.
I don't see session beers as some conspiracy to save money, just another style that some people might like. Our drink driving limits changed a while back and I find session IPAs a good choice compared with a pint of 8% DIPA. That's just common sense.
 
How are session IPAs cheaper though? The difference between 5% and 7% is nothing in the scheme of things, and a good session IPA still has lots of late hops which is the expensive part of the ingredient list.
I don't see session beers as some conspiracy to save money, just another style that some people might like. Our drink driving limits changed a while back and I find session IPAs a good choice compared with a pint of 8% DIPA. That's just common sense.


Maybe he means Session IPA's are less expensive to make. I've noticed most breweries price these Session IPAs at the same price as some of their regular or higher strength beers just for the novelty.
I used to worked for a local craft brewery. One of their least expensive recipes was their most expensive year-round beer in stores.

The recipe was: (5.5% ABV)
-Base malt
-Minimal hops for bittering
-Water
-Lager yeast.

This brewery's IPA averages around $8.00/6pk.
But the Pilsner (the recipe above) is $9.99/6pk.

Why? Idk. Just cause.
 
So the marketing geniuses come around and convince them to create a beer they can make cheaper, they will market it in the way craft beers are marketed, under the radar and make it popular. Everyone will go nuts and buy it at premium prices but it cost lots less to brew.
How are session IPAs cheaper though? The difference between 5% and 7% is nothing in the scheme of things, and a good session IPA still has lots of late hops which is the expensive part of the ingredient list.
I don't see session beers as some conspiracy to save money, just another style that some people might like. Our drink driving limits changed a while back and I find session IPAs a good choice compared with a pint of 8% DIPA. That's just common sense.
Maybe he means Session IPA's are less expensive to make. I've noticed most breweries price these Session IPAs at the same price as some of their regular or higher strength beers just for the novelty.
I agree 100% with Sadu. My session IPA is one of the most expensive beers I homebrew with a lot of expensive late hops, and the labor with all the late whirlpool hops and dryhopping would add expense if I were brewing commercially. So I don't think it's novelty or a conspiracy to save money that commercial breweries charge as much for a session IPA as many other higher ABV beers. And, BTW, if Pilsners are lagered a long time, that drives cost up, which might be why they charge more for it. Time is cost, that they have to somehow amortize. Most people probably get that concept with sours and barrel-aged beers, but a brewery has to weigh amortizing production costs with public perception of value.

BTW, I'm not buying session IPAs (or any other beers) from the big breweries with marketing geniuses trying to create a beer they can make cheaper.
 
And, BTW, if Pilsners are lagered a long time, that drives cost up, which might be why they charge more for it. Time is cost, that they have to somehow amortize.

This.

I don't think the ingredients are the expensive part of a commercial operation - it's the equipment and space. So a lager that hogs the equipment longer than an ale is going to cost more, even though it has less ingredients. Also stuff like kegs are expensive so the longer a beer sits in the keg the more it costs.

Another thing to consider is that the pubs aren't always keen on big beers because the punters won't drink as many. 2 big IPAs and I'm feeling pretty smashed. The pub would prefer selling 3 session IPAs instead of 2 IPAs, and since they are buying in bulk their opinion carries some weight.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top