There's no such thing as a session IPA.

[specharka]

I'm calling shenanigans on this one. Prime example:
https://www.homebrewtalk.com/showthread.php?t=568046

The aroma and flavor place it with Heady Topper and the like, but the ABV screams yes I'll have another.

 

[schematix]

A session IPA to me is about 6%.

 

[govner1]

I love the beer that comes packaged as a "Session IPA", but it's just hoppy pale ale.

Founders' All Day = 42 IBUs, well within the style range of an American Pale Ale (30-45). I'm sure they know full well that they're selling pale ale under a name that will move more units.

BJCP lists IBU's for English IPA @ 40-60 & American IPA @ 40-70 so the Founders is well within the style standards.

 

[m1k3]

A session IPA to me is about 6%.

The beer that I am currently passing off as a "Session IPA" is 5.5%.

94% Pilsner
6% Dextrose
Mosaic at 60 and Flameout
4oz Citra Dry Hop (per 5 gallons)
US-05 yeast

I know... it's not an IPA but "Session IPA" fits on the Tap List and it's easier to explain to people.

 

[schematix]

94% Pilsner
6% Dextrose

Wow that's a dry grain bill. Is that the session part or you just like it dry?

 

[BlueHouseBrewhaus]

My go-to session IPA recipe uses 2-row, pils and victory. Warrior bittering, citra/cascade hop stand and dry hop - 4.5% ABV, 50 IBU. It balances well with good aroma and flavor and is light without being thin. I don't always want to be knocked on my a$$ with bitterness. Sometimes I just want a reasonable suggestion of it. Especially when I can enjoy it over several beers and still be able to stand

 

[ong]

I really love the Session IPA. To me it's what a pale ale ought to be, dripping with juicy hops flavor and aroma. I never seem to enjoy pale ales anymore -- I want them to have some damn flavor!

I brew a lot of hoppy pale/SIPA beers, but the only commercial one I've had recently is Fort George Big Guns. That's a great beer!

I typically brew them almost as SMaSH recipes, just base malt, low mash temp (~150), sometimes even an overnight mash to really dry them out. Generally a smallish bittering charge and a big ok hop steep.

 

[schematix]

How much does everyone use in their "session" hop steep & dry hop?

 

[Gameface]

The beer that I am currently passing off as a "Session IPA" is 5.5%.

94% Pilsner
6% Dextrose
Mosaic at 60 and Flameout
4oz Citra Dry Hop (per 5 gallons)
US-05 yeast

I know... it's not an IPA but "Session IPA" fits on the Tap List and it's easier to explain to people.

I'd call that a British Golden Ale (12A), just a tad higher abv than guidelines, but not so much that you'd get points taken off for it.

Overall Impression: A hop-forward, average-strength to
moderately-strong pale bitter. Drinkability and a refreshing
quality are critical components of the style.

Vital Statistics: OG: 1.038 – 1.053
IBUs: 20 – 45 FG: 1.006 – 1.012
SRM: 2 – 6 ABV: 3.8 – 5.0%

 

[murphyslaw]

I'd call that a British Golden Ale (12A), just a tad higher abv than guidelines, but not so much that you'd get points taken off for it.

With us05?

I think that fits the session ipa category perdectly.

I dont think us05 gives you the right profile for a british golden ale, nor would citra give the typical hop profile.

 

[Gameface]

With us05?

I think that fits the session ipa category perdectly.

I dont think us05 gives you the right profile for a british golden ale, nor would citra give the typical hop profile.

A British Golden Ale doesn't have the caramel or ester profile of most British ales. And it specifically mentions that American citrus flavored hops are common.

Flavor: Medium to medium-high bitterness. Hop flavor is
moderate to moderately high of any hop variety, although
citrus flavors are increasingly common. Medium-low to low
malt character, generally bready with perhaps a little biscuity
flavor. Caramel flavors are typically absent. Little to no
diacetyl. Hop bitterness and flavor should be pronounced.
Moderately-low to low esters. Medium-dry to dry finish.
Bitterness increases with alcohol level, but is always balanced.

 

[KeyWestBrewing]

Absolutely can't stand it but I know its marketing more than anything. Ive had people ask if we have any IPAs then straight up walk out instead of even trying the APA. But they'd buy the same beer all day if it was a "session IPA." Drives me nuts. Especially when Ive always brewed my APAs hoppy, like hop bursted and dry hopped to nearly a # per barrel sort of hoppy.

 

[oljimmy]

BJCP lists IBU's for English IPA @ 40-60 & American IPA @ 40-70 so the Founders is well within the style standards.

Yeah, you're forgetting about OG.

IPA: OG: 1.056 – 1.075
Pale: OG: 1.045 – 1.060

Apparently, Founders All Day = 1.046-ish. So on SRM, OG, FG and IBU it's within the pale range. That's a pale.

 

[Snubnoze707]

Am I one of the few that doesn't understand the need for massive bitterness? Hop flavor yes! Massively bitter? BLECH!

No, most people figured that out in the last 2-3 years when that trend started to die off. "Session IPA" is a sign of that, so is the controversial "New England IPA".

Personally, I can care less about style guidelines or the BJCP...

 

[Jsbeckton]

Double post

 

[Jsbeckton]

But if balance is really a ratio, then you can make it lighter and keep the same balance by cutting back on bitterness proportionally. You can get down to 4 or 5% without going "thin" by Increasing the mash temp and using body enhancing adjuncts. Its going to feel lighter, but thats not a flaw, its the whole purpose.

You mean an APA? Yeah, I am saying that a session IPA is usually an APA that's too thin and/or too hoppy. There is no imperial blonde so why a session IPA? Marketing...

 

[Gameface]

IPA can apparently be any kind of beer and it's still an IPA, yet all the other beer styles are constrained to a small little box and if you go outside of that box you probably just made one of the millions of subtypes of IPA.

 

[tagz]

Other way around actually. A typical PA/APA/IPA has more malt back bone to balance the hops so can get away with little to no caramel malt.



A session beer doesn't have the same amount of residual sweetness to balance the hops so you need more crystal and/or a higher mash temp.

Gonna have to agree to disagree on that one. Pale Ales almost always have some caramel, IPAs tend to have almost none. If you're going to call it a session IPA it should resemble the later. There are many ways to build body without using caramel.

 

[thunderwagn]

You mean an APA? Yeah, I am saying that a session IPA is usually an APA that's too thin and/or too hoppy. There is no imperial blonde so why a session IPA? Marketing...

There are imperial blonde ales, you just haven't looked hard enough. There are session blondes also I had a session porter last night!

 

[filthyastronaut]

To me, and I think most people, when you have something described as a session IPA, you expect a certain thing. Described as a Pale Ale, you expect another thing. The differences are subtle and overlapping, but same thing with Stouts and Porters. Honestly, why bother worrying about it? Categories and guidelines are useful, but they are only tools.

 

[Gameface]

Let's just rename IPA and be done with it. We can call it a PHB, particularly hoppy beer. That way it actually makes sense to call every single beer with a lot of hops a PHB.

Because as it stands we have white IPAs, black IPAs, rye IPAs, Lager IPAs, Double IPAs, English IPAs, Brown IPAs, Red IPAs, Belgian IPAs, American IPAs, session IPAs (presumably of every subtype), and on and on. And very little of that makes sense when IPA stands for India Pale Ale, because it's being used to mean any particularly hoppy beer and doesn't have much to do with india pale ale at all.

 

[Jsbeckton]

There are imperial blonde ales, you just haven't looked hard enough. There are session blondes also I had a session porter last night!

There are also mango beers, doesn't make it right...

Those of you who enjoy these session IPAs should drink as many as you can before they are yesterday's news.

 

[thunderwagn]

There are also mango beers, doesn't make it right...

Those of you who enjoy these session IPAs should drink as many as you can before they are yesterday's news.

Lol.. What makes a session wrong? :fro:

Sessions are just taking off. Ignore them as long as you can cause they'll be here awhile!

 

[Bender]

Carton boat best session ipa

Yum. I love that beer.

 

[BlueHouseBrewhaus]

Let's just rename IPA and be done with it. We can call it a PHB, particularly hoppy beer. That way it actually makes sense to call every single beer with a lot of hops a PHB.

Because as it stands we have white IPAs, black IPAs, rye IPAs, Lager IPAs, Double IPAs, English IPAs, Brown IPAs, Red IPAs, Belgian IPAs, American IPAs, session IPAs (presumably of every subtype), and on and on. And very little of that makes sense when IPA stands for India Pale Ale, because it's being used to mean any particularly hoppy beer and doesn't have much to do with india pale ale at all.

Kinda makes me think of the ongoing "-tini" obsession in bars. Take any combination of liquors and call it an Apple-tini or Guava-tini or Any-tini even though they bear no resemblance whatsoever to an actual martini.

Hey, I know ... I'll brew an imperial session IPA - 4% ABV, 90 IBU.

 

[filthyastronaut]

Let's just rename IPA and be done with it. We can call it a PHB, particularly hoppy beer. That way it actually makes sense to call every single beer with a lot of hops a PHB.

Because as it stands we have white IPAs, black IPAs, rye IPAs, Lager IPAs, Double IPAs, English IPAs, Brown IPAs, Red IPAs, Belgian IPAs, American IPAs, session IPAs (presumably of every subtype), and on and on. And very little of that makes sense when IPA stands for India Pale Ale, because it's being used to mean any particularly hoppy beer and doesn't have much to do with india pale ale at all.

I think the abbreviation itself has a lot to do with it. People recognize the abbreviation more than the full name. You also don't normally see the contradictory names (red, black, brown) as "Red India Pale Ale," you'd see it labeled as a Red IPA. There's nothing wrong with keeping the name. Embrace the contradiction. I feel like this whole debate is part of the beauty of IPA as a category. The blueprint for an American IPA just lends itself so well to variation, particularly seeing as it's an extremely new style in the course of the world.

We all know what to expect when we hear IPA, and twists on it can be good or bad, and according to taste. You hear Session IPA and while such a thing could stylistically be considered an APA, you know to expect a dry, extremely hop-forward, lower ABV beer. There is a league of difference between Sierra Nevada Pale Ale and Stone Go To IPA. Some APAs could be called Session IPAs. All or most Session IPAs could be called APAs, but I'd argue that Session IPAs are a more logically precise category for specific beers, because it can be a better descriptor.

In conclusion, this type of **** is so ****ing pedantic I want to bash my head in.

 

[murphyslaw]

A British Golden Ale doesn't have the caramel or ester profile of most British ales. And it specifically mentions that American citrus flavored hops are common.

I don't think that's how the guidelines are meant to be used. Sure, a British Golden Ale can have some American characteristics, but that doesn't mean that if you substitute all the British characteristics with ones more American in style, you still have a British Golden Ale. I think of the guidelines as an attempt to use words to describe preexisting groups of beer. The fact that those words might also fit something else doesn't mean the two things are the same. There's a jenesequa aspect to it.

Consider this: Soccer is a game played in warm weather on a large grass fields where the goal is to put your ball in the other team's net. The game involves lots of running, passing, and shooting, and is broken into two halfs. Each team has a goalie who stands in the net to block any shot, defensemen who roam around but are generally charged with preventing the other team from scoring, forwards who are supposed to score goals, and midfielders who are sadistic folk that like to run back and forth and do both. Players are not allowed to touch the ball with their hands or to hit each other. Penalties are dolled out with yellow and red cards.

This description fits women's lacrosse perfectly. But women's lacrosse is not soccer.

I haven't had a British golden ale in a while, so honestly, its possible that a session IPA and a British Golden Ale are similar enough to be grouped together. Based on what I do know, that would really surprise me, but I've been wrong before. So at the beer store yesterday I picked up an Old Golden Hen and a Stone Go To IPA. I don't expect them to have many similarities, but I'll let you know if I'm mistaken. Thanks for the excuse to buy more beer!

You mean an APA? Yeah, I am saying that a session IPA is usually an APA that's too thin and/or too hoppy.

Too thin or too hoppy for what? Your taste preferences? If you don't like the profile, that's fine. I don't like bud light but I don't deny its right to a category. What should they call the session IPA? You say its too thin or too hoppy to be a "true" APA, and I'd agree. Its a different profile from an APA. Its like an IPA, only lighter, hence the "session" modifier.

There is no imperial blonde so why a session IPA? Marketing...

Do you mean that there's no BJCP category? Because 1) the BJCP isn't intended to identify every style and sub-style of beer and 2) there isn't a session IPA category, either. Those are supposed to be entered as Specialty IPAs, because they're similar to IPAs, but at the same time, they're not standard IPAs.

Or do you mean that nobody makes a beer that they call an imperial blonde? Ratebeer lists 22 "imperial blondes". There's even an extract kit for an imperial blonde: https://www.homebrewtalk.com/showthread.php?t=167714

 

[Gameface]

I don't think that's how the guidelines are meant to be used. Sure, a British Golden Ale can have some American characteristics, but that doesn't mean that if you substitute all the British characteristics with ones more American in style, you still have a British Golden Ale. I think of the guidelines as an attempt to use words to describe preexisting groups of beer. The fact that those words might also fit something else doesn't mean the two things are the same. There's a jenesequa aspect to it.

Consider this: Soccer is a game played in warm weather on a large grass fields where the goal is to put your ball in the other team's net. The game involves lots of running, passing, and shooting, and is broken into two halfs. Each team has a goalie who stands in the net to block any shot, defensemen who roam around but are generally charged with preventing the other team from scoring, forwards who are supposed to score goals, and midfielders who are sadistic folk that like to run back and forth and do both. Players are not allowed to touch the ball with their hands or to hit each other. Penalties are dolled out with yellow and red cards.

This description fits women's lacrosse perfectly. But women's lacrosse is not soccer.

I haven't had a British golden ale in a while, so honestly, its possible that a session IPA and a British Golden Ale are similar enough to be grouped together. Based on what I do know, that would really surprise me, but I've been wrong before. So at the beer store yesterday I picked up an Old Golden Hen and a Stone Go To IPA. I don't expect them to have many similarities, but I'll let you know if I'm mistaken. Thanks for the excuse to buy more beer!




Too thin or too hoppy for what? Your taste preferences? If you don't like the profile, that's fine. I don't like bud light but I don't deny its right to a category. What should they call the session IPA? You say its too thin or too hoppy to be a "true" APA, and I'd agree. Its a different profile from an APA. Its like an IPA, only lighter, hence the "session" modifier.



Do you mean that there's no BJCP category? Because 1) the BJCP isn't intended to identify every style and sub-style of beer and 2) there isn't a session IPA category, either. Those are supposed to be entered as Specialty IPAs, because they're similar to IPAs, but at the same time, they're not standard IPAs.

Or do you mean that nobody makes a beer that they call an imperial blonde? Ratebeer lists 22 "imperial blondes". There's even an extract kit for an imperial blonde: https://www.homebrewtalk.com/showthread.php?t=167714

Have you read the entire style guideline for British Golden Ale? If not go ahead and give it a shot.

It is a beer that was developed to compete against the rising popularity of Light American Lagers in the UK. So it is not trying to be "British" at all. It's trying to be light and hoppy.

Characteristic Ingredients: Low-color pale or lager malt
acting as a blank canvas for the hop character. May use sugar
adjuncts, corn or wheat. English hops frequently used,
although citrusy American varietals are becoming more
common. Somewhat clean-fermenting British yeast.
Style Comparison: More similar to an American Pale Ale
than anything else, although it is often lower in alcohol and
usually features British ingredients. Has no caramel and fewer
esters compared to British bitters and pale ales. Dry as bitters
but with less malt character to support the hops, giving a
different balance. Often uses (and features) American hops,
more so than most other modern British styles.

If we keep going I'll have posted the entire style guideline.

And of course, guidelines are guidelines. They matter if you're entering a competition, not so much if you're not. I'm just saying, there are styles out there that are not IPA that could be modified in just the way people are modifying what an IPA is to get exactly what they want. All these modified beers don't have to be called IPAs just because they are hoppy. IPA is not the only hop forward style of beer out there and I think it's lame that people want to call every hop forward beer an IPA, that's all. If you want to make 1001 different kinds of beer and call all of them an IPA more power to you.

 

[Redlantern]

I guess my point is that in my IMO it's all about balance. For me at least, you can't have that big bold flavor with a thin beer finish because it's out of balance. It's just an extension of the IPA craze and I suspect it will soon be gone.

Then they will replace it with the "Imperial Session"

 

[grizzly2378]

Then they will replace it with the "Imperial Session"

Already been done! My local brewery set out to brew a session IPA a few months ago. Not sure what exactly happened, but they're OG came out way higher than planned, so they just rolled with it and labeled it as a "Double Session IPA" .

 

[murphyslaw]

Have you read the entire style guideline for British Golden Ale? If not go ahead and give it a shot.

Before this conversation, at some point along the way yes. Since this discussion, I did read it again, yes. Thanks for that--I learned a lot about the similarities between the styles.

I've also read other parts. Including the part that lower strength IPAs IPAs should be entered as Specialty IPAs (not BGAs)?

Style Comparison: More similar to an American Pale Ale than anything else, although it is often lower in alcohol and usually features British ingredients. Has no caramel and fewer esters compared to British bitters and pale ales. Dry as bitters but with less malt character to support the hops, giving a different balance. Often uses (and features) American hops, more so than most other modern British styles.

I think this goes back to two things. One, if you replace all the British ingredients with American ones, what's the difference between a British Golden Ale and an APA? Just the AVB? If that were the case why would there be different categories? I don't think so. I think it probably needs to retain some of its British character to remain in style. I don't say this as an authority on the topic, just a person trying to learn different styles and as a person who enjoys thinking about this stuff. According to the guidelines, which I think we both understand are not etched in stone from above, APAs can have higher levels of hop aroma and flavor, for example, as well as darker malts, higher carbonation, etc.

But we're talking about IPAs. So even if BGAs were basically just session APAs, there's an additional degree of separation on account of the difference between APAs and IPAs. APAs are "More balanced and drinkable, and less intensely hop-focused and bitter than session-strength American IPAs (aka Session IPAs)." I had a Founders All Day IPA last night, and I'd say its pretty squarely IPA in balance, not APA.


I recognize this is a dumb conversation, but I'm trying to learn as much as I can about different styles so its interesting to me. And you inspired me to do a taste test tonight

 

[Gameface]

Before this conversation, at some point along the way yes. Since this discussion, I did read it again, yes. Thanks for that--I learned a lot about the similarities between the styles.

I've also read other parts. Including the part that lower strength IPAs IPAs should be entered as Specialty IPAs (not BGAs)?




I think this goes back to two things. One, if you replace all the British ingredients with American ones, what's the difference between a British Golden Ale and an APA? Just the AVB? If that were the case why would there be different categories? I don't think so. I think it probably needs to retain some of its British character to remain in style. I don't say this as an authority on the topic, just a person trying to learn different styles and as a person who enjoys thinking about this stuff. According to the guidelines, which I think we both understand are not etched in stone from above, APAs can have higher levels of hop aroma and flavor, for example, as well as darker malts, higher carbonation, etc.

But we're talking about IPAs. So even if BGAs were basically just session APAs, there's an additional degree of separation on account of the difference between APAs and IPAs. APAs are "More balanced and drinkable, and less intensely hop-focused and bitter than session-strength American IPAs (aka Session IPAs)." I had a Founders All Day IPA last night, and I'd say its pretty squarely IPA in balance, not APA.


I recognize this is a dumb conversation, but I'm trying to learn as much as I can about different styles so its interesting to me. And you inspired me to do a taste test tonight

I don't think there's really any more I can add to the conversation but my main issue is that we are willing to make several varieties, that have distinct characteristics that don't fall in-line with the strict definition of an IPA, but we'll call it whatever kind of IPA. Why aren't other styles open like that? Why can't a British Golden Ale become an American Golden Ale? Why can't an Ordinary Bitter become an American Session Bitter? Why can't a black IPA be called a Hoppy American Stout?

Why do we need to call every new variation of beer that is particularly hoppy some sort of IPA? IPA loses its meaning entirely and comes to just mean any beer with an extreme focus on hops. That's not traditionally what an IPA was.

 

[AK7007]

Session IPAs are different from pale ale if you consider hop aroma. Hold a glass of SNPA up to your nose and inhale. Then do the same with Go To. Come back after that, and make your argument for why those are the same style. You may decide that you dislike the Session IPA style, but it's a thing.

 

[signpost]

Founder's All Day IPA is way too dry. Every time I drink it, I wish I had a Two Hearted ale in my glass.

In general, I think session IPAs or pale ales aren't any good, but Bell's Oatsmobile is really good. Has enough body from the oats to not feel like a diet beer. And the flavor is right on.

 

[TeadyHopper]

I'm just putting it out there...I've tried every session IPA out there, and I've come to the conclusion that it is impossible to make a decent session IPA.

I'm done chasing that unicorn. If it's not 6-8%, I'm not drinking it.

While interesting, I got no skin in this game/topic. But if your palate isn't closed off, Oskar Blues 'Pinner' throwback IPA is the best 'session' IPA I've come across.

That said, have to agree with filthyastronaut in saying "In conclusion, this type of **** is so ****ing pedantic I want to bash my head in."

 

[Saboral]

I'm just putting it out there...I've tried every session IPA out there, and I've come to the conclusion that it is impossible to make a decent session IPA.



I'm done chasing that unicorn. If it's not 6-8%, I'm not drinking it.

I will fight you! Session IPA has become my go to! (No reference to stone brewing) Not to mention I think my session IPA is one of my best brews. So far it's unanimously loved by all who've tried it. I can't keep enough on hand.

For me it's about drink ability. I love Double and Imperial IPA, I love IPA, I love American IPA, but in the summer I want a bitter beer with citrus notes and light body, session IPA fills that roll.

 

[Hello]

I disagree that there are no good session IPAs, but to each their own.
Ballast Point Even Keel
Unknown Pregame
Lawson's Super Session IPA #2 (amazing)
Green Flash Citra Session

 

[ThatVideoKid]

And MaryB, you may be among more than you realize who join you in not feeling the need for overwhelming bitterness.

Like New England :rockin:

 

[lolcats]

I don't really get the point of this thread...

Session just means it's low ABV that's it, you can have low ABVs and still have the quality of a standard IPA

On the other hand I don't understand the reason why anyone would bump up the ABV with sugar just to get an unpleasant alcohol taste most DIPAs have

 

[ThatVideoKid]

This has me thinking though. While I think the style really is a pale ale, it's a good descriptor. While a lot of breweries up here that are known for their hops just use pale ale(trillium, Bissell, foundation, ect), I do get it as a descriptor though.

When I'm at a bar or the bottle shop and I want a light hoppy beer, and don't want to look up every beer, Session IPA is a safer bet than pale ale. There are quite a few APAs that have a rich malt profile like an ESB, but with some American hoppiness going on. If I wanted a light, decently hoppy beer, I wouldn't want that.

So in conclusion, it's BS marketing and I think it's truly a way to sell less expensive beer often at the same price as a regular IPA, I do get it as a descriptor. I know what I'm going to get.