"Session IPAs"

Troegs recently released Scratch #97, which is a black rye IPA that's only 4.3% and completely delicious.

 

I'm having a hard time understanding/liking this style. Why have 2 "sessionable" IPAs when you can have one standard or double IPA that has a lot more flavor?

It's gimmicky to me and is just an attempt to capitalize on the IPA craze. It's working so I can't blame these breweries one bit.

 

It's a new twist all the hops and kill the malt, except even the better ones are really lacking. It's all bitter without the malt, and its hop juice not an IPA. I'll pass and just drink a good balanced IPA. If I want session I'll drink a real light beer with no expectations except its refreshing in the heat.

 

Schlafly IPA in a can is the only true session IPA I've found. 4.5% ABV with great taste. But I'm in Kansas so I have no access to some of the other brews named.

 

Point Beyond the Pale. Tyranena Bitter Woman are both tasty low ABV IPAs.

 

Because beer is a drink not a spirit or a liqueur.
It's also very much subject to the law of diminishing returns.All things being equal a 7% beer will have more flavour than one at 4% but nowhere near double or even half as much again.And if you have one instead of two you cut short your enjoyment.
Then there is the matter of the alcohol. OK, if you are drinking at home and have no immediate commitments this doesn't matter too much; if you are drinking in a pub-a vastly more enjoyable and satisfying experience-or having to drive, do brain surgery or need all your faculties the a decent session beer is the answer.
Believe me, drinking lower gravity beer doesn't lose you anything.

 

Sounds rather like Stout or Porter or is it black bitter? Does it matter if it tastes good? It is fun to classify these beers though.

 

Seems to me that the ESB is not as much work as either the traditional american ipa or the session ipa. Both of those are trying to come up with a flavor profile that makes the palate discover what is supposed to be in there and tolerate as much bitter as it can. While the english bitter puts itself together well with plenty enough bitter and then lets you drink it easily and all day long.

 

That's pretty strange, ray daniels' book designing great beers puts the og of bass pale ale at 1.068 in 1888, and other brewers hitting og's as high as 1.071 with their ipa's. Prior to the lat 1800's the hydrometer was not a common brewers tool, so I'm not sure how you can make such a jump in your logic.
As for todays standards my suggestion would be to look at beer competitions. I know the bjcp gets a bad rep on this site, however the brewers seem to adhere to their categories pretty well. The term session ipa is pretty much a gimmick at this point in beer. The term ipa is so popular right now, and all the braindead mouth breathers who can't grasp the idea that sometthing that isn't an ipa can be hoppy buy right into this marketing dynamic, essentially dumbing down beer as a whole. Your attempt to change the widely known history of the ipa by saying it was a weak or sessionable ale simply isn't true, and is also helping in the dumbing down of beer culture.

 

So you mean Pale Ales.

 

Most annoying, to me, marketing gimmick to make. Just as IPAs are getting even hoppier as time goes by, now Pale Ales are getting the same treatment. Only someone the word "session" has acquired value in the marketplace so the new breed of hopped up Pale Ales get the decidedly sexier moniker "Session IPA." I don't blame brewers for capitalizing on people who gobble up hype for breakfast, though.

I think it's instructive to anyone particularly obsessed with categorizing beers just how fluid and silly these labels can be, and eye-rolling (and maybe instructive) to how driven the market is by whims and trends.

And anyone looking at the absolutely ridiculous and backwards looking BJCP for anything other than what category to submit their homebrew to in competition is wasting their time.

 

more or less.

 

I am confused by this session IPA thing, The IPA's I drink are from 6-7% and if I have 1 per hour, Its a pretty nice "Drinking Session" where I will NOT be drunk after say, 6 hours.......and after getting a hold of founders all day IPA, Ill stick to my local stuff and old favorites.
PS I dont find them overly heavy either.

 

I've just purchase ALL-DAY half barrels for the bar.
It's so far the closest thing to a sessionable IPA I've ever had...
Compared to my usual tastes, it's like fruit juice, and I don't have to clean up as much puke in the men's room.

 

I wouldn't argue with most of that, but I hope my brain surgeon isn't have a beer with lunch before my afternoon operation.

 

Wachusett IPA is the closest I've found and it's pretty darn good.

 

One problem is that IPA, Pale Ale and later bitter were used at will, interchangeably and often to describe the same beer. I'll refer you to the guy who really knows, having ploughed through literally thousands of brewing records and found no IPA over 7%.The hydrometer was in fact in general use throughout the 19th century.Mr.Bass gave one to Sedlmeyr in around1830.It also has to be borne in mind that in common with all other UK brewing that beer gravities were drastically reduced by WW1..So IPAs commonly occurred at much lower strengths than this.More recently, looking through my 1977 Beer Guide I see Wells' Eagle IPA at 3.6% , Charrington IPA at 3.9%, Darley IPA at 3.5% and Greene King IPA which, at 3.6% , is still with us.And plenty more.
http://barclayperkins.blogspot.co.uk/2010/12/ipa-was-not-strong-beer.html

 

I love your response, that made me laugh out loud. Its nice to have the different verities/styles, but your last sentence says it all.

 

I had Lawson's Session and that didn't do it for me so surely All Day is a step down. I'll just drink one less.

 

i dont find any of those beers to taste anything like proper english bitter. if anything they are more like lower abv english ipas.