Session IPAs. I don't get it

Less grain, sure, but grain is cheap (especially plain domestic 2 row, which I'm sure the vast majority of IPAs and session IPAs alike consist mostly of). In the grand scheme of things, the cost is probably pretty similar to manufacture a can of 8% IPA and a 4% session IPA.

Session IPAs still use a lot of (expensive) hops, yeast, electricity to produce, go into the same cans, get marketed by the same department, etc. I, for one, never even consider the ABV of a beer into my purchasing decision, unless I'm specifically looking for something LOW. A high ABV is more likely to turn me off from purchasing, to be honest.

 

Yes, when I was in Scotland, almost all cask beer was under 3.5% abv.

In the old forum, there used to an active BA user who was on the war path whenever the word Session was "mis-used" in the forum discussions. Can't remember his user name off the top of my head.

 

Ding

 

Ding...RIP. @marquis has continued the fight for session beers, but with more tact than Ding.

 

Agree with most of you. I would rather have a pale ale instead of an session IPA since the malt and hops tend to be better balanced (like SNPA and Dale's Pale Ale).

 

Have only had a few session IPAs, some previously mentioned (All Day, Easy Jack), some not (Ballast Point Even Keel, Blue Point Mosaic Session). All were fair-good experiences, All Day warranting more than one purchase. But I rarely drink more than a couple beers in a row anyway, so the sessionable aspect doesn't really come into play. I mainly drink the "style" during the warmer seasons as much as for the lighter body as for the lower ABV.
As for the "hop water" critiques, does anyone know how many breweries use oats in the grain bill of their session IPAs? I could be wrong, but wouldn't using an ample amount of oats in the mash help impart the body that so many feel is lacking in session IPAs, without raising the OG to much?

 

It's crazier that people think ingredients are a significant factor in a beer's final cost. Here's an infographic that's been passed around before...



Beer cost is most impacted by economies of scale, not ingredients. All Day IPA is cheaper because it's popular enough for Founders to make a lot of it and make up profits on volume.

 

I thought I remember a couple of industry people here on BA chimed in to disagree with these percentages?

But anyway, the original article does say:
"That means that a six-pack of craft beer contains about 65 cents of malt, while a six-pack of macrobrew contains about 16 cents of malt."

"All told, a typical six-pack of craft beer contains 53 cents worth of hops, while a six-pack of macrobrew contains maybe 5 cents. And, of course, the sky’s the limit on the craft beer side. A super-hoppy double IPA with ultra-premium hops could include more than $1 worth of hops."

So using their math if you double the ABV (malt) or double or triple the hops you could be moving the price of a 6-pack a $1 or $2, which on a $10 six-pack would be "significant".

But all of those percentages are based on widely distributed beer that goes through 3 tier distribution. So in theory, draft beer at a brewery or brewpub is going to be much more affected by raw ingredient costs.

But part of that economy of scale is related to the cost of raw ingredients:

"According to Bob Hansen, an executive at specialty malt powerhouse Briess, a medium-sized craft brewer can expect to pay 40 cents to 50 cents per pound for malt, while a macrobrewer will pay closer to 22 cents a pound. "

 

I found a few I like, but All Day IPA is a summer go to.

 

Many, many threads have debated this concept on a $/volume/ABV and the concept is really lost on me completely. I am intentionally often looking for the lower ABV option so I can have more than one or perhaps two and function normally.

 

I've had 17 Session IPAs and only 2 were higher than a 4. Average out of the 17 was 3.5588 out of 5. The only reason the average is that high is because the beers that are rated above the average all had either Citra, Mosaic, or a combination of those hops in them.

 

Agree that All Day would be my go to, had a super fresh sixer a month ago and it was stellar.

Anyone had Forever Ever by Other Half? Probably the best session IPA I've ever had.

 

Just enjoy an APA. There are many flavorful APAs in the 5-ish ABV range. "Session" IPAs are mainly a marketing gimmick. Only a few are tasty. If you want a lower ABV then go find a good ESB.

 

I don't normally drink them, but they do have their place. When I go to a party where I know I'm going to end up drinking a lot of beers and I don't want to get hammered, I usually go with the FW Easy Jack or Founder's All Day IPA; FWIW, I prefer the FW Easy Jack over the Founders. I really don't like the term "session" beer and it turns me off as soon as I see it on a label.

 

I'm quite sure for the purposes of this discussion that were talking 4% Abv beers or lower.

 

I've really, really tried to like session IPAs but can never get past the green onion note that comes with most of them.

 

If I had to say a few were approaching decent I'd lean towards Easy Jack and a Local from Burial Brewing Ceremonial Ipa. I definately didn't like founders a bit. So session what? I can barely take down one, and two would be to really force it.

 

One thing I've heard from Chris Lohring of Notch is that the malt for a session beer can actually be more expensive than a higher strength one, because you need a higher proportion of specialty malts to get sufficient flavor into a low ABV beer. As you and others have pointed out, raw ingredients aren't the main driver of price anyway, but it's still an interesting point.

 

Go to IPA by stone is really good. I don't really like stone but that beer is great.

 

That's actually a very significant difference. Good article on this here: http://draftmag.com/science-session-abv-processing/

All-Day is already pushing it for what I'd consider a session, 5.9% isn't even close.