Session IPA

I haven't tried this yet but I think flaked oats would be helpful for body. I know that chad at crooked stave adds oats to most of his beers which keeps the beer from coming across thin although he does this because he's primarily using Brett. Have you had any IPAs from tired hands?? They use oats in most if not all of there IPAs and I really like what it does, although the beers are in the normal ipa strength range that I've had.

 

I was going to recommend Oats or other unmalted adjuncts that have a higher protein level like flaked wheat or flaked rye. You can also creep up the OG and FG a bit by mashing higher and leave some body in there, while still having a lower ABV. Most of the session IPAs I have tried finish really dry and thin. Keeping that FG up so it isn't super dry could help with the body too. Up the Gypsum to give a perceived dryness maybe.

 

I'm under the impression that a low-ish abv hoppy beer with a bit of body is just a pale ale

 

Try this guy:

6.5 lbs pilsner malt
1 lb Vienna
1 lb carapils
1lb flaked wheat or oats

mash at 160 deg F for 45-60 mins

for 5 gallons at 72% efficiency. OG 1.050, FG 1.016. 4.5% ABV. 3.5 SRM. 1.016 should give you some decent body, nice and cloudy. obliterate said body with gobs of hoppy goodness. drink.

what if that same beer has 80 IBUs in it? here we go...

 

Then it's a hoppy pale ale? Seems more straight forward to me than a session india pale ale with added body

 

If we're sticking to the style guidelines then I don't think there's a true fit. It's simply a nomenclature difference either way. Hoppy pale ale vs full-bodied session india pale ale. I don't disagree with anything in this thread, but I think calling what you're after anything other than a pale ale, 10A or not, is over complicating it.

Either way, I'd be happy to sample the finished product and reevaluate my opinion ;-)

 

It's interesting that you object on the grounds of the BJCP guidelines, yet want to call it a "Session IPA," which doesn't even have a guideline.

ETA: i.e. why is "Session" in front of IPA any better than "Hoppy" in front of APA, for a beer that fits neither basic guideline (IPA or APA)?

 

Nope. All assertions and opinions guaranteed to be wrong or your money back.

The only reason I am okay with this "session IPA" thing is the bitterness. This style has hop flavor like an APA, ABV like an APA, can have body like an APA (although I tend to think some malt sweetness might work its way in, but that's subjective.) But an 80 IBU, 4.5% ABV APA doesn't seem like an APA to me. I'd suspect it might get dinged in an APA competition for out of balance bitterness. I understand the folks that say "it's just an APA! This is all a marketing ploy!" though. There's no doubt calling something an IPA will sell more beer.

Ithaca just scrapped their flagship pale ale to replace it with a session IPA. I tried this beer, like it I did not. I bet they sell more of it than their pale ale though...

 

I always add unmalted grains, usually wheat, to lower abv beers. Helps a lot

I also like to keep the grainbill as simple as possible for low abv, hop forward beers. so just a good quality base malt and 5% or so torrified wheat

I've never made one with 80ibus though, maybe 45 or so for a 4% beer

Are all these new american session IPAs as bitter as that? I've only had Founders All Day IPA when I was in the US last year and I'm sure it wasn't that bitter. Might be wrong though

 

I use a pound of flaked oats and adjust mash temp so that the beer finishes at 1.012. With my grain bill and yeast, that happens to be 156 degrees. I get a bit more body using 1028 or something similar rather than the typical 001/1056/US05.

It's a 4.5% beer with the body of a 'normal' 6-7% IPA.

I don't mind the body of something like Founders All Day. It was really nice over the holiday weekend working outside in the warm weather. I went through two 15 packs.

 

The Session IPAs/Hoppy Pale Ales I've had have been (subjectively at least) nowhere near 80 IBUs. But the same can be said for most of the "normal strength" IPAs I've had.

 

Hoppy APA, Session IPA, ISA... Black IPA, IDA, CDA, American Dark Ale... here we go again...

This may actually get worked out with the new BJCP Guidelines next month anyways. Who knows, maybe they changed the APA guidelines to encompass the new trend to "over-hop" everything with the letters PA in the abbreviation. Most ISAs I have had are no where near 80 IBU (except one really bad one that was super bitter and had no hop flavor or aroma), and generally fall into the guidelines of an APA, just with the hop prominence of an IPA. But then again, most newer IPAs would fall out of the BJCP guidelines on aroma and flavor impact as they smell and taste like DIPAs.

@JackHorzempa another option for perceived body is to ferment with WY 1469 West Yorkshire. Lots of peach, dry, but a lucsious and fuller mouthfeel, good attenuator, but does tone down IBUs a bit. I use it in most all of my IPAs, no thinness issues.

 

Maybe you should just make an imperial session hoppy APA.

 

@JackHorzempa

1.037 - 1.010
1.073 - 1.015
1.036 - 1.012
1.067 - 1.014
1.062 - 1.012