"Session IPAs"

I'm not sure I'd compare them to English IPAs either. Worthington's White Shield doesn't have this incredible overwhelming hop aroma (in a good way), then a first sip that disappoints, with a thin body in addition to that.

But I'd also say it's a closer comparison than an American Pale Ale.

 

I just wish these beers had more malt presence to them. Would help with the balance.

 

Try the logo to your left - Liberty Ale is the perfect session IPA

 

Getting a good malt balance without increasing the ABV is the tricky part of brewing this style. I had three different session IPAs last night at Peg's Cantina/Cycle Brewing in St. Pete, and they all left me feeling short on enough flavor, although each was a tasty beer from a hops perspective. If you know going in when you order a beer in this style then I think you have to accept it for what it is... a low ABV, modest-flavored beer.

 

I am getting to that point of acceptance. But not being a (home)brewer I guess I just don't understand how its possible to brew a session ESB, which is a malt bomb, but not be able to brew a session IPA with some malt presence.

 

I think the answer is that the hops are strong enough in an IPA recipe so that they mask the maltiness that we'd all like to taste a little more, but the ESB is not as hoppy. It's a real balancing act.

 

Of all the pissy righteousness in disagreeing about beer, the terminology shit irks me the most. Really, if you know what the brewer means, and they know what it means, that's that. Who gives a shit if such and such a style is contradicting, unnecessary, or redundant? I never like the termed "indy rock", but I never felt the need to say "No, we shouldn't call it that because 'alternative' already exists."

 

Seriously folks, who honestly really gives a damn? If you do, just close your browser, put the phone down, close the laptop and take a few deep breaths. There's a lot more important things to worry about, like, why Redd's Apple Ale isn't called Redd's Apple Lager.

I like session IPAs. Founders All Day, Victory Hop Ticket; both are quite tasty. I could've been a total snob/c*nt and told the owner of my favorite beer bar that they aren't really IPAs, but he wouldn't give a shit and frankly, I don't either.

I like the option of having a couple pretty well hopped beers at 5% or less rather than a couple bigger ABV hop sodas.

My tolerance is shit these days and I feel I can better enjoy myself when out with others while ingesting several milder ABV offerings with a crap-ton more flavor than the average macro and taking down some above average pub fare.

How dare I buy into the deceptive marketing tactics employed by supposedly reputable and trustworthy craft breweries marketing low ABV pale ales as sessionable IPAs. Psh...what a sheep I am.

 

Anyone else feel like me about these beers? My take:

I'd rather drink fewer IPAs instead of more Session IPAs. The reasoning is simple, IPAs (most anyways) have a malt backbone that balances the beer and makes it a "true beer". Session IPAs are so dumbed down on the malt side to get the sessionable ABV that the beer ends up being simply a hop forward gimmick barely worthy of the name beer. Add in the fact that these beers come with the same price tag as a normal IPA and I'm wondering why I would buy these beers simply so I can drink more.

So until brewers start brewing session IPAs with some semblance of balance with respect to a legitimate malt backbone I think I'm going to have to pass on these beers. Anyone else with me. Any homebrewers/brewers had success with balanced session IPAs?

 

I like to session my IPAs.

 

I agree that from my experience with the couple of Session IPAs I've had, the malt is severely neglected. Fix that, brewers! Please?

 

Yes, I agree with you. Two things though.

1) For my own personal palate and opinion, I don't consider today's IPAs "true beer". Yes they're balanced to give it that full flavor, but I also feel they're one dimensional. This is sort of a side topic though. Personally, IPAs are a separate category altogether when I think of beer today.

2) I haven't COMPLETELY given up, if there's a new one that's getting some good press I'll give it a whirl (last week's was Stone's Go-To IPA). But I'm certainly not buying these in large quantities. At the 4-5% range I'm typically purchasing something like a pilsner. That honey sweetness I get from the malt complemented by the lingering (but not overwhelming) hop bite in the finish from a solid pilsner makes me want to drink about 50 of them.

Stone's beer smelled fantastic, and tasted a bit fruity at first, but there was no balance. Eventually the bitterness became harsh by the end. Something that I only wanted one of, maybe two.

 

Drinking an all day at the moment. 15 pk cans for $20. Not bad, but I'd prefer more malt balance as well. The hop flavor is good but bites more than a 42 IBU should IMO

 

Many brewers already make a balanced Session IPA; its called a pale ale.

 

The most balanced one I have had, and my favorite so far has been looseleaf from Odell. That being said, I'm not impressed with the style at all.

 

I disagree. Except for SNPA, Stone Pale Ale, and Mirror Pond every APA I've ever had is such a bastard of a beer that both the malt is too weak and so is the hop flavor that basically makes the style a 100% non-event for me. At least session IPAs have a nice hop profile which I cannot say for any APA except the three listed above.

 

The $9-10/sixer session IPAs are a joke. No thanks.

 

FW Pale 31 and Drake's 1500 are the (Session India) Pale Ales you're looking for.

 

The thread was actually precipitated by my drinking of FW's Easy Jack. Pale 31, irrc is an APA, no? Never heard of or seen this Drake's 1500 you speak of.

 

I drink 2 Lagunitas Undercover Investigation Ales per session. Each session is normally 60-75 minutes.