There are a lot of beers labeled as a Triple IPA from the breweries but they are still categorized under the Double IPA category on here, RateBeer, and Untappd. Should Triple IPA be a new style or is it just a way for the breweries to indicate Double IPAs with higher abv?
I believe these Triple IPA's already fit under the category of "Imperial IPAs." BA lists the style as "American Double/Imperial IPA" and that seems to work pretty good. A seperate listing would definitely be redundant and confusing.
With most double IPA's pushing the IBU detectability threshold as it is I personally don't know if there is a need for a new category.
Along those lines, wouldn't it be accurate to say a "triple IPA" is just a barleywine with pale malts? If so, then again, there's no reason for a new classification.
And there are others [Knee Deep Simtra for one] but the answer is no, since there is no category nor should there be.
I agree, at what point is it just marketing? How hoppy can a beer really get and retain drinkability. I tried the hop dam and it was borderline ridiculous. Whats next, a stout you have to serve with a spoon to get it out of the glass?
I had a triple IPA at Renegade Brewery in Denver, CO. It was a good beer. Hoppy, strong malt backbone, bold, full body. But I can't say it was anything bigger and bolder than any double or Imperial IPA I've ever had. It was around 9% ABV, I believe. The name seemed kind of gimmicky, I guess. Unless there's something in the brewing process that differentiates a triple versus a double IPA, I generally think it's a marketing shtick. Eventually we'll have an octuple IPA.
I agree. I had Hopocalypse and Hopocalypse Black Label side by side the other night and Hopocalypse Black Label was way more intense both in hop character and abv which started this way of thinking.
I think we should just have IPA and Imperial IPAs. Look at the abv, look at the IBUs, just taste it. I had a Sucks next to a Flower Power last night. FP is a 7.5% "IPA" and Sucks is a 7.85% IIPA. The splitting of hairs.
Last year during SF beer week they introduced a new style category for judging.......The Triple IPA....... http://drinkmemag.com/2013/02/sf-beer-week-weekend-roundup/ I think its legit, and I enjoy them I agree its splitting hairs at that level but once you get up into the 9%-10.5% they start to get different.
I'm not sure what barleywines some of you folks are drinking, but I can't quite see how any double or triple IPAs would be classified as barleywines. I would hope people (at least on BA) could tell the difference even in a blind tasting. If anything, the Simtra (one of the self-prolaimed triple IPAs) to me seems to lean a bit toward an imperial red with its malt profile...
What do they tag the third "I" to? Inane Imperial India Pale Ale? Idiotic Imperial India Pale Ale? Impossible Imperial India Pale Ale?
I understand the debate, but shouldn't the brewers be consulted on this as well? Don't we trust the brewmasters of our favorite beers to know what they would like to classify their beers as? After all, isn't that really the core of making "craft" beer, discovering and inventing new styles, new ways to brew, different ingredients in ways that haven't been thought of before? I'm sure the homebrewers would understand this to a certain degree.
I've pretty much stopped paying attention to whether something is considered an IPA or DIPA and just look at the ABV. 8% tends to be the dividing line for most, but of course there's plenty of examples like Sucks that are under 8. IBUs are a nice number to look at too but how different will a 55 IBU IPA be versus a 62 IBU DIPA? Your palate won't really know the difference, especially with so many being loaded up with late-addition hops and dry hops that barely contribute to the IBUs.
It can be tricky to distinguish some 'triple' IPAs from aggressively hopped American Barleywines. Boneyards sends their Notorious Triple IPA to the Toronado barleywine festival every year. Triple IPA is a bit of misnomer, as generally these beers have recipes that contain roughly 2x malt as regular IPAs. Double Crooked Tree would be the textbook example. There are probably only a handful of 'true' Triple IPAs in the literal sense: Super Juice, 120 Minute, So Double It's Triple, etc. You could certainly make the case that there are distinct classes of IIPA/DIPA: 1) The highly attenuated 'West Coast' IIPA (7.5-9.0% ABV, with massive hop aroma and flavor and fairly mild malt presence and restrained bitterness) Examples: Pliny the Elder, Double Sunshine, Poor Man's DIPA 2) The balanced 'East Coast' DIPA (8.0%-10.5% ABV, with aggressive dry-hopping, significant malt character, and bruising bitterness) Examples: Abrasive Ale, Hopslam, Maharaja, Dogfish 90 Minute, 3) The 'Triple' IPA (9.5%+, with massive amounts of dry hops, hop flavor, malt flavor, and possibly alcohol and bitterness) Examples: Exponential Hoppiness, Pliny the Younger, Hop Suey, Notorious Triple, Ephraim Keep in mind these examples were thought up on the fly, so some may straddle the boundaries a bit. I think one category on BA is sufficient anyway, as there's a pretty wide range of beers in the other categories (is it really fair to lump barrel-aged stouts, coffee stouts, and plain old imperial stouts in the same category?). I've always been a fan of a tag based sorting system that lets you increase granularity if you want rather than introducing umpteen new 'official styles' like White IPA, Black Saison, Belgian Stout, Rice Ale, IPL, etc.
Agreed, there is a blurry line already, I don't think we need to blur if further. If a brewery wants to differentiate itself by calling their beer a triple IPA, I'm fine with that (especially if they have a IPA and an IIPA already, e.g. Blind Pig, PtE and PtY).
Yes, but simply adding more fermentables and more hops isn't inventing a new style. Nor is it particularly creative. And in my opinion, ought not to be encouraged.
Though it's fine for Belgium to have styles of ale designated Single, Dubbel, Trippel? Why not American IPA's? If you're rounding 2nd, might as well leg it our for 3 bases! Younger, Double Crooked Tree, Devil Dancer, etc are definitely (in my mind anyway) above D-IPA standards. And if you have the separate category, more brewers will brew that style in years to come. So in the end--we as the consumers win big! Well...if you're a hophead anyway. Cheers!
In my opinion, attempts at a Triple IPA have been pretty unsuccessful. The 2 beers that I have consumed that I would consider falling under this category are 120 Minute and Devil Dancer. To me, the bitter and alcohol are just too big and the balance is all out of whack, like trying to balance elephants on a teeter totter. Are brewers trying to one-up each other?
But singles, dubbels, and tripels are pretty damn different from each other, so much so that they easily constitute separate styles. I probably couldn't tell the difference between a "true" triple IPA and a thoroughly unbalanced DIPA (kinda like how it's hard to differentiate highly-hopped pale ales like Daisy Cutter and Zombie Dust from "true" IPAs). The way I see it, call the beer whatever you want, so long as I have some idea of what I'm about to drink.
Can you explain what you mean by "every year"? I thought the fest has been going since the mid-90s, but Boneyard as a brewery is a few years old and the first review for Notorious is in June 2011. By "every year" do you mean "last year and this year"? Seems more like a way for them to get exposure than anything else.
No need for a "triple IPA" designation IMO. As others already stated, "imperial IPA" pretty much covers anywhere you want to go once you get into the higher abv's and ibu's of this style. The only reason to call something a "triple ipa" is marketing (not that that's inherently a bad thing).
This year and last year. Every year that the beer has been in existence as of February. It fits in with the other beers, IMHO.
At every point it is just marketing, they are all hoppy pale ales, the rest is marketing and competition entry categories.
