[Stevie]

No chill is HUGE in Australia and NZ, I personally know one brewer that has tried it here. BIAB is popular because that is how they learned to do it.

[morticaixavier]

the perceived benefits of batch over continuous are brew length agnostic. A batch setup will always be simpler and less prone to those issue caused by continuous (channelling, stuck sparge, etc.)

while, as others have mentioned, the perceived benefits of BIAB over batch are less so. As brew length increases the BIAB brewer needs more complex equipment to make it work while the batch sparger just needs bigger versions of the same equipment. and at some point your 'bag' will have to be made of a material so sturdy it will border on the ridiculous (a kevlar sewn carbon fiber filter bag with a 100 qt capacity?).

I think of BIAB as more or less the smallest and simplest batch setup one can build. I started that way. with a bag in my bottling bucket.

historically continuous spargeing evolved out of 'batch' sparging (or 'sparging' as it was known at the time) in an attempt to chase the dragon of higher and higher efficiency (more, smaller batches = increased efficiency). when oppressive tax laws led the Scotts to figure out how to make the most out of a limited grist they took it to an extreme and thus was created continuous sparging. I don't know what knowledge has led to the current state where one can get as good or better efficiency with batch sparging.

However with such good extracts available now I suspect that the new brewer that isn't sure they want to continue brewing will just stick with extract while the brewer that wants to go deeper and with larger brew lengths will move towards batch or continuous. BIAB will remain a choice for small batch brewers.

[S. cerevisiae]

BIAB is popular because that is how they learned to do it.

The same thing can be said about batch sparging or continuous sparging.

[S. cerevisiae]

the perceived benefits of batch over continuous are brew length agnostic. A batch setup will always be simpler and less prone to those issue caused by continuous (channelling, stuck sparge, etc.)

Stuck sparges are the result of crushing one's malt too fine, not lautering technique.  I have never had a stuck mash since I purchased a roller mill, and I never use rice hulls, even working with gummy grains.  I used to get them all of the time when I used a Corona mill.

and at some point your 'bag' will have to be made of a material so sturdy it will border on the ridiculous (a kevlar sewn carbon fiber filter bag with a 100 qt capacity?).

That problem has already being solved via the introduction of Brew In A Basket.  It's the same technique.

historically continuous spargeing evolved out of 'batch' sparging (or 'sparging' as it was known at the time) in an attempt to chase the dragon of higher and higher efficiency (more, smaller batches = increased efficiency). when oppressive tax laws led the Scotts to figure out how to make the most out of a limited grist they took it to an extreme and thus was created continuous sparging. I don't know what knowledge has led to the current state where one can get as good or better efficiency with batch sparging.

One cannot achieve better efficiency with batch sparging than can be achieved with continuous sparging when using a properly designed lauter tun and good technique.  If that were true, every major brewer in the world would switch to batch sparging.  The times savings alone would pay for the equipment. 

[S. cerevisiae]

By the way, I am playing devil's advocate in this thread.  I have no intention of changing the way I brew. I  have just noticed a worldwide trend toward the adoption of BIAB as a first-class way to make beer.  Use of the technique has grown significantly in the last year.  What got me interested in discussing the trend is that an old brewing friend and fellow continuous sparger started playing around with the technique.

[Stevie]

BIAB is popular because that is how they learned to do it.

The same thing can be said about batch sparging or continuous sparging.

But that does not mean it will become more popular here or that it will become the preferred method for new all-grain brewers. If I were assisting somebody make the jump from extract to all-grain, I would first ask how much they want to make. Less than 3 gallons, I would show brew in a bag, ~5 gallons + I 'd show them Denny's batch sparge techniques. I like BIAB for small stove top batches, and it is a razor thin margin.

[seefish]

I started out as a batch sparger with a cooler and went to BIAB with the intention of brewing smaller batches.  That worked out for about 2 batches lol...I went back to 5 gallons but stuck with BIAB.  Didn't seem to make sense to me to transfer to another vessel if I didn't have to.  That being said, my kitchen stove is strong enough to get 10 gallons to a rolling boil and I have a sturdy strainer to hold the grain.  I don't think I would consider going over 5 gal with BIAB.

[dmtaylor]

One cannot achieve better efficiency with batch sparging than can be achieved with continuous sparging when using a properly designed lauter tun and good technique.

I have found this to be true only in theory and not in practice.  It is not terribly difficult to achieve 94% efficiency in a batch sparged beer.  While I'm sure it's possible to achieve 94% or higher efficiency with fly sparging... do we really need to?!  I think this is a moot point.

[morticaixavier]

One cannot achieve better efficiency with batch sparging than can be achieved with continuous sparging when using a properly designed lauter tun and good technique.

I have found this to be true only in theory and not in practice.  It is not terribly difficult to achieve 94% efficiency in a batch sparged beer.  While I'm sure it's possible to achieve 94% or higher efficiency with fly sparging... do we really need to?!  I think this is a moot point.

Also I stated "as good or better" and as good is certainly possible.

[HoosierBrew]

 If I were assisting somebody make the jump from extract to all-grain, I would first ask how much they want to make. Less than 3 gallons, I would show brew in a bag, ~5 gallons + I 'd show them Denny's batch sparge techniques.

+1. 

[klickitat jim]

To answer the original question. No. 100% of the people I brew with on a regular basis use batch sparging with direct fire recirculation. And the folks from that community don't associ8 with folks from the other communities.

[Stevie]

To answer the original question. No. 100% of the people I brew with on a regular basis use batch sparging with direct fire recirculation. And the folks from that community don't associ8 with folks from the other communities.

Jim, you might be in a cult. Do you need rescuing?

[HoosierBrew]

Jim being rescued from a cult is a funny a$$ mental picture for some reason. You don't live in a compound do you, Jim ?   

[klickitat jim]

No cult. No compound. And only one person in my brewing club. So, I'll admit that my pool of data is somewhat limited. But its what I've been observing

[HoosierBrew]

No cult. No compound. And only one person in my brewing club. So, I'll admit that my pool of data is somewhat limited. But its what I've been observing

Just being silly anyway, Jim.  Long week !