[S. cerevisiae]

To that point, do you think that either sparge method makes a significant difference in the beer, at homebrew scale?

No, I say that a brewer should lauter a mash the way he/she wants to lauter a mash, and that includes no sparge, BIAB, or the process du jour.   My frustration lies in the what appears to be a concerted effort by batch spargers to steer new brewers away from continuous sparging, often by spreading disinformation.  There's a joy in being able to continuous sparge well that is not matched by the other lautering methods.  New brewers will never know that joy unless they try it.

[S. cerevisiae]

I am one who is doing BIAB for most of my batches and have claimed that I can brew a batch start to finish in 3 hours as opposed to 5 hours.

I appreciate you falling on your sword, but it wasn't you or anyone else on the AHA forum that made the claim.  I have seen the claim made on several other home brewing-related forums.  That being said, your explanation does clarify the claim.  The times savings are based on an apples to oranges comparison.

[pete b]

I am one who is doing BIAB for most of my batches and have claimed that I can brew a batch start to finish in 3 hours as opposed to 5 hours.

I appreciate you falling on your sword, but it wasn't you or anyone else on the AHA forum that made the claim.  I have seen the claim made on several other home brewing-related forums.  That being said, your explanation does clarify the claim.  The times savings are based on an apples to oranges comparison.

Exactly, I wouldn't recommend biab as a way to save time or even effort on a 5 gallon batch, but my particular system for my particular circumstance means I brew once a week instead of once a month if I'm lucky.
Edit: I've never had a problem comparing apples to oranges. They have a lot of similarities and a lot of differences. What better to compare?

[denny]

No, I say that a brewer should lauter a mash the way he/she wants to lauter a mash, and that includes no sparge, BIAB, or the process du jour.   My frustration lies in the what appears to be a concerted effort by batch spargers to steer new brewers away from continuous sparging, often by spreading disinformation.  There's a joy in being able to continuous sparge well that is not matched by the other lautering methods.  New brewers will never know that joy unless they try it.

And aren't you doing the same thing with those words?  Although I have been guilty in the past, I do my best these days to lay out the differences and my own opinions without trying to push someone one way or the other.  And I can guarantee you, I found NO joy in continuous sparging.  You do, and that's great.

[klickitat jim]

Mark, you are probably right regarding other brewing forums. And I know you arent singling out anyone here, its just a discussion.  But if it helps, I've seen numerous members here suggest continuous/fly sparging to new brewers. It happens quite frequently. Every time they suggest reading How to Brew.

[Wort-H.O.G.]

No, I say that a brewer should lauter a mash the way he/she wants to lauter a mash, and that includes no sparge, BIAB, or the process du jour.   My frustration lies in the what appears to be a concerted effort by batch spargers to steer new brewers away from continuous sparging, often by spreading disinformation.  There's a joy in being able to continuous sparge well that is not matched by the other lautering methods.  New brewers will never know that joy unless they try it.

And aren't you doing the same thing with those words?  Although I have been guilty in the past, I do my best these days to lay out the differences and my own opinions without trying to push someone one way or the other.  And I can guarantee you, I found NO joy in continuous sparging.  You do, and that's great.

+1 i've done both and for me, there was no love for continuous sparge. i'm a big fan of batch sparge with good results.

[tommymorris]

I have done fly, batch, and BIAB.

I started brewing in the mid nineties. When I went all grain I did fly. I tried it 5-6 times. I used a gravity based fly sparge. Things went OK. But I wasn't a very good brewer then. Now I realize my beers had temp control and yeast pitch problems. I do agree with Mark there is a joy in getting a gravity based fly sparge system working. It's a nice engineering problem to solve. That being said, after half a year or so I gave up brewing due to the arrival of my first son.

Years later (12) I got back to brewing. I tried batch sparge. There is a lot of support available on the Internet forums so batch sparging is easy to learn. There was also a lot of horror stories about channeling and other issues with fly that may be exaggerations. I batch sparged for about 2 years with great success.

Then, I tried BIAB. I did that for a year. Again with great success. I liked the ability to heat the mash if I missed my temp target. But, inevitably when I did add heat I overshot my temp by a degree or two.

Now I have been back to batch sparging for about 1 year.

For apples to apples comparison. I have always done 5-6 gallon batches. Both BIAB and batch sparge take me about 4.5-5 hours. I am not rushing when I brew. 4.5-5 hours is what I want. Longer will annoy the wife. Shorter is not enough time for my dear hobby.

I can't compare batch and BIAB to fly. It was too long ago and I wasn't a very good brewer then. Fly sparge worked, wasn't really that hard, and I made beer.

Anyway, I like batch sparging. BIAB is easy but it always bothered me that BIAB let so much powder in the wort. The trub layer on a BIAB batch was always 50-100% thicker than a similar sized batch sparged beer. That was a slight hit on my Brewhouse efficiency that didn't really matter, but, it bothered me. It was enough trub that it partially covered the spigot on my Speidel and prevented me from using the spigot because I didn't want the trub in the keg. So, I went back to batch sparging.

My setup is cheap and easy and has been when brewing with all 3 methods.

[HoosierBrew]

I started out fly sparging using Charlie P's old Zapap bucket in bucket design, then upgraded to Igloo style with a false bottom. Admittedly, part of my problems then were pH problems especially with dark beers, part were a scarcity of good info compared to today, part were equipment related (false bottom, sparge,etc). All in all, no love lost for me for fly, so I tried and liked batch sparging. But I could truly care less what someone else likes or prefers. I just offer my own experience. But look at the brewers here - equipment varies from the very cheap to the high end. The best system for somebody is the one they like using the best, including sparge method. It's not a contest.

[S. cerevisiae]

I do agree with Mark there is a joy in getting a gravity based fly sparge system working. It's a nice engineering problem to solve.

I believe that you hit the nail squarely on the head with the statement.

Once perfected, a small-scale continuous sparge system also requires less physical effort than a small-scale batch sparge system.  I have spent most of my life designing systems that reduce the level of effort needed to perform one or more tasks.   The thing that I detested about batch sparging was having to perform a second or third mash-in and vorlauf, especially when it was warm in my garage.  It always felt like wasted physical effort.  Why infuse, stir, and vorlauf a second or third time when gravity will do the work for you?  I would rather harness the power of physics. 

[hopfenundmalz]

Well, I did a batch sparge of a Janet's Brown on Ale on Sunday, and a Big American BW on Tuesday. Both were 10 gallon batches.

I think Batch sparging can save time, but around 15 minutes for a 10 gallon batch of a reasonable gravity beer - the heating of the wort is the critical path. On Sunday most everything went to script, and it was about 4.5 hours, and I left the system in place once cleaned as I was brewing again soon. My previous fly sparge record was 4.5 hour for a 1.038 bitter, but there was less to heat up and so on, and that day included clean up and put away.

The BW was more involved and the day was longer. Had a few problems with hitting temps, so had to add heat and so on. A long boil off to hit the target, but it was not a bad day, and the beer should be good. The 70 qt. cooler let me mash 42 lbs, so I hit a little higher gravity than with the keggle with false bottom mash tun.

Having done both, I can see why people like one or the other. It comes down to what you are comfortable with, your equipment, and what works.

Guys in the club make good beer on many systems, so it is the brewer/brewster and how they make the system work for them.