How much longer does fly sparging take YOU?

[JoeBeer100]

I brewed with a fly sparge today, as I usually do, and it took just shy of 2 hours for the sparging process (I'm a slow sparger). This is consistent with all my brew days as I collect my wort at the same rate every time. I do 10 gallon batches, and collect 13 -13.5gallons during the sparge (depending on the style). The efficiency has been quite consistent since I collect at the same rate each time. However, fly sparging may not be the ticket to consistency. Understanding your equipment and process probably are. To me, consistency is worth way more than saving a few minutes (or hours) on a brew day.

[BarefootLion]

I batch sparge and I'm fairly consistent on efficiency. Pretty close to the same amount of time. Between vorlauf #1, then batch sparge and vorlauf #2 and running the mash out.
I'm drinking so, maybe my math is off.

[BDawg]

I find them to be about the same amount of time because you have to re-vorlauf with every water addition. I have a false bottom so there's a lot of surface area that needs to reset each time. I do 3 batches instead of only 2, or my efficiency suffers. Fly sparging I'll get between 78 to 80 percent every time, and a bit less when batch sparging. Drop that to 2 batch sparges, and I'm down around 70 percent. I know it doesn't make any difference, but I can't bring myself to just throw all those goodies away, so I get the extra efficiency at the expense of time.

[numsquat]

I switched from batch sparging to fly sparging late summer with a new system. I had batch sparged for about 7 years using the Denny Conn method and had an efficiency of 74-77% every time. My fly started at 62% but as I got better with my system I've hit 74-76% the last two brews. Time wise it adds about an hour to my brew day, no big deal, just start an hour earlier, but I have extended my current sparging time from when I first started, which I feel has really helped the efficiency.

[brewinhard]

If you want to speed up your day try giving a no sparge a shot! gives a nice rich malt profile at the expense of more grains than batch or fly.

[spiderwrangler]

I'd say it's LESS consistent... unless you, your equipment and your process are really dialed in.

It's not less consistent, the brewers are.

My point exactly. The change in process alone isn't going to fix efficiency issues, and fly sparge has greater potential for allowing those problems to come to the forefront.

[Ozwald]

I'd say it's LESS consistent... unless you, your equipment and your process are really dialed in.

It's not less consistent, the brewers are.

My point exactly. The change in process alone isn't going to fix efficiency issues, and fly sparge has greater potential for allowing those problems to come to the forefront.

But that doesn't make the process any less efficient. That's like saying driving a car is inefficient because the driver is incapable of navigating from point A to B in a rational manner. Sure you can walk from A to B faster than driving a car, if the driver goes to point B, C, D, E, F, Q, 4, ß, æ & stops to £ some hooker while he's there, but that doesn't mean walking is more efficient than driving.

[spiderwrangler]

But that doesn't make the process any less efficient. That's like saying driving a car is inefficient because the driver is incapable of navigating from point A to B in a rational manner. Sure you can walk from A to B faster than driving a car, if the driver goes to point B, C, D, E, F, Q, 4, ß, æ & stops to £ some hooker while he's there, but that doesn't mean walking is more efficient than driving.

Now you're switching up consistent and efficient... but I think we are in agreement that it is the application of the process that determines how well it works...