3-2-1 rib question


 
A

Anton

TVWBB Fan
I did 6 racks of babybacks this weekend and used the 321 method. When I took them out of the foil, I couldn't even pick up a whole rack with tongs cuz it would fall apart. Is this normal? Or did I keep them in the foil too long? (about 1.5 hrs in the foil).

Anton
 
Personally I am not a big fan of foil, but if you are going to use it do so sparingly. I would suggest no more than 30-45 minutes in foil. 1.5 hours for babybacks is definately too long.
 
The answer to your question depends on how hot you're running.

If I run about 215-225 at the grate, after 3 hours unfoiled, I don't find 1.5 hours in foil as being excessive.

However, if I'm running hotter, an hour can be just right.

You're looking at a combination of factors ... the size of the racks, grate temperature, time in foil, time out of foil, etc.. Add to that the fact that not everyone likes their ribs cooked the same way.
 
Well it is kind of a pain in the butt to do. Gives me a good reason to cook up another batch (sans foil) to see the difference
icon_smile.gif
 
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You're looking at a combination of factors ... the size of the racks, grate temperature, time in foil, time out of foil, etc.. Add to that the fact that not everyone likes their ribs cooked the same way. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Excellent point. Consider Stogie's method, which calls for 2.5 hours in foil for loin backs-- at strictly 225°. I've used it-- it works.
 
Hmm lets see.

I didn't weigh them, so am not sure how heavy they were. They were on the smaller side though.

Grate temp was about 230 (+/- 8)

Cooked em 2.5 hrs unfoiled, then foiled 1.5 hrs and finished em off for an hour (temp dropped to 220 for the last hour).
 
If you were at 230 at the bottom, you would have been hotter on the top grate ... perhaps 15 degrees ... giving you approximately 245.

Doug posted a link to Stogie's method ... where he's 2.5 hours in foil, but he's running at 225.

At your temps, I think 1.5 hours is, indeed, too much time in foil. But that's obvious since you said the ribs were literally falling apart.
icon_smile.gif


Next time, try an hour and see what you think. You can always check the foiled ribs to see how they're doing ... easy to fold them up again and put back for more time.
 
The 3-2-1 method is for spares. Babybacks are much more tender and require less time - especially in foil. My dos pesos.

Loren
 
Anton,

On Saturday (for smoke day) I cooked 3 slabs of baby backs (total weight was 7 1/2 pounds). I cooked all three on top grate (had chicken on lower grate) and kept temps between 225 and 235 degrees. Cooked ribs for 3 1/2 hours and then foiled for just under 1 hour, then back on grate without foil for another 1 1/2 hours at 260 degrees. Turned out great but were not quite as spicy as I would like (next time will spice them up a bit). This was my first foil and IMO 1 hour was enough. Meat pulled easily from bones but was not "falling off" when I took them off smoker.

Ray
 
I did two racks of bb's on saturday using a modified 3-2-1. I learned a lesson - size makes a difference! The larger rack was just right coming out of the foil; the smaller rack was just starting to fall apart.

Everyone in my household prefers ribs that have been foiled. The hardest part is knowing what's going on inside that shiny package. I now check by seeing how flexible the ribs get while in the foil 'cause I'm too lazy to open everything up to look.

One thing about q, even the mistakes get eaten right up.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">One thing about q, even the mistakes get eaten right up. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Ya got that right!
 
If you use St. Louis spares they can be about the same size as Loin backs and 2-2.5 then 40-50 then 50-1 hour will work. Size does matter!
 
Actually Stogie's 3-2-1 method was for baby backs. Somewhere on here there's a post where he mentions that he changed it to 3-2.5-.5 and talks about how he does spares for something like 9 hours, I forgot the ratio, something like 5-3-1.
 
Jeff is right ... size does matter ... as well as temperature. These aspects of the equation are lost in our use of shorthand. It's convenient to say 3-2-1 or whatever variation, but the shorthand doesn't mean anything unless other parameters are specified.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

 

Back
Top