Bigger water pan


 
M

m raschko

TVWBB Member
I'm going to be trying out my first overnight smoke soon and thought that I should increase the capacity of my water pan. Originally, I thought I'd just get the Brinkman charcoal pan as has been discussed here many times. However, I seem to recall that someone had posted that the current generation of WSM's are shipping with bigger water pans. Maybe i should get one of those instead. Anyone have any experience with both? Is one better than the other?

Thanks,
-Michael
 
Yep, I've got experience with the new giant one that came with my cooker last yr, and experience with the Brinkman.

I measured it, but can't remember the difference in depths. Regardless, you will NOT be able to overfill your ring with the new one. In other words, your charcoal will burn out before the pan runs dry. The Brinkman pan holds plenty of water for an overnight cook and not only allows heaping the charcoal and wood, but much better access to, as well. Sometimes you want to stir the coals a little or turn a wood chunk over. You can't even SEE much of the charcoal if you have the new one, but it wasn't actually designed for the wsm, anyway. It's the bottom of the Smokey Joe grill and Weber saved $$ by not retooling. They were just responding to all the complaints of the old one not holding enough water for an overnight cook. Competitors have been using the Brinkman ecb charcoal pan for years, and they're only $5 at Academy Sports. I bet a replacement pan from Weber costs a wee bit more.
icon_biggrin.gif
 
Depending on your sleeping habits, the standard water pan may be fine. If you fill it to the brim it should go 10 hours or more without running dry (and I wake up at 6am, so no issue there).

I have used the Brinkmann, but it gives a lot less clearance to access the charcoal, and for some longer cooking sessions I find I need to add coals...so access is an important issue for me.
 
I have the latest model of the WSM with the larger water pan. When I’m barbecuing and have to tend the charcoal I can’t see or get to the charcoal on the side opposite the larger water pan. That’s from the door. I’ll probably buy the lower Brinkmann pan, though I can’t find one locally. Chris Allington, posted that
I’ve been using a small 12 inch grated charcoal basket that I can see completely under the water pan and I can tend the charcoal without any problems. It also uses a smaller quantity of charcoal than the much larger Weber large charcoal ring. When the outside ambient is temperature 75 degrees or so, the upper grate heats to 225F and stays there. I don’t have to use the water pan because the heat generated is less. I can tend the whole basket even with the large empty water pan in place. This saves a lot of money because I use a lot less charcoal. With the large water pan a lot of charcoal is used just maintaining water at a 212F simmer. This keeps the inside temperture around 225-250F.
I’ve complained about this at Weber customer service and they don’t seem to understand the problem.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Matt A 3:
Depending on your sleeping habits, the standard water pan may be fine. If you fill it to the brim it should go 10 hours or more without running dry (and I wake up at 6am, so no issue there).

I have used the Brinkmann, but it gives a lot less clearance to access the charcoal, and for some longer cooking sessions I find I need to add coals...so access is an important issue for me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Think you don't have access with the Brinkman?

Let me tell ya...it's a LOT more space and access with the Brinkman pan than with the new wsm pan! I don't know why you'd need any more space, really.

Oh, and most folks can't go to bed with the old shallow pan. I think G. Wiviott is a little TOO cautious in saying to check it every 1.5 hr, but TEN HOURS? You must be cooking right at the boiling point so the pan's barely steaming if that's the case. If I cook over 250, I doubt I can go that long with the Brinkman pan. Besides though, the point is that you don't want to cook until the pan runs dry. Right?
 
Thanks for all the help. Sounds like the Brinkman pan is the way to go for me. I could get up at 6am, but on the off chance the kids let me sleep in, I want to be able to take them up on it.
icon_smile.gif
 
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by m raschko:
Thanks for all the help. Sounds like the Brinkman pan is the way to go for me. I could get up at 6am, but on the off chance the kids let me sleep in, I want to be able to take them up on it.
icon_smile.gif
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't foil the whole pan, but if I do foil at all, I take three narrow strips off a roll of foil and go around the rim with it. I lay it down about halfway into the pan and tuck it over the rim. I'm trying to cover the rim and the top 1/2 of the pan, since those areas will be dry or get dry as water boils off.

One thing I think I've discovered with the water pan is that higher temps like 275 will be more of a factor in boiling off water than the actual time cooking. IOW, if you cook 225-250, water will last a LONG time, maybe a whole butte cook if using a Brinkman. However, if I cook the same butt at 250-275, I will definately need to refill the pan at some point, even though the cook will be a lot shorter. I'm not saying you'll need to get up in the middle of the night, though, so it's not a problem, just something to remember.

Some might think all this water pan talk is a bit much, but I've come to the conclusion that the wsm's forte is turning 4 eight pound pork butts into barbecue while I go to bed and do absolutely nothing but catch some zzz's. Ya gotta love that! That's the wsm at it's best, for sure.
icon_wink.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

 

Back
Top