Steve Petrone
TVWBB Platinum Member
Tonight I have a brisket cooking on the top rack. This is my first cook with the Piedmont pan. I put a few foil balls in the pan and covered with foil. It is holding steady at 230.
Piedmont Waterless Pan
- Thread starter Steve Petrone
- Start date
Steve Petrone
TVWBB Platinum Member
Yes and yes. Just being carefull with a new techinique for me.
Temps are steady-230's.
Temps are steady-230's.
Steve Petrone
TVWBB Platinum Member
temp holding at 236-6.00am
Steve Petrone
TVWBB Platinum Member
This was an easy cook-no surprises.
Temp stayed fro 230-250 for 16 hours, one load of new King.
Temp stayed fro 230-250 for 16 hours, one load of new King.
Jeff T Miller
TVWBB All-Star
Steve what is a piedmont pan? Is it something special or is it just a name applied to using the standard pan covered over with foil?
Steve Petrone
TVWBB Platinum Member
Jeff, Mike Willsey took two brinkman pans and screwed them together with a 1/2 inch space between them. It eliminates needing water in the pan. By foiling the top pan you can capture drippings and have the easiest clean up. It is a win win win. Unlike sand which can over cook the meat on the bottom rack, this shouln't.
Remember water is a great safety net-monitor temps and you should do just fine. Sand allowed me to conserve fuel because you are not constantly boiling water. I think the piedmont pan offerrs the same benefit. 16 hours on one load of new kingsford and I had coals left to spare.
My cook last night could not have gone better. I do remember saying the same thing about sand and I quit it. One problem with sand is that the sand holds the heat if you overshoot your target temp. It takes a while to get the temp down. With the Piedmont pan the airspace is an insulator and does not retain heat like sand. One benefit of sand is that it allows you to conserve fuel. With sand you are not constantly boiling water. The Piedmont pan offers the same benefit.
Remember water is a great safety net-monitor temps and you should do just fine. Sand allowed me to conserve fuel because you are not constantly boiling water. I think the piedmont pan offerrs the same benefit. 16 hours on one load of new kingsford and I had coals left to spare.
My cook last night could not have gone better. I do remember saying the same thing about sand and I quit it. One problem with sand is that the sand holds the heat if you overshoot your target temp. It takes a while to get the temp down. With the Piedmont pan the airspace is an insulator and does not retain heat like sand. One benefit of sand is that it allows you to conserve fuel. With sand you are not constantly boiling water. The Piedmont pan offers the same benefit.
Steve Petrone
TVWBB Platinum Member
Paul, this may be one of the best mods. I have not cooked on the bottom grate with the piedmont pan. I cannot imagine radiant heat being a problem. I also put foil balls in the pan before foiling.
Jeff T Miller
TVWBB All-Star
I remember reading about that a month or so ago. I just didn't realize it had a name attached to it. That is what threw me.
Larry D.
TVWBB Emerald Member
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Steve Petrone:
Jeff, Mike Willsey took two brinkman pans and screwed them together with a 1/2 inch space between them. It eliminates needing water in the pan. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You can also do this with one Brinkmann pan and the WSM's water pan. I did it this way just because that's what I had on hand (old Brinkmann pan left over from a Gourmet) and it has worked very well the two times I've used it.
Jeff, Mike Willsey took two brinkman pans and screwed them together with a 1/2 inch space between them. It eliminates needing water in the pan. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You can also do this with one Brinkmann pan and the WSM's water pan. I did it this way just because that's what I had on hand (old Brinkmann pan left over from a Gourmet) and it has worked very well the two times I've used it.
Steve Petrone
TVWBB Platinum Member
Which pan is on top? When I tried that, I thought it would interfere with the lower grate.
Bruce Bissonnette
TVWBB Guru
Steve,
I checked yesterday and you can place the Weber pan inside the Brinkmann pan and it will leave about an inch space between them.
I did not put them in the WSM to check on the bottom grate interference though. I'm doing some spares this weekend and I'm going to use this pan set-up and see how it goes.
I checked yesterday and you can place the Weber pan inside the Brinkmann pan and it will leave about an inch space between them.
I did not put them in the WSM to check on the bottom grate interference though. I'm doing some spares this weekend and I'm going to use this pan set-up and see how it goes.
Larry D.
TVWBB Emerald Member
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Steve Petrone:
Which pan is on top? When I tried that, I thought it would interfere with the lower grate. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The WSM pan is on top, and it did result in the lower grid sitting right on top of the pan. But it worked okay cooking 4 beer-butt chickens, and most of the time when I cook butts I just cook two on the top grate anyway. I think I'd have plenty of headroom to cook butts on both grates.
Which pan is on top? When I tried that, I thought it would interfere with the lower grate. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The WSM pan is on top, and it did result in the lower grid sitting right on top of the pan. But it worked okay cooking 4 beer-butt chickens, and most of the time when I cook butts I just cook two on the top grate anyway. I think I'd have plenty of headroom to cook butts on both grates.
Bill Harvey
TVWBB Super Fan
I learned something new every day...
Steve Petrone
TVWBB Platinum Member
Report on second Piedmont Waterless Pan cook.
Same setup as first cook. Two brinkman pans 1/2" apart. Foil balls covered with foil.
Bottom grate one brisket, top 2 butts. Put on at 9p.m. 2 adjustments later, all is settled down-target temp 250*. Alarm went off at 2am 270*. Made adjustment and to bed. 7am temp had dropped to 220*. At the 2am adj. I set the vents like I normally would have for a 220-235 cook. So I got what I set it for. So at 7 am I stirred for the first time and openned the vents to get back to 250 target. 9am We are sitting on 247.
My gut feel is that there is a little less control without water but I am very comfortable with the temp ranges I am experiencing with the vent adj. I have made.
It will be interesting to see how the brisket on the bottom does. We'll see if there is a radiant heat effect or not. The brisket was in a plateau at 164 for about 8 hours, it just now has climbed to 170.
Same setup as first cook. Two brinkman pans 1/2" apart. Foil balls covered with foil.
Bottom grate one brisket, top 2 butts. Put on at 9p.m. 2 adjustments later, all is settled down-target temp 250*. Alarm went off at 2am 270*. Made adjustment and to bed. 7am temp had dropped to 220*. At the 2am adj. I set the vents like I normally would have for a 220-235 cook. So I got what I set it for. So at 7 am I stirred for the first time and openned the vents to get back to 250 target. 9am We are sitting on 247.
My gut feel is that there is a little less control without water but I am very comfortable with the temp ranges I am experiencing with the vent adj. I have made.
It will be interesting to see how the brisket on the bottom does. We'll see if there is a radiant heat effect or not. The brisket was in a plateau at 164 for about 8 hours, it just now has climbed to 170.
Rick Angiel
TVWBB Fan
Steve,
How did your cook go? I, too, had 2 butts (~7 lbs each) over a brisket (~12 lbs). This was my first waterless cook using the Piedmont pan setup. This cook surprised me. Fuel and temps were not the problem - completion time was. Previous cooks similar to this had the brisket done in about 13 hours, and the butts in 18 to 20 hours. This time the brisket finished in about 11.5 hours, and the buts in around 15 hours. Could the dry cooking environment had something to do with it? Cooking temp was 240 to 250 measured at the lid.
The bark did seem to be a bit crisper.
How did your cook go? I, too, had 2 butts (~7 lbs each) over a brisket (~12 lbs). This was my first waterless cook using the Piedmont pan setup. This cook surprised me. Fuel and temps were not the problem - completion time was. Previous cooks similar to this had the brisket done in about 13 hours, and the butts in 18 to 20 hours. This time the brisket finished in about 11.5 hours, and the buts in around 15 hours. Could the dry cooking environment had something to do with it? Cooking temp was 240 to 250 measured at the lid.
The bark did seem to be a bit crisper.
Steve Petrone
TVWBB Platinum Member
Cook went very smooth. A large (TX size) thick flat stayed on for 15 hours. Butts went 16 hours. I am very pleased with the texture and moisture levels of the beef and the butts.
There was no appearant radiant heat effects. Cleanup is a snap.
There was no appearant radiant heat effects. Cleanup is a snap.
Steve,
I wanted to try this, but don't have a second Brinkman pan, so I just covered a single Brinkman pan with aluminum foil. I figured that the big air space in the pan might work the same as the Piedmont pan.
I did ribs and beer can chicken and had no temperature control problems. I didn't measure radiant heat, but the chickens were on the bottom level and were extremely moist - no sign of over cooking.
Jim
I wanted to try this, but don't have a second Brinkman pan, so I just covered a single Brinkman pan with aluminum foil. I figured that the big air space in the pan might work the same as the Piedmont pan.
I did ribs and beer can chicken and had no temperature control problems. I didn't measure radiant heat, but the chickens were on the bottom level and were extremely moist - no sign of over cooking.
Jim