Question for you no water guys on an overnight


 
J

JSMcdowell

TVWBB All-Star
So about 6 months ago I switched from water to a pizza stone in the pan for my ribs, chicken and pretty much any shorter cook. Cleanup is a breeze and I love the less fuel usage.

However, I have not had the guts to do it for an overnighter on butts. I am putting 2 on tonight, and I am really considering it. Really want to do better on fuel usage and not have to clean up the mess.

My issue is that my pizza stone (I have the 18" WSM) only leaves about a 1/2" to 3/4" tall area for grease to drip. I am thinking with 2 butts, this may overflow and cause issues overnight. I of course could drain the grease before going to sleep, but that seems like a pain.

Does anyone know if this will be enough area or should I attempt to just do a foiled pan (with an air pocket at the bottom) and no stone ?

Doing 2 butts at 21 lbs total. Want to cook in the 225-250 range. Starting (hopefully) by 5 PM today to have ready Saturday morning sometime (Serving 1 for lunch, the other is going to be pulled and frozen). Would love to be in bed by 11 PM as I have to meat a Church build team at a site at 9 AM.

Thanks as always for the help!
 
Well a drip pan on the lower grate would help,and if you dont have one in the correct size i think you can do one with foil.

If the top grate fits the 2 butts ofc.
 
I always do my butts overnight without water, just a foiled water pan. I started out doing it this way from the first day I had my WSM, so I don't know any different way, and it works perfectly fine for me. I use a full ring of K, lit minion-style, and I get plenty of burn time without refueling, while staying in the 215-250 temp range. I'm not a smoker-watcher, so anywhere in that temp range is fine by me, especially during the night. 'Twer it me, I'd foil the pan and rest easy, no pizza stone.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">'Twer it me, I'd foil the pan and rest easy, no pizza stone. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ditto.

Start with a bit less lit than you're used to. Don't chase temps, especially to the upside.
 
Thanks everyone!

Wolgast,

They are pretty big a total of 21 lbs for both, they won't fit on the top without touching and I'd prefer to get a nice bark on both.

Kevin / Mike,

I am sure it will go well and I will no longer have to deal with greasy water mess.

In the past, in the winter, I have started with 3/4 chimney hot. So maybe I should start with a little less the 1/2 chimney hot ?
 
I would. Or even less. The thing is, without a heat sink you want the unlit to light slowly and not in great quantity. This allows for a gentler rise - and more control for you. With, say, the unlit covered by lit, the lighting of the unlit might be slow to begin with, but the quantity of lit will light more sooner. With no heat sink to moderate the heat temps can rise to, perhaps, a level past your target. It's harder, then, to bring them down. Starting with less means more control on the way up.
 
Let's do a little Math!

Assuming your pizza stone is 16" in diameter and has the minimum height you estimate at 1/2", using the Volume of a Cylinder formula, we get ...

Vol = Pi × R² × H
Vol = 3.14 × 8" × 8" × .5"
Vol = 100.5 in³

A US cup holds 14.5 in³

So 100.5 ÷ 14.5 = 6.9 cups

I've done many multi-butt cooks on my 18" but I don't think any produced 7 cups of drippings!
icon_wink.gif
 
Wow Travis, thanks for bringing out the math on a Friday! Usually friday for me is just spent on thinking about what I am cooking on the weekend.

Originally I was just going to fill it with water and pour out for the volume to see how much, no need to now.
 
hehe, yeah, the day's off to a slow start and I needed some mental stimulation.
icon_wink.gif


Josh, you could test it anyway to verify. I would.
icon_wink.gif
 
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Mike R.:
I always do my butts overnight without water, just a foiled water pan. I started out doing it this way from the first day I had my WSM, so I don't know any different way, and it works perfectly fine for me. I use a full ring of K, lit minion-style, and I get plenty of burn time without refueling, while staying in the 215-250 temp range. I'm not a smoker-watcher, so anywhere in that temp range is fine by me, especially during the night. 'Twer it me, I'd foil the pan and rest easy, no pizza stone. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mike, with your method, how long do your pork butts (size?) usually take to get tender? I'm wondering if anyone has noticed if they get done any quicker if you don't use water.
 
I was wondering if they would cook any faster since the water isn't absorbing all that heat.

I still use logs every time I cook a butt (I have an entire file of them), so I just printed one off to use tonight. I will revert with how it went.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JSMcdowell:
I was wondering if they would cook any faster since the water isn't absorbing all that heat. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>No. 250º is 250º.

You'll use less fuel since the water is not there to absorb heat energy. Temps have the potential to flucuate faster since the water is not there to absorb/emit heat energy.
 
Travis,

How I should have worded that was will the bottom rack cook any faster because there is not the water heat sheild below it.

Fuel usage is definetly one of the big reasons I am making the switch.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JSMcdowell:
Travis,

How I should have worded that was will the bottom rack cook any faster because there is not the water heat sheild below it.

Fuel usage is definetly one of the big reasons I am making the switch. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes but not a whole lot unless you get above 250. You can rotate top to bottom or just take the bottom off earlier, no big deal as they need to rest anyway. I would do them on the top rack, even if they touch. They will shrink up after a couple hours.

Here is some 10lb butts I done a while back for example of room:



Uploaded with ImageShack.us



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Good luck
wsmsmile8gm.gif
 
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Glenn W:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JSMcdowell:
Travis,

How I should have worded that was will the bottom rack cook any faster because there is not the water heat sheild below it.

Fuel usage is definetly one of the big reasons I am making the switch. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes but not a whole lot unless you get above 250. You can rotate top to bottom or just take the bottom off earlier, no big deal as they need to rest anyway. I would do them on the top rack, even if they touch. They will shrink up after a couple hours.

Here is some 10lb butts I done a while back for example of room:



Uploaded with ImageShack.us



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Good luck
wsmsmile8gm.gif
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Great pics and post, Glen. It would be a great post on this thread, as well:

http://tvwbb.com/eve/forums/a/...0069052/m/8211025106
 
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JSMcdowell:
Travis,

How I should have worded that was will the bottom rack cook any faster because there is not the water heat sheild below it.

Fuel usage is definetly one of the big reasons I am making the switch. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>When I used to cook with water, the bottom rack was a little cooler. Now, at 250 with a foiled 14" clay saucer in the water pan, the top and bottom read the same.

Edit: Overnights are a breeze with the saucer just like with water.
 
Glenn,

I have never been able to get two ten pounders on a rack without a lot more overlap. Great pics.

I am sending this from my phone otherwise I would have pics. Here is the night so far.... With 10-15 mph winds.

5pm butts on smoker upto 200 quickly.

5:30 230 vents at 100 / 50 / 0 (windy side)

7:30 255 vents at same.

9:40 260 vents at same. Tried swapping the zero and 100 vents....

10:05 280. Switched the vents back. Wind to the full open vent was a bad idea.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

 

Back
Top