smoking on the Kettle: Part Deux - Ribs


 
Michael L.

Michael L.

TVWBB Fan
A while back I posted about smoking on the Weber kettle using a roasting pan. You can read about it, and see all the pictures here.

Today I decided to try ribs, but I had a problem... Ribs wouldn't fit on the roasting rack for my roasting pan. So what's a fella to do? I drew on inspiration from the wise not-so-old Alton Brown. I remember him stacking backing sheets on top of each other using tin foil balls in between as spacers once when he was making nachos.

So I did something similar.. except with wood chunks.
icon_smile.gif


SmokingPerformer2Ribs001.jpg


I just used a baking sheet that you'd use for cookies, a couple wood chunks and a cooling rack that you'd also use for cookies and viola... indirect rib smoker on the kettle.

SmokingPerformer2Ribs002.jpg


And on the kettle they go..

SmokingPerformer2Ribs003.jpg


I didn't do a play by play like I did in the original post, but the results were the same. Amazing amount of time on very, very little fuel, and awesome results.

I would have taken final pictures but I was a pretty busy man today and I forgot. I had three grills going at once. Ribs on the Performer, Smokey Beer Can chicken on The Crazy Ex-Girlfriend, and Burgers, Dogs, Pork Chops, and Sausage on my sisters kettle.

So.. I forgot to take a picture of the final product.

Sorry. Next time.
 
Michael I love your innovation! Did you put water in the bottom of that cookie sheet? I used your previous post for pork butt on the kettle and it came out amazing.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Regina S:
Michael I love your innovation! Did you put water in the bottom of that cookie sheet? I used your previous post for pork butt on the kettle and it came out amazing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Awesome! Glad to hear that it worked for you too.

I didn't put any water in the cookie sheet. Just let it go dry. It was fine.

I think pretty soon I'm going to do a timed length of cook test on a very small amount of charcoal and see how long I can get it to go.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by John B:
Very good idea! Wow, you were a busy man. Sounds like a good day of BBQ/grilling. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dude, it was an awesome day of grilling. They all were done about the same time. The food was all served at the same time. People brought over some killers sides, and I got to eat some Q, drink some beer, and watch my kids and their cousins play on the slip n' slide.

Awesome day.
icon_smile.gif
 
Nice - I think the same system would be fine with the pork butt too - I.E., don't really need the roasting pan if you don't have one, etc.

Have to tell you I thought of this way back, but you executed it. I even have the vent's to add to the side if I wanted to leave the stock performer vents closed. The idea was that I would install these 3 vents (still have them in the bag from Weber sitting on the workbench) to the sides of the Performer and they would give me finer control.

But looks like that's totally unnecessary IMHO. I have had my stock Performer lever marked so that I can readily tell opening size in "quarters" without looking at the vents visually from the top of the food grate. To me that was the minor inconvenience "introduced by the convenience" of the Performer vents if you will.

I.E. - the standard Weber grill vents are external and you can see the actual opening/size without trying to stare down through the top of the food grate on the Performer. Having the Performer vent opening marked on the sliding/slot in 1/4 increments looks likes it's just fine for this purpose.

Really enjoyed watching your experiment. I personally think you hit a sweet solution here that should be archived on Chris's resource page. Got my vote anyway!

Thanks for joining and thanks for sharing and the photos and details.

Seems simple but it's one of those things that is just so natural and easy to implement.

Ahh, and using the Performer ignition instead of lighting x number of coals for the Minion, so nice!

Kudos, u the man - well done.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by r benash:
Nice - I think the same system would be fine with the pork butt too - I.E., don't really need the roasting pan if you don't have one, etc.

Have to tell you I thought of this way back, but you executed it. I even have the vent's to add to the side if I wanted to leave the stock performer vents closed. The idea was that I would install these 3 vents (still have them in the bag from Weber sitting on the workbench) to the sides of the Performer and they would give me finer control.

But looks like that's totally unnecessary IMHO. I have had my stock Performer lever marked so that I can readily tell opening size in "quarters" without looking at the vents visually from the top of the food grate. To me that was the minor inconvenience "introduced by the convenience" of the Performer vents if you will.

I.E. - the standard Weber grill vents are external and you can see the actual opening/size without trying to stare down through the top of the food grate on the Performer. Having the Performer vent opening marked on the sliding/slot in 1/4 increments looks likes it's just fine for this purpose.

Really enjoyed watching your experiment. I personally think you hit a sweet solution here that should be archived on Chris's resource page. Got my vote anyway!

Thanks for joining and thanks for sharing and the photos and details.

Seems simple but it's one of those things that is just so natural and easy to implement.

Ahh, and using the Performer ignition instead of lighting x number of coals for the Minion, so nice!

Kudos, u the man - well done. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you're probably right about this set up working for pork as well.

I wonder if the volume of drippings from the pork would be too much for the shallow walled baking sheet. No idea. It might work just fine. Plus, I really enjoy the large handles of my roasting pan. makes it really easy to put on and take off the gill vs the baking sheet.

HOWEVER...

What if I put the cooling rack from the baking sheet inside the roasting pan?!!

I think I found Nirvana.
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 Michael L.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by r benash:
Nice - I think the same system would be fine with the pork butt too - I.E., don't really need the roasting pan if you don't have one, etc.

Have to tell you I thought of this way back, but you executed it. I even have the vent's to add to the side if I wanted to leave the stock performer vents closed. The idea was that I would install these 3 vents (still have them in the bag from Weber sitting on the workbench) to the sides of the Performer and they would give me finer control.

But looks like that's totally unnecessary IMHO. I have had my stock Performer lever marked so that I can readily tell opening size in "quarters" without looking at the vents visually from the top of the food grate. To me that was the minor inconvenience "introduced by the convenience" of the Performer vents if you will.

I.E. - the standard Weber grill vents are external and you can see the actual opening/size without trying to stare down through the top of the food grate on the Performer. Having the Performer vent opening marked on the sliding/slot in 1/4 increments looks likes it's just fine for this purpose.

Really enjoyed watching your experiment. I personally think you hit a sweet solution here that should be archived on Chris's resource page. Got my vote anyway!

Thanks for joining and thanks for sharing and the photos and details.

Seems simple but it's one of those things that is just so natural and easy to implement.

Ahh, and using the Performer ignition instead of lighting x number of coals for the Minion, so nice!

Kudos, u the man - well done. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you're probably right about this set up working for pork as well.

I wonder if the volume of drippings from the pork would be too much for the shallow walled baking sheet. No idea. It might work just fine. Plus, I really enjoy the large handles of my roasting pan. makes it really easy to put on and take off the gill vs the baking sheet.

HOWEVER...

What if I put the cooling rack from the baking sheet inside the roasting pan?!!

I think I found Nirvana.
icon_smile.gif
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm, good points. I'm thinking that the rack in use on the ribs might be just a little too low (I have one of those racks) in the roasting pan anyway.

You are going to get more liquid from the butts. Definitely if you are doing more than one it could be an issue. The height of that pan you are using though (I have one of those as well) looks like it has walls high enough to deal with one butt IMHO.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">

Hmm, good points. I'm thinking that the rack in use on the ribs might be just a little too low (I have one of those racks) in the roasting pan anyway.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The rack by itself would be too low, but if you dropped in a spacer to lift it off the bottom, like I did with the wood chunks, then I think it would work fine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

 

Back
Top