Using less fuel on the WSM 22"

[SteveMontanino]

Hello,

One of the problems I read about before settling on the 22" is that it's a fuel hog. I ultimately decided on the larger size because why not? And really it's because I wanted to comfortably fit a large brisket and have some leftover space around it, and in the event I wanted to do large cooks, like a recent BBQ I threw for 20 people.

Anyway - could one conceivably obtain a ring from a smaller unit like the 14" and use that (placed inside the larger ring) when you were doing a smaller cook (like chicken wings or something) where you don't need to smoke it as long?

Thanks.

 

[Arun L.]

I asked similar questions a few weeks ago about why a 22" loses more heat.

Here were good answers.

There may be a way to reduce the impact, like with your suggestion of a smaller ring.

But I'm reposting the discussion because I thought it would be relevant.

Think volume of cavity to be heated not number of coals used, this may answer some of the trouble you have said you've had with heat in the past, last weekend I did a chuckroast and a butt which in total used probably fifteen pounds of KBB I am not the least bit surprised in that fuel consumption, it ran for 15 hours. An ear of corn is made up of many comparatively small kernels, a butt is one very large mass, think about it.corn is kind of a strange example for your argument to the way I see it.
Heat management is not about the size of the fire but how efficiently it's used, grilling corn is "hot fast" something like a butt is a different process. You must think about how the heat is managed not necessarily how much charcoal is needed. You can boil water over a candle but, a burner will do it more efficiently.

Tim's right. Not only do you have different volume but different metal areas exposed to outside area temp. That heat you feel on the outside of the smoker is heat loss (fuel burned) that isn't cooking meat. More area - more heat loss.

I'm not so sure I'd say it loses more it simply has a larger volume of air to maintain.
This is pretty basic information covered in owners manuals in broad strokes. Fine tuning of all the methods is something which comes with practice. Fire control is not always something which can be explained completely accurately, you need to get some practice under your belt.

It's been over 45 years since I studied thermodynamics and it was not my favorite course. Many very complicated formulas to calculate this stuff. Basically the hot charcoal heats the volume but there is constant heat loss from the volume out the top vent and through the metal that encloses the volume. I think heat loss is directly proportional to the outside area at a given outside air temp. More area = more heat loss. Low outside air temp accelerates the loss and that's why some folks in frigid climates put an insulating blanket on their cooker. Without the blanket and 20° F outside maintaining 250° at the grate takes a lot more fuel.

Think about using a space heater to heat a bedroom vs. living room. You either use a bigger space heater (more coals ignited) or run it a much longer time (more coals over the long haul) to get it to temp.

Also, larger surface area equals greater heat transfer to atmosphere. Reason many use a welding or insulating blanket with the larger 22.5"s (especially in the winter).

 

[SteveMontanino]

So you're saying that there is no way to avoid using the large load of charcoal since you've got to heat the whole unit?

 

[Rich Dahl]

I think a lot of what was said above is very true. But in a simplistic way I think it's the length of the cook and the temperature of the cook that will determine how much fuel you will use in any WSM. Yesterday I smoked bacon in my 18.5 WSM I used a half full ring with a minion start and went 7 1/2 hours with half a ring and it still was going strong.
Why, because I was smoking at 160-170 degrees not 225 -250.
My advice would be to watch CL and see if you can pick up a 14.5 WSM for your smaller cooks. Super fuel efficient. Mine uses 1/3- 1/2 the fuel my 18.5 uses at any temperature.
Remember the big dog needs lots of chow to keep going. The little dog not so much.

 

[timothy]

So you're saying that there is no way to avoid using the large load of charcoal since you've got to heat the whole unit?

Depends, some of us have used smaller rings to limit charcoal use, but what was said upthread is true depending on what's cooking​ and what your target temps are.
It's the same diameter as a kettle but with a little more distance tween fire and food, so you can go at it on the top or bottom grate for wings by removing the pan.

On edit: I think it's easier to cook more on my 18.5 " WSM ( don't own a 14.5" WSM ) then less on my 22.5" WSM, so stick with the big guy for awhile, but think about a smaller one like Rich said.

Tim

 

[Lew Newby]

Whether you use a smaller charcoal ring or not it's still going to take the same amount of charcoal to do the cook. I put handles on my charcoal grate and wired the charcoal ring to the grate. After a cook I can lift the charcoal out of the smoker (wearing welders gloves) and dump the coals in a metal bucket with a tight lid. If your cooker is tight you can shut the vents and let the coal go out. After the charcoal is completely extinguished I reuse the leftover coals.

 

[John B]

I don't save fuel in my car by taking the big gas tank out and putting in a smaller one. Once you go bigger it takes more fuel. Like others have said, the larger volume of air inside and the larger surface area of the cooker outside contribute to greater heat loss. This takes more fuel, hence the bigger gas tank.

 

[Chris Allingham]

You can make your own smaller ring: https://tvwbb.com/showthread.php?63660-22-5-quot-mod-smaller-charcoal-ring and https://tvwbb.com/showthread.php?54321-wsm-charcoal-ring-fabrication

More discussion about the pros of the approach in these threads, too.

 

[Mike Durso]

Depends, some of us have used smaller rings to limit charcoal use, but what was said upthread is true depending on what's cooking​ and what your target temps are.
It's the same diameter as a kettle but with a little more distance tween fire and food, so you can go at it on the top or bottom grate for wings by removing the pan.

On edit: I think it's easier to cook more on my 18.5 " WSM ( don't own a 14.5" WSM ) then less on my 22.5" WSM, so stick with the big guy for awhile, but think about a smaller one like Rich said.

Tim

What Tim has written -that is true. In testing it was found it was easier to cook more on the 18. There were some nuances in using a 22 such as using the lower grate when you'd be using the top grate of an 18 (for example). And then when I was messing with the 14, it has such low capacity, you need enough burning to hit temps, but there's room for cold charcoal for letting it cook on its own.

But in interesting contrast, the 26 kettle doesn't require that much more charcoal than when using the 22.

So hey.. I'm not really helping other than saying.. umm.. yeah. you're right, they're all different and trial, error, and notes are the only way to hit on what works.

It really seems that the 18 is the best basic for most people to use -the happy medium.

Keep cooking!

 

[Bill D-NC]

I use the ring from the 18.5" in my 22.5" when I cook ribs. Not because I think it is more efficient but because it just holds less charcoal in the first place. I've found, for me, it's easier to control a "thicker" layer of briquettes. It's probably all in my head. But, it's my head and I just can't stop listening to it ! ! !





BD

 

[ChuckO]

I'm fortunate to have the 22" and the 18" WSM, and I often use my ring out of my 18 in my 22, but that's not to say the 22 is a charcoal hog, it loves to burn charcoal

 

[SteveMontanino]

I don't save fuel in my car by taking the big gas tank out and putting in a smaller one. Once you go bigger it takes more fuel. Like others have said, the larger volume of air inside and the larger surface area of the cooker outside contribute to greater heat loss. This takes more fuel, hence the bigger gas tank.

Funny. I'm not so sure that I would ever think about removing my car's gas tank for the obvious reasons, but I can put a smaller amount of coal in a cooker and that would necessitate a shorter cook time because I don't need to go the same distance. The only issue I'm concerned with is being able to get the temperature of the cooker to where I want it. It might be worth some dry run experimenting just to see what would happen.

- - - Updated - - -

I use the ring from the 18.5" in my 22.5" when I cook ribs. Not because I think it is more efficient but because it just holds less charcoal in the first place. I've found, for me, it's easier to control a "thicker" layer of briquettes. It's probably all in my head. But, it's my head and I just can't stop listening to it ! ! !





BD

That's where I'm coming from too... why I asked. Thanks!

 

[RParker]

No doubt about it, the 22" burn a fair amount of coal. But it also can cook A LOT of food too.

I have an 18" for smaller cooks and the 22" for big ones.

 

[Rusty James]

I'm fortunate to have the 22" and the 18" WSM, and I often use my ring out of my 18 in my 22, but that's not to say the 22 is a charcoal hog, it loves to burn charcoal

There were times I thought about using my 14" ring in my 18" smoker.

 

[Mike Durso]

This may be some old news by now, I am sure...

I remember when the heat shield was added to the underside of the unit (for UL/CE requirements). Note that these are the old ash catchers from the 26, 22, etc... That in testing a significant amount of heat was directed and maintained in the unit.

This was an unexpected finding so apply that where you can.

 

[Matt Mills]

Think about putting sand in your water pan. It holds the heat to help with fuel consumption. T-Roy Cooks on YouTube does a test between water and sand and it's a significant difference in fuel consumption.

 

[Bill Elwell]

When I want to smoke for a shorter time (for less meat) I place a coffee can in the middle of the ring and fill up the rest of the ring about 4 coals deep.

You can remove coals at one section which creates a C. I think it's call the fuse method or some variation of the snake method. Then you place hot coals at one end and let them burn to the other. I leave the can in place.

 

[Rusty James]

When I want to smoke for a shorter time (for less meat) I place a coffee can in the middle of the ring and fill up the rest of the ring about 4 coals deep.

You can remove coals at one section which creates a C. I think it's call the fuse method or some variation of the snake method. Then you place hot coals at one end and let them burn to the other. I leave the can in place.

Good idea, Bill, but I haven't seen a coffee can in years. Not my brands anyway.

I assume you're talking about the 11 oz to 12 oz cans?

 

[Timothy F. Lewis]

I like the idea Bill!
Dang it, now I just had breakfast but, I'm HUNGRY now!

 

[JayHeyl]

Has anyone tried insulating their 22" and comparing fuel consumption with uninsulated? What Mike said about the bottom heat shield suggests that just setting up a shield of some kind around the WSM, not necessarily even touching it, should help significantly with radiant heat loss. You'd need something with openings at the bottom so as not to restrict air flow. I'm thinking a 2x2 frame, plywood sheathing, and fiberglass insulation glued to the inside. Maybe hinge one side so it's easier to slide around the WSM. Probably easier to just wrap a non-flammable blanket around it and hold it in place with bungee cords. Amazon has 1" thick ceramic fiber fire retardant blanket insulation but it's $14/sq.ft. I figure you'd need about 8 sq. ft. for a 22" WSM. Not sure what the cost recovery would be on that. It does make my plywood and fiberglass insulation idea seem a lot more appealing.