Epic BBQ Index or, What to do now that you have a new Weber BBQ.

Thread Rating: 6 votes, 5.00 average.
(6 votes)
Results 26 to 50 of 123

  1. Post
    #26
    Merkinz wrote:
    Aus? or UK? ...?
    I thought he was in UK.

  2. Post
    #27
    I'm in the yookay now

  3. Post
    #28
    Let's move this to Gordy Forums

  4. Post
    #29
    Gordy wrote:
    I'm after a small portable Weber to be mostly used as a cold smoker.

    Which would be better, the smokey Joe or the go anywhere?

    I will eventually get a normal Weber/BGE when I get my own place.
    I've got a Jumbo Joe, thoroughly recommend.

    If only they would make a travel bag for it though....

  5. Post
    #30
    Dear GP BBQ Fiends and Friends,

    I'm after a Weber BBQ and trying to decide between the One Touch Silver and Gold. Which is the better one to go for? Is it worth spending the extra money on the Gold?

    Chur.

  6. Post
    #31
    JoeSkie wrote:
    Dear GP BBQ Fiends and Friends,

    I'm after a Weber BBQ and trying to decide between the One Touch Silver and Gold. Which is the better one to go for? Is it worth spending the extra money on the Gold?

    Chur.
    I'd go with the silver - the fancy ash catcher isn't worth the additional premium and may restrict air flow in some circumstances.

  7. Post
    #32
    I have no problem cleaning ash with my Silver. Haven't used the ash catcher though so I'm not sure how much of an advantage it is.

  8. Post
    #33
    JoeSkie wrote:
    Dear GP BBQ Fiends and Friends,

    I'm after a Weber BBQ and trying to decide between the One Touch Silver and Gold. Which is the better one to go for? Is it worth spending the extra money on the Gold?

    Chur.
    I have the OT-Gold. Although cooking on a Silver is identical to cooking on the Gold, the few extras on the Gold are nice! Because the vent adjuster comes out of an aluminum panel on the Gold (see pic below) you can mark increments on the panel such as Full open, Quarter open, Half open etc. etc.... Which yes, is trivial to most but is actually quite handy on those 12 hour cooks. Not essential by any means.

    The catch pan is handy too.

    Does the Silver have a 'hinged cooking grate'? I can't remember... I think they do but the hinged gate is essential in my opinion.

    If your short on cash then get the Silver + Weber Chimney


  9. Post
    #34
    The silver doesn't have a hinged grate. Adding coals one by one through the gap on the sides isn't awful, though.

  10. Post
    #35
    I have both. Go with the Silver it's fine. The extra cost for a Gold isn't worth it for the few added bits others have mentioned. I only got a Gold as I want a blue one

  11. Post
    #36
    Thank you all for the replies

    I'll go with the Silver and put the rest of the money towards buying a chimney and a few other accessories.

    This epic thread is going to be a massive help me in my quest to cook my own BBQ for the first time in 6 years. I'll return to my cave and post again when I'm ready.

  12. Post
    #37
    Added a couple of things in the FAQ part, including some new videos and an interesting piece on "should I soak my wood chips"

    Added the new ChefSteps BBQ class in the external links. This class is pretty awesome and totally free! Definitely worth checking out

  13. Post
    #38
    KevinL wrote:
    The silver doesn't have a hinged grate.
    Mine came with one. BL.

  14. Post
    #39
    Mutton wrote:
    Mine came with one. BL.
    new model comes with these.

  15. Post
    #40
    So I've ordered myself the Pitt Cue Co: The Cookbook and a Maverick ET-73 thermometer. Hopefully they will arrive in the next 2 weeks.

    Next up I'm going to buy some wood chunks for smoking, pizza stone (my wife and her mum make epic pizzas), chimney starter and of course the Weber BBQ itself. Also going to start chopping up my relatives' plum and apple trees.

    Anybody know of the cheapest and/or best place to buy a Weber One Touch Silver 22"? Found one on Tardme for $260 + delivery.

  16. Post
    #41
    That's a pretty good price. The Warehouse once sold them for $100 each as clearance (possibly a **** up). Never seen one less than $300 new anywhere else.

  17. Post
    #42
    Might get the fancy smoke coloured one, for 150 gbp, getting excited.

  18. Post
    #43

  19. Post
    #44
    Merkinz wrote:
    Does 'Lump Charcoal' make the food taste better than 'Briquettes'?
    No, this is a common misconception. This short video will help explain why:
    His logic is borked. Lump charcoal tastes better than briquettes in isolation, I've done multiple double blind taste tests on same-same cuts of meat in my Egg and 90% of the time the lump comes out as peoples favourite.

    He falls down in supposing that the only ingredient in charcoal is carbon. It's not. Briquettes contain binders, which is why they leave more ash than lump. More importantly, hardwood lump always has some low level residue from things like resins, etc, that smoke more when burnt compared to briquettes.

    In laymans terms - lump charcoal makes more smoke without the addition of smoking woods than briquettes do, so natively they produce a smokier flavour without outside additives. If you're going to use a good smoking wood on your briquettes, however, the difference is negligible.

    I prefer to cook on lump for both the above reasons, and because I just like the fact it feels a bit more 'natural' / less processed, even if I know that's only a psychological difference. Plus, it's fookin cheap compared to good briquettes if you know where and what to buy (10kg CI-5 grade charcoal, Commodities NZ in Wiri, $25 a bag.)

  20. Post
    #45
    Fortris wrote:
    His logic is borked. Lump charcoal tastes better than briquettes in isolation, I've done multiple double blind taste tests on same-same cuts of meat in my Egg and 90% of the time the lump comes out as peoples favourite.

    He falls down in supposing that the only ingredient in charcoal is carbon. It's not. Briquettes contain binders, which is why they leave more ash than lump. More importantly, hardwood lump always has some low level residue from things like resins, etc, that smoke more when burnt compared to briquettes.

    In laymans terms - lump charcoal makes more smoke without the addition of smoking woods than briquettes do, so natively they produce a smokier flavour without outside additives. If you're going to use a good smoking wood on your briquettes, however, the difference is negligible.

    I prefer to cook on lump for both the above reasons, and because I just like the fact it feels a bit more 'natural' / less processed, even if I know that's only a psychological difference. Plus, it's fookin cheap compared to good briquettes if you know where and what to buy (10kg CI-5 grade charcoal, Commodities NZ in Wiri, $25 a bag.)
    You are not wrong, but the logic and science is water tight. This is the reason you are experiencing the above (i.e. Low quality charcoal):

    "Another myth is that lump has more flavor. Not if it is properly made. If all the wood is completely carbonized, converted to char, the flavor will be no different from other charcoal. But often lump is not properly carbonized. Often some of the larger chunks still have cellulose, lignin, and other wood components left in them, and when they burn they give off a flavor. This can be a pleasant addition to your food, but it isn't controllable. You don't know from one meal to the next what you're getting. Top pitmasters prefer to control this by burning pure charcoal and then adding wood of their choice to produce the quantity and quality of smoke they prefer."

    Source: http://amazingribs.com/tips_and_tech..._charcoal.html

  21. Post
    #46
    Merkinz wrote:
    You are not wrong, but the logic and science is water tight. This is the reason you are experiencing the above (i.e. Low quality charcoal)
    Oddly enough, I see interesting parallels to the audio world and the debate around tube vs transistor amplifiers.

    It's widely recognised that transitor amps provide a more accurate reproduction of the original source. And yet tube amplifiers, which are known to produce an imperfect sound output (adding harmonic distortion on even order harmonics), are still very popular.

    The reason for that is that they are popular BECAUSE of their imperfections, not in spite of them. Some people find the imperfections a tube amp produces more enjoyable to listen to than what they regard as the sterile output of a transistor amplifier.

    And so with lump charcoal and BBQ's. The enjoyment of cooking with lump comes not despite its flaws but because of them. Its the imperfections that add character, variety and taste to food. I stopped using briquettes a long time ago when I decided that really, I was only a hop, skip and jump away from using ceramic rocks on a high temp electric hot plate with a bunch of added wood chip. The logic and rationale behind the latter is the same.

    If I could, I'd do all my BBQ'ing over actual dry hardwood. But it's just too hard/expensive to find.

    In essence, the debate comes down to : are you using charcoal as purely a heat source, or as a flavour additive? If the latter, I like to get more flavour than just a carbon monoxide 'smoke ring', and if I can do it without having to constantly add external flavour woods, all the better.

    EDIT : Interestingly enough, the same page you linked has a side bar talking about why charcoal is better than gas, and that it's due to the smoke. Yet pure carbon does not, in and of itself, smoke. Only the imperfections do. And so his logic is contradictory in that he's saying the good charcoal has less imperfections, and then states it's the imperfections (smoking agents) that cause the 'charcoal flavour'.
    Last edited by Fortris; 29th October 2014 at 10:29 am.

  22. Post
    #47
    There's no debate here mate. You can use - and enjoy using - any fuel you like ... it's meant to be fun

    There's also no debate about the science... fully carbonized (high quality) lump charcoal will impart the same flavors to your food as briquettes. If you don't understand the simple chemistry of that then that's OK. But it's a fact, not a debate.

  23. Post
    #48
    Modernist Cuisine, Volume 2, page 12“Once the flames of ignition have died and the coals are glowing hot, neither briquettes nor hardwood charcoals have any flavor left to impart. Any aromatic compounds the fuel once harbored were vaporized and destroyed long before the food was laid on the grill.”

    “The real secret to the flavor of grilled food is not the fuel but the drippings. Dribbles of juice laden with natural sugars, proteins, and oils fall onto the hot coals and burst into smile and flame. By catalyzing myriad chemical reactions, the intense heat forges these charred juices into molecules that convey the aromas of grilling food. These new molecules literally go up in smoke, coating the food with the unmistakable flavor of grilled food.”

    That being said, there's probably an argument that because hardwood tends to burn hotter, it's better at generating these flavour molecules.

    Also it's a simple rule for me: briquettes for low and slow; otherwise lump.

  24. Post
    #49
    Out of curiosity, with the emphasis on 'pure carbon' supposedly, wouldn't that mean that briquettes are right out?

    Heat Beads, which is a leading brand of briquette for example, contain : wood char (heat source), mineral char (heat source), mineral carbon (heat source), limestone (uniform visual ashing), starch (binder), borax (aids release from briquette press), sodium nitrate (ignition aid), and sawdust (ignition aid). Not much 'pure carbon' in that.

    To be fair it's all a moot point for me, i've got an Egg, and you can't use briquettes in a kamado style cooker.

  25. Post
    #50
    Fortris wrote:
    To be fair it's all a moot point for me, i've got an Egg, and you can't use briquettes in a kamado style cooker.
    Then I'm not sure why you're getting so evangelical about it.