No foil ribs

[powerhouse2]

OK so I'm not trying to start this argument with everyone but iv read alot of foil vs no foil side by side comparisons. Everyone says foiling makes for more tender ribs BUT foil does make the ribs cook faster so why when doing the side by side test does everyone pull both slabs at the same time, i feel if you leave the unfoild slab on for say an hr longer to catch up to the foiled slab it will be just as tender with good bark.?

what are your thoughts?

I am cooking for a large group and not sure if i should foil i know how much average BBQ eaters like fall of the bone ribs. what would be my safest bet.

[Braddog]

Spent years playing with the 3-2-1 method. Finally, just started cooking them with no foil. Family can't tell the difference and frankly I like not having to jack with the foil and all the mess. I'm a "2-step" rib guy. Put 'em on, take 'em off!

Cheers,
Braddog

[deguerre]

Originally Posted by powerhouse2

I am cooking for a large group and not sure if i should foil i know how much average BBQ eaters like fall of the bone ribs. what would be my safest bet.

Easy. Whatever you're most comfortable with and works for you.

[retired trucker]

Originally Posted by Braddog

Spent years playing with the 3-2-1 method. I'm a "2-step" rib guy. Put 'em on, take 'em off!

Cheers,
Braddog

Now I like the way you think. The original KISS method.

[El Ropo]

3-2-1 is 6 hours by my math. I can do the same ribs in 4 hours with no foil. All it takes is a slightly higher cooking temp, and leave the cooker closed and power though till done. That's it. Simple process that works great for st louis spares. For loin backs subract another 30-45 minutes.

Contrary to popular belief, they don't dry out. Lots of internal lubricant in ribs.

Less hassle, less mess. Cooking faster is easy by simply leaving the cooker closed up, and letting the magic happen.

[Pappy]

Originally Posted by Braddog

Spent years playing with the 3-2-1 method. Finally, just started cooking them with no foil. Family can't tell the difference and frankly I like not having to jack with the foil and all the mess. I'm a "2-step" rib guy. Put 'em on, take 'em off!

Cheers,
Braddog

Same here.

[dadsr4]

Originally Posted by powerhouse2

OK so I'm not trying to start this argument with everyone but iv read alot of foil vs no foil side by side comparisons. Everyone says foiling makes for more tender ribs BUT foil does make the ribs cook faster so why when doing the side by side test does everyone pull both slabs at the same time, i feel if you leave the unfoild slab on for say an hr longer to catch up to the foiled slab it will be just as tender with good bark.?

what are your thoughts?

I am cooking for a large group and not sure if i should foil i know how much average BBQ eaters like fall of the bone ribs. what would be my safest bet.

Since coming to this site, my ribs have improved, BUT, I've never foiled in 38 years. Never had any leftover ribs.

[Cloudsmoker]

May want to go milder on the wood to avoid over-smoking. My foiled ribs tend to look prettier. But, if you take care to keep the meat from drying out, I don't think you can go wrong either way.

[El Ropo]

No foil just means more spritz

Nope, leave the cooker closed, don't touch the meat, it turns out great. Spritz doesn't help a thing when it comes to moisture, except extend cook times, opening the door for a dry result. Get 'em in and out in 4 hours, no issues.

Sure, you could open up cooker every 20 minutes to spritz and it WILL take more than 6 hours to get 'em done. May as well foil 'em if you're gonna do that.