PDA

View Full Version : My test comparison Stubbs vs Weber briquettes


ebijack
11-23-2017, 06:22 AM
Final out come will be posted probably tomorrow as this test will be run today. I'm smoking 2 #20 turkey's, one stuffed, one non-stuffed.
Here is a visual of the difference in size, smaller is Stubbs.
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/924/jGgVyi.jpg (https://imageshack.com/i/pojGgVyij)
I started by blocking off 1/2 of my coal basket. Placed 4 chunks of black cherry wood, some briquettes, 3 more chunks, a few more briquettes.
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/924/0lizH4.jpg (https://imageshack.com/i/po0lizH4j)
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/922/RrugJa.jpg (https://imageshack.com/i/pmRrugJaj)
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/923/Hhqn4P.jpg (https://imageshack.com/i/pnHhqn4Pj)
Same amount of wood used in the Weber side of the coal basket. And same process loading briquettes/wood
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/923/8ADJQO.jpg (https://imageshack.com/i/pn8ADJQOj)
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/923/4fnqf3.jpg (https://imageshack.com/i/pn4fnqf3j)
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/922/7VWlIA.jpg (https://imageshack.com/i/pm7VWlIAj)
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/923/UeqqO1.jpg (https://imageshack.com/i/pnUeqqO1j)

My test will be to compare the burn rate and ash amount to see if Weber briquettes do really burn that much slower than Stubbs. As best as I can. I will start with hot coals ontop of posted above. Covering only the middle section of the basket with those hot coals. Equal to each side is my goal. I know I have more coals than needed for the cook. But a full basket gives me a better idea/comparison as I almost always start with a full basket. I'm looking for a noticeable difference in the burn rate. If not noticeable, I could not state Weber briquettes burn longer than Stubbs. As you all know. Weather, humidity all play a part in the equation. So this is why I decided to try a comparison both running in the cooker at the same time. Not scientific, just a simple test.
I can get a pretty good even burn of coals front/back/side to side using either lump or Stubbs. I'm expecting a large oval shape of burnt coals/wood when done. With both ends burnt about the same. But if Weber coals do burn longer. The oval of ash/burnt coals would be burnt more towards the front of the basket.
Review to follow :becky:

HouseDoc
11-23-2017, 06:59 AM
I used Weber for the 1st time on a brisket yesterday.
Very good results. 1 chimney lit up and added a 2nd chimney of briquettes unlit at start of cook. Temp in WSM
ran 250 to 300 for 9 hrs. Only added some hickory and apple chunks for flavor. I will give it 5 of 5 stars.
Brisket and 2lb bacon wrapped fatty was excellent.
Good luck and Happy Thanksgiving to all the pitmasters today.

pjtexas1
11-23-2017, 08:47 AM
Subscribed

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

ronbrad62
11-23-2017, 08:59 AM
Very simple, yet effective comparison. Nice job, will wait patiently for the results.

Big George's BBQ
11-23-2017, 09:00 AM
I have used Stubbs I do like them

ebijack
11-23-2017, 09:46 AM
I have used Stubbs I do like them
I like Stubbs for long times like overnight stuff. My reason for testing the Webers that everyone seems to be saying is so good.

Coals are lit. Smoker is up to temp and the first 20+ lb bird is on.
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/924/p5UKTB.jpg (https://imageshack.com/i/pop5UKTBj)
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/923/hc6eb9.jpg (https://imageshack.com/i/pnhc6eb9j)

tom b
11-23-2017, 09:57 AM
nice idea Tom, looking forward to the results

2PigsBBQ
11-23-2017, 10:16 AM
Subscribed. Thanks for doing the test.

jham0077
11-23-2017, 10:43 AM
I'm going to be disappointed if Weber wins....I can't find it near me:cry:.

luv2smoke
11-23-2017, 10:47 AM
I have found stubbs to be hard to light and produces extremely dirty smoke for a period of time during ignition.
I'll be curious to see the results of your comparison.

Czarbecue
11-23-2017, 10:56 AM
Is the Stubbs side larger than the Weber?

six501
11-23-2017, 11:08 AM
Buying 24 bags of the Webers from Target when they were on clearance remains my best idea. On long cooks (12-20 hours) I mix Weber and FOGO together with absolutely fantastic results.

ebijack
11-23-2017, 12:49 PM
Is the Stubbs side larger than the Weber?
Weber is larger.
Well at 3.5hrs running at 315* the Weber are almost gone. The Stubbs still have one whole layer of unlit coals under the hot coals.
Stubbs Wins in my book.
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/923/RrGlan.jpg (https://imageshack.com/i/pnRrGlanj)

el luchador
11-23-2017, 01:57 PM
Thanks for doing the test. Is the Stubb's cheaper?

pjtexas1
11-23-2017, 01:59 PM
Was there a divider to force the fire to burn evenly or was it just allowed to go on its own?

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

Big George's BBQ
11-23-2017, 02:06 PM
Thanks for the Eval

Czarbecue
11-23-2017, 02:07 PM
Weber is larger.
Well at 3.5hrs running at 315* the Weber are almost gone. The Stubbs still have one whole layer of unlit coals under the hot coals.
Stubbs Wins in my book.
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/923/RrGlan.jpg (https://imageshack.com/i/pnRrGlanj)



I meant the before pic. Maybe itís the angle but there looks to be more Stubbs briquettes than Weber to begin with.

aerotech11
11-23-2017, 02:14 PM
Is too early to tell what side has less ash?

ebijack
11-23-2017, 02:31 PM
Thanks for doing the test. Is the Stubb's cheaper? $9.99 for #14

Was there a divider to force the fire to burn evenly or was it just allowed to go on its own?
Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
No controller, full burn on it's own.
I added some lump to finish the cook. 186* breast/198* in the thighs for both birds.
Unstuffed done
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/923/o0NUuD.jpg (https://imageshack.com/i/pno0NUuDj)
Stuffed bird done
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/924/XDmVKv.jpg (https://imageshack.com/i/poXDmVKvj)

Chunked up stuffed one.
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/923/S4anAe.jpg (https://imageshack.com/i/pnS4anAej)
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/923/TqaD2e.jpg (https://imageshack.com/i/pnTqaD2ej)

ebijack
11-23-2017, 02:34 PM
Is the Stubbs side larger than the Weber?
Stubbs briquettes are smaller than Weber. So you get more Stubbs per square inch.
But the difference of how many Stubbs were left compared to the Weber.
Glad I could only get 4 bags of the Weber. Bought them out. I'll use it as filler charcoal for shorter cooks.

Czarbecue
11-23-2017, 03:53 PM
Maybe do another burn with the sides rotated... Weber on the outside or vice versa.

Stlsportster
11-23-2017, 03:57 PM
Yea. But which side TASTES better??

ebijack
11-23-2017, 08:52 PM
Maybe do another burn with the sides rotated... Weber on the outside or vice versa.
No need. The results are in as far as I'm concerned.

robert-r
11-23-2017, 09:28 PM
No need. The results are in as far as I'm concerned.

Your definite conclusion. please?

jsperk
11-23-2017, 09:35 PM
That's surprising. I get real long burns with weber. I filled my fire box 3/4 of the way it ran at 325 for 6 hours. Then opened up more just to see and it was running at 400 for two more hours. I shut it down and went inside and could have burnt longer.

I will have to try some stubbs. I have a bunch of royal oak and not huge fan of it.

Thanks for the info.

Jason TQ
11-23-2017, 09:40 PM
Maybe do another burn with the sides rotated... Weber on the outside or vice versa.

Shhhhhhh. No science he said.........

Just one test for a definite conclusion.......lol.... sorry just poking fun..... back in the canoe :-D

And I can't tell if he was being serious

ChrisBarb
11-23-2017, 11:12 PM
This "test" doesn't seem accurate. I did a pork butt over the weekend in my WSM at 300 degrees with Weber and wood chunks. After about six hours I still had more than 1/2 of the briquettes unburned.

pjtexas1
11-23-2017, 11:23 PM
I'm sure someone has a bag of Stubb's and a bag of Weber to do another test. Then a 3rd person and 4th...

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

BBQ Freak
11-23-2017, 11:40 PM
I have always been a Stubbs fan and went to a different store the other day and seen the Weber charcoal untill I seen the price $19.99 a bag , I do not think so and bought Royal Oak Lump instead and that is bad when I chose that over the other brand . :laugh:

bryonlr
11-24-2017, 12:00 AM
I think I'll stick with Blue Rhino and wood chunks, no muss. no fuss.

ebijack
11-24-2017, 06:02 AM
I've used Stubbs for yrs. With all the hype about Weber I wanted to try some. So I ran this simple test. Both running in the same cooker. Same square inches of space, same amount of wood chunks. More than equal enough. You sure can not compare doing different cooks. To many variables.
Weber lost by a couple hours. Had I used all Stubbs, I would not have to had any more coals after 3.5 hrs. As when the cook was done there was a few Stubbs coals left of the original load. If that makes sense.
Did this cook use more coal than normal? This is the first time I've smoked 2 20lb turkey's in my vertical cabinet.
The cooker doesn't matter in this test. This was a test of which burns longer.
Answer: STUBBS
The coal basket had burned from end to end/side to side. A very even burn I'd say. The Weber coals just did not live up to all the hype.
If ya don't like/believe my results, do your own test. To me there is no comparison. I can buy RO Embers $4.96 #15.4 bag and get a shorter burn time than Stubbs. As far as ash, I can not tell as I had to add coals to finish the cook. Due to the Weber coals burning out. I have done alot of cooks using a full coal basket load of coals/wood in this cabinet.

ChrisBarb
11-24-2017, 03:39 PM
My own experience directly contradicts yours. So what have we proved? Nothing. You still like Stubbs better. I still like Weber better. In the end, it is personal prefernce.

IXL
11-24-2017, 03:53 PM
This "test" doesn't seem accurate. I did a pork butt over the weekend in my WSM at 300 degrees with Weber and wood chunks. After about six hours I still had more than 1/2 of the briquettes unburned.

This test might well be accurate, but it is also thus far, inconclusive.

Czarbecue
11-24-2017, 03:56 PM
The two should be measured in weight, not volume.

Hinds15
11-24-2017, 07:38 PM
I like Weber briquettes but I do want to try stubbs. Lol I'm a new smoker and still have yet to try lump. Something tells me I'll like them all since 2 weeks ago kingsford was doing the job for me.

aerotech11
11-24-2017, 09:22 PM
I have done both Stubbs and weber and prefer the Weber. In my cooker the Weber burns longer with less ash. I even went as far as lighting just one brick of each and found the Weber will indeed burn longer on its own. Maybe due to the fact it is physically bigger. And now for the new low price $11.99. $10.79 with the military discount it is hands down the one for me. For now anyway.

Notorious Q.U.E.
11-24-2017, 10:40 PM
aerotech11,

You nailed it my friend. Price-wise, the dropping of Lowe's everyday price with military discount catapulted Weber ahead from a price standpoint. We have to remember Stubbs is also just a 14 pound bag so it's significantly pricier. Stubbs $9.99 for a 14 pound bag. Weber $10.79 for a 20 pound bag.

I trust ebijack's study. My guess is that Stubbs edges Weber on burn time performance whereas Weber beats on price by a lot (wasn't that way before the Lowe's price cut).

BTW, ebijack, I just saw your signature. Do you have a line of cookers coming out ?!?

ssv3
11-24-2017, 11:27 PM
How about all you nay sayers and critics go get a bag of each, conduct your own tests for us to see. I personally want to thank ebijack for taken his time and doing the comparison.

pjtexas1
11-24-2017, 11:41 PM
How about all you nay sayers and critics go get a bag of each, conduct your own tests for us to see. I personally want to thank ebijack for taken his time and doing the comparison.True. Only way to know. I think I have a bag of Stubb's somewhere. If I have time I'll weigh and light a couple pounds.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

ssv3
11-24-2017, 11:46 PM
I've got both and burned a lot of Stubbs but not Weber. I shall find out myself as well and ebi's input here is much appreciated.

pjtexas1
11-25-2017, 12:02 AM
I'm thinking of using firebricks to divide my otg fire grate in half. Weigh 3 pounds of each, place a single lighter cube under each pile. Seems like it's a fair environment since the intake is in the middle and I can set the exhaust even too. All my other cookers would probably give a perceived advantage with intake being closer to one pile of charcoal. Am I forgetting anything?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

ChrisBarb
11-25-2017, 12:47 AM
http://www.virtualweberbullet.com/kingsford-long-burning-weber-hardwood-charcoal-burn-test-2017.html#burntest

pjtexas1
11-25-2017, 12:57 AM
http://www.virtualweberbullet.com/kingsford-long-burning-weber-hardwood-charcoal-burn-test-2017.html#burntestI thought about that but I'd like to know how it works at 300 vs 800. But I do need a way to catch the ash.... dang it!

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

ebijack
11-25-2017, 05:06 AM
BTW, ebijack, I just saw your signature. Do you have a line of cookers coming out ?!?
No, I just build what folks have requested me to build. Mostly family and friends.

The reason I chose to test in my cabinet. The intake air is at the middle of one side. Allowing air to head/burn where the heat wanted it to go. So equal to both half's of the coal basket. Hot coals poured in the middle. No favoritism. And I have exh at both ends/above each coal area. Hot coals started in the middle allowing both sections all the air they required. For the cookers I have. This was the best and most fair test bed.
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/922/2xk5TI.jpg (https://imageshack.com/i/pm2xk5TIj)

Yes you can weigh the coals if you want to go that far. Why not.
I did not need to do that. The Weber coals were basically gone at 3.5 hrs. The Stubbs side still had unburned coals.
As stated in the title. This was my test. No one else. I got my results. My results show Weber coals FOR ME are not a bargain. I use Stubbs only for long overnight cooks. As no other coals I have tried have lasted longer. In any of my cookers.
All this hype (to me) about Weber being the greatest for longer burn times was disproved. I can not comment on the ash as I had to add coals to make up for the lacking Weber coals.
As long as the ashes don't choke out a fire, I still have to clean them up. Having to do 1 scoop or 3 scoops of ash isn't going to change why I do or don't buy a brand of coals.
It is all about a clean burn and long burn times for my usage.

ebijack
11-25-2017, 05:17 AM
I have not seen anyone doing an actual test and post. Where 2 brands of coals run head to head in the same enviroment/cooker. Intake and exhaust for both sections.
Not where someone cooks one day with one brand. Then cook another day with different meat, wind, temps, rain tec tec. To many variables. No true results. In my book.
Anyone local to me that wants to buy my other 3 bags for what I paid. $11.99 ea. Is more than welcome to save the trip to Lowes.
Like I said, I will use it as filler coals on other cooks. Not long cooks.

One Drop
11-25-2017, 05:45 AM
No, I just build what folks have requested me to build. Mostly family and friends.

The reason I chose to test in my cabinet. The intake air is at the middle of one side. Allowing air to head/burn where the heat wanted it to go. So equal to both half's of the coal basket. Hot coals poured in the middle. No favoritism. And I have exh at both ends/above each coal area. Hot coals started in the middle allowing both sections all the air they required. For the cookers I have. This was the best and most fair test bed.
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/922/2xk5TI.jpg (https://imageshack.com/i/pm2xk5TIj)

Yes you can weigh the coals if you want to go that far. Why not.
I did not need to do that. The Weber coals were basically gone at 3.5 hrs. The Stubbs side still had unburned coals.
As stated in the title. This was my test. No one else. I got my results. My results show Weber coals FOR ME are not a bargain. I use Stubbs only for long overnight cooks. As no other coals I have tried have lasted longer. In any of my cookers.
All this hype (to me) about Weber being the greatest for longer burn times was disproved. I can not comment on the ash as I had to add coals to make up for the lacking Weber coals.
As long as the ashes don't choke out a fire, I still have to clean them up. Having to do 1 scoop or 3 scoops of ash isn't going to change why I do or don't buy a brand of coals.
It is all about a clean burn and long burn times for my usage.

Thanks fir the test, very cool. I use Weber sometimes here as they are the only briquette available that will last for long cooks and not leave a ton of ash.

That said, the only real valid test is by weight and not volume, especially since the size is so different. It is possible you used far less of the Weber coals by weight that the Stubbs, no?

Czarbecue
11-25-2017, 09:47 AM
I’m sure someone with two Hunsaker drums can give this a test. I’ll paypal a bag of Weber for the cause.

smoke ninja
11-25-2017, 10:15 AM
No, I just build what folks have requested me to build. Mostly family and friends

So when do we start work on my traditional flow top heat offset ive been dreaming of?

Thanks fir the test, very cool. I use Weber sometimes here as they are the only briquette available that will last for long cooks and not leave a ton of ash.

That said, the only real valid test is by weight and not volume, especially since the size is so different. It is possible you used far less of the Weber coals by weight that the Stubbs, no?

I see it different on weight/volume.

Charcoal (lump included) can have various size and weight but when we buy we do so in bags. No matter the weight, the price per bag and the size (aka volume) is what we buy. When we load cookers we don't weight them. We fill up a chimney or charcoal basket by volume. How would you compare lump to charcoal by weight?

I think a test should be done as close to real conditions as possible. I'm not gonna weight or count briquettes in an actual cook but some may.

ebijack
11-25-2017, 10:56 AM
So when do we start work on my traditional flow top heat offset ive been dreaming of?
As soon as you want!

ebijack
11-25-2017, 11:00 AM
I’m sure someone with two Hunsaker drums can give this a test. I’ll paypal a bag of Weber for the cause [emoji109][emoji110]
Hey, I hope there are some other "real and measurable" tests done.
I already know my results. No other test required for me.

Notorious Q.U.E.
11-25-2017, 11:25 AM
Thanks ebijack,

Understood that the cooker builds are for your inner circle only. Otherwise, my quest might’ve needed to continue!!

pjtexas1
11-25-2017, 12:54 PM
Thanks ebijack,

Understood that the cooker builds are for your inner circle only. Otherwise, my quest mightíve needed to continue!!He knows how to design nearly anything... At least that is his background. He also probably doesn't want to turn a hobby into a job. No fun in that.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

ChrisBarb
11-25-2017, 01:20 PM
No, I just build what folks have requested me to build. Mostly family and friends.

The reason I chose to test in my cabinet. The intake air is at the middle of one side. Allowing air to head/burn where the heat wanted it to go. So equal to both half's of the coal basket. Hot coals poured in the middle. No favoritism. And I have exh at both ends/above each coal area. Hot coals started in the middle allowing both sections all the air they required. For the cookers I have. This was the best and most fair test bed.


Yes you can weigh the coals if you want to go that far. Why not.
I did not need to do that. The Weber coals were basically gone at 3.5 hrs. The Stubbs side still had unburned coals.
As stated in the title. This was my test. No one else. I got my results. My results show Weber coals FOR ME are not a bargain. I use Stubbs only for long overnight cooks. As no other coals I have tried have lasted longer. In any of my cookers.
All this hype (to me) about Weber being the greatest for longer burn times was disproved. I can not comment on the ash as I had to add coals to make up for the lacking Weber coals.
As long as the ashes don't choke out a fire, I still have to clean them up. Having to do 1 scoop or 3 scoops of ash isn't going to change why I do or don't buy a brand of coals.
It is all about a clean burn and long burn times for my usage.
There is no way that it was completely out in 3.5 hours unless you rigged the test to prove a point. Itflies in the face of everyone else's experiences (I have unused briquettes after 12 hours, about a third of a WMS basket) and the testing done by The Virtual weber Bullet site:http://www.virtualweberbullet.com/kingsford-weber-charcoal-burn-test_photos/charcoal-test12.jpg
http://www.virtualweberbullet.com/kingsford-weber-charcoal-burn-test_photos/charcoal-test13.jpg
It almost feels like you have an agenda. If you like Stubbs, fine. They are good briquettes. But your test proves nothing. My everyday usage proves otherwise.

Czarbecue
11-25-2017, 01:44 PM
I see it different on weight/volume.

Charcoal (lump included) can have various size and weight but when we buy we do so in bags. No matter the weight, the price per bag and the size (aka volume) is what we buy. When we load cookers we don't weight them. We fill up a chimney or charcoal basket by volume. How would you compare lump to charcoal by weight?

I am sure I am not the only one but I do the math to see how much per pound of charcoal I am spending. For me, the bag size is irrelevant until I get to the car and have to load them.

And the original post was about which brand burns longer. In an unbiased test, all factors would remain equal.

el luchador
11-25-2017, 03:25 PM
There is no way that it was completely out in 3.5 hours unless you rigged the test to prove a point. Itflies in the face of everyone else's experiences (I have unused briquettes after 12 hours, about a third of a WMS basket) and the testing done by The Virtual weber Bullet site
It almost feels like you have an agenda. If you like Stubbs, fine. They are good briquettes. But your test proves nothing. My everyday usage proves otherwise.

Lol. Looking at it logically the test you posted would be more likely to have an agenda, given the source of the data

el luchador
11-25-2017, 03:42 PM
Btw,here is the test.
http://virtualweberbullet.com/kingsford-long-burning-weber-hardwood-charcoal-burn-test-2017.html

I would say it was a well done test.

Based on those results everyone would buy the cheapest briquettes available ie kingsford

dadsr4
11-25-2017, 04:44 PM
Someone always has to be the pioneer. Whether they are perfect or not, someone who didn't have the idea first will kibitz.
Someone, resting on his shoulders, will refine things.

jham0077
11-25-2017, 07:53 PM
Btw,here is the test.
http://virtualweberbullet.com/kingsford-long-burning-weber-hardwood-charcoal-burn-test-2017.html

I would say it was a well done test.

Based on those results everyone would buy the cheapest briquettes available ie kingsford

What's the Weber bullet sites test of Kingsford have to do with how long Stubbs burns.....
It was his test in his smoker and with his results. Unless somebody is willing to do the SAME test, i.e. smoker, humidity, food, temps, yada yada, then you really can't dispute the results.
I can't find Weber charcoal close enough for me to buy a bag. I have heard good and bad things about it(pricey). I use Stubbs on a regular basis and I like it so I will keep using it.

Bob C Cue
11-25-2017, 07:58 PM
I'm not gonna weight or count briquettes in an actual cook but some may.

You don't know what you're missing. Counting briquettes is fun, cool and life-changing!

el luchador
11-25-2017, 10:54 PM
What's the Weber bullet sites test of Kingsford have to do with how long Stubbs burns.....
It was his test in his smoker and with his results. Unless somebody is willing to do the SAME test, i.e. smoker, humidity, food, temps, yada yada, then you really can't dispute the results.
I can't find Weber charcoal close enough for me to buy a bag. I have heard good and bad things about it(pricey). I use Stubbs on a regular basis and I like it so I will keep using it.

what it has to do with it is that the OP was looking for value for his dollar and the best value for the buck comes from the cheapest briquettes. period end of story.

aerotech11
11-25-2017, 11:13 PM
what it has to do with it is that the OP was looking for value for his dollar and the best value for the buck comes from the cheapest briquettes. period end of story.

I don't believe that the best value for your money is the cheapest product. You could buy the cheapest 20 lb bag of charcoal but if it only gives you short cook times you will end up having to use that much more to equal a better product. So where's the Value in that? Say you spend $6 on a 20 lb bag of charcoal and you want to do a 10 hr cook. If that cheap bag lasts only 3 hrs you will need two more bags. Now your at $18. If you buy 1 bag of better charcoal say for $12 and it gets you through your 10 hour cook plus some left over. That is a better value to me. So cheapest is not always the better value.

One Drop
11-26-2017, 08:50 AM
So when do we start work on my traditional flow top heat offset ive been dreaming of?



I see it different on weight/volume.

Charcoal (lump included) can have various size and weight but when we buy we do so in bags. No matter the weight, the price per bag and the size (aka volume) is what we buy. When we load cookers we don't weight them. We fill up a chimney or charcoal basket by volume. How would you compare lump to charcoal by weight?

I think a test should be done as close to real conditions as possible. I'm not gonna weight or count briquettes in an actual cook but some may.

I buy by weight, not bag size, and compare prices by weight as well. I also judge the amount of lump or briquettes to use by weight and not volume, as this has consistently meant less wastage and better judging of the amount to to use for a given cook than by volume.

I estimate the amount I need without a quick guess, based on whether it's good lump, cheap or Weber briquettes, and I try to account for whether I'm doing low and slow or hot and fast. I usually get it right if I don't overthink it and let experience guide my gut feeling, which is how I cook in general anyway, trusting in my first feelings and not overthinking or calculating.

smoke ninja
11-26-2017, 10:13 AM
I buy by weight, not bag size, and compare prices by weight as well. I also judge the amount of lump or briquettes to use by weight and not volume, as this has consistently meant less wastage and better judging of the amount to to use for a given cook than by volume.

I estimate the amount I need without a quick guess, based on whether it's good lump, cheap or Weber briquettes, and I try to account for whether I'm doing low and slow or hot and fast. I usually get it right if I don't overthink it and let experience guide my gut feeling, which is how I cook in general anyway, trusting in my first feelings and not overthinking or calculating.

Well if you weight out coals for each cook thats great. Do what works for you

I guess alot of this is based on what info your trying to gain from this test. If its to garner the cheapest cost per pound than perfect.....but I don't need to do extensive testing to know what brand cost the least to use.

There are other things to be gained by a test like burn times and ash production

el luchador
11-26-2017, 01:38 PM
I don't believe that the best value for your money is the cheapest product. You could buy the cheapest 20 lb bag of charcoal but if it only gives you short cook times you will end up having to use that much more to equal a better product. So where's the Value in that? Say you spend $6 on a 20 lb bag of charcoal and you want to do a 10 hr cook. If that cheap bag lasts only 3 hrs you will need two more bags. Now your at $18. If you buy 1 bag of better charcoal say for $12 and it gets you through your 10 hour cook plus some left over. That is a better value to me. So cheapest is not always the better value.


It doesn't really matter what you believe. The data is out there.

aerotech11
11-26-2017, 02:44 PM
It doesn't really matter what you believe. The data is out there.

WOW. Snippy. Just being objective not argumentative. Take it in stride and don't get all bent out of shape. We're all here learning from each other.

ebijack
12-05-2017, 05:58 AM
Here is another cook with Weber coals. Approx 3/4 of a 20 lb bag( almost full coal basket) With wood chunks. 7 hrs cook time at 275*. Plus 30-40 mins for the cabinet to come up to temp. I will say the Weber coals do light faster than Stubbs. Using Stubbs it takes 45 min- 1 hr for the cabinet to get to cook temp.
You can kind of see where the 4 coal basket legs sat in the ashes.
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/924/gRzPiA.jpg (https://imageshack.com/i/pogRzPiAj)
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/923/1ip9s4.jpg (https://imageshack.com/i/pn1ip9s4j)
The ashes were pretty much up to the bottom of my coal basket at 7 hrs. There are coals still left. But the amount of ash is more than with other brands of coals. Though the Weber coals (like Stubbs) burn almost completely to ash. Unlike other brands and lump.
Another view of the amount of ash. I pushed/scooped thru one path way thru the ash. You can see where the legs for the coal basket were sitting.
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/923/Xa9472.jpg (https://imageshack.com/i/pnXa9472j)

kwas68
12-05-2017, 06:26 PM
One variable everybody seems to be overlooking is how much energy each variable is putting out. Look at it like a battery. Both heat/energy and longevity are desirable. We might be comparing a AAA that can go hours providing 1.5V to a 9V that peters out in a couple of minutes.

I could hypothesize that the Weber charcoal disproportionately provided more of the heat in the cooker. If it provided more heat than the Stubbs, than it is only logical that it would burn faster. It was observed that the Weber charcoal caught faster, so I don't think it is unreasonable.

A better test might be to see how long each charcoal could maintain a constant temperature side-by-side in identical cookers.

I have no horse in this race. Just trying to reconcile the results with others' experiences.

jham0077
12-05-2017, 09:44 PM
what it has to do with it is that the OP was looking for value for his dollar and the best value for the buck comes from the cheapest briquettes. period end of story.

Someone else mentioned value, OP was looking for longest burn.

gsmith
12-06-2017, 10:28 AM
I stopped using Stubbs shortly after they went to 14 lb bags and raised the price $1. Went through 12 bags of the "new" stuff.

I found the quality of the charcoal had gone down, it smelled different and there was a lot more ash than there used to be. This really bummed me out as I loved using Stubbs.

I've only used the weber once so I really don't know if I like it or not.

Lately I have been using the Royal Oak Briquettes 15 lb bag for $5.99

Jrogers84
12-06-2017, 01:54 PM
One variable everybody seems to be overlooking is how much energy each variable is putting out. Look at it like a battery. Both heat/energy and longevity are desirable. We might be comparing a AAA that can go hours providing 1.5V to a 9V that peters out in a couple of minutes.

I could hypothesize that the Weber charcoal disproportionately provided more of the heat in the cooker. If it provided more heat than the Stubbs, than it is only logical that it would burn faster. It was observed that the Weber charcoal caught faster, so I don't think it is unreasonable.

A better test might be to see how long each charcoal could maintain a constant temperature side-by-side in identical cookers.

I have no horse in this race. Just trying to reconcile the results with others' experiences.


This is a valid point. I have used the weber and stubbs but more for grilling than smoking honestly. Weber definitely lights faster and burns hot.

As for the virtual weber test...well it means nothing. If one burns faster uncontrolled and is putting out 900 degress while the other burns slower uncontrolled and puts out 500 degrees....well then the faster burning one might actually last longer in a controlled environment.

I appreciate the test ebi.

Bigbass300
12-06-2017, 02:54 PM
After reading all these posts I don't see any real evidence one way or the other which is best, or the best value for anyone other than the tester. IMO a real test would have to be a bit more scientific and controlled. I've found it's possible to change the burn time of any charcoal in my UDS just be where I place the lit coals in relation to the intake.

upStomp
12-06-2017, 03:19 PM
The Weber briqs run like a champ in my WSM. Probably the longest, most consistent burn of any I've tried. I can do 4 full racks on my 18.5" with a half full basket and still have almost half of the coals at least partially unlit.

It's also now cheaper per lb than Stubbs and smells better (though they both smell better than KBB or ROB). Really, the only drawback I have with it is the stupid plastic bag with the zipper.

I'll still buy KBB during the sales for basic, small quantity grilling, but Weber is now my go-to for everything else. It used to be Stubbs filling that role.