Why no water pan?

I cook at 300 and at that temp i waste fuel boiling water. I use a diffuser with holes instead of a water bowl.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

I use Lava rocks in a foil covered pan , to help stabilize the temps. Might try water in a alum. pan next time just to see what happens.
DanB

I use a 14' terra cotta plate wrapped in foil as a heat sink. I can cook at 275° for 8-10 hours without issue.

I've never run mine with water in the pan, so I guess I can't give you the pros and cons. But here are my answers to your questions, to the best of my knowledge:

I don't want to deal with a pan full of greasy water during clean up.

I foil the pan for easy cleanup.

I like a direct-cooked flavor profile, but for large cuts I'm afraid of the grease fire potential. The empty (foiled) water pan is a good compromise. The drippings sizzle in the pan, but don't drop directly on the fire.

Yes, the meat is still moist and juicy. The air flow in a WSM is minimal compared to an offset stick burner. Avoid overcooking and stick to low and slow and you will be fine.

I don't perceive any issues with heat management, but I came from a COS that was a real bear to control, so maybe I'm more tolerant of the need to mind the cooker. I usually have to adjust the vents a few times through the cook to keep the temp where I want it, but overall, I'm quite satisfied with how the cooker holds the temp.

Also, I like the way the cooker comes up to temp quickly without water in the pan. Usually takes about 20 minutes, which is enough time to off-gas the nasty smell of charcoal heating up, but not so long that I have to get up an hour early.

I presume I am using less fuel than I would if I was heating a pan full of water, but since I've never used water, I can't really make that comparison.

I pretty much always run with water in the pan. Clean up sucks, but I like my cooks better on the wsm with water in there (at least for butts and briskets... I don't mess with it for chicken and ribs).

I also have a RF offset and usually run a water pan in it as well in the hot spot (if i have room). I am a fan of humidity when cooking.

I run with and without water depending on what I'm cooking. Hot and fast, no water. Low and slow, water for more moisture during the cook. The thermal capacity of water also helps avoid temperature 'swings' but, adds to fuel consumption (if you care).

I think the Vortex without water is the real answer for most people.

When I got my Redbox I ran it exclusively with the waterpan. The design of that unit allows it to run beautifully at 220-235*. for hours with little babysitting. But, I hate getting up at midnight to put a 9# butt to have it ready to eat at 2pm so I started experimenting with leaving the water pan in place, but empty. I've found that cooking H&F has little effect on the outcome of a pork shoulder or tri tip. But....the temps can get away from you quickly if your'e not paying attention. If they start to spike over 300 I put about 1/4" of water in the pan to get it back down. I can get a butt done in close to 1 hour/pound.

I use the water pan with water. Clean up? Couldn’t be easier, just to dump it off in a corner where you don’t mind killing grass. Our yard is big enough I don’t have any problems. An apartment might be an issue.

But the water, as mentioned, helps me keep temps at an even 225 for about 8 hours without touching anything. Plus I think it definitely keeps food moist.

I did my first 1.5 cooks in my WSM with a water filled pan. The first cook was a pain to keep temps, and the second was even worse. Dumped the water out, and the rest of the cook was so much easier.

Granted that was early on, so maybe now with dozens (or hundreds) more cooks under my belt it'd be okay. But I'm not sure I believe it adds moisture to the meat anyways.

I did do the foil wrapped terra-cotta saucer in the pan, to give a little thermal mass.

I don't find any difference in my end product with or without water in my cookers. I also live in the southern US where it's pretty much always humid so YMMV. Even if you don't run water in your water pan you can add a small pan of water in your cooker or put some water in a drip pan if you think the air in the cooker is too dry.

The big water pans in a cooker - WSM, IVC, etc. - are there to provide thermal mass. Thermal mass is the ability of a material to absorb heat energy when it is cooler than its surroundings and to release that energy when it is warmer than its surroundings. More thermal mass can be good or bad. More thermal mass means it takes more energy to heat your cooker and makes it harder to change temperatures. On the other hand, more thermal mass also means that once you're at the desired temperature your cooker will have less response to temporary changes in your fire, opening the cooker door, wind, etc.

Since most people want a smoker to hold one temperature for long periods of time, more thermal mass is usually a good thing up until the point that it takes too long to heat up. One way to accomplish this is to use more steel in the cooker. That's OK up to a point but it also means your cooker is more expensive to manufacture and heavier.

So one solution is to add water at the time that you're going to cook. Water is usually pretty easy to source and pretty easy to dispose of afterwards. It has a high thermal capacity for its volume so it's a great for adding thermal mass. For low and slow cooks it also has a property that's magical: it never gets hotter than 212 degrees F - so it really helps to regulate the cooker at temperatures close to 212. But water isn't perfect. It holds that 212 degrees by evaporating - adds moisture to the cooker sure but if it all boils away the temperature in the cooker can get away from you in a hurry. If you're trying to cook at temperatures hotter than 212 water is a big energy drain in your system. As mentioned, water can also be messy post cook.

So some people (usually including me) use something else to add thermal mass. You can use pretty much anything that won't burn or outgas but generally denser materials have a higher thermal capacity per volume, i.e. more thermal mass for the same space. I generally use sand, some people use fire brick, etc. Sand wrapped in foil is pretty easy to keep clean; it's cheap; it's easy to source, etc. It doesn't hold any particular temperature which makes it not quite as good if you're cooking low and slow but better if you're cooking at higher temperatures. In my IVC I usually run with a stoker so holding temperature steady isn't generally an issue but the added thermal mass does help the cooker recover after I open the door.

^^^With that said I may use a foil wrapped fire brick in the water pan to see what it does. Nice post.

I use water in the stock pan once in a blue moon, depending on what and how I'm cooking, and what I'm hungry for. I won't say if these are pros and cons, but here are my observations:

With water
- Produces softer bark because of the moister cooking enviro
- Easier to cook at very low temps
- Harder to cook at very high temps without adjusting fuel usage (vs no water)
- The potential for the water pan to tip and dump into your coals if you didn't set it in there just right because you had a few too many cold ones, thus ruining your whole damn cook. (a friend told me)

Without water - I use a foil-covered terra cotta saucer set in the brackets
- Produces a harder bark
- Ability to swing pit temps high to low, low to high easier/quicker

It depends what I'm cooking or what temp I want to cook at if i use water or not. Only time I use water in my WSM is for keeping temps down around 225 or for a brisket. Other than that, I just wrap the water pan in foil and go for 260-275ish for other cooks, higher for poultry.

I used water in my WSM for years. But once I saw the light of cooking at higher temps i yanked the water and replaced with sand. Foil over the top for easy cleanup. I get a better bark without all the humidity as well.



And a water pan will never add moisture to the inside of the meat you're cooking.