Looking to switch

[Scott.W]

Wow
This community is very enthusiastic and knowledgeable. The red and green guys just talk about how great it is. No thanks y’all really have helped me. I’m going to have to think about it a little more.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[5698k]

Whatever you do, don’t buy anything without calling Dennis, you’ll be glad you did.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Pequod]

1 hour ago, DennisLinkletter said:

I'm going to have to disagree with ya here my friend..
Craig aka Meathead at AmazingRibs.com once said only the Primo could create two zones..
I made up this little video to demonstrate how the clearly the two zones were created in a 23" KK.

Probably should of cranked it up a bit but it definitely shows TWO ZONES 
 

Interesting. I'll amend my statement to: The 32 and 42 have two BIG zones. Big enough for a goat.

A good, and not so hard to do experiment, would be to put a 23, 32, and 42 in split (50/50) basket configuration and place a grate level probe at the midway point of each half on the main grate. Dial in so that the indirect side is the same on each -- say 250F. What is the reading of the direct side probe? Or flip it around -- dial in 450 on the direct side of each; what is the reading on the indirect side? My intuition says the temperature differential between direct and indirect sides is greatest with the 42, then 32, then 23, but by how much? 

With my Maverick XR50, I could get readings at four points on the main grate of my 23 and 32, but somebody would have to send me a 42 to measure that. 

Edited July 19, 2018 by Pequod

[tony b]

Dennis chimed in before I saw this post, but as an owner of a 23" I was going to push back on the "can't do 2 zone cooking" notion, as I've been doing it for years. If Steven Raichlen can call his standard setup in a Weber Kettle, 2 Zone cooking, then a basket splitter in the 23" is the same thing. And, Robert is right, it's nice with the round basket that you can tailor the hot/cold half configurations to suit the cook. I often like to have the hot side in the back on a rotisserie cook. Just sayin'

@Scott.W - So, all else being equal, pick the size that's going to give you the cooking space that you think you'll need for 90% of the cooks that you do. The other 10% you can juggle, as the cost-benefit says it's not worth the $$ for the bigger size if you only use it once or twice a year. IMHO

[Pequod]

2 hours ago, tony b said:

Dennis chimed in before I saw this post, but as an owner of a 23" I was going to push back on the "can't do 2 zone cooking" notion, as I've been doing it for years. If Steven Raichlen can call his standard setup in a Weber Kettle, 2 Zone cooking, then a basket splitter in the 23" is the same thing. 

I’ll get a little technical for a moment, but I know @tony b is a recovering engineer, so let’s roll with some Engineering approximations and others feel free to ignore. (Once an engineer, always an engineer!).

Radiation decays with distance squared. So, in a Weber, where the distance from the coals on the direct side is, say 6”, and distance on the indirect side is say, an average of 18”, the radiative heat transfer rate is nearly 10 times less on the indirect side vs the direct. 

Do the same math for the grates of a 23”, where the main is about 18” from the fire, the middle grate is about 12”, and the sear grate is 6”. For the main grate, the distance to the fire is about 18” on the direct side, and (doing a little Pythagorean thing), about 22” to the middle of the indirect side. Repeat this for each grate. Here are the results:

• Main grate: Radiative heat transfer on the indirect side is about 2/3 that on the direct side
• Mid grate: indirect side is about 1/2 that of direct
• Sear grate: indirect is 1/5 of direct
• Comparison between main grate indirect and sear grate direct: about 1/13 of direct

I’ll skip directly to the results for the 32: 

• Main grate: indirect side is 1/2 of direct
• Mid grate: indirect side is 1/3 of direct
• Sear grate: indirect side is 1/8 of direct
• Another data point comparing indirect side main grate to direct side sear grate (I.e., the 32’s two-zone configuration): 1/16 of direct

Last, take a closer look at Dennis’ video. First, that’s the mid grate of a 23. Per calcs above, radiative heat transfer on indirect side is about 1/2 the direct side. Notice something else? The paper is browning fastest from conductive heat transfer via the grate itself, not radiative, which is why we go to the direct side (unless using conduction via a steel of CI to sear).

What does all of this mean?

The definition of “two-zone” is somewhat subjective, but it starts with a differential in radiative heat transfer between two sides of a grill. Let’s say the magic ratio of indirect:direct is 1:10. The Weber achieves this. A high (indirect)/low (direct) 23 and 32 both do this. The difference, then, is in the convenience and grilling area for the indirect and direct sides. For the 23, you have to remove the food and the main grate to get to the sear grate. For the 32, you simply flip from the main half-grate to the sear grate without moving anything. For a Weber, same thing...flip to the direct side or use the cold grill technique.

A concluding comment: in my subjective opinion, the reason I say the 32 is a true two zone grill and the 23 isn’t comes down to convenience for two zone grilling. With the 32, I can complete a two-zone cook without ever moving any grates and without ever worrying about having enough room. The 32 is a two-zone machine. 

Edited July 19, 2018 by Pequod

[jonj]

At the risk of wading into an engineering discussion with a liberal arts degree, it seems to me one of the benefits of the 32 is the split grate configuration. I think it would be nice to have the availability of a split / half grate (either the main, mid or both) accessory for the 23. 

[Pequod]

26 minutes ago, jonj said:

At the risk of wading into an engineering discussion with a liberal arts degree, it seems to me one of the benefits of the 32 is the split grate configuration. I think it would be nice to have the availability of a split / half grate (either the main, mid or both) accessory for the 23. 

I agree. I think the hassle of moving food and grates around to get to the "sear zone" is why I don't think of the 23 as a true two-zone grill and don't use mine for that. It isn't as convenient as simply moving food to the hot side. A half-grate for the 23" -- even as an add-on accessory -- would go a long way.

Edited July 20, 2018 by Pequod

[Stile88]

1 hour ago, Pequod said:

 A half-grate for the 23" -- even as an add-on accessory -- would go a long way.

I asked Dennis about making one for the 23 when i got mine he said it would be too small and decided he would not make one for the 23 or the smaller ones i believe. however that is one great feature of the 32

Edited July 20, 2018 by Stile88

[tekobo]

My question to @Pequod was really about wanting to understand the definition of "true" two zone cooking.  In practice, that is pretty irrelevant and I think I have learned something useful from this thread - thanks @Scott.W for starting it off

Dennis' illustration showed the difference between indirect and direct cooking.  Pequod's description of how he uses his 23" reflected mine i.e. cook on indirect side on the main grate and then switch down to the lower or sear grate for the direct cook.  He also talked about increasing the temp when he came to do the sear.  I generally just keep the same med-high temp through out.  Now I think I am going to try something different.  Use the lower grate throughout.  Cook on indirect side at medium temp and then crank up the heat and move the meat to the direct side.  No hassle and, for the level of accuracy/finesse that I need, I think it should work.  

[MacKenzie]

There is always some fun experimenting to do.  

[Pequod]

@tekobo - Here's Meathead's take on the subject: https://amazingribs.com/more-technique-and-science/grill-and-smoker-setup-and-firing/how-control-temperature-indirect

Note that he refers to the two zones as "convection" and "radiant" heat zones. In reality both forms of heat transfer are present throughout. What he really means is that on the indirect side, convective heat transfer dominates over radiant, while the opposite is true on the direct side. Getting the radiant below a threshold is what my post above was all about. 

To your point, what you suggested should work fine. 

I still want to do the test with the XR50.

[Stile88]

On 7/19/2018 at 3:38 PM, DennisLinkletter said:

I'm going to have to disagree with ya here my friend..
Craig aka Meathead at AmazingRibs.com once said only the Primo could create two zones..
I made up this little video to demonstrate how the clearly the two zones were created in a 23" KK.

Probably should of cranked it up a bit but it definitely shows TWO ZONES 

 

Very nice demo but when you look at the 23 if we split it in half its 11.5 inches where as the 32 is 16 split in half and of course the 42 is bigger

with that being said if i split my grill which is the 23 i really dont have a lot of room to have a hot side and cool side when i had my large bge you could do the same thing split the grill but it never felt like being 2 zones unless i blocked the one half with a half moon stone very much like kjs divide and conquer system but even then there wasnt much of a cool side .. i know you hate this comparison but the primo being the shape it is gives more of a 2 zone then the kamados your 32 and now 42 are elongated just like primo i know you cant compare kk with primo  but what i am saying is the footprint

 

so help me understand i get that you can split the grill on the 23 but to me the 32 and 42 or more truer 2 zone to me in my opinion

 

[tony b]

I think this horse is dead, we can stop kicking it now - LOL!! 

[Scott.W]

Guys
Y’all are all a wealth of info
Thank y’all!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tony b]

It's what we do here. We all love to cook and think the KK is the best grill/smoker out there. 

[tekobo]

11 hours ago, Scott.W said:

Guys
Y’all are all a wealth of info
Thank y’all!

You're too kind.  We completely highjacked your thread @Scott.W. Sorry!  I hope you do end up with a KK.  As others have said, a chat with Dennis will help with exploring what is best for you.  

 

[DennisLinkletter]

23" Splitter:  I agree it only works well with the lower and sear grate.  I love using the basket splitter with the 23" because it lets me leave my arm down there to play with my meat without a million BTUs cooking me.. The 23" still holds a volleyball plus volume of charcoal and when it's all lit and screaming it can be daunting to reach in and hold your 3-4" ribeye on it's side for browning..

Yes the 32" and 42" with their traditional grill proportions create MUCH larger shielded areas.. in fact if you are very "hot wall aware" you can grill at screaming hot temps without a welding glove. (do I need a disclaimer here;-)

Thanks all for your enthusiastic involvement here.. 

 

[Aussie Ora]

I’ll get a little technical for a moment, but I know [mention=975]tony b[/mention] is a recovering engineer, so let’s roll with some Engineering approximations and others feel free to ignore. (Once an engineer, always an engineer!).
Radiation decays with distance squared. So, in a Weber, where the distance from the coals on the direct side is, say 6”, and distance on the indirect side is say, an average of 18”, the radiative heat transfer rate is nearly 10 times less on the indirect side vs the direct. 
Do the same math for the grates of a 23”, where the main is about 18” from the fire, the middle grate is about 12”, and the sear grate is 6”. For the main grate, the distance to the fire is about 18” on the direct side, and (doing a little Pythagorean thing), about 22” to the middle of the indirect side. Repeat this for each grate. Here are the results:

• Main grate: Radiative heat transfer on the indirect side is about 2/3 that on the direct side
• Mid grate: indirect side is about 1/2 that of direct
• Sear grate: indirect is 1/5 of direct
• Comparison between main grate indirect and sear grate direct: about 1/13 of direct

I’ll skip directly to the results for the 32: 

• Main grate: indirect side is 1/2 of direct
• Mid grate: indirect side is 1/3 of direct
• Sear grate: indirect side is 1/8 of direct
• Another data point comparing indirect side main grate to direct side sear grate (I.e., the 32’s two-zone configuration): 1/16 of direct

Last, take a closer look at Dennis’ video. First, that’s the mid grate of a 23. Per calcs above, radiative heat transfer on indirect side is about 1/2 the direct side. Notice something else? The paper is browning fastest from conductive heat transfer via the grate itself, not radiative, which is why we go to the direct side (unless using conduction via a steel of CI to sear).
What does all of this mean?
The definition of “two-zone” is somewhat subjective, but it starts with a differential in radiative heat transfer between two sides of a grill. Let’s say the magic ratio of indirect:direct is 1:10. The Weber achieves this. A high (indirect)/low (direct) 23 and 32 both do this. The difference, then, is in the convenience and grilling area for the indirect and direct sides. For the 23, you have to remove the food and the main grate to get to the sear grate. For the 32, you simply flip from the main half-grate to the sear grate without moving anything. For a Weber, same thing...flip to the direct side or use the cold grill technique.
A concluding comment: in my subjective opinion, the reason I say the 32 is a true two zone grill and the 23 isn’t comes down to convenience for two zone grilling. With the 32, I can complete a two-zone cook without ever moving any grates and without ever worrying about having enough room. The 32 is a two-zone machine. 

Great tuturial lost me lol. coming from a kj comand and conquer set up I have thought of cutting my grates in half to achieve this on the 23

Outback kamado Bar and Grill

[Aussie Ora]

So I have a big joe and looking to move to the 23 ultimate. I enjoy my red pot but irritated about the hinge Etc. About to build an outdoor kitchen and want to upgrade.

Is there a long learning curve switch with the KK?

Since I am used to cooking on the BG should I go with the 32?

Anything I should be aware of the KK before hand?

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Mate best thing you will ever do .do you want a grill that does not rust maintanes it's Temps . Is intuitive, vercitile .and good looking. Then the KK is for you . If you have the coin and grill for heaps a 32 might be your go .but the 23 can hold its own when needed

 

Outback kamado Bar and Grill

 

 

 

[Scott.W]

So I made the switch and purchased the 23 Ultimate! Cant Wait!