Reg wrote:
> Nonnymus wrote:
>
>> Reg wrote:
>>
>>> 2> His assertion that it's not more expensive to run than other
>>> units is wrong on it's face. It is. Cooking large quantities
>>> doesn't change that, either. It reminds me of the old joke: "Yes
>>> we're losing money, but we'll make it up on volume".
>>>
>>
>> The cost of pucks is not a driving force with me. I'm not into
>> wasting money, but I appreciate the convenience of 'set and forget.'
>> I don't think you'll find an argument about which is cheaper, but I
>> also don't drive a car with the highest gas mileage, keep my house at
>> a comfortable temp year round, eat where I like and order what I
>> want, and pay to have the cable channels I enjoy.
>>
>> With my use of the Bradley, I'd guess I might spend $100 a year on
>> pucks, compared to, say $20 a year on wood chips. For the additional
>> money, i can load in a smooth feeding supply when I put in the meat
>> and never have to fiddle with adding more. The smoke is controlled
>> and has less creosote than you'd get from smoking with non-preburned
>> wood chips. The convenience and results of the Bradley smoker is more
>> important to me than the minor cost of the pucks.
>
> There you have it. Everyone has to evaluate the value proposition
> for themselves. For me, the sheer volume of hot smoking that I
> do puts it in the unnecessarily expensive category. I'd end up
> spending enough on supplies to buy several new smokers every
> year for little added benefit. Other units can do the same
> thing much cheaper.
>
> Cold smoking is a different story, mostly because it's so labor
> intensive. The extra expense for the supplies is more than made
> up for in labor savings. I just deal with the downside of it. I
> won't haul the Bradley to onsite catering events because it's so
> cheaply built. I'm very careful with the smoke generator because,
> among other things, it's fragile. It has plastic gears so it
> needs to be kept scrupulously clean, etc.
>
> I'm not as down on the Bradley as it may seem, I just don't
> impart benefits on it that it doesn't really have. My hardcore
> bbq friends would never touch the thing, but I've recommended
> it to my more casual bbq pals who find the convenience worth
> the added expense. It's a matter of truth in advertising.
> I tell them what it can/can't do, how much the actual costs
> are, and they make the decision for themselves.
>

Well said, Reg. I've not been inside my smoke generator's mechanism, so
I cannot comment on its ruggedness.

Nonny

--
---Nonnymus---
You don’t stand any taller by
trying to make others appear shorter.