Roasting Pans: The Topic

[Toliver]

First off, what home cook doesn't line a pan with foil for easy clean up?

Me. I don't.

How am I going to take the roasting pan from the oven to the stovetop to deglaze and scrape up all the concentrated bits of roastey goodness if there's foil all over the inside of the pan?

←

But then in your case, the deglazing basically cleans the pan. So his "bake it in the oven til it's crusty" doesn't pass muster either.

[Fat Guy]

Toliver, I think it's a bit much to call the author an idiot! His work seems pretty much on target for a general audience. Could his methodology have been more rigorous? Yes. Does that make him an idiot? No. It's not even clear to me that the Slate audience (or editors) would appreciate more rigor.

[Toliver]

Toliver, I think it's a bit much to call the author an idiot! His work seems pretty much on target for a general audience. Could his methodology have been more rigorous? Yes. Does that make him an idiot? No. It's not even clear to me that the Slate audience (or editors) would appreciate more rigor.

←

Testing a roasting pan using a method that won't likely be used by the very people who will be purchasing it does beg questions of intelligence. Perhaps then not of the author but of the editor who okayed this piece.

edited to add: Does anyone have the infused anodized pan? I've heard the exteriors don't clean up as nicely as the old Calphalon line.

Edited November 18, 2006 by Toliver (log)

[Blondelle]

Marlene, Cooks Illustrated recommends the Calphalon Contemporary roaster. It's fully clad, and only $63.99 right now at smartbargains.com. If you go through fatwallet.com you can get a 7% rebate. Add something else and get free shipping at $75. It's a great pan. Comes with a rack too!

http://www.smartbargains.com/go.sb?pagenam...2&t=srch...prod.

Now I need new pots and pans.  Some of my pans don't fit flush to the surface of my cooktop so I'm replacing them.  One of the things I need is a really really good roasting pan.  My old one is pretty light, and didn't sit on the cooktop properly on the weekend for making gravy.  Need one with shallow sides, a bit of weight to it, and one that is good for making gravy in.

Any suggestions!

←

[paulraphael]

Admin: Threads merged.

I have a roasting pan made out off clad aluminum/stainless steel by kitchenaid. it's quite beautiful, but the sides are 3-1/2 inches high and interfere with air circulation and browning. I'd love a similar pan that cooks as well (especially on the stovetop for making pan sauces) that has much lower sides. I think between one and two inches would be perfect.

Does anyone make such a thing? I'm fond of stainless steel surfaces, for ease of deglazing and cleaning, and enough conductivity to work on the stove without major hot spots.

In a pinch I'm wondering if I could get away with a heavy baking half-sheet. I have some chicago metallic aluminized steel jelly roll pans that i've roasted veggies on. I've always assumed you couldn't put these on the stove, but now i'm wondering why not? I'm sure they'd get vicious hot spots, but if i'm stirring fast the whole time, would I cause any damage?

[slkinsey]

Hi Paul. I am not aware of any such pan, but I think you will find that a rack should provide sufficient elevation for all the air circulation you might desire in your existing roasting pan. One great advantage is that a roasting rack costs a lot less than a new roasting pan.

I highly recommend roasting racks that are coated with a nonstick surface for ease of cleaning. That said, a liberal application of oven cleaner overnight works well on regular stainless roasting racks.

[paulraphael]

I just don't like to use racks. It's one more thing to clean, and I find it harder to keep pan juices from burning when I use one.

If someone made a nice clad stainless/aluminum roasting pan in the basic shape of a pyrex lasagna pan, with solid handles, I'd snap it up in a heartbeat. I'd get two, in large and medium sizes.

For small stuff I use skillets.

[slkinsey]

Hmm. I've not had a problem with burning pan juices when using a rack, but anyway that's what potatoes are for.

I've been meaning to get one of these 16 x 10 babies for roasting, which sounds like what you're looking for but may be out of your price range.

[paulraphael]

Hmm.  I've not had a problem with burning pan juices when using a rack, but anyway that's what potatoes are for.  

I've been meaning to get one of these 16 x 10 babies for roasting, which sounds like what you're looking for but may be out of your price range.

←

That kind of thing would be nice. The price of copper puts it out of my reach right now, but I think I'll do a search for other gratin and lasagna pans ... there might be some gems out there that i've been missing.

[JohnnyH]

I've got the large AllClad roti pan, and I have a problem with it that I wonder if anyone else shares. The "floor" of the pan is not a completely level surface; it's designed to be raised toward the center. I'm not sure what the intended purpose of this design is, but in practice for me it tends to send fats toward the edges of the pan and leads to scorching in the center when the pan is used on the stovetop. Anyone else notice this?

[paulraphael]

So has anyone tried to deglaze a regular half sheet baking pan? Like an aluminum one, or aluminized steel? It sounds like something they'd tell you not to do, but it also seems like you could do it without harming anything if you were careful.

Thoughts?

[slkinsey]

It might be possible with a very heavy gauge sheet pan (at least 16 gauge, which is 1.29 mm in aluminum) and relatively low heat. I doubt you'd hurt yourself, but considering that those things have something like a 1 inch lip, I think it would be pretty damn messy. If the heat from the stove caused it to buckle at all (not unlikely) you'd have pan drippings all over the top of the stove. And once you deglazed, how would you pour the liquid out of the sheet pan into a saucepan without spilling it all over the place?

What about this pan? It's got sides that are only two inches tall. It's also 14 gauge aluminum, which is 1.63 mm thick.

[paulraphael]

there are a whole lot of similar options here:

http://www.bigtray.com/productlist.asp?catid=16340&tr=bc

and a nice high end one here:

http://www.chefsresource.com/viking-3-func...-chefs-pan.html

[slkinsey]

Aren't all of those others too tall on the sides (i.e., >2 inches) for what you want? If you're willing to go up to 2.5 or 3 inches, your options open up quite a bit.

[paulraphael]

Aren't all of those others too tall on the sides (i.e., >2 inches) for what you want?  If you're willing to go up to 2.5 or 3 inches, your options open up quite a bit.

←

I don't know the answer for sure. Has anyone tested different height pans side by side?

I absolutely get better browning in a skillet than i do in my 3.5" high roasting pan. But I'd just be guessing about the differences between 2" and 2.5".

The duraware pan is definitely intriguing. but I don't know what to expect from 14ga aluminum on the stove.

[slkinsey]

I absolutely get better browning in a skillet than i do in my 3.5" high roasting pan.

This may be due to several factors, however. For example, if you typically only use your roasting pan for birds that are too large for a skillet, it may be that your roasting pan is too small for the things you're roasting in it. If there are a couple of inches of room all around the bird in the roasting pan, I'd think it would brown just fine -- especially if elevated a bit (either with a rack or by sitting on a couple of halved onions, etc.).

The duraware pan is definitely intriguing. but I don't know what to expect from 14ga aluminum on the stove.

Just going by memory, my Calphalon roasting pan doesn't seem a whole lot thicker than that. It might warp a little bit on the stove, but not unusably so.

[paulraphael]

I just splurged and got this pan from viking:

http://www.chefsresource.com/viking-3-func...-chefs-pan.html

It's the only pan I could find that had what I wanted: clad stainless construction, and low sides.

I haven't roasted anything yet, but on the stove it shows no hot spots. Very nicely made. My only complaint is the bizarre handle design, which intrudes an inch into the pan on each side. Best not to have food this close to the sides anyhow, but it strikes me as a gratuitous feat of dumb overdesigning. Not a deal breaker, though, because I couldn't find any other pan that got the basics right.

My kitchenaid roasting pan was almost perfect, but the high sides (3-1/2 inches) really bugged me. They interfered with browning on any of the large roasts that the pan was made for. These high sided pans seem designed for use with a rack, whcih isn't the way I like to do it. So that pan and unused rack are on their way to ebay, and my fingers are crossed that I'll enjoy the pricey new one more.

[paulraphael]

I got the viking pan, and put it through its paces: a pair of chickens roasted on a bed of vegetables at 500 degrees, and a pan sauce on the stove afterwards; 6 lbs. of beef and veal shank rounds browned and deglazed on the stovetop for stock; 6 lbs of beef shin bones browned in the oven at 375 degrees and then deglazed. Browning was perfect, on all the meat and all the pan drippings. evenness is especially impressive when deglazing on the stove. Nothing burned or overbrowned.

This is by far the best roasting pan i've ever used. the stainless/aluminum clad material works as well as it does in other pans, and the short (2-1/2") sides allow much more even browning than in my previous pan (same materials, but sides an inch higher).

Seems so strange that no one else is making a high quality clad pan with low sides.

Only complaint is the odd handle design ... they bend inward and so cut into the interior space of the roasting pan. This annoys me, but in practice hasn't caused any problems.

I love this pan. If anyone is interested in it , it's the viking "chef's pan" ... not the "roasting pan", which has high sides and an accompanying rack.

Edited January 15, 2007 by paulraphael (log)

[jmcgrath]

I wouldn't denigrate anyone's choice for their ideal roasting pan, but in many cases it's a question of esthetic's. Foil pans are a tool of the devil. They are just plain dangerous. Lightweight pans warp and juices collect at one end and burn at the other. Beyond that I don't think there is much difference. Circulating air/convection is the heat transfer method. and the cost of the roasting pan isn't going to make much of a difference.

If you lust after and can afford a $300 pan, please go for it. Just be aware that a $50 pan will cook just as well.

Jim

Edited January 21, 2007 by jmcgrath (log)

[jmcgrath]

That being said . . . I am darn curious about using the big LC oval. Yes, I know that the high sides fly in the face of conventional wisdom. But then, I always enjoy flying in the face of Conventional Wisdom, Known Truths, Established Doctrine and several other folk with whom I have made acquaintance. What I am wondering is if the big heat sink and geometry might help getting the thighs cooked a bit faster and therefore even out the cooking times between white and dark meat. Then I get curious about how the thing will brown.

←

Examine the way in which heat transfer takes place, conduction, radiation and convection. With conduction, there is direct transfer, e.g. from your stove top burner to a frying pan to a steak. With radiation, infrared energy goes from a heat source e.g. a broiler directly to a steak. Put the steak too far away and the energy will be transferred to air rather than the steak. With convection cooking, e.g. roasting, the oven element transfers energy to the oven air and then to the roast. The more efficiently the air circulation take place, the more efficiently your roast will be heated. A high sided roasting dish will impede air circulation. Adding a fan to your oven and now calling it a convection oven improves air circulation and oven efficiency.

Baking is a combination of conduction and convection. Hot air transfers energy to the sides and bottom of a baking pan from where energy is conducted to what is being baked. Hot air transfers energy directly to the top. Everything in an oven will eventually reach a steady state temperature. A glass bread pan will just take longer to do so than a metal one.

I don't think that thick vs. thin makes much difference in roasting. The operant factor here is air circulation. It may be a factor in baking depending on how widely your oven temperature fluctuates. At +- 5F it's probably not going to matter. At +-15F having a big heat sink will probably help.

Jim

[paulraphael]

... Beyond that I don't think there is much difference. Circulating air/convection is the heat transfer method. and the cost of the roasting pan isn't going to make much of a difference.

←

I think there are a few differences. Shape, most obviously, which you've gone on to address. And which I've found isn't something you can take for granted. Finding a high quality pan in a shape that seemed reasonable was no easy trick.

The materials also make a difference when you use the pan on the stove. Which of course isn't roasting, but there are a lot of times I need this from a roasting pan. Usually it's related to the roasting process (searing a piece of meat before putting it in the oven, or deglazing the pan afterwards). Sometimes it's unrelated to roasting--browning a bunch of meat quickly before making stock. There are some non-roasting things like this that a roasting pan is just better suited for than anything else.

I also think the materials/thickness/surface finish make a difference while roasting. Most of the meat is going to get cooked by convection and radiation, but the bottom of the meat, and the pan juices, are going to be cooked largely by conduction from the pan. The surface of the pan is going to be influenced not just by the ambient temperature of the oven, but also by its absorption of radiant energy (dark surfaces absorbing more, polished stainless the least, brushed stainless or aluminum somewhere in between) and by its thermal mass and conduction. The result is that some pans seem to do a more reliable job of browning pan juices and the bottom of a roast than others. There are likewise some pans that don't brown very well, and others that seem to burn the fond almost every time.

In my personal experience, aluminum clad with stainless has been an exellent all-around performer. Especially if the outer surface is a dull or brushed finish, rather than a mirror finish. I'd be willing to bet that plain, heavy aluminum would perform comparably well, but I very much like to have a stainless steel interior for ease of cleaning.

[thirtyoneknots]

Hello, I mostly post over in Spirits and Cocktails, but I do also love to cook and so lurk a lot in the rest of eGullet, and I was hoping the good folks here could help me with a little problem I have.

I have not until now had a real metal roasting pan. When I wanted to roast something I made do with a pyrex dish or disposable metal one. A few weeks ago my pyrex (not real Pyrex, off brand) exploded in the oven 2/3 of the way through roasting a duck, which was very exciting. Anyway, I have since then been in the market for a roasting pan, and today I was met with an embarassment of riches at Macy's. I found there, evidently on clearance, a 'Tools of the Trade' large oval roasting pan with a low rack and a huge lid, for half off (regular $60). And then, I found a hard-anodized Calphalon pan with a medium-height V-type rack (sort of), said $100 on the box, rang up 19.99 (not sure how or why but I left before they could catch on). I couldn't decide which one to get, so I bought both with the intent to return one. After skimming through this thread, I'm under the impression that the Calphalon will be the much better option all-around, but I wanted to get some opinions from the eGulleteers. Before reading through this I never imagined that the requirements for a roasting pan were so detailed.

A quick confession: Apparently I don't pay attention very well because I thought right until I went to look at the pan before I started typing this that I had bought nonstick Calphalon and had been dismayed to learn that nonstick is less than ideal for roasting pans. Since I read through the thread looking for info on Calphalon nonstick I sort of missed some of the info on anodized aluminum. So I guess my question is which one should I keep (I'm guessing the Caphalon) and/or should I take them both back and try to find a stainless steel one?

Thanks in advance for all the advice!

-Andy

[Shel_B]

My current roasting pan is about 30-years old, and it is an inexpensive stainless steel pan with a flimsy wire rack to hold items above the floor of the pan.

I hadn't roasted very often, so this pan, which is but a step or two up from the disposable aluminum pans so many people buy for their Thanksgiving turkey, hasn't been much of an issue. However, I now want a better pan as there are plans to try a few roasts over time, and I want one that can accomodated some meat bones and vegetables to roast for making stock as well. Unfortunately, I don't know squat about what to look for ... a little help would be appreciated.

What size would be good for the occassional small roast (4-6 people), a nice pile of bones and veges for stock, maybe making roast potatoes or roasted vegetables? Material? I don't want a non-stick surface, but I wouldn't mind one that's easy to clean and maintain. How deep should the pan be? What type of rack is best? Is there a "best" type of rack?

My primary concern is performance, followed closely by durability and a reasonable cost. Heck, I don't even know what a reasonable cost should be $100.00?

Thanks for any help.

Edited October 8, 2008 by Shel_B (log)

[tim]

Hi,

I just went through the same process. The following choices deserve your consideration.

Kitchen Aid full clad stainless: 15" X 11" X 3.5" $120

Cuisinart Chefs Classic Stainless with 3.5mm disc bottom: 16" X 13" X 3.5" $80

Tim

[Chris Hennes]

I've got the Cuisinart that tim mentions, and for the most part think it's great. The clad bottom conducts heat very well, but because of it's shape is not as efficient on an electric range as on a gas, since it is raised in the center. That said, it only spends a few minutes on the range, and the heat conduction is good enough that deglazing has never been a problem with it.