Thermoworks Smoke - Am I crazy?

[steve weston]

Works great and needs only one improvement. User controlled functions are on the sending unit which stays outside next to the cooker. Receiver has only read-out and audible alarms. Changing settings requires trip outside. Seems backwards and Thermoworks has been reluctant to reply to comments. Am I crazy?

[steve weston]

Can anybody from Thermoworks explain why the controls are on the sending unit and not the receiving unit? Am I crazy?

[crazytown3]

I dunno, controls on the sending unit kinda makes sense to me. It's the 'main unit', where all the brains are.

[JoeSousa]

I think it makes sense. If you have your alarms set and they go off you need to go out and do something at the cooker anyway. Not sure what you would need to control on the receiving unit.

[klflowers]

The Maverick XR50 is made like that too. I never really thought about it - I usually set my temps and alarms and don't bother them anymore.

[Troutman]

Not to answer or talk for Thermoworks, but the product was designed and developed as is and they don't seem to want to update it. They took what upgrade ideas they gleaned for the market and looking at competitors products; like multiple probe ports, smart phone app control, fan control, etc. and included all that in their new Signals product. I own both and use both. The Smoke is a tank but has it's limitations for sure. Don't look for that device to get any sort of major upgrade, but I could be wrong.

[Michael_in_TX]

I absolutely love mine....just wish that when the alarm is silenced on the main unit that it would also silence the alarm on the receiver.

[fkrall]

+1 on that!

[Huskee]

I'm with you. I like how on the older Maverick ET732s the alarm functions are on the receiver. I wish Smoke and Mav's XR50 would adopt this. I'm napping and my alarm goes off that my meat's at 170. I wake up, I'm still tired and don't want to get up and wrap my brisket yet, I want to set it to 180 and go back to sleep. I can't. Boo!

[willxfmr]

You can set, and turn alarms on and off remotely on the Smoke, but you have to use the Smoke Gateway and the phone app. The Gateway adds another $90 to the cost, so it's up to you if that convince is worth the expense. The Gateway also allows you to keep an eye on temps from anywhere you have internet access on your phone.

[johnec00]

I won't claim to know how these devices actually work, but it makes some sense that the outside unit is only a sender while the inside is only a receiver. If that's the case, it's somewhat more complicated ($$$) in both hardware and software to establish some sort of 2 way communication protocol.

OK, I was typing while willxfmr actually answered the question.

[jfmorris]

The receiver is just that - a receiver. It doesn’t transmit at all. Making a two way remote would be a significantly harder engineering feat, and could conflict with the fact that the Smoke can send to an unlimited number of receivers. In the same way, the main unit is just a transmitter, no receiver.

So while what you ask for would be nice, it would probably also make the unit cost 50% more than it does now.

[Henrik]

I agree, it’s completely backwards. Don’t know if their Signals is better. Get a FireBoard instead.