Trek Portland Review

Andrew F Martin said:

You didn't ask for it, but with as much bandwidth as the Portland took
up in pre-release anticipation, I thought I'd share some thoughts on
the bike.

1. Geometry - The geometry feels much more like a cross bike than my
Madone SL. The BB is higher than I would have thought looking at the
specs and feels a little slow. It's got a long wheelbase and a rather
raked fork. Not an issue for a rain bike, but duplicating the feel of
my Race bike will be tough.

2. Wheels - The wheels are a bit heavy, but they seem just fine. We'll
see if they serve me as well as my other BTrager wheels with paired
spokes. I ditched the 28mm heavy wire-bead tires for something more
practical and they feel lively-enough.

3. Trim - I was never keen of Trek's decision to swap to a triple, so I
put a 53/39 FSA Gossamer crank and Ultegra double Ft and Rear derrs on
there to make it more of a pure road bike. I kept the 12-27 because it
is my winter bike...and a 27 can't hurt (and I didn't want to plunk
down another $50 just yet). I put some carbon bars/post on there that
I had lying around to maybe soften the ride some since this is my first
Al frame.

4. Weight - it's not light ~21 lbs. I think a lot of the weight is in
the wheels. If I can at a later date, I'll get an extra wheelset built
up with lighter rims and good hubs to use for my faster days and keep
the Btragers setup with beefier tires for commuting.

5. Fenders - I haven't fendered it up yet, but this bike is going to be
SO EASY to fender. More clearance than I've ever seen and all sorts of
bolt points for fenders and/or racks. I'll just pick up some SKS
fenders and throw them on there without having to mod the heck out of
them like I have in the past.

6. Components - 105 10speed is great. The brakes take some getting
used to and I got some good squeal coming down a big hill last night.
I think that once I get it sorted I'll really like them.

Overall - I'm pretty sure it's going to be what I was looking for in a
rain bike. Once I can sort out some of the adjustments and fit I think
it'll be just right. It looks great and I'm really looking forward to
the disks for the wet.

One regret I have about disc brakes is the inability to do a quick
wheel swap. I don't have another pair, and if I go flat at home, I
can't just throw on another wheel and ride to work. Also, on my
Cannondale, the disc hubs are junk. Notwithstanding the robust looking
seals, the right side bearings in my rear wheel turned into a rusty
mess after just a couple of months of riding -- albeit a couple of
months of riding through lakes of rain water. The hubs seals are a
really stupid place to go cheap. I don't know what hubs you have on
the Portland. Hopefully they are better.

Frankly, unless you ride in a whole lot of rain (like in Portland), I
think a better choice for a spring training bike/racing bike with
fenders is the Pilot -- which you can get in CF. -- Jay Beattie.

I live in Seattle where training == riding in the rain. I hope the
bearing last. If not, I may get an extra set of wheels anyway. I
didn't check the rear spacing (130 vs 135), but that will dictate what
I do for an extra set of wheels.

Andrew F Martin said:

I live in Seattle where training == riding in the rain. I hope the
bearing last. If not, I may get an extra set of wheels anyway. I
didn't check the rear spacing (130 vs 135), but that will dictate what
I do for an extra set of wheels.

Just check them every six months. It takes 10 minutes to overhaul a
hub, if you drink beer, the time flies. Usually they have too little
grease to begin with. First time you regrease, be liberal with the
stuff, and water will stay out a long time. I did this when riding
Chicago winters, overhauled yearly, and never found any water when I
pulled them.

Andrew F Martin said:

You didn't ask for it, but with as much bandwidth as the Portland took
up in pre-release anticipation, I thought I'd share some thoughts on
the bike.

1. Geometry - The geometry feels much more like a cross bike than my
Madone SL. The BB is higher than I would have thought looking at the
specs and feels a little slow. It's got a long wheelbase and a rather
raked fork. Not an issue for a rain bike, but duplicating the feel of
my Race bike will be tough.

2. Wheels - The wheels are a bit heavy, but they seem just fine. We'll
see if they serve me as well as my other BTrager wheels with paired
spokes. I ditched the 28mm heavy wire-bead tires for something more
practical and they feel lively-enough.

3. Trim - I was never keen of Trek's decision to swap to a triple, so I
put a 53/39 FSA Gossamer crank and Ultegra double Ft and Rear derrs on
there to make it more of a pure road bike. I kept the 12-27 because it
is my winter bike...and a 27 can't hurt (and I didn't want to plunk
down another $50 just yet). I put some carbon bars/post on there that
I had lying around to maybe soften the ride some since this is my first
Al frame.

4. Weight - it's not light ~21 lbs. I think a lot of the weight is in
the wheels. If I can at a later date, I'll get an extra wheelset built
up with lighter rims and good hubs to use for my faster days and keep
the Btragers setup with beefier tires for commuting.

5. Fenders - I haven't fendered it up yet, but this bike is going to be
SO EASY to fender. More clearance than I've ever seen and all sorts of
bolt points for fenders and/or racks. I'll just pick up some SKS
fenders and throw them on there without having to mod the heck out of
them like I have in the past.

6. Components - 105 10speed is great. The brakes take some getting
used to and I got some good squeal coming down a big hill last night.
I think that once I get it sorted I'll really like them.

Overall - I'm pretty sure it's going to be what I was looking for in a
rain bike. Once I can sort out some of the adjustments and fit I think
it'll be just right. It looks great and I'm really looking forward to
the disks for the wet.

Here's a pic of the current setup:
http://tinyurl.com/k5h2u

Andrew, I get the impression that, for your purposes, the ideal commute
bike would be a race bike with disc brakes, really well-sealed hubs and
the clearance and attachment points for fenders. That's fine, but it is
far from the general consensus of what constitutes a commute bike.

In the general commuter context, the Portland's 21lbs is actually
pretty light and the triple crank makes a world of sense, as does the
geometry. I still balk at the paired, low spoke count wheels, though.
And I think the CF fork is a triumph of marketing over practical
considerations.

Good points. Relative to what I was looking for - it seem a good fit
as a commuter/rain bike. I hope to do 100-300 miles a week on it all
winter so something that others might consider more appropriate for
"commuting" just wouldn't hack it for me.

Andrew F Martin said:

Here's a pic of the current setup:
http://tinyurl.com/k5h2u

/me clenches lower back in mock agony.

Andrew F Martin said:

You didn't ask for it, but with as much bandwidth as the Portland took
up in pre-release anticipation, I thought I'd share some thoughts on
the bike.

1. Geometry - The geometry feels much more like a cross bike than my
Madone SL. The BB is higher than I would have thought looking at the
specs and feels a little slow. It's got a long wheelbase and a rather
raked fork. Not an issue for a rain bike, but duplicating the feel of
my Race bike will be tough.

2. Wheels - The wheels are a bit heavy, but they seem just fine. We'll
see if they serve me as well as my other BTrager wheels with paired
spokes. I ditched the 28mm heavy wire-bead tires for something more
practical and they feel lively-enough.

3. Trim - I was never keen of Trek's decision to swap to a triple, so I
put a 53/39 FSA Gossamer crank and Ultegra double Ft and Rear derrs on
there to make it more of a pure road bike. I kept the 12-27 because it
is my winter bike...and a 27 can't hurt (and I didn't want to plunk
down another $50 just yet). I put some carbon bars/post on there that
I had lying around to maybe soften the ride some since this is my first
Al frame.

4. Weight - it's not light ~21 lbs. I think a lot of the weight is in
the wheels. If I can at a later date, I'll get an extra wheelset built
up with lighter rims and good hubs to use for my faster days and keep
the Btragers setup with beefier tires for commuting.

5. Fenders - I haven't fendered it up yet, but this bike is going to be
SO EASY to fender. More clearance than I've ever seen and all sorts of
bolt points for fenders and/or racks. I'll just pick up some SKS
fenders and throw them on there without having to mod the heck out of
them like I have in the past.

6. Components - 105 10speed is great. The brakes take some getting
used to and I got some good squeal coming down a big hill last night.
I think that once I get it sorted I'll really like them.

Overall - I'm pretty sure it's going to be what I was looking for in a
rain bike. Once I can sort out some of the adjustments and fit I think
it'll be just right. It looks great and I'm really looking forward to
the disks for the wet.

Here's a pic of the current setup:
http://tinyurl.com/k5h2u

I just read the report. While Trek might call this a "commuter" I
personally think it's closer to a race bike than a real commuter.
Nothing against Trek, they make fine rides. But the cf fork might have
issues, as well as those low spoke count wheels. But it's your ride. Enjoy!

Ken
--
New cycling jersey: $49
new cycling shorts: $39
Not being a slave to the petrol pump: priceless.

Andrew F Martin said:

I ditched the 28mm heavy wire-bead tires for something more
practical and they feel lively-enough.

So by "practical", do you actually mean the opposite? That is, do you
mean something more prone to pinch flats and punctures, less
comfortable, and less durable, with poorer traction and less flotation
over rough or loose surfaces? Because that's what it looks like in the
picture.

Forgive me if I misunderstand you.

Chalo Colina

My change was practical to my uses - yes. Practical for commuting
through city streets - you're right, probably no. Again we're back to
the question of "What is commuting?". For me it's a 20+ mile ride to
work on good roads. That, and I need to be able to use the bike as my
rain bike as well which gets in 2 long rides each weekend.

Andrew F Martin said:

I hope to do 100-300 miles a week on it all
winter so something that others might consider more appropriate for
"commuting" just wouldn't hack it for me.

For what it's worth, the few folks who put in a multiple of that
mileage mostly ride bikes that you probably think wouldn't hack it for
you. Freddie Hoffman, just to name an extreme example, has /averaged/
something like 100 miles per day over the last 30 years. He rides a
50-pound Schwinn with roadster bars.

In my 300mi/wk days, I rode a 27 pound mountain bike with slicks. I
used a 53/12 top gear, but I still had a triple crank. And flat bars.

It's obvious what kind of bike turns you on, but it's much less obvious
that such a bike confers any advantages for the kind of riding you're
talking about.

Chalo Colina

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I hope to do 100-300 miles a week on it all
winter so something that others might consider more appropriate for
"commuting" just wouldn't hack it for me.

For what it's worth, the few folks who put in a multiple of that
mileage mostly ride bikes that you probably think wouldn't hack it for
you. Freddie Hoffman, just to name an extreme example, has /averaged/
something like 100 miles per day over the last 30 years. He rides a
50-pound Schwinn with roadster bars.

In my 300mi/wk days, I rode a 27 pound mountain bike with slicks. I
used a 53/12 top gear, but I still had a triple crank. And flat bars.

It's obvious what kind of bike turns you on, but it's much less obvious
that such a bike confers any advantages for the kind of riding you're
talking about.

The more experience I have riding in the rain, the more benefit I see to
having disc brakes on a "commuter" bike. I've done a lot of damage to rims
in wet weather, and I've seen a number of my customers (and even one of the
guys I regularly ride with) explode rims apart due to grinding the sidewalls
down too thin. Two years ago? I would have told you that disc brakes were a
silly thing to have on any sort of "road" bike. Now? I'd definitely consider
them an asset, if you live in an area that gets lots of rain. This past
winter, we got LOTS of rain.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

"Chalo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Andrew F Martin said:

I hope to do 100-300 miles a week on it all
winter so something that others might consider more appropriate for
"commuting" just wouldn't hack it for me.

For what it's worth, the few folks who put in a multiple of that
mileage mostly ride bikes that you probably think wouldn't hack it for
you. Freddie Hoffman, just to name an extreme example, has /averaged/
something like 100 miles per day over the last 30 years. He rides a
50-pound Schwinn with roadster bars.

In my 300mi/wk days, I rode a 27 pound mountain bike with slicks. I
used a 53/12 top gear, but I still had a triple crank. And flat bars.

It's obvious what kind of bike turns you on, but it's much less obvious
that such a bike confers any advantages for the kind of riding you're
talking about.

Chalo Colina

Ken C. M. said:

I just read the report. While Trek might call this a "commuter" I
personally think it's closer to a race bike than a real commuter.
Nothing against Trek, they make fine rides. But the cf fork might have
issues, as well as those low spoke count wheels. But it's your ride. Enjoy!

I agree about the wheels, but otherwise this seems like a nice bike. Does
it have eyelets for fenders and racks though?

Matt O.

Yep. Eyelets all over which is a new thing because all other bikes
I've setup with fenders have relied on zip-ties. The front fork even
has some inside the fork for a nice clean look.

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I hope to do 100-300 miles a week on it all winter so something
that others might consider more appropriate for "commuting" just
wouldn't hack it for me.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

For what it's worth, the few folks who put in a multiple of that
mileage mostly ride bikes that you probably think wouldn't hack it
for you. Freddie Hoffman, just to name an extreme example, has
/averaged/ something like 100 miles per day over the last 30 years.
He rides a 50-pound Schwinn with roadster bars.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In my 300mi/wk days, I rode a 27 pound mountain bike with slicks.
I used a 53/12 top gear, but I still had a triple crank. And flat
bars.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It's obvious what kind of bike turns you on, but it's much less obvious
that such a bike confers any advantages for the kind of riding you're
talking about.

Quoted message said:

The more experience I have riding in the rain, the more benefit I
see to having disc brakes on a "commuter" bike. I've done a lot of
damage to rims in wet weather, and I've seen a number of my
customers (and even one of the guys I regularly ride with) explode
rims apart due to grinding the sidewalls down too thin. Two years
ago? I would have told you that disc brakes were a silly thing to
have on any sort of "road" bike. Now? I'd definitely consider them
an asset, if you live in an area that gets lots of rain. This past
winter, we got LOTS of rain.

Rim failure is not one of the problems I see that might cause me to
switch to a hub brake of one kind or another. I have eyes and hands
that can see and feel a worn rim and am able to gauge with good
accuracy when a rime should be replaced. I'm sure you can too,
considering your experience with bicycles.

On the other hand, have you tried a disc brake bicycle instead of rim
brakes? I think you will find other good reasons not to do that for
your road bicycling.

Jobst Brandt

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

Chalo said:

It's obvious what kind of bike turns you on, but it's much less obvious
that such a bike confers any advantages for the kind of riding you're
talking about.

The more experience I have riding in the rain, the more benefit I see to
having disc brakes on a "commuter" bike. I've done a lot of damage to rims
in wet weather, and I've seen a number of my customers (and even one of the
guys I regularly ride with) explode rims apart due to grinding the sidewalls
down too thin.

The disc brakes on the Portland are in my opinion one of its most
useful and practical features.

I also used to consider disc brakes a needless gimmick on road bikes,
not worth the front wheel dish they impose. But my experience with
them, almost exclusively on the street, has proven their merits to me.
They provide strong, consistent braking; they allow a frame to
accomodate a range of rim diameters; they tolerate rim damage, fat
tires, and fenders far better than rim brakes; and they leave the bike
noticeably cleaner in wet conditions than rim brakes do.

There are a few reasons why I wouldn't ride a Portland and why I would
recommend something else to a friend who expressed an interest in that
model for a daily commuter. But the disc brakes are not among them.

These are among my actual concerns with the Portland as a commuter--
the plastic fork might not hold up safely to typical commuting-bike
wear and tear;
its wheelbase is not long enough for best comfort, stability, or
accomodation for panniers;
its wheels are not as reliable as normal wheels of equal weight, cost,
and build quality;
even with 30 speeds there are no low gears you couldn't easily have
with a single ring bike;
the stock position is too low for natural heads-up riding in traffic.

Trek already makes a better road bike for commuting than the Portland.
The trouble for Trek is that the 520 is old news, and about as exciting
as cold oatmeal in terms of marketing buzz. What I don't understand is
why a bike like the 520 but with disc brakes, a sloping top tube, and
innocuous cosmetic updates would not have proved marketable enough
without the Portland's compromises in reliability. If they had stuck
to steel and proven utilitarian geometry, they'd even have been able to
make an appeal to the Surly/Gunnar/Soma hipster-purist market as well.

Chalo Colina

jobst.brandt said:

Quoted message said:

The more experience I have riding in the rain, the more benefit I see
to having disc brakes on a "commuter" bike. I've done a lot of damage
to rims in wet weather, and I've seen a number of my customers (and
even one of the guys I regularly ride with) explode rims apart due to
grinding the sidewalls down too thin. Two years ago? I would have told
you that disc brakes were a silly thing to have on any sort of "road"
bike. Now? I'd definitely consider them an asset, if you live in an
area that gets lots of rain. This past winter, we got LOTS of rain.

Quoted message said:

Rim failure is not one of the problems I see that might cause me to
switch to a hub brake of one kind or another. I have eyes and hands
that can see and feel a worn rim and am able to gauge with good accuracy
when a rime should be replaced. I'm sure you can too, considering your
experience with bicycles.

On the other hand, have you tried a disc brake bicycle instead of rim
brakes? I think you will find other good reasons not to do that for
your road bicycling.

Though I'm definitely of the KISS philosophy, I can appreciate the utility
of disk brakes. Of course one can keep track of rim wear and replace rims
when necessary, but with disks it becomes a non-issue. Someone who rides
on hilly terrain in rainy weather could easily go through a set of rims in
a year. I've met mountain bikers from the UK who go through twice that
many. Over time the disks would prove more economical and less hassle.
They also provide more consistent braking performance.

Also, as Chalo pointed out, disks are much cleaner. The black slurry on
rims and tires from braking in the wet is very messy.

Matt O.

Matt O'Toole said:

jobst.brandt said:

Quoted message said:

The more experience I have riding in the rain, the more benefit I see
to having disc brakes on a "commuter" bike. I've done a lot of damage
to rims in wet weather, and I've seen a number of my customers (and
even one of the guys I regularly ride with) explode rims apart due to
grinding the sidewalls down too thin. Two years ago? I would have told
you that disc brakes were a silly thing to have on any sort of "road"
bike. Now? I'd definitely consider them an asset, if you live in an
area that gets lots of rain. This past winter, we got LOTS of rain.

Quoted message said:

Rim failure is not one of the problems I see that might cause me to
switch to a hub brake of one kind or another. I have eyes and hands
that can see and feel a worn rim and am able to gauge with good accuracy
when a rime should be replaced. I'm sure you can too, considering your
experience with bicycles.

On the other hand, have you tried a disc brake bicycle instead of rim
brakes? I think you will find other good reasons not to do that for
your road bicycling.

Though I'm definitely of the KISS philosophy, I can appreciate the utility
of disk brakes. Of course one can keep track of rim wear and replace rims
when necessary, but with disks it becomes a non-issue. Someone who rides
on hilly terrain in rainy weather could easily go through a set of rims in
a year. I've met mountain bikers from the UK who go through twice that
many. Over time the disks would prove more economical and less hassle.
They also provide more consistent braking performance.

Also, as Chalo pointed out, disks are much cleaner. The black slurry on
rims and tires from braking in the wet is very messy.

Matt O.

Wear, cost, slurry aside - I'm just really looking forward to being
able to stop when I pull the brake lever. That's not always the case
in the wet with my old rain bike.

Andrew F Martin said:

Wear, cost, slurry aside - I'm just really looking forward to being
able to stop when I pull the brake lever. That's not always the case
in the wet with my old rain bike.

Just get some decent brake pads, like Kool-Stop.

Matt O.

Yep - Salmon are the best I've used...and they still suck. In totally
soaked riding (most days all winter in Seattle) there's just not enough
braking force to stop. Downhills that end with a stop sign are avoided
because I'm usually unable to come to a complete stop with my rim
brakes (road calipers, not cantilevers or V-Brakes).