Road Dog Porter | Flying Dog Brewery

769 Reviews
Read the review
Road Dog PorterRoad Dog Porter

Brewed by:
Flying Dog Brewery
Maryland, United States

Style: American Porter

Alcohol by volume (ABV): 6.00%

Availability: Year-round

Notes / Commercial Description:
No notes at this time.

Added by taez555 on 10-30-2001

This beer is retired; no longer brewed.

For Trade:
User Reviews
Sort by:  Recent | High | Low | Top Raters | Alström Bros
first ← prev | 1-25 | 26-50 | 51-75  | nextlast
Reviews: 769 | Ratings: 1,047
Photo of Crosling
1.63/5  rDev -53.7%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 1

Dark ruby colored beer with shades of brown. Nice long lasting head. Poor nose gives very light notions of black licorice, road tar and bad coffee. Very subtle and the present aromatics are not pleasant. Flavor is very weak, with out depth. A really shockingly bad brew

 269 characters

Photo of gonger
1.79/5  rDev -49.1%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 1.5

12 oz bottle with freshness code on label poured into pint glass.

A. Dark brown with a thin foamy head that reduces to a thin pancake that lasts. Nice lacing.

S. Faint smell. Mostly malt, some earth tones.

T. Some malt and maybe licorice. More water than anything else

M. Thin and disappointing.

Maybe I got a bad batch, but to me, this brew has very little flavor. I tried it at various serving temps but can't find any reason to recommend this beer, or to drink it again.

 478 characters

Photo of foxmul924
1.89/5  rDev -46.3%
look: 3 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 2

(Bottle into Room-Temp Mug)

Appearance: Small, Cream-Colored Head with Black Body Typical of Porters.

Smell: Hard to Smell, actually. A "Sweet Earthyness"...

Taste: Sweeter, Cherry-like and Earthy Flavors. Overly Watery for a Scottish Porter with No Real Bite. Slight Malty Finish.

Mouthfeel: Clean and Medium-Bodied. Hides the Alcohol Well.

Drinkability: Alright, Suppose One Could Enjoy 2-3 of Them.

Other: Nothing that Jumped Out at Me, Actually was Disappointed. Although Porter's Aren't my Usual Choice, I Expected Better. Just Really Watery and Unappealing to Drink.

 580 characters

Photo of CaptJackHarkness
1.93/5  rDev -45.2%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 1

Poured garnet brown,about half a finger beige head. Head lasted about 20 seconds. Very spotty to no lacing. Aroma is nondescript dark malts (burnt). Taste is bitter, nasty, rancid, burnt coffee from last month after Starbucks burnt down! I am pouring the rest of this down the sink! This is strike 2 for Flying Dog with me!

"Shit Beer, No Good!"

 346 characters

Photo of AgentMunky
1.97/5  rDev -44%
look: 3.5 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 3 | overall: 1.5

Poured from a 12 oz. bottle into a pint glass.

A: Looks like a stout. Pours dark-dark brown with a thick three-finger head which shrinks to less than one finger within minutes.

S: Honestly, it smells pretty terrible. Metallic nose with a cruddy sort of coffee flavour filtering up from the depths.

T: Thank the gods it tastes better than it smells, but not by too much. Road Dog, like so many beers from this brewery, is watery and weak. I'm starting to wonder if I got a bad batch. Anyway, I taste...roasted barley I suppose. A strange sourness.

M: Carbonation and wateriness result in a pleasant enough mouthfeel that at least goes down easy.

D: Honestly, I only drank enough of this to review, then poured the rest down the drain. I have a hard time believing this Flying Dog beer is really this bad or that this could ever pass as a porter. I am tempted to assume it somehow spoiled, but as the rest of the beers in the variety pack seem decent enough I suppose I'll just jot this down as a failure.

 1,008 characters

Photo of Zodijackyl
1.98/5  rDev -43.8%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 2

12oz brown bottle with an odd animal/clown hybrid painting on the label and the text "good beer / no shit" and no freshness date. Pours a dark brown that is semi-transparent when held up to light with a very thin white head that lasts a few seconds then recedes to a thin ring of lace that doesn't stick. Smells of darker caramel malt and s fair amount of floral hops for a porter.

Taste has very little up front, and almost no malt. Malt tastes like lightly charred grains, and there is a somewhat bitter hop bite. Extremely watery and thin, the mouthfeel is fizzy from the carbonation with a little bit of bitterness, but I can barely taste anything until I swallow, and there isn't much flavor there, and the aftertaste is a faint burnt/bitter malt/hop combo.

This seems to be consistent with the other offerings from Flying Dog that come in their variety pack - very watery, not a lot of flavor, and inconsistent with the styles they are labeled as - not a whole lot of malt in a porter, but an equal amount of bland hops. I would not drink this again.

 1,060 characters

Photo of RedwoodGeorge
2/5  rDev -43.2%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 1.5

On pour, this porter looked promising. It filled the glass a dark ruby-brown with practically no carbonation - no head, no lacing. The smell was off-putting - a strong treacle sweet note overpowering any more complex grain notes that may have been present.

Taste wasn't any better - there was an overpowering molasses / caramel note that gave this a (flat) soda pop experience. No hop notes at all and very little in the way of malt. With no carbonation, there wasn't much pleasure in the mouthfeel department either - it kind of coated my tongue with this oily sweet muck that only got worse as I took another sip.

I'd say this was pretty much undrinkable - I poured most of the glass down the drain when it occurred to me that I wasn't *obliged* to finish the drink just so I could write this review. While I guess it's possible that I got a bad bottle, I don't think I could be convinced to give this one another try just to find out.

[now that I re-read this review before posting, I'd have to say the experience was most similar to that of drinking a glass of warm, flat coke that's been left out on the counter overnight]

 1,136 characters

Photo of TerryW
2.06/5  rDev -41.5%
look: 3 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

Well, I'm not too sure how this beer has managed to score as well as it has here. Maybe I just have an old/off bottle.

It doesn't have the presence or muscle that I expect to find in a porter. Comes across as feeble in both its taste and smell, and the mouthfeel is just out-and-out watery. Not enough to even hazard any sort of meaningful description. Appearance-wise its no better than average.

This one is just not there. I'll try a couple other bottles later I suppose, but based on this sample, I'd say give it a pass.

 525 characters

Photo of moocey
2.17/5  rDev -38.4%
look: 1.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

I picked up a six pack at Kroger for 8.20. I'm in the mood for a thick, rich porter right now and this might be good.

The pour - I got a good inch of head with a very aggressive pour. There's a faint smell of chocolaty malt when I search hard for it. The head is gone pretty damn quick.

Appearance - Not as black and beautiful as I'd expect from a porter. This lets a good bit of light through, and I'm not even holding it up to a light. This does not look good for Road Dog Porter.

Taste/Body - Malt is obviously the dominant flavor here - watered down malt, with only traces of hops. The body would be acceptable if this beer were a pilsner, but it's not. This is one watery porter.

Okay, if you're someone who is used to drinking a thick, flavorful porter you should look elsewhere. This is not one of them. However, the taste isn't bad, despite the shortcomings in regard to the style. I'd reccomend this to anyone in the early stages of weaning themselves off macroswill, that's about it.

I'm gonna go pick up some Sierra Nevada now, I think.

 1,064 characters

Photo of rye726
2.25/5  rDev -36.1%
look: 2 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3

This brew is a dark amber brown with a thin tan head. Looks more like a scottish ale than a porter. The nose has some roasty malts and grassy hops. Taste is mostly malts. Medium body is a little thin but goes down well enough. Nothing too special here.

 252 characters

Photo of Oxymoron
2.25/5  rDev -36.1%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 2 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 2

Why did the dog cross the road? The appearance is a dark brown color with a clear appearance. Dark for a scottish and light for a porter. The head is a slight white color but quickly fades altogether. Same with lacing, feint at first and disappears over time.

The smell overall is good. A mix of sweet malt and astringent roasted malt almost to the point of coffee aromas. Lighter notes of chocolate are in the background as well.

The taste is lighter then I would have expected. There is a watery or wispy taste (especially for style, scottich and porter). The malt has a tangy cocoa and caramel flavor that comes out after the initial taste but then fades quickly for a boring malt aftertaste. Some hop tones are mellow but adds a sour aftertaste.

The body is light and a deterrent for the beer. Carbonation is average. Overall there could be improvements on taste and body. Maybe that is why the dog crossed the road, to get a better beer.

 951 characters

Photo of TheLongBeachBum
2.34/5  rDev -33.5%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3

Flying Dog, Road Dog Scottish Porter, 6.08% ABV. 12 fl.oz Brown Bottle.
With past poor head retention experience from Flying Dog beers, the bottle was inverted and dunked straight into my Imperial Pint Glass. It gulped, chugged and gasped for air as it exited with all the precision of spent fumes from the Pulse-Jet of a V-1 flying bomb. The head forms almost before the beer hits the glass, and the existing contents.
This heinous, almost criminal, method of pouring the beer is acceptable to me, as it creates a lovely deep fluffy brown head, with the smaller formed bubbles quickly settling to the base of the head, leaving a larger encrusted, collapsed head atop. Sadly, the head disappears all too quickly for my liking. However, it does add to the overall appearance of the beer, for a while at least anyway. Lace is spread on the glass sides like brown sticky mastic. The beer is a very deep brown, clear but quite dark. Held to the light, it is possible to see through it, it is a dark horse-chestnut conker brown.
Nose is rather suppressed, as is the head by now. Feint and rather weak aromas are barely detectable. I was able to dissect what appears to be a yeasty smell in character. Not even a decent malt odor, strange for a Porter I find. Taste, well before I could concentrate on the taste, I was stunned and surprised at just how thin this beer is. A very light mouthfeel, which contradicts the “Scottish Porter” description on the label. Initial tastes are crisp and very clean, but low in relative strength. At last some dark malt in the beginning, a cardboard taste in the middle, and some roast malt bitterness in the finish, though this appears quite some time after I swallow the beer, strangely enough.
Not impressed at all, this beer is a lightweight offering for me, I would struggle to justify the name in Court, because my belief is that it is certainly not Scottish, nor a Porter, but that’s just my humble opinion I hasten to add.
So that’s 4 Flying Dog beers that I have had, and in my local beer store they are located near Stone and Alesmith Beers. If my brain remains functioning over the coming years, I just can’t see it sending the required neural signals to my arms and allowing me to place my hands on any of the FD beers again to be brutally honest.

 2,299 characters

Photo of jscottku21
2.35/5  rDev -33.2%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 2 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2

While this beer is not a great representation of either a Scotch Ale or a Porter, this beer pours a deep, dark brown and actually has a nice appearance and aroma. While I probably wouldn't return to it, it certainly was worth trying once. As always with Flying Dog, the artwork on the bottle is fantastic and truly draws you toward buying this brand.

 350 characters

Photo of Ricochet
2.38/5  rDev -32.4%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 2 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2

Another beer from the sampler pack

You know, I love the darker beers. Porters, Stouts, Imperials, it's all good. Actually, it's hard to rate these beers because while some are more or less stong or whatever, they all are at least respectable to me.

Right off the bat, there was something not right about this beer. Mouth was thin, but this was substantial, almost water but it had a cheap beer feel to it. Appearence was better, dark but up-to-light. not dark enough, more like a root beer. Smell was average, slight coffee scent, but nothing appetizing.

The taste? It started with well burned grains, with slight alcoholic twinge but then something wierd and hard to describe. Like a hook of nastiness, maybe like cheaper beer taste. It didn't fill out as a porter should and had just a faint coffee finish.

Drinkability? Needless to say, not impressed. Wouldn't get it again except in a pinch. There are plenty of other porters out there that handle the beer type better.

 987 characters

Photo of Doomcifer
2.41/5  rDev -31.5%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 3

Poured a clear, very dark amber/mahogany color with a nice foamy head that retained for a while. Hints of roasted barley on the nose, light grains, hay. Taste is sweet upfront, with an off-putting, sharp metallic mid-taste then ends with a subtle roasty dryness. Rather thin and over carbonated for the style. I've had a lot better.

 332 characters

Photo of mgbickel
2.43/5  rDev -31%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2

Poured into a standard Pint glass. The first thing I noticed is the color of the body...medium-dark brown. Not very porter-ish. Formed a single finger, fizzy ivory head that dissipated quickly with small traces of lacing.

Not a very aromatic beer. Mostly grainy malts. You can detect some coffee and chocolate undertones, but they are well hidden.

The taste is much like the nose...just eh...nothing like I was hoping for or expecting in a porter. Malty, grainy with a tiny, bitter hop finish.

Medium mouth feel...a bit oily with little carbonation.

Not a very good example of the style. I will not be buying again.

Note: One of favorite labels...makes me wish the beer inside was better!

 693 characters

Photo of claytong
2.43/5  rDev -31%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 2.5

I have been unimpressed with pretty much all of Flying Dog's stuff. I will try one more beer from them before giving up on them totally. Raging Bitch was recommended to me, but he is a Texan, so I can be unsure if it's up to quality in these parts.
This Road Dog Porter was on the better half of a sampler I got from them. It was a porter with not much character to it.

 369 characters

Photo of TLove
2.45/5  rDev -30.4%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

@ Flying Dog brewery in Frederick, MD.

Not a great porter, I must say. Too much of smoky flavor was unexpected and definately unwelcome, as it had a sour component to it that I really was not fond of.

Decent dark brown color, though very watered down. Dark fruit and grainy taste provides a bit of sweet and earthy, but barely hopped and smokiness and graininess overpowers the other flavors. Again, watered down for a porter. Not very well-balanced to finish.

The Gonzo Imperial Porter has everything this beer is missing.

 528 characters

Photo of airforbes1
2.48/5  rDev -29.5%
look: 4 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

This beer pours a dark brown/black color with a decent head. The aroma is decent with some bitter chocolate notes but isn't exceptional.

I find the taste to be severely wanting. The taste is bitter and thin. I don't know what makes this a porter. I don't taste anything like chocolate, dark fruit, or coffee. It just tastes like bitter water to me. There is a slight warming effect from the alcohol.

If Hunter Thompson was correct when he said "Good people drink good beer," then good people don't drink Road Dog Porter. I was disappointed in this beer and I wasn't able to finish it in one sitting. I'll either finish it tomorrow or drain pour it.

 650 characters

Photo of StoutHunter
2.5/5  rDev -29%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

Got a couple of these in a mixed 12 pack. Poured from a 12 oz bottle into an imperial pint glass.

A- This one pours a dark brown with a small layer of off white head that disappeared pretty quickly.

S- I get a light amount of roasted malts with a little bit of hops, not that robust.

T- A light amount of roasted malts with some coffee and some caramel, its also slightly bitter at the end. Tastes kind of watered down.

M- Too thin and watery, for a porter, at least they got the carbonation right.

D- This beer is easy to drink but the flavors don't stick out enough for me to want more then one.

Overall i was disappointed in this brew. I was expecting a nice robust porter but instead i got something more like a dark lager. I would gladly pay the extra cash for some gonzo before i bought a 6 pack of this.

 816 characters

Photo of BuckeyeSlim
2.51/5  rDev -28.7%
look: 4.5 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

12 oz. bottle poured into a New Belgium snifter.

A - Rich, thick three-finger head that's a light cream color. Head dissipates slowly with little foam ringing the glass, but finishing with a pillow of thick foam on the surface that doesn't want to dissolve. Deep, dark brown that appears deep ruby red and moderately opaque when held to a light.

S - Roasted malt, caramel, brown sugar. Floral hops push forward as the glass opens up. Flavors are present, but don't really present themselves - you have to work to get them.

T - Burnt toast, a bit of bitter chocolate, and a touch of bittering hops in the finish. Doesn't seem to have much of anything going on on the tongue. Where's the flavor? Hard to experience the taste because of the mouthfeel. Tastes like what you'd get pouring a porter into a glass of water.

M - Surprisingly thin for the appearance. Too much carbonation gives it a tad fizzy feeling that washes away the initial taste. Not much of a finish.

D - The appearance and the nose offered promise. The mouthfeel made experiencing the taste more difficult than it should have been. It's way too thin and watery for a porter. The most charitable thing I can come up with is that this is a porter lite - you could drink a six of these and think you've only had a couple beers because of the lack of substance or taste, which is really surprising with an abv of 6%. A bland disappointment.

 1,407 characters

Photo of clvand0
2.53/5  rDev -28.1%
look: 4 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2

This pours a dark color with a small head that quickly dissipates. The aroma is mostly malty. This is a porter, but smoother than most porters. Not being a fan of a porter, I didn't enjoy this one much. But I must admit that it was more smooth than most.

 254 characters

Photo of nortmand
2.57/5  rDev -27%
look: 2 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2

OK, scottish porter, interesting, maybe expesting malty porter. Instead...
Pours dark amber, with a tiny bit of white head.
Smells similarly yeasty to their other brews. Mostly yeasty, bready smell.
Yeasty, like their other brews, but with a bit of roast malt flavor.
Mouthfeel is neither porter or scotch ale like, mostly "wispy."
Not a very drinkable beer, quite disappointing.
I'm all for breaking the boundaries of style, but at least live up to the title the beer is given. I must say that the artwork is very cool, worth buying the beer for the HST artwork.

 569 characters

Photo of blakelive784
2.58/5  rDev -26.7%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 2 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3

A - Pours a dark brown/amber color with a tall, creamy, three finger head. Leaves nice lacing on the glass.

S - Pleasant coffee/chocolate aroma matched with a sweet roasted malt scent.

T - Roasted, smoky flavors on the front, hinting at chocolate and toffee. A bit watery on the finish.

M - Wet and smooth. Could be more dry. Not built well

This beer is drinkable, but is constructed entirely wrong for a porter.

 417 characters

Photo of kojevergas
2.58/5  rDev -26.7%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

33cl brown glass bottle with a standard pressure cap served into a Trappist Westvleteren goblet in high altitude Denver, Colorado. Reviewed live.

A: Three and a half finger head of lovely cream lacing, nice thickness, and good retention. Colour is a solid nontransparent black.

Sm: Light chocolate and cream. Not horribly complex, which makes me anxious. A mild strength aroma.

T: Chocolate, caramel, and cream in undetermined unplanned portions. In other words, highly imbalanced. The chocolate adds a certain unwelcome overtone to the whole beer. It's fairly built I suppose.

Mf: Smooth and wet, with a strangely artificial attempt at coarseness. Doesn't really suit the flavours.

Dr: Slightly higher than average ABV, fairly drinkable, and of relatively low quality. The price is alright, but it's still one I'd never have again.

 842 characters

first ← prev | 1-25 | 26-50 | 51-75  | nextlast
Road Dog Porter from Flying Dog Brewery
3.52 out of 5 based on 1,047 ratings.
  • About Us

    Your go-to website for beer (since 1996), publishers of BeerAdvocate magazine (since 2006) and hosts of world-class beer events (since 2003). Respect Beer.
  • BeerAdvocate Microbrew Invitational

    Join us June 2-3, 2017 in Boston, Mass. for beer, cider, mead, kombucha and sake from over 70 small producers.

    Learn More
  • Subscribe to BeerAdvocate Magazine

    No fake news here. Get real beer content delivered to your doorstep every month.