I've used both Touring and Neo-Retro. I've never felt any discernible difference in slowing and stopping capacity between them.
As some here have suggested — and my experiences bear this out — braking acumen is always predicated on how the Paul brakes are set up. There are too many factors and variables at play to say that one model is inherently better than the other because performance is predicated on the interplay between these variables — levers, cables, housing, pads, straddle wires and yokes, angles, mechanical advantage, springs, rim surfaces, riding conditions, etc. etc. An "all other things being equal" comparison scenario is thus practically impossible. (You can have poorly set up "strong" brakes that do not perform well and "weak" brakes that perform great because they are set up nicely. This goes for any type of brakes, not just cantilevers, which I believe don't deserve their reputation for being particularly persnickety to set up relative to other types of brakes.) I prefer the Neo-Retros and have them front and rear on a couple of bikes because I think they look a lot better than the Touring, which are ungainly to my eyes. The rear Neo-Retros have not interfered with any of my bags, racks, or heels. On Wednesday, July 24, 2024 at 10:59:06 AM UTC-4 Josh C wrote: > I have bikes with both and feel like the touring canti is more powerful > than the neo-retro but feel like that shouldn't be the case. I believe that > I read somewhere that the physics involved in the neo-retro should provide > more leverage and power but that simply hasn't been my experience. Of > course, this could just be my setup including cable length and bend angle, > brake pads, wheels, etc. That said, if I were ordering a set, I'd go > touring canti every time given my experience and the lower profile of the > touring. Most of my bikes have racks, bags, fenders, and the neo-retro gets > in the way sometimes. I will say that it's hard to compare a single front > brake to a single rear brake as the front usually feels stronger due to the > forward weight shift that occurs when slowing a bicycle. > > On Wednesday, July 24, 2024 at 9:31:30 AM UTC-4 [email protected] wrote: > >> Patrick, >> >> I have one bike with the NR-front/Touring-rear combination (which I >> chose) and one with Touring front and rear (bike came that way). Both brake >> well with decent modulation. Too many variables involved to say which is >> better, though I wouldn't be surprised if the NR have slightly better >> modulation. >> >> -- >> Bob >> >> On Tuesday, July 23, 2024 at 4:07:08 PM UTC-6 Patrick Moore wrote: >> >>> I started out with Neo Retros front and rear, found that the rears >>> intefered with panniers, and switched to Touring in the rear. >>> >>> I can't really say that the front is more powerful than the rear; both >>> have very stiff housing hangers -- rear is brazed on, front is Rene Herse. >>> >>> Others who have used both: can you say whether it's worth keeping the >>> Neo Retros in front? >>> >>> Tho' I do hear that this f/r combo is not uncommon. >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Patrick Moore >>> Alburquerque, Nuevo Mexico, Etats Unis d'Amerique, Orbis Terrarum >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> Executive resumes, LinkedIn profiles, bios, letters, and other writing >>> services >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> *When thou didst not, savage, k**now thine own meaning,* >>> >>> *But wouldst gabble like a** thing most brutish,* >>> >>> *I endowed thy purposes w**ith words that made them known.* >>> >> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/ed6512aa-eddc-4ef1-bf28-4315bf674302n%40googlegroups.com.
