Paul Touring cantilever performance versus Paul Neo Retro

[Patrick Moore]

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, know thine own meaning,

But wouldst gabble like a thing most brutish,

I endowed thy purposes with words that made them known.

[J G]

I run Paul Canti brakes on a number of bikes.

The touring brake model should be more powerful than the Neo-Retro when you account for both the angle of the arms and the yoke angle.  As such, the greater mechanical advantage of the Neo-Retro arm is offset by the lower mechanical advantage of the yoke angle of these setups IIRC.

As such, I use Paul touring brakes F/R for rim brake 29ers and generally run the Neo-Retro F and Touring rear for all other bikes.  Both brakes perform well when setup properly with good compressionless housing.   

No wrong answers and I started with the touring ones in back many years ago for the same reason as you.

-Justus

Mpls, MN

[iamkeith]

I have the same combo on one of my favorite and, at one time, mosy ridden bikes.  I always heard and believed the theory that the touring ( or any low-profile) model was supposed to be stronger but more binary (on/off), while the neo retro (or any wide-profile model) offered more modulation and sublety.  Until I locked the neo retro up during a panic stop and went over the handlebars one time.  There's a lot of nuance in how you adjust them and their staddle wires, but I would never consider the neo retro to not have strong enough stopping power

[Bob]

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

[Josh C]

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. 

[J J]

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. 

[Patrick Moore]

Thanks, all. The Tourings in back and the Neo Retros on front work -- alright. That is, with pad embedding and the RH hanger noted below they've gone from "I guess they'll do" to "really, they're fine." They don't have the authoritative "Stop Now!" feeling of a good forged single pivot with salmons on a well-bedded rim, let alone the rather grabby power of a dual pivot, but I've certainly used worse brakes.

I wonder -- expect? -- if the Dura Ace BL7402 levers are not best for these brakes ...?

I did improve the front Neo Retro a bit by replacing the steel and short housing hanger with a deeper-drop and very stiff aluminum RH hanger and the braking is slightly but noticeably more "powerful." On this evidence I suppose it might be worth installing compressionless housing but I don't want to bother. I might try lengthening the cable and shortening the straddle cable accordingly, but there's less than 1" above the fender (42s under 50 mm fenders) to play with; does anyone advise that a ~ 1/2" longer cable and correspondingly shorter and shallower-angled straddle would make a difference?

In the rear the mono-strut fender attachment to the seatstay bridge prevents lowering the straddle any further.

Oh well, f and r work as well as any cantilevers with drop bar levers that I've used over the decades --- except!!! the ineffably strong and perfectly modulating IRD Cafam cantilevers installed by competent-for-a-change Rivendell staff on the 2010 Sam Hill I bought. I might have bought those for the Matthews except (1) I need low-profiles in the rear and (2) the reputation for precise tolerances -- avoiding slop -- in the Pauls makes them the safe choice for the otherwise horrible judder and squeal resulting from the excessively long steerer and head on this 58 cm (c-c but sloping tt and highly extended head and steerer) built for 26" wheels, fully 2 1/2" smaller than similar 700C wheels. (And can't use crown-mount housing stop on this fork.)

--
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 rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/ed6512aa-eddc-4ef1-bf28-4315bf674302n%40googlegroups.com.

[Armand Kizirian]

One thing to consider is the optimal straggle cable/yoke height of each, and if there is anything interfering with that positioning. If you have certain fork-crown mounted racks, it may prevent the straddle cable from getting as low as it could to have the maximum stopping power. I run touring canti's F&R and I would give up some modulation for power on my front brakes but my Nitto F32 is in the way of my yoke getting any lower. I have more than enough grip strength to stop the bike as much as I would ever need, but wouldn't mind a lighter touch to the lever. This is a non-issue with neo-retro's as their optimal placement is quite high.