I'm looking at two different sets of levers by Tektro: the R100/R200 and the R340/R341. The R100 and R341 are the "short reach" levers. I understand that the main difference is that the lever (the lever itself, not the whole body) is closer to the bar when you're in the drops. But I need to know if the lever body itself -the part that clamps to the bar- is smaller. I don't have any problem with reach in the drops, and the short reach levers are harder to find online, so if the lever bodies are the same dimensions, I'll just go with the standard reach.

Thanks so much for any help anyone here can offer!

never heard of the r340/1, but with the r100 vs r200, the hood size are identical. the levers simply sit closer to you with the r100s. same hood, same lever, same everything...the lever sits at a different angle.

+1
That's also been my experience.

I know this is an old thread, but I picked up a set of the R341's recently and thought it might be helpful to add some photos of the differences between the R100/200 vs. R340/341 levers. I won't describe the 100/200 series, since they've been around for a while and it's easy to find photos of them as well as first hand reports.

I could tell from the QBP photo the R341 had a funky ergo bend in the lever, but it didn't tell the whole story. The lever bodies are a bit bulkier and blockier in shape, like Tektro is trying to approximate the shape of brifters. The view from the cockpit shows that the new lever has a slight hourglass shape, though the body is the same diameter in the grip area as the R100.
First the R100A, then the R341:



The lever bodies are actually the same size, but I didn't maintain the camera's distance from them between photos.

The major difference is in the lever, the R341 has a bend to the outside that makes it easier to get the lever further out under your fingers (you can actually see the tip of the lever in the photo above.) The bend is exaggerated a bit in the photo below because I have them on a set of randonneur bars which angle out slightly.
R100A on top, R341 below:





Looks pretty weird from the front, but I really like the way they feel - the outward bend definitely does what it's supposed to. From the side they're relatively normal looking:



I hope this helps those who need to choose between them.

personally, i find the r340/341 one of the ugliest bike parts on the market.

sram offers brakes with the same flared brake blades. they cost considerably more, but it is worth it if that is what you need.

Yeah, I wouldn't call them elegant, but the bike I put them on is already pretty hopeless from an aesthetic viewpoint:

haha, i didnt intend to offend you. they are much cheaper than the sram alternative and very functional. on that particular build they dont stand out and therefore do not offend me. i dont blame you at all. (i think its a pretty cool build)

had i used them on my build it would have looked horrible:

Nope, no offense taken, I agree that they're ugly.

I don't know, next to that stem they'd fit in pretty well

hey now, that stem is "bladed" and flows. the brakes in question have no form what so ever

CiM, I like that red bike... Shimano STI levers are comfortable, I might look into them.

Brad

Just kidding, it's a sweet build! These levers have more weird angles than a stealth fighter, but they are comfy.

Thanks Brad, it's a 1990 Rockhopper in touring mode and still evolving...

thanks. i ride campagnolo 10spd on my geared bike. i think the 340 would feel bulky in my hand. the 200 feels normal (for obvious reasons)

Here is a pic of R340 (Silver) vs R341 (Black).