Tange started out in 1920, originally producing bicycle forks, and expanding to butted tubing in the 1950s. By the 1970s, they had expanded to make all the frame components, including stays, dropouts and lugs. Until the mid-80s Tange was probably best known for their mainstay tube sets, Champion #1 and #2 (later called simply #1 and #2) - cold-worked, butted chrome-moly tubing that compared favorably to Columbus SL and SP tube sets. For instance, the down tube of Tange #1 was butted to.8/.5/.8 mm, while the #2 was.9/.6/.9 mm.
(by comparison, SL was.9/.6/.9 - so Tange #1 was actually slightly thinner and lighter!) These tube sets were used on a lot of higher end Japanese-built bikes being imported to the U.S. In the late 70s and early 80s. There were also thicker-walled, heavier sets, called #3, #4 and #5, available for loaded touring and other applications where more durability was required. A cheaper tube set was created by Tange in the 80s: Infinity - designed as a good quality but low-cost set for lower-priced bicycles. It was a seamed tubing, which meant that it started out as flat stock. It could be rolled out with different thicknesses along its length, then formed around a mandrel and welded into a tube. Additional working made the welded seam invisible.
Many people would be turned off by the thought of seamed tubing, but in reality, there was not likely a big difference in strength. And the manufacturing method used meant that the butting could be customized without adding complexity or cost. In 1985, Tange hit the big time when they came up with their heat-treated Prestige tubing. Like Reynolds 753, but made from chrome-moly as opposed to manganese alloy, Prestige had the tensile strength to be drawn to super thin-walled dimensions - only 0.4 mm in the center section with the regular version. A 'Super Lite' version of Prestige was only 0.3 mm in the center section!
Another advantage was that, unlike 753, no special certification was needed to use it, so Prestige gained much more acceptance among frame builders. Versions of Prestige are still used today. I read an by builder Dave Moulton about a bike he built with Prestige - a bike because at that point in his career, Moulton's bikes were almost all built with Columbus. (Pictured on the left) Another interesting note about Tange tubing is their relationship with Tom Ritchey. When Ritchey was looking for someone who could put into production some new ideas he had for butted tubing - with specially tapered and directional-designed butted sections - he first approached Columbus. Apparently, they were unable to manufacture it. He then went to Tange, who had recently started making their heat-treated Prestige, and they were able to make it work and manufacture it.
Ritchey 'Logic' tubing was the result. In material composition and in specification, Ishiwata 019 and 022 were (like Tange #1 and #2) very comparable to Columbus SL and SP. In fact, many people claim that the Ishiwata tubes were, at least in their surface finish quality, even nicer than the much more expensive Columbus tubes. For instance, in the early 80s, Tom Kellogg, probably best known today for his, was working for Ross Bicycles developing their 'Signature' line of hand-built bikes (something like their answer to Schwinn's Paramount line). Kellogg specified Ishiwata in those bikes. I found a quote that I couldn't verify, but Kellogg reportedly said of Ishiwata tubing, 'It's like little men polished the inside.' Early 80s catalog scan from the E The names '019' and '022' refer to the claimed weight of the tube set - i.e., '019' (drawn to 0.8/0.5/0.8 mm) weighed 1.9 kilos, while '022' (drawn to 0.9/0.6/0.9 mm) weighed 2.2 kilos.
Less well-known (and much rarer) are the '017' and '015' tube sets. Despite not being heat-treated, these tubes were drawn down to super-thin dimensions. The '017' was 0.7/0.4/0.7 mm, while the '015' was 0.6/0.4/0.6 - with the down tube even thinner (0.35 mm!) in the center section!
Prestige CrMo with a sloping lugged crown, choose cantilever or disc options Features eyelets for front rack and braze-ons for low-rider panniers. The first thing I'd like to do is replace the stock fork with the BMX/Cruiser type that I've seen like the Cook Brothers or Tange TX-1200.
Needless to say, these were only used for track or time trial bikes, and likely only for very lightweight riders. Ishiwata also produced triple-butted and quad-butted chrome-moly tubing, known as EX and EXO respectively. It is not unusual to find decent-quality Japanese-built bikes with those tube sets. In the 1980s, they were apparently even producing carbon-fiber tubing (in their catalog they were calling it CFRP - or carbon fiber reinforced plastic) and aluminum lugs to join the tubes. (see the catalogs at ) Look closely at that unique little tubing sticker on 3Rensho frames and you'll see the Ishiwata name.
In Trek's early years (mid 70s through early 80s, that is), they made bikes using Ishiwata, Reynolds, and Columbus. According to the website and from the Trek brochures of the time, the frames were essentially the same - certainly equal in quality - only the tubing was different (and the Ishiwata-tubed models used SunTour dropouts as opposed to Campagnolo pieces - but like the tubing, there was really no difference in quality). In those early years, the model numbers would indicate which tubing was used (5xx - Ishiwata 022; 7xx - Reynolds 531; 9xx - Columbus SL/SP). Mainly because of the dollar/yen exchange rate and other market-driven factors, the Ishiwata-tubed models were significantly less expensive than the others, which probably (unfairly) gave buyers the idea that they were somehow inferior. They weren't. Today, in the vintage bike marketplace, they can be a good value.
In any case, by some time in the 80s, the Ishiwata tubing was dropped by Trek. Ishiwata ended up going bankrupt in 1993, but some of their employees went on to found Kaisei which is being used by a number of steel-frame bicycle builders today. It has a well-earned reputation for quality.
Although it took time for Tange and Ishiwata to fully gain acceptance outside of Japan, especially for top-level bikes, there is no doubt that their quality was the equal of the European standards. Even though Japanese-built bikes, especially by the early to mid 80s, were (and still are) considered to be exceptionally well-crafted, especially for their price, for a while many fashion-conscious buyers of high-end, top-level bikes still looked for Reynolds or Columbus in their frames. The Trek example mentioned above is a pretty good illustration of that. But in today's vintage bike market, those bikes represent a real value - super bargains. And the marketplace for new steel frames today doesn't really seem to discriminate the way it once did.
Maybe it's because in a world of carbon fiber and welded aluminum bicycle madness, anyone buying a new steel frame is already bucking 'fashion' enough that the brand or nationality on a little tubing sticker (assuming there even is one) just doesn't matter. I wouldn't say I'm totally stumped, but I don't know if I can find a definitive answer on that one. Searching old Nishiki catalogs, the Ultimate is hard one to find - though I did find several references saying that it was essentially the same as a model called the Professional - and perhaps the model name was changed at some point. In any case, again looking through old catalogs, most references to tubing that I can find that actually specify a brand list Tange. So that would be my best guess.
Hi, I recently discovered your blog and have enjoyed reading many of the posts. Today I spotted a halfway decent Shogun at my LBS.
The sticker on the tubing said Tange 900. I knew I had recently read an article about the different types of tubing and then I remembered that I read it here. So I reread this post and surfed around to find out more. I came across this PDF copy of a 1988 Tange catalog from VeloBase.com.
On page 17 the catalog lists Tange 900/1000 and Tange MTB 1000/1200 as being seamed not the Infinity. Did you misquote or is this in conflict with a different source? Thanks for all the interesting posts. Hi - thanks for writing. I did see that Tange catalog you refer to, as well as others. You are correct that the catalog specifically lists the 900/1000 tubing as seamed, but doesn't mention 'seamed' in its description of Infinity.
However, I found many other references to Infinity as also being a seamed tubing - numerous posts on forums, as well as this article from Sheldon Brown's site: I believe that it may have been part of Tange's marketing plan with Infinity, to downplay the fact that it was also seamed tubing. If I recall correctly from old magazine articles in the 80s, Tange felt that their process of working Infinity made it virtually the same as seamless - hence the name 'infinity' - no beginning, no end. Nevertheless, I've seen posts on forums where people say they could still see the seam (when looking down the inside of the seat-tube, for example). There is a difference between Infinity and 900/1000 - they are both chrome moly, double butted, and seamed - but the butting on the Infinity is a little different - they call it 'tapered butted' and the transition between the thicker and thinner parts of the tube is smoother and a bit more gradual. I believe Tange positioned Infinity as slightly above 900/1000. There could have been a slight difference in the specific formulation of the chrome-moly steel, or the process of working the Infinity could have been a little more expensive (more likely).
Lastly - does any of it make a big difference when the tubes are brazed together into a frame? Probably not. I've read lots of reviews of bikes built with 900/1000, Infinity, #1/#2, and even Prestige. And apart from a few grams difference in weight (which are very hard to notice when actually riding), they all can deliver a a nice ride. If you find a nice bike, that's built well, fits properly, etc. Etc., I certainly wouldn't turn up my nose just because it had the less expensive tubing - but it might make the 900/1000 bike a real bargain.
At one point, I owned and rode two Treks: one built from Columbus SL tubing, the other from Ishiwata 022. I think any ride difference between the two had to do with the geometry: the Ishiwata bike, designed as a sport-tourer, had somewhat more relaxed geometry than the Columbus bike, which was intended as a criterium bike. I think the fact that Trek built the racing bike out of Columbus and the sport-tourer out of Ishiwata is indicative of the misperceptions you point out in this post. The Columbus frame, being made for racing and more expensive, was perceived as 'better' by much of the cycling public at the time.
It's a tough one to say for sure. For whatever reason, companies didn't always identify the brand of their tubing, even though they did label the type (Cr-Mo, High Carbon, etc.). It's a Japanese-built bike - which would make it almost certainly Japanese tubing. It could be either Tange or Ishiwata, but it would be almost impossible to figure out which for certain. However, based on your measurements, you know that it's probably drawn to the same specs as the better quality tubes - like the Champion #1, or the Ishiwata 019 (or, at least the seat tube is). There is a little bit of info on the Classic Rendezvous site about Sekai - they were a company in Seattle that imported Japanese frames.
There's a somewhat blurry scan of an old Sekai catalog on the Yellow Jersey site that lists a 500 model as having Ishiwata tubing. Neither of those is likely to give you the definitive answer - but it's a start. Please forgive me for my error!
I listed the inside dimension incorrectly. The sites call out the inside diameter as 26.0mm. My frame measures 26.4, which allows a wall thickness of 1.1mm rather than 1.3mm. This would seen to indicate a better tubing due to thinner wall thickness. None the less, I'm bringing this one back to life with a full Superbe Pro groupset and fitted with 700c wheels the right way by lowering the rear bridge.
It is a terrible thing when a decent steel frame is retired to the trash. Keep saving those old souls! There is an older 1974 catalog of Ishiwata's tubing (as well as many more) here: The thing I find interesting - stated on the second of three pages under 'Results' is 'Victorious The World Proffesional Road BARCELONA 1973 BARCELONA (SPAIN)' The spelling is as printed. This would have been Felice Gimondi riding a Bianchi produced by the Reparto Corse department. I think I have seen old photos of this bike (with weight saving details like the Super Record brake pivots were brazed to the frame) but I never would have thought it was made with Japanese tubing brand that's not well remembered.
The catalog also mentions a amateur and pro victories in cyclocross in 1974. These are the kind of results that make a pedigree. Also worth mentioning in the story of Ishiwata is the buy-out in the early 90s where the resources became Kaisei tubing.
Another highly regarded but not well know brand that's still going well today. I was researching because I have an early 80s Trek 510/515 This bike was a deal at $500 especially when compared to the 531 version that was $100 more. They had the exact same parts spec' so the only difference was equal quality but not well-known tubing.
I have a 1979 Trek 530 with Ishiwata 022 tubing and an 86 Trek with Reynolds 531. I can absolutely say that the Ishiwata is stiffer.
My 531 ghost shifts when I stand to climb hills and the Ishiwata doesn't. I can also tell when I am going down hills at high speed. The Ishiwata is solid.
I weigh 225 lbs. I have heard the older Columbus tubing had even more flex. However, I have a 2000 Voodoo Wazoo with Columbus Neuron tubing that is at least as stiff as the Ishiwata. It feels stiffer but the frame is smaller so I'm not sure. The Ishiwata tubing is awesome, I love the ride. Hi Brooks, I'm an infrequent visitor here, mostly get here when searching different subjects.
I have a modest collection of steel frames, a TI Raleigh, 531 tubes, a Novarra 'Team' mtn bike, Prestige tubes, a Serotta Couer D Acier, Columbus tubes, A Carl Strong custom, Columbus Spirit tubes, Kelson custom, also Spirit tubes, a custom Stout, Columbus SL and a riv Rambouillet. My question concerns the Rambo: The work sheet from Grant specifies Ishiwata tubes, some heat treat, some not. This bike was built in 2004, 64 cm frame, and IIRC buttes are mostly.8.6.8 with 1.0 fork and.8-1.0 seat tube.If Ishiwata was gone by the early 90's where did Grant source his Ishiwata tubes? This frame came from the Toyo shop in Japan.
Will look forward to your reply. Thanks for your reply. It's not a biggie, as others have said, paint a good set of tubes and you'll never be able to tell them apart.
The coolest thing about thin walled steel tubes is the beautiful crystal like sound one gets when tinking them with a fingernail. I like the Rambo but it is overbuilt by my standards. Grant called it a sporty credit card tourer, I think it could handle 40 lb panniers front and rear and never suffer from the load. I have had three pretty good wrecks in my life. One, on the REI mtn bike, I landed off a jump hard enough to taco the front wheel and all it did was break off a canti boss, and the Prestige frame on that bike is pretty thin walled stuff. Mini van took me out on a Soma Smothie, it destroyed the front fork and ovaled the head tube. I put the head tube on a makeshift mandrel, hammered it round and continued to ride that bike for several more years.
My Stout went through a McDonalds drive through in a roof rack, hit hard enough to pull the entire rack off the top of my Landcruiser and the bike didn't hiccup. I believe that steel bikes are a lot tougher than we are told by the 'experts'. I just read this somewhere 'I still have the Apex, though all the parts were upgraded when I was a kid (still fits great, though!) and out of all my bikes, it rides the best. Second best is my 90 MB-1 which is Prestige. Granted, there's more to a bike's ride than tubing. I also have a GT Avalanche that is TT GTX tubing, it is very non-compliant, but it's super stiff and takes off like nobody's business.
Nowhere near as pleasant to ride as the Apex or the MB-1. ' This is what I was trying to say about the Diamond Back Apex. Now - I just need to compare X)1 and Apex frame dimensions and my comparison may prove to be a fruitful one.