Originally Posted by
froze
Typically you would be correct, but people that raced on the Columbus and Reynolds stuff and then raced on Ishawata found the Ishawata to be more responsive. Problem is that Ishawata never caught on back in the 70's and 80's because most of the cycling world snubed anything that wasn't European back in those days. But Japanese had superior metal technology over the rest of the world, and this filtered down into their bike tube sets (even their derailleurs were superior but not as many raced on Suntour as they did Campy). But I found Columbus tubing to be more flexy then Reynolds. By the way, I was about slightly less then average weight for racing cyclists at 150 pounds and 6 foot tall, but found that less flex translated into more power especially in the mountains. Maybe if I was 125 pounds or so then maybe a little flex wouldn't bother me because I wouldn't be transmitting as much power.
Sorry but what you describe is a physical impossibility.
The flex in a tube is based on the diameter and thickness (characterized by a shape factor called the Area Momement of Inertia(I)), and the stiffness of the metal, characterized by a measurable factor called the Modulus of Elasticity (E). The shape factor (I) has a large effect regarding how stiff the tube is, that is why OS tubes can be made so much stiffer than a smaller diameter tube. The Modulus of Elasticity (E) is the same for all alloys in the steel family, which means is that Ishiwata steel is the exact same stiffness as Columbus or Reynolds steel; the metal may have different strength characteristics, but the stiffness per unit of material is the same.
Bottom line is that Ishiwata tubes are not stiffer than Columbus or Reynolds tubes of the same weight and diameter, UNLESS the shape factor (I) is making it so. Ishiwata had triple butted tubes, which could theoretically make them a smig stiffer per a given tube weight, but the difference will be very slight and impossible to detect by the rider.