bigwoo

Fletch, don't panic about the weight guidelines. You'll be fine under most normal riding conditions/at cruising/touring speed.

You can't go wrong w/ it. Trek liked it as a slightly hardier touring-strength tubing.
Some early 80's Treks, up until the end of 1982 used Ishiwata Dbl butted frame tubes and it is of exceptional quality. Ishi Treks are also considerably harder to find than a Reynolds 531 Trek.....Which makes them more uncommon.
I find the ride quality to be exceptional and very plush.

Here is a matching pair of Ishi Treks that I love.... Trek 311 models

https://

https://

https://

sailorbenjamin

Wow, this thread is getting interesting. All kinds of good info here.
Funny, though, we haven't really gotten around to the OPs questions. I'm gonna take a stab at them. I'm not quite 250lbs and I ride my Trek 612 without any fear (it's 531). My 412 is almost the same bike but isn't yet ridable. I'm not gonna worry about it either. I'd say try it, what could possibly go wrong? As for the upgrades, I'd say that a 412 would make a superbe bike with 105 stuff on it. The 612 is a great riding bike and the only difference between the two (aside from the metalurgical subtleties discussed above) is the quality of the equipement (mostly forged alloy stuff on the 612, mostly stamped steel stuff on the 412).
I vote for going ahead with the project.

sailorbenjamin

Ok, so Bigwoo answered while I was typing.

sailorbenjamin

As long as we're getting into pictures, here's my pair. The brown one is the 612, the blue is the 412.
Oh, by the way, thanks to Scooper and everyone else, this has been some good reading.

JohnDThompson 

Yes.

P4D 

Just out of curiosity....is Ishiwata 017 better than 019 better than 022 better than the EX designations? I can't figure out how to read that chart and wanted to satisfy my own curiosity about an Ishiwata EX 4130 triple butted frame I have.

Sorry for the thread jack, but half the posts already took it off the rails and made me curious. All apologies to OP.

Road Fan

The smaller numbers are thinner walls and lighter weight. The frames will flex more and teh bikes will be lighter. Because of the thinner walls, the tubes are less strong than thicker ones. There are a lot of dimensions to strength of bike tubes and how significant it is, but what this mainly means is that if you put an 017 tube into a machine designed to pull tubes hard enough to stretch them and finally break them, the 017 would stretch more and break at lower tension than the 022, or other thicker-wall tube of the same steel. In the real world it's really hard to say what that will mean. Notice Ishi says the 017 is good for Record Attempts. Those will be strong riders, but I think the frame will be able to handle them. For us normal riders, I think any of them should be ok. Being more flexible, the thinner tubes could result in a frame that feels too flexible or noodly.

jonwvara

Interesting thread. No one mentions it here, but is it the case that most of the Trek 400 series bikes built with Ishiwata 022 only used the Ishiwata material for the three main tubes, and used hi-ten for the forks and stays? Although Ishiwata tubing is great stuff, that would seem to make the bikes less desirable.

JohnDThompson 

The 400 series frames used Ishiwata 025 (basically seamless Hi-Ten) or Tange Mangalloy for the forks and stays. The 500 series frames were fully Ishiwata 022. If you look in the steer tube of an 022 fork you will see 5 ribs (similar to the ribs in Columbus steer tubes, but not helical).

bigwoo

I couldn't resist posting 1 more Ishi Trek photo

https://

JunkYardBike

Well, since we're showing off our Ishiwata Treks, here's one of the Trek TX 500's with full Ishiwata 022. What do you mean it's not cool?!?!?

cycleheimer

1980 Trek 412 in pristine original condition as photographed. I'm more comfortable with a 58cm frame these days.

Gthoro

I have the same bike minus the Brooks. I also have bar ends on mine. Nice ride and I love the green.

Fletch521

Here are some pictures of one of the Treks. Both are identical except only one has the granny chain ring. I was told when I bought them that a couple had bought them and toured europe with the in the 80s. I've been told that some of the components may not be stock and they have been repainted.

cycleheimer

Sweet set-up! With the triple chain wheel, you got some deal for $50! Rear rack included? In most markets, that's a $200++ bike "in season". The Ishiwata 022 tubing is just fine, that's not the issue for you with that bike . Those 27" x 1" Rigida rims are not very strong at all. At 300 pounds, you will pretzel them in no time. You might have better luck with older Ukai or Araya alloy rims. If I was you, I might just hold onto it as is...if it the frame is the right size that is. Start doing 30+ mile rides, and you might be down to 225 in no time. I would probably still change the wheels (holding onto the old ones for posterity), since IMHO those Rigida rims aren't seriously meant for anybody over 180 pounds. Nice bike! Really super amazingly low price!

Old Fletch must have made the guy "an offer he couldn't refuse"

redcolnago

It's all about weight Scooper. If you don't buy into Sl being better because it's lighter you may as well be riding a Walmart bike. The thing to do was have the lightest bike. The thing for Harley owners might be to have the loudest bike-doesnt' mean it's better, but that's what they are focused on.

D1andonlyDman

Columbus SL from the 1980s and 1990s is not the same as it is now. Nowadays, it's made with a different, stronger alloy, and as such, is thinner than it used to be. But Ishiwata 022 was essentially identical to Columbus SL from the same era.

My sources on this were the framebuilders from Trek in the late 1970s and early 1980s, who made frames with both, and who made my Trek model 510 frame (out of Ishiwata 022) in 1979. It may even have come from John Thompson at the time, but don't hold me to that. They steered me to the Ishiwata variant, as being the same quality frame but less expensive than their Columbus variant circa 1979/1980.

cpsqlrwn

Concerning the OP's post relative to the Trek 412, I was also recently looking at a Trek 412 as there is a nice one on eBay right now. I decided to pass on it at this point. I researched the 022 tubing for the main tubes and found that to be double butted and fine with my needs, but on the 412 the chain stays, seat stays and the front fork are all made of high tensile steel (Ishiwata 0265) and that was something I did not want, particularly on the front fork.

lasauge 

Zombie thread or not, I'll take this as an excuse to post my Ishiwata 022 Bianchi in its current form. It's a bike that demands to be ridden as fast as possible:

Rice Wash

Glad this popped up, was interesting to read.

Scooper

The density of all the steel alloys commonly used for bicycle tubing, from plain AISI 1010 carbon steel to Reynolds 953 high strength stainless is virtually the same (~7.9g/cubic centimeter), so only differences in the length, diameter, wall thickness, and butting profile of steel alloy tubes affect the weight of the tubes.

The eighties Columbus SL with its 0.8/0.5/0.8 wall thickness is comparable in weight to Ishiwata 019 with the same 0.8/0.5/0.8 wall thickness. Columbus SP with its 0.9/0.6/0.9 wall thickness would be comparable in weight to Ishiwata 022 with the same 0.9/0.6/0.9 walls. EDIT - Oops! See T-Mar's correction in the post below. Thanks, T-Mar!

My post six years ago was rhetorical. Weight isn't everything. A 56cm SL frame might be great for a 5'8" 140 pound rider, but SL would likely be too flexy for a 62cm frame built for a 6'2" 180 pound rider, especially if the rider were powerful.

The point of my question, "How are 022 and SL light years apart?" was to suggest that 022 might be better for a bigger frame/heavier rider, while SL might be better for a smaller frame/lighter rider.

The only other difference between SL and 022 is the alloy. SL was Cyclex and 022 was 4130. Cyclex is a chromoly alloy with a slightly higher ultimate tensile strength and yield strength than 4130, but certainly not "light years apart."

T-Mar

It's Columbus SL that is equivalent to Ishiwata 022, both with 0.9/0.6/0.9 wall thickness.

Columbus SP is equivalent to Ishiwata 024, both with 1.0/0.7/1.0 wall thickness.

There's no Columbus equivalent to Ishiwata 019.

Scooper

T-Mar, I just checked, and you are correct. The blurb by Andrew Muzi from Sheldon's website is obviously incorrect.

The circa 1985 SL:


Circa 1985 SP:


Ishiwata:


It's the new Niobium SL that's 0.8/0.5/0.8 (from 2014 catalog):

uncle uncle

Probably the biggest difference, then and now, is that Ishiwata is a relative unknown for most bicycle and C&V bicycle enthusiasts, and if you continue to explain it to the great "unknowledged" masses, like myself, then my chances of scooping up a bicycle made with it at a bargain price are diminished. And if I know anything for certainty, it's that everything is all about me. I do believe this same "cloak of ignorance" was once also draped over Tange tubesets, but among the BF C&V crowd, with posting and praises, over time, Tange tubes have gained a much greater following (damn that knowledge thing again).

Scooper

Great observation about the relative obscurity of the Japanese tubesets from Ishiwata and Tange, and the cachet of Italian and British tubesets from Columbus and Reynolds.