I very often find myself agreeing with you on the general point around capitalism and consumerism but on this occasion I can't.
Obviously I've never seen Philip ride and wouldn't dream of remarking on his style. However the guy I know is well over the weight limit and his riding style is a significant factor, +50% at least. We agonised for weeks over whether or not to say something. In the end we decided not to. We all knew the post would give way. Whether there's sufficient tolerance in the design is debatable but any critical component will reach a point where overload takes it beyond the design limit.
The repair was made under guarantee. I had expected the LBS to say the issue was caused through excessive loading.
I feel the issue is with the never ending drive to make bikes look sleeker faster etc. Whether or not this is rampant capitalism is open to debate.
Personally I prefer a good old fashioned seat post clamp. When I next buy a bike it's an area I'll look at and question.
Yes; I recall the thread and would agree with your position on this.
However, in this case it appears that the Philip is within the stated weight limit, while I'm assuming that the seatpost is being operated within advised boundaries too... so for something to fail in this way is IMO inexcusible; especially so soon after purchase.
I'd join you in questioning whether "your" experience was the result of insufficient design margins / factors of safety, and while all well and good that the example in your case was repaired under warranty the fact that it happened at all hardly breeds confidence in the longevity of the product, does it?
I agree about these issues being driven by "the never ending drive to make bikes look sleeker faster" - however what purpose does this serve to the manufacturer other than driving sales?
Agree about the seatpost clamp too - not just for reasons of immediate function but also longevity and future spares availabilty..
