time's "translink"...a sub-optimal seat-mast design?

[walter]

the included seatpin for time's "translink" mast design says in big
letters 'DO NOT CUT'.

lemme get this straight...a seatmast design that's supposed to use a
FULL LENGTH seatpin instead of a lightweight stub?!

apparently the seatpin and the mast are designed to work together. the
walls of the mast are indeed fairly thin, although the weight of the
seatpin (206g for a 300mm) isnt particularly light for its apparent
"supplemental reinforcement" role.

if you go to the trouble of a mast design frame, why not make the mast
sufficiently strong on it's own (like everyone else does) to save some
weight? if you need the reinforcing mast, at least make it really
light!

as it stands right now, time's translink design seems more about
looks...because you can cut the mast down completely and use a
lightweight aftermarket seatpin; you'd achieve weight savings from a
lighter aftermarket seatpin (although not exactly cheap) and the
removal of the entire seatmast's weight.

 

[Guy Anderson, Sr.]

On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:40:08 -0700 (PDT), walter <[email protected]>
wrote:

>the included seatpin for time's "translink" mast design says in big
>letters 'DO NOT CUT'.

Wrong ng, old boy......

 

[walter]

On Jun 18, 11:07 pm, "Guy Anderson, Sr." <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
> Wrong ng, old boy......

RBT?!

 

[Dave]

On Jun 18, 5:40 pm, walter <[email protected]> wrote:
>> time's translink design seems more about looks <<

Yup...although appearance seems perfectly legitimate to me as a design
goal when you consider that the overwhelming majority of these bikes
will never be raced. They are invariably ridden by guys (like me)
well past their prime athletic years and usually with the paunch that
comes from stressful desk jobs that pay well enough such that someone
can buy a $4k bike.

These guys want something that looks cool as they average 16mph on
their Sunday club rides, and seatmast designs are a response to that.