Also, you've taken the worst part of a brooks saddle - the design. People mainly buy Brookses for the looks and the prestige of the brand, yours has neither. 99.9999% of cyclist don't use a sprung saddle, if they were necessary we'd all be riding one, but apart from brooks their popularity died out decades ago.
I think you're making a pretty big assumption there. Sure, Brooks has a lot of heritage, but the fact that people still buy Brooks saddles after over a century of using very similar designs is a testament to the strength of the original design concept. Personally I think that people choose to use brooks saddles for many reasons, including:
Comfort of the saddle
Durability
The Brooks brand image.
And about integrated saddle/seatposts being a bad idea: I agree that it might be necessary to include different versions with different seatpost angles.
I think you're making a pretty big assumption there. Sure, Brooks has a lot of heritage, but the fact that people still buy Brooks saddles after over a century of using very similar designs is a testament to the strength of the original design concept. Personally I think that people choose to use brooks saddles for many reasons, including:
And about integrated saddle/seatposts being a bad idea: I agree that it might be necessary to include different versions with different seatpost angles.