My own experience is obviously very limited and purely anecdotal. But, I have the idea that the ability to do a field repair on a wing is something worth considering for any buyer of a wing, mostly based on posts I have seen here on SB like this one:
Wing failures are, I think, pretty darn rare. But, I have had and repaired a pinch flat myself. That's the only wing problem (I am reluctant to call it a failure as it was clearly user error) I have personally experienced. Of the 5 wings that I own, I have not personally experienced any downside that I (in my admittedly limited experience) could discern from having a zipper on each of them. So, from my perspective, even though failures are rare, if there is no downside to having the potential to self-repair the far and away most common failure, why would I, as a consumer, not choose to afford myself that option (presuming, of course, that other factors balance out)?
I think it would be pretty obvious that anyone considering buying a wing would have to make their own decision about the priority of being able to do certain types of repairs in the field versus the other factors that are relevant to buying a wing. Obviously, you think being able to do a field repair is very low priority. But, shouldn't the consumer have all the information and make their own decision about that?
I also think that is appropriate to point this consideration out to anyone who asks for recommendations on wings, as it is often not pointed out when the recommendation is given, and, since every other wing I know of (in my admittedly limited experience) does allow for the possibility of field repair, I could easily imagine that a shopper coming here to ask for recommendations might not realize that not ALL wings offer this capability and thus not realize that the recommendation they've just received failed to disclose this point which may or may not be important to the shopper.
