I agree, Karen. But still, if I am going use a inner bladder/outer shell design, then I want one that gives me access to the bladder. I don't want to have to send it back to the manufacturer for repair... as unlikely as that may be.
In my book, there are very few REAL downsides to a zipper... and almost no downsides that pertain to me and the rigs that I have chosen to use. So, I would rather have one than not. It just makes sense. If someone wants a zipperless wing, then that’s fine, too.
For instance, the Oxycheq Mach V has recently raised the bar with respect to narrow profile, inner bladder/outer shell, oval wing designs. It also successfully utilizes a 360 degree zipper. I have one and am very impressed with its form and function. The zipper allows me access to the bladder... in the rare event that I should need to do so... and it does so without any of the supposed "disadvantages" listed above.
I'm not worried about it failing. If a zipper fails it will usually fail when in use... at least that has been my life-long experience with zippers. In fact, I can't remember a zipper ever failing when in a static position. How often will I need to use this zipper? Rarely will I use it and then, only in the event of a repair. (I did open it up to take some pictures for the guys and it wasn’t hard or particularly dangerous.) It's just not a zipper that needs to routinely be zipped or unzipped. I certainly don't plan to use it as often as a wetsuit zipper! The same goes for pinching the bladder. I MIGHT worry about that if I used the zipper frequently but even so, somehow I've managed to zip my jeans every day of my life without ever snagging my penis. Shoot, if I was worried about that kind of thing then I would never buy a computer that had a user changeable battery.
The zipper on the Oxy Mach V is smartly placed and did not impose design restrictions and that is from the guy that made it. As for me, the end user, I am quite satisfied with the design. Whether or not it really influenced the design is immaterial to me... I like the end product... so I could care less if it made the designer think hard about how to do it. Likewise, the position of the zipper of the Mach V has nothing to do with camband windows. There is no room for 'conventional' slots because the extremely narrow inner dimensions do not allow it. There may be other reasons as well but the zipper placement is in no way related to this. Besides... it's another thing I don't give a hoot about. I much prefer to use an STA... on ALL of my rigs. I don't need camband slots or windows. As far as I know, the DSS wings are the only wings that utilize camband windows, anyways.
Did the zipper add substantially to my cost on this wing? I don't know. I don't care. I'll gladly pay for the zipper.
Does the zipper on the Oxycheq Mach V create a stiff spot? Yah, I reckon it does. Does that bother me? Not at all. I do like wings that can fold up small and the Mach V won't do that. Maybe that is partly related to the zipper but I don't think that is what makes the Mach V so 'beefy'. It has more to do with the thickness of the bladder and the stiffness outer shell. That's a trade off that I'm willing to take. When I'm 'space-challenged' I simply grab one of my little Pioneer wings.
And that’s all I have to say about zippers. They don’t bother me and I’d rather have one… when given the choice. But I’m sure that the zipper-less Torus is a great wing and if I wanted a Torus, the lack of a zipper would in no way keep me from getting one. Heck, if one is looking for an STA-less solution, then there probably isn’t a better system available from anyone. Zipper… no zipper… it just isn’t a feature that would influence whether or not I bought a particular wing.
