That's true. But sometimes it's just a matter of available space. Could you imagine a full recreational dive boat where every diver had a 40 cf pony?
Probably a moot point in most cases. The kind of boat where this would be an issue would be a cattle boat, and therefore likely a shallow warm water reef dive. Redundancy for recreational dives is great, but really more of an issue for solo diving, deep diving, or low vis diving. On a boat catering to that sort of diver, a pony bottle would probably not be considered clutter.
Again, I'm not saying that there is no possible situation where you would (a) want a pony, and (b) be on a cattle boat. Just a general trend. I'm big on redundancy, but I have never been on a (non-solo) shallow warm water dive where I either carried a pony or saw someone else using one. The surface is your pony in that case.
Of course all this is irrelevant. You use the gear you need. But it is a legitimate consideration in the pony size equation. I think that at some point, and each diver must decided that point for herself, there is a "diminishing returns" factor. As doctormike said, it's the "sweet spot" but it is an individual decision.
Yup, exactly. These threads tend to become silly and nit-picky because the answer to the question of what's the best pony bottle size is always going to be "it depends"..!
I guess my point is that a 40 is a good thing to standardize on because (a) you can just have one pony without figuring out exactly how much you "need" for different dives, (b) it's IMHO not a particular disadvantage in terms of size or buoyancy or boat space, and (c) you can use it if you go into tech diving, or sell it more easily if you stop diving.
One last point about the benefit of more gas in a pony and the issue of dual failure probabilities. JohnN is correct - it's true that in general terms tech divers don't always consider dual failures because the combined probability (P1 x P2) is usually so low. But that equation has to be calculated in the context of real numbers.
I think that most of us agree that there is some lower limit to an acceptable redundant gas volume (search for "Spare Air" for that discussion). So many of the arguments in favor of 13 or 19 comes down to calculating required gas volumes for ascent from (arbitrary) depths, made by divers with (congratulations!) low SAC rates.
My feeling is that if you can pad your safety margin without a huge downside, that's a good thing. Things like a reg free flow or a short fill are much more common than, say, a burst disk failure. So while we might not plan for losing a first stage on BOTH the back gas and deco bottles, it's not beyond the realm of possibility for a recreational diver's pony to give them less than the anticipated volume when deployed. And padding safety with a reasonable amount of extra gas isn't such a bad idea.