SeaJay
Contributor
-hh:The normal wingnut defense is to point out that they're made metal instead of lowly plastic, but that's bogus: a materials change does not eliminate a failure point. We can also say that wingnuts are tough, but they do break on occasion too. Ditto for anything else that have threads that can be stripped.
-hh
Ah, the old QD argument... With hh, no less. It' s been a while since we visited this point, man.
You say that "a materials change does not eliminate a failure point." To this I would disagree.
Would you drive a car made of paper mache'? Would you fly in an airplane made of particle board and newspaper? Would you use a parachute made of Hefty trash bags?
I contend that a change in materials DOES eliminate a failure point... Otherwise, you could define any and every rig as nothing more than a slew of failure points. QD's break, bolts strip, cloth of any kind eventually rots or comes apart. Eventually, every seal gives way and hoses, regs, and even tanks have a limited life expectancy. Sure, it may be years or even decades, but it's not unlimited.
Would you dive with a tank made of plastic (as in the "Romper Room" kind)? Of course not... That would be a failure point, if it survived it's first fill...
So yes, I would say that material and engineering can both either independently or cooperatively redefinie a failure point as virtually nonexistent - or even truly nonexistent.