That seems like a two-way street. I'm fine erring on this side of the aluminum vs. non-Griptilian-plastic debate.
A lot of hay is being made (okay, perhaps not "a lot," but there is sure some desperate latching onto) about bolt maintenance and for some reason the fact that RRS maintains a very helpful and practical blog discussing all the things EVERYONE should do with tripods to keep them functioning flawlessly is being looked at as some sort of admission of product failure. This is grasping.
It's your decision to compare loosening leg bolts with shattering cast spiders or the spontaneous disassembly of Gitzo apexes in the field, which I think is an obviously stark difference, but being critical of RRS choosing an adjustable method of securing the legs versus something permanent is a person's choice, especially in these times when even the most minute rhetoric gets elevated to significance. But a SIMPLE SOLUTION exists if you don't like that design choice - and it's a solution that if implemented at the factory that decides useability for others not possibly not wanting this is standard. To my knowledge, RRS still does not use Loctite on those bolts (even though the midstream change of Locktite useage in the feet, for example, suggests there are quite capable of making these changes if desired).
In the end we are talking about a "problem" with a simple solution. If only every problem faced within our hobby was so easy to address. I'm sure may others would love to be able to put a drop of Locktite on their disintegrated tripod spider or pick their lens off the ground and squeeze a tube of the stuff on their dented lens barrel and keep on trucking as if nothing happened.
That's an odd equivalency that has been established in the narrative of this thread.
