The situation is quite bizarre because the tripod collar must have design goals, as any other part. I would presume that the first and foremost design goal would be keeping the lens and camera stable over the whole range of shutter speeds
I don't think they are trying to achieve this with their long lens collars. I suspect what they consider the tripod collar's task is to hold the weight of the lens (without breaking) and they further assume that the user has one hand on the camera and another hand around the zoom ring or on top of the lens. The user has probably turned VR ON in order to correct for vibrations that result from whatever source (loose tripod head, hands on lens and camera, etc.). Finally my guess is that they assume the user of such a light weight tele probably has skimped on the tripod in order to further save weight and chosen a model which can hold the lens without collapsing but not hold it steady.
If these assumptions are correct then the quality of the tripod collar and its mechanical properties probably make no perceptible difference to the results. Thus they can choose from the tripod collar designs one that is 1) cheap to manufacture, 2) as light as possible, 3) able to hold the lens without breaking from its weight. No intention is made in the tripod collar design to prevent vibrations since it would be futile to try to do so assuming the flimsy tripod and hands around the lens and camera.
It seems they never intended the tripod collar to be responsible for preventing vibrations. It is very clear when putting the 80-400 on tripod from its original collar and zooming to 400mm and zooming all the way in live view to see the details. Even in an indoor environment in a large hall where there is minimal air movement, the image will float a bit like the tripod were on a boat. Turning on VR reduces this but results in some degradation of sharpness compared to fast shutter speeds (or a lens with steady platform and mount) with VR off. Also I don't think with VR on you can get predictable framing.
Now the only way these kinds of collars could exit the factory is that they don't seriously consider the possibility of use of the product with a steady tripod and cable release, hands off the lens, and VR off, at slow shutter speeds. "Try turning VR on and see if that cures the vibration" was a camera store's recommendation. They didn't understand at all why I wanted to have VR off.
Maybe we should write a petition to Nikon? What makes the idea difficult to get support for is that some people think the whole idea of landscape photography with a long lens is doomed to failure. Personally I think telephoto landscape images are often very beautiful and moody, making me want to go out and experience those places whereas the super wide angle makes my legs and vestibular system feel a bit ill.
Luckily I've managed to find lenses up to 300mm that don't suffer from massive tripod collar design failure. I should probably knock on wood. But I would like a lens like the 200-500 for those distant landscape shots where there are layers of mist to create a sense of depth but sharp detail in the first layer. Also for large moons as part of a landscape, without having to purchase and carry around a 12k€ lens that may not have all that great a tripod collar either.
BTW EFCS can be very effective in killing most shutter vibration but it does nothing to reduce the effects of wind on sharpness, which can be severe in coastal open areas (even if there is not much perceptible wind). Also I don't think VR can predict and compensate for gusts of wind properly, it's a bit of a hit and miss affair.
