Repeating the same baseless assertion doesn't make it any less baseless. You have no evidence for your claim that it is cracked. And therefore every subsequent assertion you make ("cone design... is not rigid enough") is also without a shred of evidence. Not to mention, if the cone
were cracked - which it is not - it wouldn't be because it lacked rigidity. It would be because it lacked flexibility.
Since we can safely ignore your assertions unless or until you provide some evidence, here's another couple of illustrative photos. This is an old terry cloth towel.
First, folding it around a tight radius so the pattern of the surface fibers is not parallel to the width of the fold:
View attachment 309183
This is a very soft and highly textured material so of course the surface looks different at the top of the photo than on the flat area at the bottom. But the surface is even with nothing that looks like a "crack" or irregular gap.
Now the same towel, same tight radius at the top, but with the pattern of the surface fibers nearly parallel to the width of the fold:
View attachment 309184
Huge visual gaps open up along the apex of the radius.
Unfortunately I don't have an item in the house easily at-hand that has a circular or elliptical grain/fiber pattern, but this clearly shows that the angle at which the fiber pattern intersects with the radius changes the appearance of the surface. And as noted before, there's no evidence that this surface appearance correlates with any structural problem with the material.