Wess

ILCA gives LPE the boot... seeking new Laser builder

Recommended Posts

If the "real Laser" doesn't charge for class fees then where will the money to run the class come from?

If LPE wants to improve the boat then why, according to ILCA committee members, have they been the ones trying to stop the carbon mast and other improvements?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Gouvernail said:

If LP decides to slightly improve the Laser and other builders have done in the past, the REAL Lasers could become a superior boat that still sails  about the same as the other boats in the local fleet.  

 

 

This scenario depends on Laser under-Performance delivering a reliable supply of better boats and better service at a better price than the competitor supplying the Gamma.  LuP's reputation for construction, service, value and reliable supply is not good (at least on these forums).  If the ILCA's actions force LuP to turn this around, then the sailors will be the winners.....but dont hold your breath.   

Does anyone know if it is true that LuP fired their employees at the Banbury factory when they shifted production to China under the One-Laser strategic plan ?....and then scrambled to hire them back when China didnt work out and they had to keep Banbury open?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, redstar said:

 

I'm sure Laser hulls turned out of a Chinese factory like Far East would sell like hotcakes if they were a couple of thousand dollars cheaper. Pretty much none of us sail Lasers well enough to take advantage of a tiny theoretical edge, not if they keep the measurement tolerances super tight. And with equipment being supplied at the big regattas there's no incentive for the richer countries to launch equipment development programs.

If we could get cheaper Lasers then that would be a good thing. However, it is also quite possible that someone will build allegedly faster and more expensive Lasers and use the same sort of tactics that Winner uses to make people think that you need the expensive boat to win. That will strike a blow to the heart of the class. And without a designated builder one wonders if equipment will still be supplied.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, redstar said:

 

They’re doing this for all of us.

I don't know about that and it kinda depends how you define "us."  Clearly some Laser sailors in the EU don't think  so. I gotta wonder and thats is coming from a guy who took tons of shi*t for defending ILCA in the prior litigation vs Kirby.

One thing that I think (?) is for sure is ILCA is on a path that fundamentally changes what the Laser class has always been.  Laser = SMOD.  But now ILCA says Laser = FRAND and for sure FRAND does NOT = SMOD. 

  * SMOD is dead; long live the FRAND?! 

  * All for the Olympics?!  I wonder if its worth it. 

To be clear I have always been in favor of moving away from SMOD to an open builder concept with the class holding a specification that anyone could build to (ie "generic" Lasers) in the hopes of lower priced boats.  Note please the open builder concept for generics is VERY different from FRAND.  However with regards open builders as @JimC rightly points out... it didn't work that way (cheaper boats) for Optis but I was hoping adults might make wiser decisions for themselves and their boats, compared to what they will do for their kids.

There is tons of speculation of what might happen now or why its happening but damn we are short on facts.  Neither LPE or ILCA is really talking. Not exactly a surprise given all the potential litigation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is FRAND only a concern because the class is trying to keep Olympic status?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Wess said:

with regards open builders as @JimC rightly points out... it didn't work that way (cheaper boats) for Optis but I was hoping adults might make wiser decisions for themselves and their boats, compared to what they will do for their kids.

Boats are a luxury item. So it's very rarely a rational value purchase. Everyone wants to treat themselves to a little piece of excellence. Within classes there is very little competition on price. As long as the class is doing well they can charge what they want and in many classes the marketing strategy would often be to be seen as 'reassuringly expensive'. 

Between classes there is competition on price. If someone can't afford the 'best in class' of one boat, then they might consider another class where they can. 

If someone is really buying on value then they buy second hand. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m just disappointed this is all happening when I’m just getting into the laser, I guess I should have fallen in love with a different single handed dinghy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Wess said:

I don't know about that and it kinda depends how you define "us."  Clearly some Laser sailors in the EU don't think  so. I gotta wonder and thats is coming from a guy who took tons of shi*t for defending ILCA in the prior litigation vs Kirby.

One thing that I think (?) is for sure is ILCA is on a path that fundamentally changes what the Laser class has always been.  Laser = SMOD.  But now ILCA says Laser = FRAND and for sure FRAND does NOT = SMOD. 

  * SMOD is dead; long live the FRAND?! 

  * All for the Olympics?!  I wonder if its worth it. 

To be clear I have always been in favor of moving away from SMOD to an open builder concept with the class holding a specification that anyone could build to (ie "generic" Lasers) in the hopes of lower priced boats.  Note please the open builder concept for generics is VERY different from FRAND.  However with regards open builders as @JimC rightly points out... it didn't work that way (cheaper boats) for Optis but I was hoping adults might make wiser decisions for themselves and their boats, compared to what they will do for their kids.

There is tons of speculation of what might happen now or why its happening but damn we are short on facts.  Neither LPE or ILCA is really talking. Not exactly a surprise given all the potential litigation. 

I don't know that it's ever been a SMOD, given there have been multiple builders. It's more a tightly controlled design, run by the class.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

I don't know that it's ever been a SMOD, given there have been multiple builders. It's more a tightly controlled design, run by the class.

 

In terms of any one given country or market, it is SMOD.  Maybe not completely SMOD because the class is a separate entity, but there is only a single company providing boats to a particular market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a good likelihood over the next few years that even non-Olympic classes will have to comply with FRAND (non-SMOD) principles to avoid EU anticompetition violations, but it will take a few years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, JimC said:

... needs to take a good hard look at their powers of observation!

Something of an oxymoron there!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, torrid said:

In terms of any one given country or market, it is SMOD.  Maybe not completely SMOD because the class is a separate entity, but there is only a single company providing boats to a particular market.

Maybe in one market, but isn't ILCA all about international competition?  Isn't that one of the beefs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

There's a good likelihood over the next few years that even non-Olympic classes will have to comply with FRAND (non-SMOD) principles to avoid EU anticompetition violations, but it will take a few years.

Developement classes will rule the world :D

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, 17mika said:

Developement classes will rule the world :D

LOL.  More (comedic) truth has never been spoken.  Great comment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Maybe in one market, but isn't ILCA all about international competition?  Isn't that one of the beefs?

Not really.  Folks generally don't travel out of a region with their boats. Go to a high level event down under and you are sailing PSA built boats (only). Go to Europe and its all LPE built boats (only).  There are rare and unique exceptions to this but assuming you are not trolling (NTTIAWWT)....  The builder don't (and can't by contract) compete and the sailing competition is essentially SMOD at all levels and not FRAND compliant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Wess said:

LOL.  More (comedic) truth has never been spoken.  Great comment.

Anyway, talking seriously,  there's a point that something will need to change. I still believe that a Multibuilder SMOD is still the best option for an Olympic class, as long as there is some builders competition. I am not sure this can be compliant to the FRAND rules (which I have never read). Once you start to go away from the "Single moulded" (or single plug) part of SMOD it all gets very complicated, to ensure a fair and easy to police competition in an Olympic class IMHO

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Wess said:

Not really.  Folks generally don't travel out of a region with their boats. Go to a high level event down under and you are sailing PSA built boats (only). Go to Europe and its all LPE built boats (only).  There are rare and unique exceptions to this but assuming you are not trolling (NTTIAWWT)....  The builder don't (and can't by contract) compete and the sailing competition is essentially SMOD at all levels and not FRAND compliant.

It may be 'essentially SMOD' under your definition, but the law doesn't care about your definition.  If there are multiple manufacturers of something, it's not SMOD.

In the FRAND era should we start using MMOD?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, 17mika said:

Multibuilder SMOD

 

:ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

:ph34r:

I am a son of Betwhaite's books, where the "m" in smod is for mould, not for manufacturer :D

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

It may be 'essentially SMOD' under your definition, but the law doesn't care about your definition.  If there are multiple manufacturers of something, it's not SMOD.

In the FRAND era should we start using MMOD?

 

 

But counselor, for purposes of the dispute that is before the court (or will be) this is one thing (so far) and maybe the only thing they are not arguing about (if its presently SMOD).  I know, I know... give it time and they will argue that too.  Between BK, LPE, PSA, WS, and ILCA I bet they couldn't all agree they all like money. Maybe they could all agree they like giving it to lawyers but I doubt they would even agree that.  The lawyers would though!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Wess said:

  That lawyers would though!!

even lawyers get bored of money when clients are annoying enough.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

even lawyers get bored of money when clients are annoying enough.  

Well you guys can fire a client.  Maybe sailors need to fire ALL these bozos.  If only it were so easy...

Oh well; makes for interesting forum threads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Gouvernail said:

Different thought process:

LP is a company that builds sailing toys. It just happens that a portion of their Laser market consists of people who hold sailboat races in those toys.

LP fully recognizes the fact lots of extra boats are sold because of the games and even the possibility the Laser manufacturing business wouldn’t be profitable without the racing customers.

the club formed for organization of the racing game has set up a whole lot of conditions where an accurate description is “We will exclusively use your toys if you will do this” 

Currently those who run the racing club   are interested in establishing more. companies  to build and sell them racing toys. 

LP certainly is not excited about having other companies building their toys in their already tiny market. 

Recently, the folks who run the racing club decided LP’s toys are no longer allowed to play in their games. 

The conversation might be something like this: 

“You didn’t let us look at your factory so we aren’t going to allow anybody who buys boats from you to play with us.”

LP: Really.

”And we are going to change our name and get new companies to build the toys.”

LP: Really

”and all your old toys are just fine but even though we haven’t even bothered to check to see if your new ones are exactly the same, people who bring them to our games won’t be allowed to play.”

LP: Really

”and if you want your toys to be allowed back in our games you have to apply for inclusion just like everybody else.”

LP: Really. We are going to continue building Lasers and we will continue selling them. If you don’t want the financial support that has supported your games we can’t  force you to take it. We believe our money for your official stickers and support for your events is a large part of what funded your organization and made your games possible. We think it is a bad decision but there isn’t much we can do about that. 

We will continue to build and market the toys over 200,000 sailors have enjoyed AND RACED over the last five decades. 

If you are ever interested in establishing a new relationship, we will at least read your proposal. 

******+End  possible scenario+******

So far LP really hasn’t had much to say. I am certain  story above is not an accurate prediction / rendition  but,  I bet a whole lot of it is reasonably accurate 

 

I have no special insight 

You know I never thought you would type anything like that.  And after I spent page after page defending ILCA and beating back all comers on the last thread and hoping for an open market (generic Laser manufacturer competitor to LPE), I never thought I would think anything like that... but yea. Multiple conversations, and various hints and breadcrumb droppings along the way suggest to me you might not be barking up the wrong tree.  Can't believe I am typing that or even considering that LPE may have a reasonable beef here.  Good God is the earth flat? Is white the new black?  Up the new down?  WTF???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Curious said:

If the "real Laser" doesn't charge for class fees then where will the money to run the class come from?

If LPE wants to improve the boat then why, according to ILCA committee members, have they been the ones trying to stop the carbon mast and other improvements?

I think it might have something to do with the development of their own carbon ARC rig.

https://vimeo.com/319054577

Laser Radial carbon rig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wess said:

Not really.  Folks generally don't travel out of a region with their boats. Go to a high level event down under and you are sailing PSA built boats (only). Go to Europe and its all LPE built boats (only).  There are rare and unique exceptions to this but assuming you are not trolling (NTTIAWWT)....  The builder don't (and can't by contract) compete and the sailing competition is essentially SMOD at all levels and not FRAND compliant.

Not trolling, so, it was a regional SMOD (in fact, if not name) and now will be a naming-change-only regional SMOD.

Then it will come down to 2-3-4 years from now, what boats qualify for the I*CA Worlds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Not trolling, so, it was a regional SMOD (in fact, if not name) and now will be a naming-change-only regional SMOD.

 

No; not if you take I*CA at their word in their FAQ and others statements (and I think its reasonable to).  Unless I am misunderstanding, under the FRAND agreements IL*A is claiming all approved builders will be entering into, there will be multiple builders building and competing WITHIN the same region.  Mind you I don't think it makes a hill of beans difference for sailors or even the manufacturers so long as they are fairly compensated for the (previously exclusive) rights that they had to surrender within their previously exclusively held territory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Wess said:

No; not if you take I*CA at their word in their FAQ and others statements (and I think its reasonable to).  Unless I am misunderstanding, under the FRAND agreements IL*A is claiming all approved builders will be entering into, there will be multiple builders building and competing WITHIN the same region.  Mind you I don't think it makes a hill of beans difference for sailors or even the manufacturers so long as they are fairly compensated for the (previously exclusive) rights that they had to surrender within their previously exclusively held territory.

ahh, I didn't catch that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Gouvernail said:

I didn’t say I am on anybody’s Side in this fight that should not be happening. 

I did not mean to imply support for what I think might be the LP position

my intentionnis to FIND UNDERSTANDING so we can work with the various parties and get each party back to doing what it should be doing:

LP ... build product and make money whennit sells

ILCA:.... organize championships, gather and disseminate information about where and when we can all go play 

Sailors... show up and play and socialize on shore

 

LP building product under the I*CA auspices is a horse that left the barn...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wess said:

Well you guys can fire a client.  Maybe sailors need to fire ALL these bozos.  If only it were so easy...

Oh well; makes for interesting forum threads.

lawyers rarely fire annoying clients who pay.  They just bill them like motherfuckers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

LP building product under the I*CA auspices is a horse that left the barn...

Well they could convince a judge to make the farmer put the horse back in its stall (I doubt it).  Or some or all folks could go play with the same horse called by the same name in a new field (Seems somewhat likely that some might).  Or... the Olympic Selection Committee or whatever they are called could pick Aeros and we could all go to the @tillermanhouse and dump our Lasers or Gammas or ILCA-Ss there in disgust, drink his beer, steal and sail his Aero and vote @Gouvernail Aero class president!  Then LPE, PSA, Kirby, and ILCA could all go F themselves while they go broke.  Of course we (now in the Aero class but free the Laser mess) would still have to deal with the schmucks at WS but that is why we make Gouv the Class Pres and not Tiller.  Gouv will scare em.  Or beat them up with Easter Bunnies!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And sorry; but for @tillerman and in honor of @Gantt and the blowtorch thread I had to do this...

I tried to resist but Cannt....

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gouvernail said:

LP: Really

I like this scenario because I think it opens a different angle of discussion that's relevant for the SMOD/MMOD debate.

We've granted the SMOD a monopoly. Why? What value do they bring to the table that's worth our social group so much that we'll prevent other builders - with potentially identical boats - from participating,

Usually, it's payback of risk and innovation . And an incentive to keep at it when the numbers are small.

Once the class takes off, and the innovation had been paid off, the monopoly turns against the social group. 

I'm sure there's an inflection point, classes bigger than X can support MMOD and past Y everyone benefits.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, martin.langhoff said:

I like this scenario because I think it opens a different angle of discussion that's relevant for the SMOD/MMOD debate.

We've granted the SMOD a monopoly. Why? What value do they bring to the table that's worth our social group so much that we'll prevent other builders - with potentially identical boats - from participating,

Usually, it's payback of risk and innovation . And an incentive to keep at it when the numbers are small.

Once the class takes off, and the innovation had been paid off, the monopoly turns against the social group. 

I'm sure there's an inflection point, classes bigger than X can support MMOD and past Y everyone benefits.

 

Who is this "we" of which you speak?  And speaks you of trademarks, or builder's contracts, or....?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Gouvernail said:

Anybody whose female sex partner has previously given birth is a motherfucker

Gouv....he was referring to lawyers.   As any decent zoologist will tell you; hammerhead sharks, blackfin sharks and lawyers can reproduce asexually but we are still motherfuckers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Wess said:

Who is this "we" of which you speak?  And speaks you of trademarks, or builder's contracts, or....?

As sailors who accept the SMOD class as a thing. Folks accept it, when they could think in Prism style and say - we'll accept non laser boats in our races if they're similar enough and evidence shows they perform similarly.

Some local clubs accept intensity parts. Why not laser-like hulls?

Of course there's institutions around it. But people agree with that dynamic. There's a benefit - you know it's a similar boat - but there's a price we all pay for it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Wess said:

Well they could convince a judge to make the farmer put the horse back in its stall (I doubt it).  Or some or all folks could go play with the same horse called by the same name in a new field (Seems somewhat likely that some might).  Or... the Olympic Selection Committee or whatever they are called could pick Aeros and we could all go to the @tillermanhouse and dump our Lasers or Gammas or ILCA-Ss there in disgust, drink his beer, steal and sail his Aero and vote @Gouvernail Aero class president!  Then LPE, PSA, Kirby, and ILCA could all go F themselves while they go broke.  Of course we (now in the Aero class but free the Laser mess) would still have to deal with the schmucks at WS but that is why we make Gouv the Class Pres and not Tiller.  Gouv will scare em.  Or beat them up with Easter Bunnies!

Did Wess start drinking early in the day? Its only Tuesday. He is going to be a mess by Friday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, IPLore said:

Did Wess start drinking early in the day? Its only Tuesday. He is going to be a mess by Friday.

crack is wack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, martin.langhoff said:

I like this scenario because I think it opens a different angle of discussion that's relevant for the SMOD/MMOD debate.

We've granted the SMOD a monopoly. Why? What value do they bring to the table that's worth our social group so much that we'll prevent other builders - with potentially identical boats - from participating,

Usually, it's payback of risk and innovation . And an incentive to keep at it when the numbers are small.

Once the class takes off, and the innovation had been paid off, the monopoly turns against the social group. 

I'm sure there's an inflection point, classes bigger than X can support MMOD and past Y everyone benefits.

 

SMOD vs MMOD:-

SMODs offer the following advantages that some classes appreciate:

1. Cost/price. The prices of OD boats from SMOD are generally cheaper.  That is because MMODs never successfully compete on price, customers will always pay up for quality or the slightest perceived performance advantage.  i470s, Finns, Stars etc etc....even Optimists, nobody likes to buy the boat that won't win and they quickly become expensive. 

2. Class support. SMODs invest in class promotion and growth because the return on investment comes back to the manufacturer in terms of increased sales. In MMOD, the builders have always been much less willing to spend on overall class promotion because why do they want to subsidize the other guy.  The MMODs are more often promoting their own brand vs the competitor. MMODs spend noticeably less on class promotion.

3. Supervising a strict OD process is much easier in a SMOD environment. If the same builder builds all the boats, they are much more likely to be the same. See #1 above.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, VWAP said:

crack is wack

It’s not still the 80s?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Wess said:

It’s not still the 80s?

Reading some of the comments here you would think it is

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Gouvernail said:

2. I actually have a pretty decent idea of what is fun and what makes a good race happen 

I'd like to hear more about how to run an event like the Laser Easter Regatta. I think it'd be a great time and would like to work to get something like that going.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

In 2014 LaserPerformance received complaints that PSA-built Laser boats sold to sailors and used at the 2014 Santander ISAF Sailing World Championships were built differently than the Laser Construction Manual (LCM) and thus sailed faster. LaserPerformance acquired PSA Laser boats, measured and weighed them and cut them open for inspection. The examination by LP revealed that PSA was knowingly building boats that did not conform to the Laser Construction Manual. This was reported to ILCA which sent their Technical Officer to inspect PSA boats. In a written report to ILCA, LaserPerformance found:

A PSA hull is lighter and can be purchased below minimum weight by specifying the weight/lowest weight possible they are seeking at the time of order. Weights of 56.2Kgs were reported by the sailors. 

B PSA advertised that hull mast rakes can be pre-ordered to sailor’s preference, with much more rake than LCM target. 

C PSA hull is stiffer in front section. 

D Upper mast is much heavier and stiffer that LPE supplied upper mast. 

 

 

ILCA’s Technical and Measurement Committee reviewed LaserPerformance findings and reported the following:

“The meeting reviewed CH spread sheet on LCM option differences adopted by the 3 builders, the results from sample plaques received from the builders and an LP teardown report comparing a PSA to an LP boat.

The major differences in construction were agreed as a. An extra layer of CSM in the bow area of the PSA boats, b. The use of foam blocks that are glued in with expanding foam on PSA boats (alternate to Cubitainers), c. Use of Plywood ilo grommets to fasten the grab rails. d. Some oversize CSM patches on PSA boats. “

ILCA did not admonish or decertify PSA for breaking the LCM Agreement. Instead, ILCA agreed that the other builders follow the PSA laminate schedule, thus making all previous Lasers technically obsolete. No notification of the breach in protocol was reported to ISAF/WS or the Laser community at large.

big if true

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i personally have heard there are subtle but substantial differences between UK hulls and Aus Hulls. iirc the UK hull is lighter by some percent and the Australian hull is stiffer. that doesn't exactly match with the letter of the claim, but it does match with the spirit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just heard news from our local kids sailing camp that ties into some of what Gouvernail mentioned abouts fleets generating sales of brand new boats. They are replacing a fleet of Sunfish that are actively raced and without any help from me, came up with the same boat I would have recommended. The RS Neo or one of the Neo variants with a jib. 

So it would seem that not only are our Laser master class buying RS Aeros, but it would seem RS has the attention of camp councilors and coaches as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, dgmckim said:

In 2014 LaserPerformance received complaints that PSA-built Laser boats sold to sailors and used at the 2014 Santander ISAF Sailing World Championships were built differently than the Laser Construction Manual (LCM) and thus sailed faster. LaserPerformance acquired PSA Laser boats, measured and weighed them and cut them open for inspection. The examination by LP revealed that PSA was knowingly building boats that did not conform to the Laser Construction Manual. This was reported to ILCA which sent their Technical Officer to inspect PSA boats. In a written report to ILCA, LaserPerformance found:

A PSA hull is lighter and can be purchased below minimum weight by specifying the weight/lowest weight possible they are seeking at the time of order. Weights of 56.2Kgs were reported by the sailors. 

B PSA advertised that hull mast rakes can be pre-ordered to sailor’s preference, with much more rake than LCM target. 

C PSA hull is stiffer in front section. 

D Upper mast is much heavier and stiffer that LPE supplied upper mast. 

 

 

ILCA’s Technical and Measurement Committee reviewed LaserPerformance findings and reported the following:

“The meeting reviewed CH spread sheet on LCM option differences adopted by the 3 builders, the results from sample plaques received from the builders and an LP teardown report comparing a PSA to an LP boat.

The major differences in construction were agreed as a. An extra layer of CSM in the bow area of the PSA boats, b. The use of foam blocks that are glued in with expanding foam on PSA boats (alternate to Cubitainers), c. Use of Plywood ilo grommets to fasten the grab rails. d. Some oversize CSM patches on PSA boats. “

ILCA did not admonish or decertify PSA for breaking the LCM Agreement. Instead, ILCA agreed that the other builders follow the PSA laminate schedule, thus making all previous Lasers technically obsolete. No notification of the breach in protocol was reported to ISAF/WS or the Laser community at large.

 

big if true

Everyone is equal, its just that some are more equal than others.........

Its certainly seems commonplace for Sydney based sailors to visit the PSA factory and choose a boat with a more suitable mast rake. Many at my club have  claimed to have done this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's a great opportunity to bring back the Weekender

Image result for laser weekender boat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Eddie_E said:

I just heard news from our local kids sailing camp that ties into some of what Gouvernail mentioned abouts fleets generating sales of brand new boats. They are replacing a fleet of Sunfish that are actively raced and without any help from me, came up with the same boat I would have recommended. The RS Neo or one of the Neo variants with a jib. 

So it would seem that not only are our Laser master class buying RS Aeros, but it would seem RS has the attention of camp councilors and coaches as well.

It''s no secret that RS Sailing dealers in North America have had considerable success in selling fleets of boats suitable for sail training to yacht clubs, community sailing centers, sailing camps etc. From what I have heard, the RS Quest and RS Zest have been two of the most successful  RS classes in this category.  

I, for one, welcome our new RS overlords.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Wess said:

Well they could convince a judge to make the farmer put the horse back in its stall (I doubt it).  Or some or all folks could go play with the same horse called by the same name in a new field (Seems somewhat likely that some might).  Or... the Olympic Selection Committee or whatever they are called could pick Aeros and we could all go to the @tillermanhouse and dump our Lasers or Gammas or ILCA-Ss there in disgust, drink his beer, steal and sail his Aero and vote @Gouvernail Aero class president!  Then LPE, PSA, Kirby, and ILCA could all go F themselves while they go broke.  Of course we (now in the Aero class but free the Laser mess) would still have to deal with the schmucks at WS but that is why we make Gouv the Class Pres and not Tiller.  Gouv will scare em.  Or beat them up with Easter Bunnies!

I think Gouvernail will make an excellent RS Aero Class President. He has my vote. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Flags said:

Everyone is equal, its just that some are more equal than others.........

Its certainly seems commonplace for Sydney based sailors to visit the PSA factory and choose a boat with a more suitable mast rake. Many at my club have  claimed to have done this.

Cheaters? Discuss.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, IPLore said:

Did Wess start drinking early in the day? Its only Tuesday. He is going to be a mess by Friday.

Hiccup...

32 minutes ago, Gouvernail said:

Wowza!!

LP is posting stuff. 

The first part has been quoted here already. Scroll down 

it is a long read but it is certainly juicy 

https://www.laserperformance.us/ilca-news?lang=en_US

Wow, that sobered me up quickly.  I am staying off the Blowtorch thread; too many helpings of crow I would have to eat for defending ILCA.  Is there a white knight anywhere in this saga?  Tiller is going to tell me its RS...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, tillerman said:

Cheaters.

If the boat is within production tolerances then is it cheating?  Serious question. Is there anything morally or "legally" wrong with looking through a range of available boats off the normal production run?  

Are you cheating if you measure the mast rake on a second-hand boat? Surely not. So should purchasers of almost-new boats have an advantage in this respect over purchasers of new craft?

I've had a new boat from the factory in question delivered, sight unseen, to the district titles venue on the morning of the regatta (which it went on to win). While their product is normally good, the gudgeons were wrongly spaced and the rudder clip did not retain the rudder. If I had known about such things, maybe I would have gone to the factory to check everything fitted in the new boat. Would it be wrong to have dropped a rudder box into the boats in stock to check they all fitted correctly? Surely purchasers are allowed to check for such things. If one can check for the rudder fitting correctly, why not rake?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Curious said:

If the boat is within production tolerances then is it cheating?  Serious question. Is there anything morally or "legally" wrong with looking through a range of available boats off the normal production run?  

Are you cheating if you measure the mast rake on a second-hand boat? Surely not. So should purchasers of almost-new boats have an advantage in this respect over purchasers of new craft?

I've had a new boat from the factory in question delivered, sight unseen, to the district titles venue on the morning of the regatta (which it went on to win). While their product is normally good, the gudgeons were wrongly spaced and the rudder clip did not retain the rudder. If I had known about such things, maybe I would have gone to the factory to check everything fitted in the new boat. Would it be wrong to have dropped a rudder box into the boats in stock to check they all fitted correctly? Surely purchasers are allowed to check for such things. If one can check for the rudder fitting correctly, why not rake?


This argument has a lot of merit. If you are only selecting a boat that you like the best from a bunch of them all built to the tolerances allowed in the LCM, I think most people would say it is not cheating - although perhaps not 100% in the spirit of the Laser Class Rules in which the first sentence is. "Object - The Laser is a strict one-design dinghy where the true test, when raced, is between helmspersons and not boats and equipment."

But what if the claim in the LP document is true? 

"PSA advertised that hull mast rakes can be pre-ordered to sailor’s preference, with much more rake than LCM target."

Isn't the sailor then conspiring with PSA to build a cheater boat?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Curious said:

If the boat is within production tolerances then is it cheating?  Serious question. Is there anything morally or "legally" wrong with looking through a range of available boats off the normal production run?  

Are you cheating if you measure the mast rake on a second-hand boat? Surely not. So should purchasers of almost-new boats have an advantage in this respect over purchasers of new craft?

I've had a new boat from the factory in question delivered, sight unseen, to the district titles venue on the morning of the regatta (which it went on to win). While their product is normally good, the gudgeons were wrongly spaced and the rudder clip did not retain the rudder. If I had known about such things, maybe I would have gone to the factory to check everything fitted in the new boat. Would it be wrong to have dropped a rudder box into the boats in stock to check they all fitted correctly? Surely purchasers are allowed to check for such things. If one can check for the rudder fitting correctly, why not rake?

the question is whether the boats produced were in accordance to the Laser Construction Manual. LP argues that they were axed for not letting ILCA in for inspection, because ILCA couldn't verify they were legal boats, while PSA was making boats that weren't legal to begin with, specifically noting that the mast rakes and hull weights PSA was offering were outside of acceptable tolerances.

LP is arguing, if PSA was violating the LCM agreement, why weren't they terminated as well?

56 minutes ago, Flags said:

ILCA’s Technical and Measurement Committee reviewed LaserPerformance findings and reported the following:

“The meeting reviewed CH spread sheet on LCM option differences adopted by the 3 builders, the results from sample plaques received from the builders and an LP teardown report comparing a PSA to an LP boat.

The major differences in construction were agreed as a. An extra layer of CSM in the bow area of the PSA boats, b. The use of foam blocks that are glued in with expanding foam on PSA boats (alternate to Cubitainers), c. Use of Plywood ilo grommets to fasten the grab rails. d. Some oversize CSM patches on PSA boats. “

ILCA did not admonish or decertify PSA for breaking the LCM Agreement. Instead, ILCA agreed that the other builders follow the PSA laminate schedule, thus making all previous Lasers technically obsolete. No notification of the breach in protocol was reported to ISAF/WS or the Laser community at large.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't the mast thickness (referred to at point "D" in the LPE statement) simply related to the age and usage of the particular die in question? Variation would therefore occur between builders regularly, as the dies age.

I've got four LPA bottom sections and the most recent is thicker. I have also borrowed a spar from the person who was then ILCA technical director and it appeared to be no different to a normal spar. Natural variation in thickness due to die ageing would seem to be the logical reason.

As far as the other claims - where are the alleged advertisements allowing sailors to check their rake, or select their hull? I was discussing boat purchase a fortnight ago with a multiple Olympian, who specifically mentioned weight but did not mention a 56kg hull. Incidentally, the top boat in that sailor's division nationally is not a PSA hull and when I raced it in severe short chop it seemed no faster than my old PSA boat.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think LP should send me a hull so I can see if it's any better or worse than the one i've got. i think it's the right thing to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this is what LPE is able to post now the court filings are going to be really interesting!  Wess

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From the LPE site....

 

Julian Bethwaite Spills the Beans on ILCA/PSA/JSA

Project to Replace Laser Radial & 4.7

LAST UPDATED

9 April 2019

On March 6, 2017 the following was posted by Australia-based boat designer Julian Bethwaite available here http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?/topic/206410-laser-c5-rig/

“It’s been about 4 months since Eric Faust (Exc Sec of ILCA) showed the C5 video at Sarasota, which was then shown on Sailing Anarchy, Scuttlebutt and other social media platforms and someone suggested that I should not add facts to spoil a good conspiracy theory. It’s time to just set the record straight so the conversation can be re-centered. C-Rigs, as they have become known, spun out of a far more comprehensive rig development project that Up Marine started in 2012. In chronological order:- Up Marine decided to use the Laser because of its superior numbers and simplicity. Chris Caldecott (GM, PSA) found out about the project, mid 2014 and asked if we could ‘screw’ the development to generate a new carbon rig for the Laser. MoU’s were generated and we altered focus a little.

At the 2014 ILCA conference, I am told, Chris showed photos and reported on the development. 2015 a Worldwide Patent was applied for (by Up Marine) and has been subsequently granted. 2015 ILCA conference (Oct), what is now referred to as the C8 rig, was reported in glowing terms and I am told that focus changed from the C8 prospect to the C5 and the plight of Asians given that the 4.7 rig which is hugely successful in Europe, has failed to gain traction elsewhere to any reasonable level. Hugh Leicester (VP ILCA), Chris Caldecott and I met on the sidelines of the Sail Sydney regatta and Hugh saw the rig first hand.

There is correspondence between ILCA and PSA re the rigs, expressing “excitement”. Just a side note, at this point the C-rig project had chewed through 28 masts, and 4 sails! It had been sailed by the likes of Tom Burton, Gerard West, Brett Perry and possibly 10 other biggish sailors. What has become known as the Flame Rig photo, the boat is being sailed by Chris Caldecott and the photo was taken by myself, in Chowder Bay Sydney 17th Dec 2015. In February 2016, Prof Tracy Usher (Pres of ILCA) traveled from San Francisco to Sydney for the day to sail the C8. Subsequent meeting at the Royal Sheaf Hotel with Tracy, Hugh, Chris and myself started to map out a process but at this stage, the Asian issue and the lack of traction of the 4.7 started to come to the fore.

Mid 2016, lead builder started to move from PSA to PSJ, mostly due to the physical stature of the principals. Chris is 95kgs and a big man, whereas Takao Otani San (Owner, MD PSJ) is significantly lighter.

Plus, Takao and I had met in Montreal in 1978 under the watchful eye of the late great Ian Bruce and had become life long friends. Takao was pivotal in the 49er and 29er programs being a founding partner. The 29er just would not have happened without Takao, so there was considerable history between the 2 of us.

By late 2016 a complete re-thinking of the smaller stature rig had started and we trialled various breakthroughs, the biggest one was the spliced mast which allowed us to get the Centre of Effort in the right place WRT the CLR which in turn leads to weather helm (or in this case lack of it) without ridiculous mast bend, which leads to longevity and ease of pulling the mainsail up. By Early 2017, what is now known as the C5 was being sailed out of RSYS, by their junior program and a rolling development program had been put in place in which the rig and the fitting development evolved at a rapid rate. Nothing quite like arm’s length testing.

There were various meetings between Tracy, Eric, the late Jeff Martin, Takao and myself, mostly at WS conferences.

Early 2018 Takao visited Sydney and sailed the new C5 rig and was very impressed, it was a day of a lot of wind. (Takao had not seen the C8 so I sailed it) and videos were made, these videos were sent back to Tracy and ILCA and a decision was taken that ILCA should generate (and pay for) a video before the next WS Conference, which was May 2018.

The weather did not co-operate so there were a few attempts but we did get the video to London in May, but it was not shown. I was overseas at the time, this job fell to my son, Harry. March 2018, Up Marine and PSJ entered into a formal contractual arrangement WRT the C-Rigs. Mid 2018 both Tracy and Eric travelled to Sydney to, among other things, see the C5 which again happened at RSYS and the “talking head clips” that you see in the video were done then. Also mid 2018 the project spun off the 29erC rig that is now being used in China extensively! One of the C5 rigs was flown to Japan for Takao to test in the local market. That lead to some subtle but significant modifications.

There was a meeting on the sidelines of Sarasota WS Conference between Takao, Tracy, Chris, Jeff, Eric and myself re the introduction of the C5. By late 2018 ILCA/ALCA had decided that the C5 should be released into a nationwide (Australia) trial.

Ken Hurling (Pres ALCA & VP ILCA) who was already aware of the project embraced this opportunity with both hands, and the minutes of those meetings are in the public space, so I won’t repeat them.

The last 4 months has been chaotic. We took the decision, that if you are going to have a family of rigs, then you have to actually make them otherwise you have no idea of what pit-falls await you, so we did just that, C8 was relatively easy until we made the decision that all rigs should be of such a length they can be “checked in” as over size luggage on most commercial flights. C5 & C6 are relatively easy. C8 is more complicated.

Clive Watts (owner of CST) developed a new technique to “kink” the mandrel in the winding process, so it comes off the machine finished. The rig then went to Davenport, Tasmania (with Sarah Kenny, Chair WS Events) to be sailed by as many kids as wanted to, it was flown back, and along with the C6 underwent 5 days of intensive testing and refinement by Takao and myself including Ian MacDiarmid tweaking the sails daily, fitting changes, re-running systems. This all happened Dec 2018.

ILCA wanted the C5 rig with a full specification “suitable for the LCM” so they engaged Clive Humphries (tech officer, ILCA) to generate the whole spec. Clive travelled to China with Ian to oversee the whole sail making process, he also liaised with Clive Watts about the mast making process and he spoke with me and has a full set of drawings/3d files.

Feb 2018 some parts of the project have been spun off to be used on the 49er- FX rigs post Tokyo! 2 days ago, we (Chris, Ian, Clive Watts and I) put every rig in a Laser and checked the whole process and those 3 rigs, C5, C6 and C8 are on their way to Valencia.

The plan is to produce 100 C5 rigs for Australia over the next 4 months and scatter them across the country with a few leaking into Asia and no doubt to other parts to test the whole process that we have gone through to ensure it is fit for market.

Again, ALCA position, how they plan to do that along with PSA, is in the public domain. Arms-length testing is critical, we have learnt that time and time again, nothing beats it. From my POV, the C5 is near perfect in terms of a final product.

The C6, yes, I have sailed it, and I have watched Takao sail it, but I have not seen a young 60kg girl/boy sail it. It has been sailed extensively with glowing reports, but I can’t sign it off unless I see it with my own eyes. That will happen mid this year maybe, and there will be maybe 5 rigs made. The C8, in a previous incarnation, I have sailed many times, in everything from 5 – 30 knots, I have tried to break it, I have also capsized it and it’s a lot of fun. We are not done on the “checked luggage” solution yet, but the rig looks good. Chris has sailed it and believes it’s “fit for purpose!”. Again, that will all happen later this year maybe, and there will be maybe 5 rigs made for test. The feedback from Ken, the analysis of the feedback coming from SM, particularly the interest coming from Asia, in particular for the C5 concept would tell me that Tracy and the ILCA/ALCA have hit the nail right on the head. This has been a clever, think outside the box, structured plan.

This will always be a situation in flux, and change is always painful, but if done well, it always leads to significant up-side, and if you need any examples of that, the Radial rig is a case in point as is the Carbon rig on the 49er/FX - both have lead to significant growth in the classes and in the case of the 49er/FX massive reductions in running cost.It will be a busy year.

Julian

It is worth noting that EurILCA, (where over 70% of Laser Class members reside), other ILCA members and LaserPerformance, were not involved in the development of this product. ILCA management was involved from the start in a substantive and technical manner, yet they misrepresented their involvement at ILCA meetings and insisted that PSA/PSJ present this as a project outside of ILCA. In fact, from the beginning, this was a critical product development initiative of ILCA management itself. Where was ILCA management’s mandate to develop and test this product? No wonder EurILCA has requested transparency and for ILCA to bring the project up for a vote at ILCA’s World Council.



LASERPERFORMANCE
9 April 2019

ILCA Turns Blind Eye While PSA Builds Illegal Laser Boats

LAST UPDATED

9 April 2019

In 2014 LaserPerformance received complaints that PSA-built Laser boats sold to sailors and used at the 2014 Santander ISAF Sailing World Championships were built differently than the Laser Construction Manual (LCM) and thus sailed faster. LaserPerformance acquired PSA Laser boats, measured and weighed them and cut them open for inspection. The examination by LP revealed that PSA was knowingly building boats that did not conform to the Laser Construction Manual. This was reported to ILCA which sent their Technical Officer to inspect PSA boats. In a written report to ILCA, LaserPerformance found:

A PSA hull is lighter and can be purchased below minimum weight by specifying the weight/lowest weight possible they are seeking at the time of order. Weights of 56.2Kgs were reported by the sailors.

B PSA advertised that hull mast rakes can be pre-ordered to sailor’s preference, with much more rake than LCM target.

C PSA hull is stiffer in front section.

D Upper mast is much heavier and stiffer that LPE supplied upper mast.

 

ILCA’s Technical and Measurement Committee reviewed LaserPerformance findings and reported the following:

“The meeting reviewed CH spread sheet on LCM option differences adopted by the 3 builders, the results from sample plaques received from the builders and an LP teardown report comparing a PSA to an LP boat.

The major differences in construction were agreed as a. An extra layer of CSM in the bow area of the PSA boats, b. The use of foam blocks that are glued in with expanding foam on PSA boats (alternate to Cubitainers), c. Use of Plywood ilo grommets to fasten the grab rails. d. Some oversize CSM patches on PSA boats. “

ILCA did not admonish or decertify PSA for breaking the LCM Agreement. Instead, ILCA agreed that the other builders follow the PSA laminate schedule, thus making all previous Lasers technically obsolete. No notification of the breach in protocol was reported to ISAF/WS or the Laser community at large.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, tillerman said:



"PSA advertised that hull mast rakes can be pre-ordered to sailor’s preference, with much more rake than LCM target."

Isn't the sailor then conspiring with PSA to build a cheater boat?

Doesn't it depend on the definition of "target". If the "target" is in (say) the middle of the tolerances and the sailor's preference is to one side of that but still within the tolerances, it may not be cheating but would still arguably be pushing the spirit of the class.

I do note that while you hear boatyard tales about the special way Olympic team kit is selected, when I've asked and watched the sailors themselves their attitude has been that the gear doesn't really matter, since doing a less than perfect roll tack will slow you down more than tolerances in gear and at the Games you have to adapt yourself to the kit you get.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not aware of anyone visiting the factory to select a boat with suitable rake in the last decade or so, but it is a fair drive to Sydney for the folks in my sailing circles.  Still, if you're dropping $13K AUD on a new setup then it would be nice to get hull with a rake that works best for your weight/preferred rig.  

The top section differences are well known and change from batch to batch.  Parent's of "elite" 4.7 sailors have been known to go through measuring the weight of the sections to get one that will work best with the compromise that is the 4.7 rig.

An article from Chris about rakes from quite a few years ago can he found here which mentions target rakes: https://www.lasersailing.com.au/laser-mast-rake-explained/

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

<deleted>

Edited by bacq2bacq
Someone already posted the link...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm getting the impression that everyone involved has dirty laundry they don't wish to air in public.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JMP said:

I'm not aware of anyone visiting the factory to select a boat with suitable rake in the last decade or so, but it is a fair drive to Sydney for the folks in my sailing circles.  Still, if you're dropping $13K AUD on a new setup then it would be nice to get hull with a rake that works best for your weight/preferred rig.  

The top section differences are well known and change from batch to batch.  Parent's of "elite" 4.7 sailors have been known to go through measuring the weight of the sections to get one that will work best with the compromise that is the 4.7 rig.

An article from Chris about rakes from quite a few years ago can he found here which mentions target rakes: https://www.lasersailing.com.au/laser-mast-rake-explained/

Last time I bought a new PSA boat I definitely checked the rake and weight before handing over any dollars. You'd be silly not to if you get the chance, you don't want to end up with a dud. This wasn't at the factory though, just at the local dealer, but he had chosen the boats he took from the factory.

It was after Chris posted the article linked above - there was virtually no variation in rake in the half dozen boats I checked, all were within a couple of mm of the target he mentions. Same with weight, the range was within a kg. That hasn't always been the case though.

The last line of Chris' article is interesting - remember this is from 2016. Hints at a different perspective to the LP post.

*There is a new Hull Laminate in all new Lasers, LP started this a little before PSA, we started it in Jan of this year. Hulls are a lot stiffer and the lumps and bumps gone.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Flags said:

Everyone is equal, its just that some are more equal than others.........

Its certainly seems commonplace for Sydney based sailors to visit the PSA factory and choose a boat with a more suitable mast rake. Many at my club have  claimed to have done this.

I have heard stories about this happening in the UK as well, some guys spending days weighing and measuring hulls, and it's not a recent thing been going on for years that I know of (earliest I know of was mid 90's)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Gouvernail said:

if this mast step claim is accurate, it is Interesting that a builder is producing variable results on mast rake.

sometime during the Sunfish Laser years that was solved in North America. Measurements were accomplished  with the end of a tape measure hooked over the aft top of a stub mast: the reading was where the tape measure was tangent to the top of the transom. 

We had  been seeing variation from 147 to 153 inches.

i have forgotten what the new number is, but every single North American boat I measured which was produced after the mid 1990s was the same.

what do I mean by the same?? The tape measure  system described above was no longer accurate enough to measure a difference. 

There is simply no excuse for having sufficient building sloppiness  to be able to  easily find differences. 

If we want  one design boats the various builders need to work together with the measurers to accomplish that goal. 

Honest question: why would there be much of any variance in the mast step at all? Shouldn't they all be the same coming out of the mold?   I can't imagine that the tube is getting much deflection when it's gooped into the ring on the bottom of the hull.  

I suppose there could be variation among molds. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

49 minutes ago, redstar said:

Last time I bought a new PSA boat I definitely checked the rake and weight before handing over any dollars. You'd be silly not to if you get the chance, you don't want to end up with a dud. This wasn't at the factory though, just at the local dealer, but he had chosen the boats he took from the factory.

It was after Chris posted the article linked above - there was virtually no variation in rake in the half dozen boats I checked, all were within a couple of mm of the target he mentions. Same with weight, the range was within a kg. That hasn't always been the case though.

The last line of Chris' article is interesting - remember this is from 2016. Hints at a different perspective to the LP post.

*There is a new Hull Laminate in all new Lasers, LP started this a little before PSA, we started it in Jan of this year. Hulls are a lot stiffer and the lumps and bumps gone.

Good post. That info about new hull laminate does appear to be possibly very significant.

Funny how we are being told that (a) Australian boats are sloppily built (2) Australian boats are faster!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Curious said:

Isn't the mast thickness (referred to at point "D" in the LPE statement) simply related to the age and usage of the particular die in question? Variation would therefore occur between builders regularly, as the dies age.

I've got four LPA bottom sections and the most recent is thicker. I have also borrowed a spar from the person who was then ILCA technical director and it appeared to be no different to a normal spar. Natural variation in thickness due to die ageing would seem to be the logical reason.

As far as the other claims - where are the alleged advertisements allowing sailors to check their rake, or select their hull? I was discussing boat purchase a fortnight ago with a multiple Olympian, who specifically mentioned weight but did not mention a 56kg hull. Incidentally, the top boat in that sailor's division nationally is not a PSA hull and when I raced it in severe short chop it seemed no faster than my old PSA boat.

I remember people scrambling over Aussie built mast sections that made it to the UK due to this, it's just down to the age of the dies, back when I was in Lasers you could easily tell them apart due to them having white sleeves instead of the European black ones, then there were those how covertly changed them to black to not let people know what they were using.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Curious said:

 

Good post. That info about new hull laminate does appear to be possibly very significant.

Funny how we are being told that (a) Australian boats are sloppily built (2) Australian boats are faster!

I don’t think LP’s post indicated it was sloppy building, more that PSA was deliberately building boats that were outside of the tolerances of the LCM to make them faster than boats that strictly followed the LCM to provide a competitive advantage to their sailors. The rake was different because people could specify what they wanted it to be. Same with weight. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, dgmckim said:

I don’t think LP’s post indicated it was sloppy building, more that PSA was deliberately building boats that were outside of the tolerances of the LCM to make them faster than boats that strictly followed the LCM to provide a competitive advantage to their sailors. The rake was different because people could specify what they wanted it to be. Same with weight. 

No, Gouv was alleging sloppy building in post 302.

As far as LPE's claims - I'll believe them when I see proof. At the moment I find them to be very dubious, since for example they refer to advertisements by PSA. Where are these advertisements? By their nature, they should be easy for LPE to provide, or at least identify. The fact that they have not done so means that the claims can currently be discounted. We also know that it's been accepted that there are variations in mast stiffness for eons and that there is no reason to believe such variations are suspicious or that any variation is caused by PSA and not LPE issues. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Curious said:

No, Gouv was alleging sloppy building in post 302.

As far as LPE's claims - I'll believe them when I see proof. At the moment I find them to be very dubious, since for example they refer to advertisements by PSA. Where are these advertisements? By their nature, they should be easy for LPE to provide, or at least identify. The fact that they have not done so means that the claims can currently be discounted. We also know that it's been accepted that there are variations in mast stiffness for eons and that there is no reason to believe such variations are suspicious or that any variation is caused by PSA and not LPE issues. 

oh. my apologies for assuming. i don't know what to think of all of this. i think it's all more complex and multifaceted than what we generally see. lotta stuff we just don't know about the situation

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Curious said:

No, Gouv was alleging sloppy building in post 302.

 

I did not mean  to give the impression I was alleging anything. 

LP published a  claim.

posters in this thread wrote similar allegations

 I wrote that I didn’t think there is any excuse for measurable variation. There is a target. Vanguard’s boats were each so similar I gave up checking.  I thought the issue of variable rake was settled last century.

If the issue has resurfaced, I will happily be quoted as calling variable mast step rake  sloppy assed building. 

I have NEVER measured the mast rake on ANY Aussie boat

I may have measured the rake   on two 1992 New Zealand world’s boats.

i don’t know if I still have my list from when i Measured all the boats at Austin  Yacht Club. 

 

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, dgmckim said:

oh. my apologies for assuming. i don't know what to think of all of this. i think it's all more complex and multifaceted than what we generally see. lotta stuff we just don't know about the situation

Like someone said earlier, there is likely a large amount of finance (loan) sitting behind all this somewhere.

On the issue of folk visiting the factory, it is one of those things that undermines your business model in the end. If you supply to a grey market of favored sailors, coaches etc, rather than directing people through retailers, eventually your retailers just become disgruntled, and move on to more professional suppliers.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Gouvernail said:

Wowza!!

LP is posting stuff. 

The first part has been quoted here already. Scroll down 

it is a long read but it is certainly juicy 

https://www.laserperformance.us/ilca-news?lang=en_US

Wow!

11 hours ago, JMP said:

Interesting but I can't see the pictures...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, lemonpepper said:

How to undermine your own business model: Have your license for your main product revoked for breach of a contract and then admit in a public written statement that you actually did breach that contract because you were mad about something else completely.  That will do it. 

And then continue on in that vein by responding to the crisis by posting a rambling post from the SA Forums (without copyright permission or proofreading) and then a rambling, Engrish-ish piece of rake whataboutism.  How can anyone take LPE for a professional company when they literally can't write a remotely professional piece of communication?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

without copyright permission

Say what now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Wess said:

Say what now?

You didn't read the SA TOS boilerplate?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Dex Sawash said:

You didn't read the SA TOS boilerplate?

Hell no.

Nobody reads that kinda shit today.  Or contracts.  Or Bylaws.  That's all so yesterday.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Wess said:

Hell no.

Nobody reads that kinda shit today.  Or contracts.  Or Bylaws.  That's all so yesterday.

lawyers do.

3. Ownership. All content included on this site is and shall continue to be the property of SAILING ANARCHY, INC. or its content suppliers and is protected under applicable copyright, patent, trademark, and other proprietary rights. Any copying, redistribution, use or publication by you of any such content or any part of the Site is prohibited, except as expressly permitted in this Agreement. Under no circumstances will you acquire any ownership rights or other interest in any content by or through your use of this site.

6. Site Use. SAILING ANARCHY, INC. grants you a limited, revocable, nonexclusive license to use this site solely for your own personal use and not for republication, distribution, assignment, sublicense, sale, preparation of derivative works, or other use. You agree not to copy materials on the site, reverse engineer or break into the site, or use materials, products or services in violation of any law. The use of this website is at the discretion of SAILING ANARCHY, INC. and SAILING ANARCHY, INC. may terminate your use of this website at any time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Laser performance is the comcast of boat building (way less profitable though).  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Weird,  I just sent LPE an email and got this back.  Who wants to read the email?