Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, tillerman said:

ILCA is a trademark.
Laser is a trademark.

These two trademarks are used by different sellers to identify their boats as being distinct from those of other sellers.

An ILCA is not a Laser.
A Laser is not an ILCA.

 

And, if I'm not mistaken:

FRAND applies to ILCA

FRAND does not apply to Laser

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 11.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Wess

    1744

  • tillerman

    1278

  • Bill5

    1138

  • RobbieB

    892

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

There is no simple way to describe the procedure for complying with World Sailing’s Equipment Policy. However, there is enough misinformation flying about on various forums and social media that some

Hi Torrid, yes, it's 50year old legacy fiberglass, but there are a multitude of nuances, that Turner has alluded to in his video, that we have heard from just about everyone one of the new builders an

hell, I'd build em

Posted Images

11 minutes ago, Bruce Hudson said:

 

Tillerman, you are deliberately trying to misinform. It appears to serve your purpose by attempting to sow discord here.

I was merely trying to clarify why organizations use brands and trademarks.

I think there's already plenty of discord here, much of it stimulated by you @Bruce Hudson. Keep up the good work.

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ojfd said:

Amd it looks to me that:

FRAND applies to ILCA

FRAND does not apply to Laser

FRAND applies to the Laser class, and all Olympic classes, regardless of what branding they have.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, tillerman said:

I was merely trying to clarify why organizations use brands and trademarks.

I think there's already plenty of discord here already, much of it stimulated by you @Bruce Hudson.
 

Then you failed to clarify why organizations use brands and trademarks. In fact you did not even attempt to explain that point.

You say you care about the Laser class, but then say stuff like above. By now you must realize that I'm not going away, and that I have no problem calling BS where I see it.

I hope I am creating discord among those who seek to misinform, like you have above. You have a good command of the English language, and it is inconceivable that what you are doing is not deliberate.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, ojfd said:

Amd, if I'm not mistaken:

FRAND applies to ILCA

FRAND does not apply to Laser

I think FRAND applies to all boats being manufactured for Olympic Classes.

The class currently chosen for the Men's and Women's One Person Dinghy events is administered by ILCA. ILCA's current rules do not constrict what brands may be used. FRAND would apply to all ILCA approved boats whatever brand they are. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bill4 said:

the more-dreaded loop over the boom...

 

LOL, that does suck worse than ILCA!  Fortunately very rare but what a cluster when it happens.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bruce Hudson said:

You say you care about the Laser class, but then say stuff like above.

I do care about the Laser Class and the International Laser Class Association.

I have at different times been a member of each of them.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

@Bruce Hudson I think you should set up your own thread to post all your (too) frequent, verbose and generally painful to read missives. Maybe just post “see my personal thread for comment” and those interested can click over.
 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, tillerman said:

I do care about the Laser Class and the International Laser Class Association.

I have at different times been a member of each of them.

Exactly my point.

Reminder, this is what Tillerman is supporting, assuming he is still a member of TLC:

THE LASER CLASS - EC 588 - Proposal.pdf

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, tillerman said:

I think FRAND applies to all boats being manufactured for Olympic Classes.

The class currently chosen for the Men's and Women's One Person Dinghy events is administered by ILCA. ILCA's current rules do not constrict what brands may be used. FRAND would apply to all ILCA approved boats whatever brand they are. 

What I was hinting at, tillerman, is that neither PSA nor any other of "selected" builders will be allowed to sell Laser branded boats to grass roots sailors in LPE territories based on FRAND, only Olympic equipment (at elevated prices).

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

What I was hinting at, tillerman, is that neither PSA nor any other of "selected" builders will be allowed to sell Laser branded boats to grass roots sailors in LPE territories based on FRAND, only Olympic equipment (at elevated prices).

As I understand it, FRAND mandates that any builder can seek to be approved by ILCA to build and sell boats that comply with ILCA rules in any country at whatever price they wish. Of course they won't be able to brand their boats as Lasers unless they have a license from the trademark owner for those countries.

On the other hand LaserPerformance can build and sell Lasers in all territories where they own the rights to the Laser trademarks and can also choose to sell them at whatever price they wish. Currently it does indeed seem that Lasers are cheaper than the currently available ILCA-approved "other brand" boats, but I am not sure if this will be a permanent feature of the market.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there anything to stop LPE from slapping the "Laser" brand name on a boat that is not ILCA compliant?  I don't mean the Laser Bahia, Laser 2000, or the like, but trying to imply it is the same as the well known Kirby-designed boat but in reality isn't.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, torrid said:

Is there anything to stop LPE from slapping the "Laser" brand name on a boat that is not ILCA compliant?  I don't mean the Laser Bahia, Laser 2000, or the like, but trying to imply it is the same as the well known Kirby-designed boat but in reality isn't.

No.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Bruce Hudson said:

There is only currently one Laser class, in spite of a whole lot of talk. There are several examples over the years of Lasers being raced without the Laser logo.

Its still the Laser class. Don't believe the spin about the branding being equivalent to the boat - its not - and it never was.

---

Gybing. Not sure about the video you are referring to but here's my take.

If the mainsheet hits the water immediately prior to gybing, there is a good chance it will get caught around the back corner of the boat. Pull the main in about 6 ft before attempting to gybe. When the main looks like it is about to gybe, yank in the mainsheet by grabbing near the block, and then extending your hand with the mainsheet over your head as the boom starts swinging - it takes up the slack rope. At the same time, roll the boat more to windward, the upward motion keeps the mainsheet (and the boom) clear of the water. As the boom swings across, you should land on the opposite side of the boat, so again the boat is heeling to windward.

If the mainsheet does get hooked around the stern. Complete the gybe then take care of it by either reaching back or using the tiller extension to clear it. Make sure you keep the boat true to your course and if done quickly you won't lose much speed.

Practice, practice practice. Until you are satisfied with your own level of mastery, after every race, do an additional 20 or so gybes. Take a note of what you did that succeeded, and try and repeat it. It took me about 5000 gybes to be satisfied with my own level - a couple of years. Also, occasionally, top sailors get their mainsheet caught - so don't be so hard on yourself when it happens.

---

I have a sneaky suspicion that you may be talking about something else, that the main is getting stuck on the traveller. Are your blocks getting twisted? For the old style ones most I know wrap tape around the traveller blocks as they jam without it. The measurers seem to approve the tape. The newer Harken ones don't seem to have the same issue. 

I did mean the hook under the transom. I can sort usually,  but in heavy winds often quite stressful (gybing is bad enough then without the feared transom hook up)!

Shirley Robertson filmed a video of the solution.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, sosoomii said:

That is simply not true. 

Excellent. Dissent. So now we can work it out. So some fact checking.

Exactly what kind of entity is TLC?

Has it been formally formed yet?

If it hasn't been formed then can you really be a member?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Bruce Hudson said:

Excellent. Dissent. So now we can work it out. So some fact checking.

Exactly what kind of entity is TLC?

Has it been formally formed yet?

If it hasn't been formed then can you really be a member?

Of course it has been “formed” and you can be a member if you so wish.  @tillerman already is, I believe.  I’m not sure what you mean by “formally formed”,  but it is quite legitimate for it to be an unincorporated association.

Just because you don’t want to recognise it, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.  

You bang on and on about wanting to call out misinformation but you are probably the main proponent of it.  Even your post above claiming Tillerman is supporting a boat that is nothing at all to do with this discussion is deliberately misleading.

I would really like to be civil with you because I know that at heart we all decent people and have much more in common than our differences.  

Anyhow I thought we were going to get regular updates from ILCA.  They gave one update and then back to radio silence.  Hopefully they’ll share some good news soon.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, sosoomii said:

 

You bang on and on about wanting to call out misinformation but you are probably the main proponent of it.  Even your post above claiming Tillerman is supporting a boat that is nothing at all to do with this discussion is deliberately misleading.

 

Poor Bruce. He does indeed publish a huge amount of misinformation but he is not responsible for the post above with the open transom. If you look carefully you will see that I posted the picture of the open transom in reply to a post by Bruce. His original post was a lie about something he wrongly said I supported, so I corrected him by quoting his original post and adding a photo of an open transom. I am very much in favor of open transoms.

3E14762C-1076-4027-8B5D-57A779A9A815.png
 

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Bruce Hudson said:

Thank you Gouv for your best efforts.

Just so you are clear, I interpret the lawnmower metaphor as a way to disrespect me. I want to let you know that I am fine when you write long posts.

Sailing Anarchy creates its own interpretation of those who post here. You cannot control the Crowd’s tide. Sometimes you can influence it and cause an eddy or two but the flow is the flow is the flow. . The Lawnmower nickname is all yours. Like any nickname it was applied by someone who had a reason. 
Whether a nickname sticks is not something the named person can control.  
  Only those who are well recognized can have well recognized nick names. 
   When a nickname is used only by enemies and only to mock or annoy and  the named one complains,  the nick name  provides the “enemies” with a tool. 
     When a nickname is used only by friends, the nickname can be a joy. 


Sometimes the best you can hope for is the nickname is used by friends rather than enemies. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, sosoomii said:

Of course it has been “formed” and you can be a member if you so wish.  @tillerman already is, I believe.  I’m not sure what you mean by “formally formed”,  but it is quite legitimate for it to be an unincorporated association.

Just because you don’t want to recognise it, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.  

You bang on and on about wanting to call out misinformation but you are probably the main proponent of it.  Even your post above claiming Tillerman is supporting a boat that is nothing at all to do with this discussion is deliberately misleading.

 I would really like to be civil with you because I know that at heart we all decent people and have much more in common than our differences.  

Anyhow I thought we were going to get regular updates from ILCA.  They gave one update and then back to radio silence.  Hopefully they’ll share some good news soon.

"Of course" sounds like an assumption to me. I'd rather base the answer on facts rather than some anonymous poster on SA's assumption.

Perhaps the organisation is in the process of forming as an unincorporated society? Maybe Heini wouldn't refer to himself as "Interim President" if it had already formally formed.

It seems to me that there were questions relating to ILCA voting procedures that lead to the formation of TLC.

Is TLC a democratic organisation? Has the constitution been adopted by the members? When - by vote or some other means?

As a member, you should be able to ask for meeting minutes. Have there been any meetings yet?

---

"Even your post above claiming Tillerman is supporting a boat that is nothing at all to do with this discussion is deliberately misleading." <--- please explain. I have no idea what you are referring to. Please quote me.

---

2 hours ago, tillerman said:

His original post was a lie about something he wrongly said I supported, so I corrected him by quoting his original post and adding a photo of an open transom.

My original post here was about seven years ago. Great to see you promote TLC above, again. I'm sure TLC are happy for your membership (both are a form of support - though you might describe it in some weird, twisted, alternate way. Yes, I used the word support after hearing say that you cared, and joined TLC.) 

Great to see your best attempts to contribute here Tillerman.

---

Interestingly, TLC are using the trademarked Laser brand. I am based in New Zealand, yet it would seem all are invited to join, including NZders, Australians, Japanese and South Koreans. Does 'TLC' have permission to use the Laser logo in New Zealand? (I'd be really surprised if they do.) 

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Gouvernail said:

Sometimes the best you can hope for is the nickname is used by friends rather than enemies. 

Well said.

Sometimes I bite off more than I can chew. I'm running on empty and 'using' SA to distract me when I have down time. (I need more than 5 hours sleep in two days, so apologies for being far too serious. Some of the work I do takes me to other people's dark places. This is a garden party on a Victorian lawn with tea and scones by comparison.)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Wess said:

Not shooting the messenger.  Nor do I think European sailors are fools. Greatly enjoyed the sailors and venues over there. And agree everything you said about ILCA (deleted those parts of your post simply for clarity not to imply I disagree).  But here is my question...

Why do you have that "impression?" Why do you think the frustration is "real?"

In other words why do you think TLC isn't just a vocal few and rather that actually the majority of EU Laser sailors no longer support ILCA and will leave to join TLC?

Sorry for the late response, busy day yesterday.

That's a very good question, Wess, and TBH I don't think I have a good answer.  Some of it is simply a lack of chat: there's no talk of how ILCA's moves will improve anything here. 

I've chatted to a few people, been to a few meetings and followed social media chat on local groups. Some of those people are conveying second hand feedback from sailors on the continent.  There's nothing that suggests that the anti- ILCA posts from EurILCA aligned people are outliers (ie, no-one's commenting that they are not speaking for the majority).

 There also appears to be (at least in the UK) a fair degree of cynicism about the TLC move... but it's not the "this is just LP and doomed to failure" chat, it's more along the "Well, we did think that might happen; Damn, now what?". The UKLA position pretty much reflects that- something along the lines of: we're part of ILCA and following the rules but the situation is unsatisfactory and LP are necessarily a big part of our Laser sailing so we're not ruling anything out...

 The comments fro the Italians, the report from the German meeting and the general mood amongst those I've spoken to or read stuff from all aligns to create the impression that I reported... and as I said, it's an impression. I'm not trying to argue a point here, just to highlight that there seem to be well-supported voices outside the echo-chamber and that some are, perhaps, dismissing them prematurely.

18 hours ago, bill4 said:

@WGWarburton - was there any resentment from the Euro sailors towards ILCA before all this happened?

 Again, good question. I don't know.  My suspicion is that there wasn't much interest... the sailors wanted to sail, the regattas were going OK, supply was fine... I don't think most Europeans were aware of the level of frustration in the US and they probably put it down to a general lack of interest in dinghy sailing there (and confusion over whether the US legal wrangling was having an effect) rather than blaming LP... since the LP dealers they were doing business with didn't seem to have the same issues (different issues, maybe!)  ... probably lots of complacency. 

+---------

 I have no facts, no "evidence" and no case to make: I'm not trying to back a winner... I'm concerned that the situation isn't improving and I'm wingeing about it online along with others who are interested in the game... I have no voice in the proceedings and I have no way to determine who is "right". I did not vote last year because I could not form a view on the right way to cast it- which was the lesser of the evils presented?  I didn't know and it was very, very obvious that many of those who were voting didn't know either... (were the 17-year olds voting at the Worlds in Kingston well-informed? Had they researched the history of the designers rights, the corporate history of the characters involved and the details of the FRAND policy as applied by World sailing?).   Their votes carried the same weight as mine, irrespective of how much thought I gave the issue and whether I voted for one of the versions of the future on offer or to right historic wrongs (or both?)...

 We'll see how things pan out, I guess, I have no influence, no appetite to get involved in this and no illusions that my involvement would have any effect whatsoever. I'm only pitching in on the commentary here sometimes if it seems that people might want to get an opinion from elsewhere.

Cheers,

               W.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hypothetically, say in 12 months time we have LP back as a builder and the addition of Ovington and Devoti supplying boats in the EU region.  With your knowledge of the region, do you have any thoughts on if there would be any preference for one brand over another?

I'd be willing to give something other than a PSA a try in Australia if there was a significant price difference, eg a new LP ICLA if it was a couple of grand cheaper than the PSA

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, JMP said:

Hypothetically, say in 12 months time we have LP back as a builder and the addition of Ovington and Devoti supplying boats in the EU region.  With your knowledge of the region, do you have any thoughts on if there would be any preference for one brand over another?

I'd be willing to give something other than a PSA a try in Australia if there was a significant price difference, eg a new LP ICLA if it was a couple of grand cheaper than the PSA

Despite Bruce's kind flattery, I've no particular insight... My guess would be a similar situation to the Optimist fleet, where there's a builder that has a solid reputation for boats that may not be faster than the alternatives but the buyer can be pretty confident that they won't be slower and are well built.. the reputation means good prices on the used market but that's a bigger factor in a junior boat. 

 In the UK, I expect there will be a great deal of interest in what the British Sailing Team sailors use, as they are better placed than most to judge. If that's an expensive option, either because of initial price or because they don't stay fast then there will be opportunities for more cost effective boats. 

 There's already a bit of a challenge in that the top sailors at any stage (Junior 4.7 through Radial to senior Standards) are best to train with the same kit they will race with and with small differences between gear masking small differences in performance there's pressure not to use ageing or out-of-class setups. If a short-life boat appears faster than a more durable one then the cost to play goes up... and the quality of training for the affluent goes down because there are fewer sailors prepared to buy into that level of competition... hence smaller groups hunting for small improvements...

 It's an issue in the Oppies but not overwhelming because there's little evidence that success at Junior level translates to Senior, the costs are less excessive and the fleets pretty big.0

 At the club/inter-club level... doesn't really matter much... sailing ability makes more difference and the vast majority will be happy to think that they could beat the local hotshot if they wanted to spend lots on new gear... :-). 

 Don't know if that's any help!

Cheers,

              W.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, WGWarburton said:

Sorry for the late response, busy day yesterday.

That's a very good question, Wess, and TBH I don't think I have a good answer.  Some of it is simply a lack of chat: there's no talk of how ILCA's moves will improve anything here. 

I've chatted to a few people, been to a few meetings and followed social media chat on local groups. Some of those people are conveying second hand feedback from sailors on the continent.  There's nothing that suggests that the anti- ILCA posts from EurILCA aligned people are outliers (ie, no-one's commenting that they are not speaking for the majority).

 There also appears to be (at least in the UK) a fair degree of cynicism about the TLC move... but it's not the "this is just LP and doomed to failure" chat, it's more along the "Well, we did think that might happen; Damn, now what?". The UKLA position pretty much reflects that- something along the lines of: we're part of ILCA and following the rules but the situation is unsatisfactory and LP are necessarily a big part of our Laser sailing so we're not ruling anything out...

 The comments fro the Italians, the report from the German meeting and the general mood amongst those I've spoken to or read stuff from all aligns to create the impression that I reported... and as I said, it's an impression. I'm not trying to argue a point here, just to highlight that there seem to be well-supported voices outside the echo-chamber and that some are, perhaps, dismissing them prematurely.

 Again, good question. I don't know.  My suspicion is that there wasn't much interest... the sailors wanted to sail, the regattas were going OK, supply was fine... I don't think most Europeans were aware of the level of frustration in the US and they probably put it down to a general lack of interest in dinghy sailing there (and confusion over whether the US legal wrangling was having an effect) rather than blaming LP... since the LP dealers they were doing business with didn't seem to have the same issues (different issues, maybe!)  ... probably lots of complacency. 

+---------

 I have no facts, no "evidence" and no case to make: I'm not trying to back a winner... I'm concerned that the situation isn't improving and I'm wingeing about it online along with others who are interested in the game... I have no voice in the proceedings and I have no way to determine who is "right". I did not vote last year because I could not form a view on the right way to cast it- which was the lesser of the evils presented?  I didn't know and it was very, very obvious that many of those who were voting didn't know either... (were the 17-year olds voting at the Worlds in Kingston well-informed? Had they researched the history of the designers rights, the corporate history of the characters involved and the details of the FRAND policy as applied by World sailing?).   Their votes carried the same weight as mine, irrespective of how much thought I gave the issue and whether I voted for one of the versions of the future on offer or to right historic wrongs (or both?)...

 We'll see how things pan out, I guess, I have no influence, no appetite to get involved in this and no illusions that my involvement would have any effect whatsoever. I'm only pitching in on the commentary here sometimes if it seems that people might want to get an opinion from elsewhere.

Cheers,

               W.

Thanks. Appreciate and enjoying reading your stuff. Adds perspective. We may not always agree but you are one of the rare few on this thread that speaks truth.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, JMP said:

Hypothetically, say in 12 months time we have LP back as a builder and the addition of Ovington and Devoti supplying boats in the EU region.  With your knowledge of the region, do you have any thoughts on if there would be any preference for one brand over another?

I'd be willing to give something other than a PSA a try in Australia if there was a significant price difference, eg a new LP ICLA if it was a couple of grand cheaper than the PSA

I’d say in the UK the Ovi would be the overwhelming choice.  Possibly in parts of Europe Devoti might be the preference but I’ve had two a Devoti boats and wouldn’t get another.  The only reason to pick LP would be if they are cheaper and you prioritise cost over quality or service.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, WGWarburton said:

we're part of ILCA and following the rules but the situation is unsatisfactory and LP are necessarily a big part of our Laser sailing so we're not ruling anything out...

This comment is the insight I'm talking about, one that can't be gained from the outside looking in.

That being said, I asked above about the ILCA inspections, which is really the laser equivalent of measurement - completed at the factory rather than before every contest. (Its one of the things I really like about the Laser, and I'm not entirely sure whether the Laser was first, but others certainly have copied). How do you reconcile that LP boats were not inspected for a few years?

Link to post
Share on other sites

What an idiot.  LP was inspected more often than PSA or PSJ.  Of all the issue the Laser class faces, inspections and differences in boats are the least of our problems.

  • Like 2
  • Downvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, LMI said:

What an idiot.  LP was inspected more often than PSA or PSJ.  Of all the issue the Laser class faces, inspections and differences in boats are the least of our problems.

Did that come from Clive?  His talk last year was insightful talking about what inspections he had done and those that didn't go ahead, watch from about the 1hr 4min mark here: 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LMI said:

What an idiot.  LP was inspected more often than PSA or PSJ.  Of all the issue the Laser class faces, inspections and differences in boats are the least of our problems.

I won’t argue your first point for very long, and can’t comment on how often PSA and PSJ were inspected, but LP’s stance on inspection Is a significant part of this clusterfuck.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Its really not.  There are extended periods where no builder was inspected and the simple fact is there isn't now and never was a lack of uniformity in the boats beyond what the ILCA should not have but did allow.  But even that doesn't matter.  For the masses the boat, gear or builder never mattered. Its about a first row start, finding and hitting the puffs and shifts and boat handling.  Put the best person in your fleet in the oldest boat with the old school rigging and a baggy old sail and she will still beat everyone else.  The mess we are in is because ILCA and WS want the Olympics and its revenue, other new revenue source, new gear and rigs, and new regions more than they wanted or valued what they had.

  • Like 2
  • Downvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LMI said:

For the masses the boat, gear or builder never mattered. Its about a first row start, finding and hitting the puffs and shifts and boat handling.  Put the best person in your fleet in the oldest boat with the old school rigging and a baggy old sail and she will still beat everyone else

True dat 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Bruce Hudson said:

That being said, I asked above about the ILCA inspections, which is really the laser equivalent of measurement - completed at the factory rather than before every contest. (Its one of the things I really like about the Laser, and I'm not entirely sure whether the Laser was first, but others certainly have copied). How do you reconcile that LP boats were not inspected for a few years?

  I don't know how to answer that (nor can I believe how much time I've wasted trying)... It's not obvious to me what am I reconciling it with.

 I think you are asking how I can have any confidence that LP Lasers are the same as other Lasers, new or old, without those inspections having taken place.

 I don't think I can answer that question to your satisfaction- I feel it's rude not to reply to a direct question and that I ought to respond, explain my rationale and the reasons for it but I would expect that you'll seek to unpick each argument I make and explain why you think I'm wrong. 

 There's no point in that, I know you think I'm wrong and I've already highlighted that it matters not a jot how wrong I am, as I have no influence. My opinion and reasons are completely irrelevant. 

 For reasons that you fundamentally disagree with, I think that ILCA's recent actions and current path are damaging to the majority of Laser sailing; at least in Europe, maybe elsewhere.  Let's hope I'm wrong.

Cheers,

               W.

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

Its really not.  There are extended periods where no builder was inspected and the simple fact is there isn't now and never was a lack of uniformity in the boats beyond what the ILCA should not have but did allow.  But even that doesn't matter.  For the masses the boat, gear or builder never mattered. Its about a first row start, finding and hitting the puffs and shifts and boat handling.  Put the best person in your fleet in the oldest boat with the old school rigging and a baggy old sail and she will still beat everyone else.  The mess we are in is because ILCA and WS want the Olympics and its revenue, other new revenue source, new gear and rigs, and new regions more than they wanted or valued what they had.

Fair enough. I suppose if you step back far enough it can certainly be argued that the Olympic dream is the genesis of many of the ills the class is experiencing. But - for better or worse - that can't be undone at this stage. Meantime, I maintain that if LP had taken the same stance as PSA and PSJ and signed the same agreement they did, and cooperated with the inspection, we wouldn't be in the mess we now find ourselves. 

Concerning the best person in our fleet, we are fortunate to have 5 or 6 that can win any time. So if someone showed up with an old rig, they would definitely be buying the beer. 

Edited by bill4
added "and cooperated with the inspection"
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, bill4 said:

I maintain that if LP had taken the same stance as PSA and PSJ and signed the same agreement they did, and cooperated with the inspection, we wouldn't be in the mess we now find ourselves

If you have a cake to split between three people, and currently it is split in a ration of 80%, 15% and 5% then it stands to reason that two of them are going to vote to split it 33% each whilst the third isn't so keen.  Especially if they paid 80% to get the 80% share and won't be recompensed for giving it up.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, sosoomii said:

If you have a cake to split between three people, and currently it is split in a ration of 80%, 15% and 5% then it stands to reason that two of them are going to vote to split it 33% each whilst the third isn't so keen.  Especially if they paid 80% to get the 80% share and won't be recompensed for giving it up.

But the 80 didn't touch a whole bunch of their cake for years. So they would only be losing the stuff they didn't want anyway.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, sosoomii said:

If you have a cake to split between three people, and currently it is split in a ration of 80%, 15% and 5% then it stands to reason that two of them are going to vote to split it 33% each whilst the third isn't so keen.  Especially if they paid 80% to get the 80% share and won't be recompensed for giving it up.

It's ironic that the pursuit of Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory arrangements seems to be throwing up so many examples of unreasonable, unfair and discriminatory behavior.  :-)

Cheers,

               W.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, WGWarburton said:

 

 

22 minutes ago, sosoomii said:

If you have a cake to split between three people, and currently it is split in a ration of 80%, 15% and 5% then it stands to reason that two of them are going to vote to split it 33% each whilst the third isn't so keen.  Especially if they paid 80% to get the 80% share and won't be recompensed for giving it up.

The builders didn't vote.  The class members did.  The builders just needed to sign docs.  

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, RobbieB said:

The builders didn't vote.  The class members did.  The builders just needed to sign docs.  

The class members who were served by that builder didn't vote either!  :-)   

 Haven't we just had this argument?    Maybe we never got around to discussing the risks of ignoring a silent majority- it works fine until they stop being silent.

Cheers,

               W.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we are crossing threads here. My assumption is Sosoomii's 80/15/5 is in reference to the geographies previously served by the builders. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes indeed @bill4.  It is clear that LP has the most to lose by opening up the market, if done in a way that doesn't recognise their legally held TM rights. 

It is worth remembering that LP are happy to sign up to FRAND terms provided the TM rights are recognised.  That seems entirely fair and reasonable to me, but so many here (including ILCA?) want to punish LP rather than see a resolution.

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

Yes indeed @bill4.  It is clear that LP has the most to lose by opening up the market, if done in a way that doesn't recognise their legally held TM rights. 

It is worth remembering that LP are happy to sign up to FRAND terms provided the TM rights are recognised.  That seems entirely fair and reasonable to me, but so many here (including ILCA?) want to punish LP rather than see a resolution.

Ok - what say you to the point they pretty much middle-fingered the non-Euro market anyway (and they still seem to have almost gone banko). What are they losing?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Geeze Bill/Robbie.  Canntt you try to think just a bit before blurting out the same old tired Kool Aid story.  If LP left the NA market unattended (as opposed to the market declining) then can you please be so kind as to explain why PSA boats are not flying off the shelves here down in FL and LPE boats are not flying off the shelves at WCS.  Its easy to get a new Laser or ILCA or whatever in NA.  Easier than ever and you can pick between PSA and LPE boats too.  So where are all the buyers that Gouv and you guys talk about? 

For gosh sakes guys I admit its fun sometime to bust your chops with lines I know you hate to hear but at least I speak truth.  You guys just keep repeating clear BS.  I ain't saying LP is perfect or anything near to it.  But first, when they pay for nearly WW rights of course they aint gonna give them up for the same price that somebody who has 1/10th of the WW rights would.  Only an idiot or someone who wants them gone and never back would... oh wait I get it now?!  ;)

And second, the NA supply story is as comical as it is old.  Talking boats, its a demand not a supply problem.  And the reason boats still ain't moving in NA is because the market is now what it has always (well for a damn long time) been which is low/small.  Folks don't buy new boats in NA or rarely do.  The majority sold are actually through folks attending events and purchasing the charter boats.

Oh and Bill, while you are at it could you ask Tracy how many more "next weeks" its gonna be till they publish that complete list of all fees attached to a Laser?  You remember... the list you said he promised what... like months ago now?

I know, I know, he is busy.  I mean afterall he has accomplished so much over the past year.  :wacko:  I mean there must be so many fees that it will takes years to list them all...  :o

  • Like 3
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, bill4 said:

Ok - what say you to the point they pretty much middle-fingered the non-Euro market anyway (and they still seem to have almost gone banko). What are they losing?

If I buy 80% of a cake then it is mine to do with as I please.  If I can't manage it all I can bin some, I can generously offer you some, I can put some in the fridge for later or I can sell you some.  But if you see spare cake on my plate and just grab it, you are behaving like a skanky teenager not a responsible class association.

The question also remains unanswered as to why they ignored the non-Euro market - if indeed they did?  Lack of supply or lack of demand?  If there was easy money to be made why would they not serve the rest of the world?

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

My question to WGWarburton:

16 hours ago, Bruce Hudson said:

How do you reconcile that LP boats were not inspected for a few years?

..and the answer:

2 hours ago, WGWarburton said:

  I don't know how to answer that (nor can I believe how much time I've wasted trying)... It's not obvious to me what am I reconciling it with.

What I meant by reconciling is do you think one design boats should have a system so that they are identical?

And if a builder does not comply, then what do you think should happen?

---

Ensuring Lasers are the same

Fundamental to any one design class is that they are the same, and fundamental to that is the measurement process. For Lasers hulls, inspections are completed at the factory which means we don't need to have the hulls measured at contests.

ILCA found that LP's refusal to have these annual inspections over the last few years was unacceptable. (LP have had made statements that that they did not let the class measurer inspect their factory, so debating that wasn't the case is moot.) There are clear communications over the last few years showing this to be increasingly a problem with LP refused inspections in writing to ILCA on 23 December, 2016.

ILCA no longer accepted LP as an approved builder on 27 March 2019.

Subsequently, and because LP were in the habit of building boats then getting the plaques just in time, an additional 700 plaques were issued for boat built prior to March 27, 2019. (There were around 450 boats, I don't know why there were about 700 plaques issued).

The issuing of plaques and inspections are central to ILCA's actions. (From my perspective, ILCA too far too long to act. All builders should be having annual inspections, exactly as agreed.)

It is possible that you (WGWarburton) don't believe the above to be the true version of the events. If that's the case, please let me know exactly which point you don't think I've got right, and I will dig out the supporting evidence I have. If you don't wish to deal through me, then try approaching the ILCA directly.

---

Plaques, inspections and LP's 'termination'. ILCA put out a release which clearly shows their position: https://www.laserinternational.org/blog/2019/04/06/faq-6-april-2019/

LP also put out several releases. One of the releases said "LP does not and has not refused inspection of its manufacturing facility or its products by other legitimate regulatory bodies. Indeed, LP has formally requested World Sailing to inspect LP’s facility given that they are the ultimate authority for compliance and the issuance of the boats’ plaques."

That claim above is false, and an attempt to sideline ILCA. ILCA is required by World Sailing to do annual inspections.

----

TLC formation. LP is desperate for plaques so that their hulls can be raced in EU.  LP have a new potential way forward with a new proposed class association, called the TLC, which appears to be lead during its formation (in the interim) by Heini Wellmann, Beat Heinz and a few others. Inspections/measurement, and the issuing of plaques are central to many of the recent events.

---

Laser hull weight consistency. The builder's manual has a clear system of ensuring the weight of each hull is the same with very tight tolerances. Each hull has its weight recorded in a ledger, which is inspected by the ILCA class measurer as a part of the annual inspections. In the past, this has been an issue with LP hulls. In recent years, the German dealer has taken to displaying the weight of each hull at their warehouse on a whiteboard, and the variances have been outside the tolerances stipulated by the Laser construction manual.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Wess said:

Geeze Bill/Robbie.  Canntt you try to think just a bit before blurting out the same old tired Kool Aid story.  If LP left the NA market unattended (as opposed to the market declining) then can you please be so kind as to explain why PSA boats are not flying off the shelves here down in FL and LPE boats are not flying off the shelves at WCS.  Its easy to get a new Laser or ILCA or whatever in NA.  Easier than ever and you can pick between PSA and LPE boats too.  So where are all the buyers that Gouv and you guys talk about? 

They aren't repeating the same "old tired Kool Aid story". They are responding to a sustained misinformation program which Wess is a part of. 

Nested within the messages from Wess are many claims and half truths.

Sailing in the US is not in good shape, that's true. LP did not leave the NA market completely unattended. PSA's sales in NA have been solid and show there was a hole in the market, though are at a lower level than in EU or Oceania. Laser sales are not 'flying off the shelves' anywhere - by Laser standards. Other classes look with envy at annual sales being about 2500 (averaged over the last 20 years, based on the issuing of numbers).

Quote

For gosh sakes guys I admit its fun sometime to bust your chops with lines I know you hate to hear but at least I speak truth.  You guys just keep repeating clear BS.  I ain't saying LP is perfect or anything near to it. 

Actually, what Bill and Robbie have been saying is in my view accurate, and backed up by documentation, a lot of which is in the public domain.

Quote

But first, when they pay for nearly WW rights of course they aint gonna give them up for the same price that somebody who has 1/10th of the WW rights would.  Only an idiot or someone who wants them gone and never back would... oh wait I get it now?!  ;)

ILCA provided a clear path for LP to be an official supplier. PSA and PSJ supported that. ILCA members were (and still are) fine with LP being an official supplier, including me. Nobody I know wanted LP gone.

LP wanted more money for the use of the Laser trademark than ILCA, PSA and PSJ were prepared to agree to. LP wanted increased powers that ILCA would not agree to. LP was clear that in order to use the Laser trademark, these terms would need to be agreed to. 

Quote

 And second, the NA supply story is as comical as it is old.  Talking boats, its a demand not a supply problem.  And the reason boats still ain't moving in NA is because the market is now what it has always (well for a damn long time) been which is low/small.  Folks don't buy new boats in NA or rarely do.  The majority sold are actually through folks attending events and purchasing the charter boats.

It is not an either/or situation, a false dichotomy. There is a demand and a supply problem in North America. 

Quote

Oh and Bill, while you are at it could you ask Tracy how many more "next weeks" its gonna be till they publish that complete list of all fees attached to a Laser?  You remember... the list you said he promised what... like months ago now?

It has been published and talked about in the public domain. Each time the costs are listed, Wess asks 'what about the hidden fees?' There are no hidden fees. Alternately, Wess follows up with criticism of there being any fees.

Quote

I know, I know, he is busy.  I mean afterall he has accomplished so much over the past year.  :wacko:  I mean there must be so many fees that it will takes years to list them all...  :o

An attack on a volunteer who has worked tirelessly for the benefit of the Laser class as ILCA president.

Kool Aid indeed.

  • Like 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Bruce Hudson said:

My question to WGWarburton:

..and the answer:

What I meant by reconciling is do you think one design boats should have a system so that they are identical?

 Yes.

54 minutes ago, Bruce Hudson said:

And if a builder does not comply, then what do you think should happen?

---

 I guess that probably depends on the system in use to achieve sufficient similarity... and what sufficient similarity means to the parties involved. It's a complex question that I'm not knowledgeable enough to answer and my answer would carry no weight, even if it had meaning.

54 minutes ago, Bruce Hudson said:

Ensuring Lasers are the same

Fundamental to any one design class is that they are the same, and fundamental to that is the measurement process. For Lasers hulls, inspections are completed at the factory which means we don't need to have the hulls measured at contests.

ILCA found that LP's refusal to have these annual inspections over the last few years was unacceptable. (LP have had made statements that that they did not let the class measurer inspect their factory, so debating that wasn't the case is moot.) There are clear communications over the last few years showing this to be increasingly a problem with LP refused inspections in writing to ILCA on 23 December, 2016.

ILCA no longer accepted LP as an approved builder on 27 March 2019.

Subsequently, and because LP were in the habit of building boats then getting the plaques just in time, an additional 700 plaques were issued for boat built prior to March 27, 2019. (There were around 450 boats, I don't know why there were about 700 plaques issued).

The issuing of plaques and inspections are central to ILCA's actions. (From my perspective, ILCA too far too long to act. All builders should be having annual inspections, exactly as agreed.)

It is possible that you (WGWarburton) don't believe the above to be the true version of the events. If that's the case, please let me know exactly which point you don't think I've got right, and I will dig out the supporting evidence I have. If you don't wish to deal through me, then try approaching the ILCA directly.

---

 I don't think you've said anything untrue, though I'm no expert. I also observe that at no point have you stated that LP were building boats incorrectly. 

54 minutes ago, Bruce Hudson said:

Plaques, inspections and LP's 'termination'. ILCA put out a release which clearly shows their position: https://www.laserinternational.org/blog/2019/04/06/faq-6-april-2019/

LP also put out several releases. One of the releases said "LP does not and has not refused inspection of its manufacturing facility or its products by other legitimate regulatory bodies. Indeed, LP has formally requested World Sailing to inspect LP’s facility given that they are the ultimate authority for compliance and the issuance of the boats’ plaques."

That claim above is false, and an attempt to sideline ILCA. ILCA is required by World Sailing to do annual inspections.

----

..and yet it appears from the recently posted video that they had not carried out inspections at other factories on schedule either... one of which does appear to have built some boats differently. This doesn't strengthen ILCA's position.

54 minutes ago, Bruce Hudson said:

TLC formation. LP is desperate for plaques so that their hulls can be raced in EU.  LP have a new potential way forward with a new proposed class association, called the TLC, which appears to be lead during its formation (in the interim) by Heini Wellmann, Beat Heinz and a few others. Inspections/measurement, and the issuing of plaques are central to many of the recent events.

---

Laser hull weight consistency. The builder's manual has a clear system of ensuring the weight of each hull is the same with very tight tolerances. Each hull has its weight recorded in a ledger, which is inspected by the ILCA class measurer as a part of the annual inspections. In the past, this has been an issue with LP hulls. In recent years, the German dealer has taken to displaying the weight of each hull at their warehouse on a whiteboard, and the variances have been outside the tolerances stipulated by the Laser construction manual.

   Sounds like their quality control needs improving. Still, at least the sailors who might buy them can take comfort from the fact that all these boats will be class legal regardless of their weight, as long as they have an ILCA issued plaque.

Cheers,

              W.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bruce Hudson said:

LP also put out several releases. One of the releases said "LP does not and has not refused inspection of its manufacturing facility or its products by other legitimate regulatory bodies. Indeed, LP has formally requested World Sailing to inspect LP’s facility given that they are the ultimate authority for compliance and the issuance of the boats’ plaques."

 That claim above is false, and an attempt to sideline ILCA. ILCA is required by World Sailing to do annual inspections.

@Bruce Hudson which parts of the LP statement are false? 

This part? LP does not and has not refused inspection of its manufacturing facility or its products by other legitimate regulatory bodies.

This bit? Indeed, LP has formally requested World Sailing to inspect LP’s facility...

This? given that they (WS) are the ultimate authority for compliance and the issuance of the boats’ plaques.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, WGWarburton said:

 Yes.

Apologies for asking a pseudo rhetorical question - though it needed stating I think - because it's the big thing we agree on.

56 minutes ago, WGWarburton said:

 I guess that probably depends on the system in use to achieve sufficient similarity... and what sufficient similarity means to the parties involved. It's a complex question that I'm not knowledgeable enough to answer and my answer would carry no weight, even if it had meaning.

The system is private, an agreement that is deemed by the parties to be commercially sensitive.

That being said, if there is a bunch of Laser sailors voting on what to do, how would you vote?

That is the 'action' that the ILCA took. I think it was reasonable - my only criticism is that they allowed LP too much slack - took their time in reacting - then issued 700 plaques after the fact. Maybe in a commercial setting I would be tougher than I observed the ILCA World Council being. 

The reason I'm asking you WGWarburton is that in this forum, your voice does have weight. The reason I asked is to get you to reconsider your comments which speak poorly of ILCA's actions, where you appear to be apportioning more blame on ILCA that is my view justified. 

56 minutes ago, WGWarburton said:

 I don't think you've said anything untrue, though I'm no expert. I also observe that at no point have you stated that LP were building boats incorrectly. 

Compliance with inspections is an important part of building boats correctly. Issues are deemed commercially sensitive, so are not publicly shared.

You are correct, I did not state that LP were building boats incorrectly. Allowing inspections (as contractually obligated) is fundamental to building one design Lasers. 

56 minutes ago, WGWarburton said:

..and yet it appears from the recently posted video that they had not carried out inspections at other factories on schedule either... one of which does appear to have built some boats differently. This doesn't strengthen ILCA's position.

Yes, that's what Nick Page said which surprised me too at the time. My want as an ILCA member is that all builders are inspected as contracted to. The difference is that PSA and PSJ have not at any time refused inspections.

56 minutes ago, WGWarburton said:

 Sounds like their quality control needs improving. Still, at least the sailors who might buy them can take comfort from the fact that all these boats will be class legal regardless of their weight, as long as they have an ILCA issued plaque.

100% agreed, in theory. In practice the plaques issued, and the way they have been issued, concerns me. There are procedures that haven't been followed. Again, as an ILCA member I am not so happy that the regular inspections haven't happened in recent years. Moving forward, my want is to ensure they do happen - and I'd support a little less secrecy that fact - though understand the commercial sensitivities - more so now there are going to be more builders.

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

@Bruce Hudson which parts of the LP statement are false? 

This part? LP does not and has not refused inspection of its manufacturing facility or its products by other legitimate regulatory bodies.

It misleads, and is false.

LP refused ILCA inspections in writing in a letter dated 23 December 2016. 

LP's implication is that ILCA is not an legitimate regulatory body. Inspections are not completed by "other regulatory bodies" - that part is misleading. The agreement that LP had was with World Sailing or its agent to complete inspections. For decades, ILCA have been World Sailing's agent, and through an agreement with World Sailing have an obligation to do the inspections.

17 minutes ago, sosoomii said:

This bit? Indeed, LP has formally requested World Sailing to inspect LP’s facility...

I have not seen any evidence other than LP's public claims - so I can't say it is false. 

17 minutes ago, sosoomii said:

This? given that they (WS) are the ultimate authority for compliance and the issuance of the boats’ plaques.

That part is true, I think.

There are several parties who must play a role for World Sailing to issue the plaques. Actually, I think its more accurate to say that ILCA issues plaques on behalf of World Sailing. World sailing are not really a practical part of the process. 

Here's the plaques in recent years:

WS-ILCA-plaque-2-over-2-2-724x1024.jpg 

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

A few folks here are misled all too easily by clever (?) LP language.

For instance, LP has stated that World Sailing may inspect the building process; with tea and crumpets afterwards, presumably.

Superficially, that looks nice, but the fact is that World Sailing doesn't inspect and never has; ILCA does. And LP hasn't allowed ILCA into their facility.

Quite simple, really, but too many here are led astray, it appears.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

As I recall, at the time of the the ‘refused’ inspection, ILCA were themselves refusing to sign to a new trademark deal with LP.  Pure speculation here, but perhaps LP were wary that ILCA just wanted to do some intelligence gathering. With trust low and no signed deal in place, perhaps there were concerned ILCA might reveal commercially sensitive information.  And so, understandably in that case, they requested WS chaperone ILCA.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, sosoomii said:

As I recall, at the time of the the ‘refused’ inspection, ILCA were themselves refusing to sign to a new trademark deal with LP.  Pure speculation here, but perhaps LP were wary that ILCA just wanted to do some intelligence gathering. With trust low and no signed deal in place, perhaps there were concerned ILCA might reveal commercially sensitive information.  And so, understandably in that case, they requested WS chaperone ILCA.

Indeed.  LP claimed to have lost confidence in the inspections, partly citing the out-of-build boats incident with PSA. 

 I would expect there's a good deal of spin being put on this from all sides.  There's a lot of weight being placed on a one day factory visit (does that sound like a rigorous quality control regime to you?).

 However, it does seem clear that LP were obliged to allow those visits, even if they were detrimental... by not facilitating them they opened the door to ILCA delisting them. Suspect they regret that...

 I'm always reluctant to see conspiracies... I suspect a series of poor decisions and mistakes on both sides has aligned with the breakdown in trust and each party has sought opportunity in the resulting mess... One of those opportunities was this inspection issue: I doubt ILCA or PSA engineered it, LP probably thought they were justified and safe to delay... then the realisation by the class that there was an opportunity to be seized and a window to seize it... Were the ramifications thought through? Was there a detailed plan with contingencies and contributors committed to it? 

 I'm sceptical... events take over people react on unexpected ways and the best laid plans of mice and men are aft gone awry...

Cheers,

              W.

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

As I recall, at the time of the the ‘refused’ inspection, ILCA were themselves refusing to sign to a new trademark deal with LP.  Pure speculation here, but perhaps LP were wary that ILCA just wanted to do some intelligence gathering. With trust low and no signed deal in place, perhaps there were concerned ILCA might reveal commercially sensitive information.  And so, understandably in that case, they requested WS chaperone ILCA.

Yes, there was a new trademark contract renewal from LP with added terms that were not acceptable to ILCA. Some of this was in the letter from December 2016, where LP threatened legal action if they continued using the Laser trademark if they continued to use the trademark without the contract being renewed. In the end the agreement was reached with the same terms as they had, in the end it was a simple renewal. 

There was an agreement in place which obligated the parties to do the inspections. The request was for WS to do the inspection, and that ILCA would not be allowed to take part.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well they at least have a nice website and apparently you can join the new LASER class by clicking here:  https://www.thelaserclass.com/pages/join-us

 

 

Join Us

The Laser Class has worked hard to offer fantastic benefits for members, we believe Laser sailing should be inclusive & accessible to all sailors, that is why we have gone the extra mile to make sure you come first:

  • Two Years Free Membership.
  • Race, Compete, & Socialise with like-minded sailors in TLC events. Please see our events page to find a race near you.
  • Monthly newsletter with exclusive stories, photos & training tips from around the world.

Please fill out the form clicking here, making sure to fill out all the fields. When you have submitted your form you will receive an email containing a confirmation of your new membership with TLC.

If you have questions, you can email TheLaserClass@gmail.com.

 

 Laser_Sails_1024x1024.jpg?v=1582043057

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well played. 

Keep in mind that ILCA still hasn't listed all the fees collected by everyone on their boats - despite saying they would long ago. 

Further, while it may be successful in EU, I doubt TLC is a solution relevant for the change I would like to see.  Having said all that the list (of fees and those who collect them) as well as the total amount of fee collected off those "The LASER Class" boats would appear to be significantly less compared to that collected off ILCA boats.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, sosoomii said:

Yes indeed @bill4.  It is clear that LP has the most to lose by opening up the market, if done in a way that doesn't recognise their legally held TM rights. 

It is worth remembering that LP are happy to sign up to FRAND terms provided the TM rights are recognised.  That seems entirely fair and reasonable to me, but so many here (including ILCA?) want to punish LP rather than see a resolution.

You mean like the way the Bruce Kirby's TM rights were respected by LP?  Why are their rights more important than his?

How about nobody has any TM rights which they can hold over the class?  Seems like a much better idea to me.  That way the class is in complete control of its own destiny.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, NotAnIdiot said:

You mean like the way the Bruce Kirby's TM rights were respected by LP?  Why are their rights more important than his?

How about nobody has any TM rights which they can hold over the class?  Seems like a much better idea to me.  That way the class is in complete control of its own destiny.

A few classes operate just that way. Optis for example. The designers who hold the trademarks could donate them (as was the case for the Opti IIRC) to the class.  Kirby however didn't donate his; he monetized them.

Its so funny the way people pick sides in this when the truth of it is they are ALL in a mad dash for cash and control and picking your pockets dry. 

  • Like 3
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, WGWarburton said:

Indeed.  LP claimed to have lost confidence in the inspections, partly citing the out-of-build boats incident with PSA. 

What LP were saying in public was not what they were saying in private. 

In private, the three builders met, thrashed out a solution which included changing their build practices to incorporate the change - and agreed to not mention the issue in public. LP broke that agreement by releasing the information.

Quote

 I would expect there's a good deal of spin being put on this from all sides.  There's a lot of weight being placed on a one day factory visit (does that sound like a rigorous quality control regime to you?).

Not really. The inspection is a bit like an audit of the procedures - the actual measuring throughout the year is completed by the builders themselves. Take hull weight for example. The hull weight of every hull is recorded on a ledger. The measurement officer checks that the procedures are being followed. 

Quote

 However, it does seem clear that LP were obliged to allow those visits, even if they were detrimental... by not facilitating them they opened the door to ILCA delisting them. Suspect they regret that...

Agreed.

Quote

 I'm always reluctant to see conspiracies... I suspect a series of poor decisions and mistakes on both sides has aligned with the breakdown in trust and each party has sought opportunity in the resulting mess...

I fail to see what opportunity ILCA sought. What's you thinking there? That ILCA wanted to get rid of LP? Actually, what ILCA wanted LP to do was lift its game.

The Sailing Illustrated interview of Rastegar revealed in part the extent to which he believed in the conspiracy theory. However it makes no sense that a PSA/GS trying to dominate the world would agree to the appointment of new builders. (I suspect we'll be hearing about some progress from ILCA shortly.)

Quote

One of those opportunities was this inspection issue: I doubt ILCA or PSA engineered it, LP probably thought they were justified and safe to delay... then the realisation by the class that there was an opportunity to be seized and a window to seize it... Were the ramifications thought through? Was there a detailed plan with contingencies and contributors committed to it? 

There was a plan, and LP was serving on the ILCA World Council when that plan was made at the end of 2018 to meet the World Sailing requirement. It had contingencies (Including a vote if agreement wasn't reached), then the appointment of new builders.

The plan always included LP, however when it was clear that LP had no intention to allow ILCA to conduct inspections, the ILCA in my view had few other options - so LP was 'terminated'. That part wasn't planned so much as an act of exasperation based on the fundamental principle to ensure that the Lasers build were one design.

7 hours ago, WGWarburton said:

 I'm sceptical... events take over people react on unexpected ways and the best laid plans of mice and men are aft gone awry...

Agreed. A bit of skepticism is good, particularly when combined with fact checking.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NotAnIdiot said:

You mean like the way the Bruce Kirby's TM rights were respected by LP?  Why are their rights more important than his?

How about nobody has any TM rights which they can hold over the class?  Seems like a much better idea to me.  That way the class is in complete control of its own destiny.

I never said LP’s rights were more important than Bruce Kirby’s.  In the previous round of The Laser Farce, I opposed the fundamental rule change to get rid of the need for Kirby to be on the plaque.  

But LP do have legally held TM rights that they paid for, and it is naive to expect them to just give them up for free.  ILCA could buy the rights off of Rastegar and the scrap them if they really wanted.

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

Its so funny the way people pick sides in this when the truth of it is they are ALL in a mad dash for cash and control and picking your pockets dry. 

I'm unclear why @tillerman or @WGWarburton would 'like' this comment. (Firefly-DC 'downvoted' the comment).

temp.png.555806850b6f3b6660c6ab3c9a85c48d.png

The clear implication is that ILCA World Council members are wanting to 'pick pockets', when the opposite is true. It makes no sense that volunteers Lasers sailors spend time, money and effort to rip themselves and their life long friends off. (Frankly, it is offensive - exactly as Wess designed it to be.)

PSA are hardly in a mad dash to pick the pockets of their market dry. I am well positioned to understand the differences of doing business in NZ and Australia compared to what practices succeed compared to doing business in large markets like NA, EU and Asia. Because the population of NZ/Australia is around 30 million, PSA's success at surviving for so long has been remarkable in a market so small. By agreeing to have new builders PSA / GS are signing up for less certainty: new builders are a threat to what has worked well for years - so some uncertainty is ahead for a small company PSA.

Elevating money as a motivator is fairly common in the US, which in my view comes as a consequence of underdeveloped social policies. This is not the same as other OECD countries. Not everyone in the US does it, however after 7 years of reading what Wess writes, I'm confident that Wess elevates the importance of money.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, sosoomii said:

But LP do have legally held TM rights that they paid for, and it is naive to expect them to just give them up for free.  ILCA could buy the rights off of Rastegar and the scrap them if they really wanted.

An interesting thing to say - the question is at what price would Rastegar be prepared to sell? (I'm not confident that ILCA have the funds to buy at the price Rastegar would want).

There could be an opportunity to buy LP - but again - at what price?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Bruce Hudson said:

I'm unclear why @tillerman or @WGWarburton would 'like' this comment. (Firefly-DC 'downvoted' the comment).

temp.png.555806850b6f3b6660c6ab3c9a85c48d.png

The clear implication is that ILCA World Council members are wanting to 'pick pockets', when the opposite is true. It makes no sense that volunteers Lasers sailors spend time, money and effort to rip themselves and their life long friends off. (Frankly, it is offensive - exactly as Wess designed it to be.)

PSA are hardly in a mad dash to pick the pockets of their market dry. I am well positioned to understand the differences of doing business in NZ and Australia compared to what practices succeed compared to doing business in large markets like NA, EU and Asia. Because the population of NZ/Australia is around 30 million, PSA's success at surviving for so long has been remarkable in a market so small. By agreeing to have new builders PSA / GS are signing up for less certainty: new builders are a threat to what has worked well for years - so some uncertainty is ahead for a small company PSA.

Elevating money as a motivator is fairly common in the US, which in my view comes as a consequence of underdeveloped social policies. This is not the same as other OECD countries. Not everyone in the US does it, however after 7 years of reading what Wess writes, I'm confident that Wess elevates the importance of money.

I liked it because I thought Wess' references to (1) people taking sides and (2) a battle for control were pertinent. His references to the fees is a running joke on this thread., yet that's the point you pick up on.

 I also thought his reference to the Oppy class was helpful... but you selectively quoted.  That's the model that we are moving towards and I have reservations about it being a wise direction to go in given the costs and complexity involved... it's bad enough in the Oppy class, where the boats are relatively cheap and there's no Olympics involved. The stakes are higher with the Laser and it's a major change from the way that the last couple of hundred thousand Lasers were sold, too.

 I did not imply that ILCA are picking pockets, you inferred that.

Cheers,

              W.

 

  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, WGWarburton said:

 it's bad enough in the Oppy class, where the boats are relatively cheap and there's no Olympics involved.

 

  

Cheap???  Go price an Opti; YIKES!  You can pay almost $5K (USD for one) IIRC.  Maybe even more by now; its been a while since I was buying those!  In no way was I suggesting that the Optimist class is the panacea or answer.  Actually it perhaps shows the opposite.  Even when the designer did donate the rights and the class controls everything its no assurance of affordable or equal boats.  There are various levels and types of Optis all claiming to be better or faster than the other in an OD class and Lord knows none of them are cheap.  I mean just compare what you get to a club Laser from LPE for the same $5K and wow that is none overpriced Opti.

Now go ahead and ask me why I do like their model?!  :)

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, WGWarburton said:

I liked it because I thought Wess' references to (1) people taking sides and (2) a battle for control were pertinent.

We disagree, no problem.

1 minute ago, WGWarburton said:

His references to the fees is a running joke on this thread., yet that's the point you pick up on.

In the same way I don't like jokes based on hate, I don't find these comments funny at all. Nor do others, including those who these 'running jokes' are directed at.

To be clear, what Wess said others find offensive. I'm confident you didn't intend to cause offense, though be assured that some of those offended noticed that you like the comment. (And more so now I have highlighted it - apologies - that wasn't my intention).

1 minute ago, WGWarburton said:

 I also thought his reference to the Oppy class was helpful... but you selectively quoted.  

Yes, I selectively quoted. As you now have. The comment was also about Kirby and designers. Kirby did not charge for the trademarks he held. And Kirby could not give the Laser trademark to ILCA because he never owned it. However its a good comment for other classes for sure, including future classes.

1 minute ago, WGWarburton said:

That's the model that we are moving towards and I have reservations about it being a wise direction to go in given the costs and complexity involved... it's bad enough in the Oppy class, where the boats are relatively cheap and there's no Olympics involved.

A series of meetings were held to reach agreement regarding the Laser trademark in relation to the new World Sailing requirements - the first one was in November 2018. A contingency plan was formed for the possibility of no agreement being reached.

The Laser is substantially different to the Optimist, which has its roots in home builds. The Laser class has significant differences - junior classes mean sailors are there for a limited time, and being a junior class means that there is a great emphasis on learning.

I'd say that given the direction of World Sailing, in the future all International classes may go the way of FRAND. (I have reservations about this).

1 minute ago, WGWarburton said:

The stakes are higher with the Laser and it's a major change from the way that the last couple of hundred thousand Lasers were sold, too.

Yes, its a change for sure, and for PSA and PSJ the stakes are very high.

1 minute ago, WGWarburton said:

 I did not imply that ILCA are picking pockets, you inferred that.  

No, that was Wess:

3 hours ago, Wess said:

Its so funny the way people pick sides in this when the truth of it is they are ALL in a mad dash for cash and control and picking your pockets dry. 

"ALL" includes members of the ILCA World Council, right?

Though its not exactly new:

On 2/4/2020 at 1:19 AM, Wess said:

...Should have known you ILCA lemmings would like a stolen song. I can see now where the idea for all the pick pocket fees on non-members...

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, tillerman said:

I "liked" the post because I approved of Wess's elegant use of a semicolon in a sentence of the post which you did not quote. 

:-)

I'm beginning to think that the issue here isn't misinformation but misinterpretation. 

Cheers,

              W.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites