Gouv: if you ever talk to Mr Rastegar, and tell him about my crazy idea that he should think about supporting the class rule change:As CEO of LPE you only have two routes you can go: Either fight as hard as you can, pay more laywers, try to sue anybody and lose customers cause everybody hates you or play nicely and cooperate with these "crazy" sailers.. and lose customers. Just my 2 €ct.
TRIVIA, compared to our main topic of discussion here, but... that may well be the current European Union system, but it wasn't always the norm. The FAQ item "How do I determine my sail number and boat year?" on the "drLaser.org" website (still partially available on web.archive.org) used to note that:-OQT : manufacturer code ( Laserperformance LLC acc to the british marine register)
PK4Y9: serial number the manufacturer can choose
J: month of manufacture ( october)
8: year of manufacture (2018)
19: model year
We covered this ground earlier. WS has decided to exclude SMOD boats from the Olympics. These are the cards that Laser sailors are dealt with. We can and should debate that decision elsewhere but its not the fault of Lasers...its WS decision.Does the sales pitch for continued Olympic participation include the local fleet success stories of other Olympic boats?
The Nacra 17 fleet has doubled in size here in the last 3 years, (admittedly from a small base of 1).
In all seriousness though, continued Olympic participation is , on balance, a good thing for the Laser.
Does the sales pitch include the financial success enjoyed by the various FRAND builders of other Olympic boats?
McKay reputedly makes an okay living. Rondar and Ovington are both successful financial builders who also build Olympic classes. BUT Nobody makes a lot of money building the OMOD Olympic Classes
Does the FRAND Olympic pitch include the thousands of boats sold to thousands of sailors by current FRAND Olympic boat builders?
FRAND does not grow a modern class
Has any SMOD sailing class adopted a FRAND policy and subsequently enjoyed a boom?
Not in recent history
Has any FRAND class since 1975 rivaled the success of the top SMOD classes? Hobie 16, Sunfish, Laser, J-24, Catalina 22, Melges 24,
F18
Why is anyone campaigning to abandon the successful laser formula?
Because WS has adopted a FRAND policy
( Note: removing the brand name and certifying only one generic builder in any region is not like FRAND)
interesting. The former Euro code until 2018 was GB-PSE....TRIVIA, compared to our main topic of discussion here, but... that may well be the current European Union system, but it wasn't always the norm. The FAQ item "How do I determine my sail number and boat year?" on the "drLaser.org" website (still partially available on web.archive.org) used to note that:
For post-1973 Lasers: In North America, the 3 characters usually formed the builder's ID. and the rest of the numbers identified the hull.
In North America, these 3 characters might be:
- PFS = Performance Sailcraft Corp.(1971-1974) (Montreal, Québec, Canada: still manufacturing 29ers, Bytes, 420s and Optis.)
- ZFS = Performance Sailcraft (1974 [as per hulls 16950-51626]-1985) (Pointe-Claire, Québec)
- PSC = Performance Sailcraft (19??-19??)
- PSL = Performance Sailcraft - San Rafael, CA, USA (Owner Don Trask, 1971 through 1981)
- PSI = Performace Sailcraft International (South Africa, until 1989)
- ZID = Laser International (Ontario 1984-1991) Reincarnation of original Laser builder. (Also known as Performance Sailcraft Canada.)
- PSB = Pearson Small Boats (1989-1991) (RI)
- SLI = Sunfish Laser Inc (1991 to March 1997) New manufacturing facility.
- OQT = Vanguard Sailboats Inc., RI (March 1997 to present) Initials stand for Quarter Moon Inc. Production continued in SLI facility which Vanguard purchased. Personnel was the same. Later purchased by PSE.
Next 5 digits were the sail number. If the sail number is great than 99,999, then the first digit is a character, where A=10, B=11, C=12, D=13, etc., and that letter was followed by 5 digits.
Last 4 characters indicated when the boat was built and the model year. Usually 1 letter followed by 3 numbers, and occasionally 1 letter, 2 numbers, followed by another letter (see below).
In the 1 letter, 3 numbers case, the letter indicates the month of manufacture (according to Sunfish/Laser Inc.):
A=Aug, B=Sept, C=Oct, D=Nov, E=Dec, F=Jan, G=Feb, H=Mar, I=April, J=May, K=June, L=July.
The next digit indicates the year the boat was built (not model year!), followed by a 2-number model year. Eg.
D494 = Built Nov (D) 1994 (4) for 1994 model year (94).
F697 = Built Jan (F) 1996 for 1997 model year (97)
For example:
SLI F1234 F494 = Sunfish Laser Inc, Sail number 151234, Built in January 1994 for Model Year 1994."
Gouv: if you ever talk to Mr Rastegar, and tell him about my crazy idea that he should think about supporting the class rule change:
We agree!What I would do if I was LP now.
- Surprise everyone by coming out all in favor of option 2. Announce that it is in the best interest of sailors that the sailors control their own destiny. Encourage Laser sailors to vote for the rule change.
- Surprise everyone even further by announcing that LP has voluntarily decided that it will be working with ILCA and WS to identify additional builders ... and that LP will be voluntarily licensing those builders to use the Laser trademark. ..those licensing agreements will be bilateral between LP and the licensed builder. Each licensing agreement will be negotiated on its own merits. They will be fair and non-discriminatory.
-
I heard you and agree right up to that debate is for elsewhere. Kinda thinks its here. Because that is the excuse driving this vote. And this is a vote to drive out a builder - make no mistake about that.We covered this ground earlier. WS has decided to exclude SMOD boats from the Olympics. These are the cards that Laser sailors are dealt with. We can and should debate that decision elsewhere but its not the fault of Lasers...its WS decision.
By the way, I dont buy the excuse that WS were forced to adopt OMOD FRAND licensing agreements by EU competition law....but that is debate for elsewhere.
You are right. The FAQ also notes that:The older euro boats did not have a HIN as far as I know, only the sail number under the bow fitting, but it would be very interesting to have a history on all builders worldwide.
Hey Wess,I heard you and agree right up to that debate is for elsewhere. Kinda thinks its here. Because that is the excuse driving this vote. And this is a vote to drive out a builder - make no mistake about that.
I am not into ethical or not... its legal or not... so if everyone (or majority) wanted LPE gone as most of those in US do then OK, if it ain't illegal its game over and I am fine with that. But here we have (it seems not confirmed) a majority (in Europe) that don't want that outcome and the use of bogus rationale and well... I don't want to get into the rest or how this vote got worded and watered down to hide intent... but if I am an EU Laser sailor that is happy with LPE... I don't know what to say except they have every reason and right to be really ticked at the class. And really good people in the class. I can only liken this to when one you your really good friends goes through a really bad divorce and you just watch them make bad / unethical / sad (??) decisions because they are so trapped in hatred.
I really don't get this ILCA. Even if you win you lose. Pass the vote and eventually the smoke clears and you end up with a fractured class, more expensive boats, and you et dragged into court and have to use sailors dues to defend pay lawyers instead of advance sailing.
I am not racing the boat anymore so really shouldn't care - and for sure I will find the coming legal sagas interesting on a professional level - but it makes me kinda sad. Like watching those friends go through a divorce.
What is the connection here?if the rule change is approved, LP will be reinstated as a class legal builder for a minimum of 5 years...
You are right of course Doc. LPE should not be granted any special treatment.What is the connection here?
LPE should be reinstated if the facility inspection results in "no fault" manufacturing processes at LPE, not because the rule change is approved or denied.
And why should LPE, if approved, should be approved for 5 or 10 (any independently specified number of) years? LPE should be approved for exactly as long as however long any other builder is approved following facility inspections.
These are rhetorical questions. I'm not really asking "why". I' just suggesting LPE should NOT be granted any special treatment.
Agreed. The following comment was made in response to ILCA calling for a vote.The connection in my mind is because several Laser class members especially in Europe seem to fear that this rule change is all about terminating LP. If the vote fails it will be because (i) Many European members dont want LPE terminated (ii) Many Laser sailors dont want the Laser name dropped. It takes a lot of careful study to discover that the vote is separate from any decision on LP and the name brand Laser can still be used. Most Laser sailors will get more influenced by social media than taking 20 minutes to read and understand the FAQ.
And in my view you have succeeded. (Not that you need my approval).LET ME BE CLEAR.......what I am writing is not biased in favor of LP. (Bruce) I am trying to be objective here.
Yes, I agree!We agree!
My second point, is with the rule change passed, LP could walk away from the negotiations on a blanket license for its trade mark and focus on a few select bilateral negotiations.
Mine is only 13' 10".Everybody else builds the "Kirby 14" under his own brand.
Approving builders is not FRAND. Anyone, subject to payment of a license fee agreed on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms should be able to build, sell and supply Lasers (or whatever they may be called). It is not for ILCA, GS or WS to “approve” or deny permission. This is a really important point with far reaching consequences.What is the connection here?
LPE should be reinstated if the facility inspection results in "no fault" manufacturing processes at LPE, not because the rule change is approved or denied.
And why should LPE, if approved, should be approved for 5 or 10 (any independently specified number of) years? LPE should be approved for exactly as long as however long any other builder is approved following facility inspections.
These are rhetorical questions. I'm not really asking "why". I' just suggesting LPE should NOT be granted any special treatment.
LOL. I must admit it crossed my mind to rejoin the Laser class just so I could vote.Meanwhile, thousands of Aero sailors have been reported lining up to join the Laser class and vote against the rule change.
View attachment 313228
Ok, I don´t understand that imperial system, can´t even measure, so you might be right. Call it Kirby 13 10Mine is only 13' 10".
![]()