2011 Rule Changes - Fundamental Rule

#21
Re: rule change

So, are Global Sailing/ PSA hoping to expand their role to become Laser suppliers for more parts of the world? Is this what this is all about? And is the rule change all about protecting LPE's role as the official builder in all their current territories?
Pure speculation: If I were Global Sailing and I looked at the current Laser world and I owned an underutilized factory AND I saw the potential for this HUGE Asian market then I might be interested in expanding my territory.

But that is just what I would do. I can't speak for Global Sailing.
 
#22
Re: rule change

Trivial, but as PSA are part of Global Sailing, they have (indirectly) approved a rule change to the detriment of Global Sailing's (their owner's) interest ?

Ian
Sorry, PSA and Global Sailing are owned by the same family but are separate companies. Obviously, they must have the same interests but my understanding is that they are separate entities. I should have been more clear about that.

As I'm not a member of the Advisory Council I cannot speak to how the voting went there.
 
#23
Re: rule change

Sorry, PSA and Global Sailing are owned by the same family but are separate companies. Obviously, they must have the same interests but my understanding is that they are separate entities. I should have been more clear about that.

As I'm not a member of the Advisory Council I cannot speak to how the voting went there.
I would be interested to know what the voting on the Advisory Council was on this rule change. As class members I do think we are entitled to know.

The current members of the AC are Heini Wellman (SUI), Hugh Leicester (AUS), Chris Spencer (AUS) and Bill Crane (USA).
 

torrid

Just sailing
#24
Re: rule change

My impression is that for 40 years, Bruce Kirby served as an arbiter between builders and the class. He looked to preserve the one-design aspects as he originally intended.

He understandably retired and sold his interests in the the Laser design. If he chose one builder over another, that speaks volumes to me.

edit - A couple other thoughts. If you need parts for your Laser, I would buy them now. And don't look for a new sail design until this dust settles.
 

Wavedancer

Upside down?
Staff member
#25
Re: rule change

Thanks SFBay Laser and Tillerman for explaining the issue(s) a bit better than the ILCA website attempts to do. But since most of this is too complex for my aging mind, let me just ask two simple questions:

  • Whose pocket am I greasing if I were to vote in favor?
  • And what would happen if the proposal is rejected? As Tillerman already pointed out, the class did quite well without Olympic status. In fact, for some time, ILCA rejected efforts to gain Olympic status.
 
Thread starter #26
Re: rule change

correct me if im wrong, but the problems we are seeing with folks trying to use intensity sails for regattas could be duplicated if this rule change isnt passed... except people wouldnt be showing up with imitation sails, they'd be showing up with an imitation boat?:eek:
 

87607

Chris Caldecoat
#27
Re: rule change

Vote No or Wait?

Hello I am Chris Caldecoat, an alternate ILCA Advisory Council Member.

I have been asked by colleagues why I supported this puzzling resolution.

I want to make it clear I did not vote in favour of this proposed rule.

Let me share with you the facts.

I voted against this rule change as I believe this is not in the best interest of the Class or the international Sailing fraternity.

From my knowledge of the events, Heini Wellman and Jeff Martin communication with members is definitely wanting in content.

Laser sailors deserve the respect of a detailed and complete explanation.

If there is a genuine basis to put a change of this magnitude to the class membership we deserve a far more detailed case for Yes and No vote.

Think about how in democratic societies referendums are run, there is a case for the Yes put out to the World and a case for the No that is explored publically then there is a properly constituted vote.

This is not what has happened here and right now there is no need for a stampede.

I believe the class is spending your money on issues that it should not get involved in.
What is the implication for all designers of all classes around the world under ISAF’s umbrella if the rule was passed ?

There is much more coming on this story, either vote NO or wait for more information.

Chris Caldecoat
GM
Performance Sailcraft Australasia
 
#28
Re: rule change

"I voted against this rule change as I believe this is not in the best interest of the Class or the international Sailing fraternity.

From my knowledge of the events, Heini Wellman and Jeff Martin communication with members is definitely wanting in content."

Why don't you supply the "content" i.e. the different positions or at least explain your reasons here?
 
#29
Re: rule change

Laser sailors deserve the respect of a detailed and complete explanation.
If there is a genuine basis to put a change of this magnitude to the class membership we deserve a far more detailed case for Yes and No vote.
I agree. We do not have enough information at this time to make a decision on something so important to the future of our class.
 
#30
Re: rule change

There is much more coming on this story, either vote NO or wait for more information.

Chris Caldecoat
GM
PSA

Chris, thanks for taking the time to post here and elsewhere.

No problem waiting, but can you give us a approx date when you will be posting more info explaining the GS/LPA side of the story and why they feel it should be voted down ?
 
#31
Re: rule change

I'm confused...

As a laser sailor now for two decades I honestly want the class to be the same, if not better when it comes time for me to hand my first laser hull over to my kids. (as of yet I have no legitimate offspring) Suffice it to say I'm concerned for the long term health and welfare of the class as a strict one design boat. I recognize that competing firms are the cornerstone of our material world and that our class does give preference to one over the other and create an uneven marketplace, but all in the name on strict one design. I could care less about Olympic status, honestly, I'll never be that good, and we had a healthy class before that status was conferred. What does concern me is slightly different designs undercutting and diluting the one design. Older boats are no longer just as good and that in the end I feel will drive away sailors at all levels. So in the end I could care less who's got the trademarks and who’s got the design rights, what’s best for us as the sailors and our class. Right now this is as clear as fog, I'd like to hear both sides of the story. Thanks.
 
#32
Re: rule change, builder

As ever there are many valid arguments on this thread and most come back to 'tell us more before we decide' - an incredibly reasonable standpoint.

For my two pennyworth of speculation. My fervent desire is to see the class rules stay the same with NO MORE 'improvements'. The sail is perfect as is - just too expensive - as is the rest of the boat. Change nothing but reduce the price perhaps?

If you agree with this there is logic to consider that ILCA has the least vested interest in profit and the greatest interest in the Status Quo. So my default inclination is to vote for the Class Association to control the builders not the other way around.

As to the legal costs, no doubt any action will cost but the fact that the patents are time expired does make the equation easier! Let the other builders have free reign to develop their spin offs as they see fit. In my view they will be competing with a myriad of more sophisticated and better performing craft, what they won't have is readymade class racing at the majority of sailing clubs that I am ever likely to visit!
 
Thread starter #33
Re: rule change, builder

sf bay laser:
"It also means the current Laser hegemony over singlehanded sailing is broken and the door opens for something completely different to sweep over the land. Of course, this isn't good for current Laser sailors either since the resale value of their boat will plummet."
think about that. do we really want to turn this into the 505 class? i stand by my yes vote
 
#34
Re: rule change, builder

Chris Caldecoat, GM of Performance Sailcraft Australia says there is "much more coming on this story" and "right now there is no need for a stampede."

Based on what I have heard so far, I tend to agree. It looks like the vote on the proposed rule change will remain open for 6 months. So why are Heini Wellmann and Jeff Martin urging us to "Vote Now!" and "PLEASE DO NOT DELAY YOUR VOTE"?

What's the rush if the polls are open for 6 months? Don't we ILCA members "deserve the respect of a detailed and complete explanation" from both sides before we cast our votes?
 
#35
Re: rule change, builder

Chris Caldecoat, GM of Performance Sailcraft Australia says there is "much more coming on this story" and "right now there is no need for a stampede."

Based on what I have heard so far, I tend to agree. It looks like the vote on the proposed rule change will remain open for 6 months. So why are Heini Wellmann and Jeff Martin urging us to "Vote Now!" and "PLEASE DO NOT DELAY YOUR VOTE"?

What's the rush if the polls are open for 6 months? Don't we ILCA members "deserve the respect of a detailed and complete explanation" from both sides before we cast our votes?
Could it be they want to us to vote now before all sides weigh in and the facts are on display ? Sure seems that way to me.

Frankly I'm discouraged and disappointed that the ILCA used that wording to try and influence it's members
 
#36
Re: rule change, builder

Hi,

The most important required change is not included in the new wording.

All Lasers should be built following the same specifications and I don't care who builds them. A boat should be called a "Laser" only if it complies with clearly defined design and specifications. All boats should be measured before calling them Lasers. If they are in conformance with the class official measures, fine. Otherwise, correct them or change the name.

ILCA should be in charge of defining the specifications. Boats could be measured by any ISAF authority.

Regards,
Rodolfo
 
#37
Re: rule change, builder

What's the rush if the polls are open for 6 months? Don't we ILCA members "deserve the respect of a detailed and complete explanation" from both sides before we cast our votes?
I've been wondering about the timing too since I was under the impression that the Fundamental Rule change was under a shorter time fuse. I'll ask for clarification.

Note that once you vote on the Fundamental Rule then you get to a page with the remaining changes to the Class Rules (e.g. electronics/compass). The timeline for those is the end of September as the next World Council meeting is in October (I'm told).
 
#38
Re: rule change, builder

ILCA should be in charge of defining the specifications.
ILCA IS in charge of defining the specifications as it "owns" the Laser Construction Manual and drives the changes/updates to it.

As we know, the major advantage to the current system is that when the boat leaves the factory we KNOW its a Laser - no need to bring in a measurer to verify each hull/spars/sail. Imagine having to do that for some 3000 boats/year! And its the job of the ILCA Technical Officer to periodically inspect each factory to insure compliance with the LCM (in fact, there is an inspection of a factory scheduled for next week).
 
#39
Re: rule change, builder

Hi,

The most important required change is not included in the new wording.

All Lasers should be built following the same specifications and I don't care who builds them. A boat should be called a "Laser" only if it complies with clearly defined design and specifications. All boats should be measured before calling them Lasers. If they are in conformance with the class official measures, fine. Otherwise, correct them or change the name.

ILCA should be in charge of defining the specifications. Boats could be measured by any ISAF authority.

Regards,
Rodolfo
Growing up sailing Lightnings for about 20 years ( another ILCA), I don't see why having multiple boat builders and multiple sailmakers would be such a disaster. That is how that class has operated since time began and I'm pretty sure its still a strong class.

They have class measurers at major events.

IF someone at the club level had an underweight boat, it was either dealt with there or ignored. As no one was getting paid for their results at the local level, we got over it and did what we could to get more sailors on the water.
 

Eric_R

D10 Secretary
#40
Re: rule change, builder

Growing up sailing Lightnings for about 20 years ( another ILCA), I don't see why having multiple boat builders and multiple sailmakers would be such a disaster. That is how that class has operated since time began and I'm pretty sure its still a strong class.

They have class measurers at major events.

IF someone at the club level had an underweight boat, it was either dealt with there or ignored. As no one was getting paid for their results at the local level, we got over it and did what we could to get more sailors on the water.
Yes and remember there are far fewer Lightnings out there than Lasers. You go to a major regatta with maybe 75-100 for NAs. Go to a major Laser regatta and there are 150+ boats. You think people want to come early for measurement especially with everything you want to check? Nope.
 
Top