You're absolutely right.we spend lot's of money for crappy boats, we know, that's unfortunaletly typical laser.... But its the game we love.
You're absolutely right.
Those are big statements. I've owned 4 laser, (76, 81, 94, and 98) models. The 98 I"m currently sailing was beat to hell by the previous owners, but i've fixed her up and even though it's the oldest boat in my local fleet by nearly 8 years I'm most always in the top 4 of our 20+ boat local fleet. Does it have voids? yes. Does the mast step get wear? yes. Does the filler in the deck/hull joint come out? yes. Do I fix these things? Yes! Every off season I garage my boat for a complete check up and fix every little ding on her. If you beat your boat up every season and just throw a cover on it until next time then you'll lessen the life span of the boat. This will happen with anything.
I've never experienced initial build quality related problems with any of my boats. While I have heard of a few issued with particular builders over the years those problems were always taken care of by the dealer/builder in the instances I was aware of.
While I have problems with the cost of class sails the total package price of a new boat can't be beat by anything on the market right now that offers the same type of serious OD sailing and for such a broad range of individuals. Yes, $5,000.00 is a lot of money, but you get a good return on the investment fun wise and for years to come.
If you have a measurable initial build problem on a new boat then get your dealer involved. If you have a problem with a second hand boat then you should have done a better job looking it over before you bought it. There is no way you can blame a QC issue of a used boat on initial build as you have no idea of its history.
Rant over.
This is what is "absolutely right". I think I accidentally read over the part about "crappy boats." I used to use a REALLY old laser, you know, entry level. It was actually a '74 but it had a new paintjob and I don't think it held me back all too much. But i felt that the hull and deck were getting too soft, and that after all my efforts I couldn't get the old thing to stop leaking. Thus, the new laser. It's not really a rant, this daggerboard trunk thing is not too bad on my boat, I just wanted to hear YOUR opinions in the changes in Vanguard design over the years (for better or worse.) I have heard from other people (coaches, friends) that they think it has gotten worse. Thank you for your input!... But its the game we love.
I agree. Most recreational sailors have a very very limited sample size when it comes to commenting on build quality of new boats. Thus, finding a (debatable) problem with one or two newish boats does not in itself mean that there is an issue with quality control.
To be honest I would suspect it is only the larger dealers who would detect a quality problem (as they see a larger number of boats and get to have to deal with any problems) and they would take it up with Vanguard who would almost certainly resolve it. After all, it is far more expensive for a company to sort out a problem with a boat after it is built and sold than sorting out the problems in the factory during building (a simple matter of economics that).
Of course there are occasional faults that slip through - but as Rob says, these would be dealt with by the manufacturer. There is another thread running where somebody has a problem with the mast step and by their account Vanguard (and dealer ?) are being very responsive and helpful.
Ian
I believe the big question at this point is.... What does your dealer say? or the dealer of the guy that has a worse proplem than your boat?
If it is not brought to the attention of the dealer or the builder then it must not be much of an issue for the customer.
There was a time, in the 70s I believe, where the Laser license bounced around from builder to builder (I think Pearson had it for a while). I think many of these builders used the Laser as "filler work" between their higher-profit large boats. Laser was not their first priority, so quality may have slipped some.
I think many of these builders used the Laser as "filler work" between their higher-profit large boats. Laser was not their first priority, so quality may have slipped some.
But do you guys think that Vanguard could be so caught up in any of these boats that what torrid is saying might be happening? I don't. Yes, I know where the boats are used, but.... FJ's and 420's are the classes where they are popular AND cost more than the Laser. But how popular? And Opti's cost much less, people only buy hulls from Opti Dealers... plus not everyone buys a Vanguard. Many buy Winner or McLaughlin hulls.
viktor188924,
Its all about profit. It would be daft for Vanguard to "pay less attention to Lasers" or just ignore any QA issues - as this would end-up costing them loads and hitting profits badly. Its just standard manufacturing and business principles. Far more expensive to solve problems once item is with customer (and is used, etc.).
I think your initial post starting this thread suggested to many that you were being critical of Vanguard's quality. Starting It seems that its been a slippery downhill slope in quality among the newer lasers implies to me that you are being critical, not that you are inviting comments on peoples experiences. You then go on to detail two problems boats you have experienced (justifying your initial comment about poor build quality). Thus, you cannot be surprised that many have assumed you were being critical, even though you later changed to I just wanted to hear YOUR opinions in the changes in Vanguard design over the years - which to me appears completely different to your original comment.
Ian
he was being critical, he was criticizing something
and I would think that one would generally assume that other people would throw in their comments and experiences
Let me re-state;
I wasn't talking about Vanguard today but companies like Pearson 25-30 years ago. They typically made big yachts, a completely different market and (I would assume) manufacturing technique from small boats. They weren't building Lasers because they wanted to be in the small boat market. They built Lasers to keep the cash coming in during lean years.
Being that Vanguard concentrates exclusively on small boats, I think that would be a plus for the Laser.
it is
in NA, Laser's biggest asset is Vanguard, without Vanguard, their wouldent be Laser sailing in NA
unless of course some other company picked up Laser, but everyone would still bitch and moan about it
I just have to query something mentioned earlier....
Optimist is the worlds biggest o/d fleet?
dont think so
The last figures I saw put laser at no.1, and Hobie 16 cat at no.2.
Is the oppy truly one design? there are multitudes of builders, spar suppliers, sailmakers, and foil builders, and of course the boats can be built from fibreglass, wood, or a composite of both.
they do have fairly strict tolerances, but anyone can build them, and with 4mm on most things, thats a lot of scope for variation. A friend of mine in NZ built about four different shaped hulls trying to give his son an edge, and they all passed measurement.
Laser and Hobie both keep a very strict control over their builders,
and over a quarter of a million people sail these two boats worldwide, so something must be right.
Just out of interest, IOCA claims to have just over 150,000 optimists worldwide. They dont quote an exact figure.
Back in the mid 90s I remember the optimist class annual magazine claiming +300,000 boats built worldwide (the ioda site claims "Sailed in over 110 countries by over 150,000 young people").
The 300 grand figure, I believe to the line, but just my 2 cents.
ex-optimist sailor, being a winner ESP9706 my last. I was 182 cm high when I moved on...
At one point in time, 50 years ago or more, the Optimist was supposed to be an ultra-low-cost class. The hull was designed to be built from a single piece of marine-grade plywood (maybe two). The idea was to keep costs down and and gets lots of kids sailing.
Would you care to explain what exactly the rules have to do with obvious misstakes in manufacturing?if the rules where updated, the boat could be a lot better
Would you care to explain what exactly the rules have to do with obvious misstakes in manufacturing?
The rules might have flaws but they're defently not forcing vanguard to make misstakes in manufacturing.
Ross:
Regarding the screws, your points are well taken, except for the fact that a 1.1/4" screw would've been sufficient to penetrate both the glass and the plywood backing. In fact a 1" screw would probably do just as well. I could not find any place on the boat where a 2 1/4" screw was necessary. They probably got a good deal on them and in my opinion were penny wise and pound foolish.