One thing for sure is something big just got pushed off a tall cliff! It will be very interesting to see what happens when it lands....Will be interesting to know what any new approved European builder can market the boat as. Do not LPE hold the European trademark “Laser”. Are we about to become the International Torch Association?
I think the tea leaves on the new rig possibilities was always clear from the ILCA. For class purposes any direction they would approve would have been from the Australia C-rig line.And I just put down a deposit on an ARC rig.
Agreed; I was hypothesizing as to why LP didn't allow ILCA inspection of the facility. Where they trying to hide 'something'?Class Association statement does not say they are doing anything that conflicts with the construction manual. What it says is that LPE have not allowed inspections to check that they are complying
Another hypothesis:Agreed; I was hypothesizing as to why LP didn't allow ILCA inspection of the facility. Where they trying to hide 'something'?
Other ideas, far out or not, welcome!
Not forgetting!You are forgetting that LP wasn't paying the royalities to Kirby (or PSA). This situation has been brewing for a decade. For the life of me I can't understand why anyone inside the LP market area would be upset as It seems that there has been supply issues for at least a decade, not experienced elsewhere.
What he said. We may never know the whole story, but one thing for sure is it has been a painful experience since LP took over.I believe that there may be more going on with LP than we think. I met a chinese sailor who said that he lived close by a factory in China that was building laser performance boats. May be possible that the LP boats aren't even built in the UK.
I thought of the same the other day! Maybe LP doesn't want anyone to see their site exactly because there's nothing to see... literally. Whether that would be against the Building Manual, I don't know, and as it's a non-public document, neither do many others.May be possible that the LP boats aren't even built in the UK.
That post by LP was frustrating to read. It's like instead of saying they will fix what they have done they have just gone and thrown everyone else under the bus and are acting like they are the perfect child.My take from LP's posts is there is no negotiating. They stated demands.
And as I said in the other thread (why do we have two of these?), for the class to stay Olympic it's almost a necessity to get rid of LP. The problem is the monopoly system, and with a 90 % share, LP has the most to lose and is the least willing to agree to any change.As I suggested earlier, after reading ILCA's statemnet, this is not good for the chances of Laser staying Olympic. After reading LP's statement, things don't look as if it's going to be better!
I have a strong feeling (which of course may turn out to be totally wrong) that ILCA's action has already been sanctioned by WS, and maybe even prepared in cooperation. WS has a history of sticking with the class associations at times like these, and the recent mess with the Sunfish class should have showed them LP 's true colours.it would be best when we try to ask for some sort of mediation from -let's say- WS.
This belongs rather, and was already discussed in the "Olympic status" thread, but as you asked: the three other boats are basically Single Manufacturer One-Designs, too, but in the current situation they know that they have to provide something more flexible than than a Laser-ish regional monopoly system in order to be selected.can you please elaborate and explain why the Laser monopoly situation is different to the other Olympic contenders?
Which would explain why WS might be HAPPY with the move from the ILCA and actually improve the chances for the Laser staying in the Olympics.This belongs rather, and was already discussed in the "Olympic status" thread, but as you asked: the three other boats are basically Single Manufacturer One-Designs, too, but in the current situation they know that they have to provide something more flexible than than a Laser-ish regional monopoly system in order to be selected.
The current business structure of the Laser was founded ten years before it became Olympic, and at the time there were many more builders than today. To pass the WS anti-trust test, having no regional sales restrictions would be essential, but that's exactly what LP is fighting for. They have repeatedly shown that they want no competition, and would even want to control class associations.
Devoti builds other less strict one-designs, and would surely let others build the D-Zero, even for the same markets. (They're actually involved in an anti-monopoly campaign, but we'll talk about that later.) The Melges 14 was already represented at the sea trials jointly by three manufacturers. I don't know about RS Sailing's intentions, but like the others, they know what the deal is.
As far as the soft boats are concerned it is a known fact the build quality of the LP lasers ARE worse. A 1 year old LP often has spider cracks in the hull while many 10 year vanguards don’t. That is why most of the Olympic sailors source themselves a PSA boat because they last longer, are stiffer and just better in general.Very unhappy that this forum is being used to make an unsubstantiated accusation of LPE selling "soft boats". I have been sailing Lasers for a long time and I and my sailing friends have never had this problem.
An alternative suggestion made to me by another sailor is the LPE boats are the best which might explain the current wranglings.