another quality Laser product...I am glad they don't manufacture cars as they would be flimsy, overpriced and unreliable
I got a new boat in germay in august 2010. How can I detect whether I got the new or old foils?
Seriously folks...
ask yourselves a couple questions?
How many phone calls do you believe it would take to find a manufacturer capable of reverse engineering the Compton foils and building exact replicas of the foils supplied with all ONE DESIGN Laser racing sailboats from 1980 until recently??
Do you suppose any of us who are experienced boat builders might know EXACTLY how to build blades that would be shaped just like the Compton foils but stronger and more durable than those Compton foils?? ( yes they would make the boat go slightly faster...SO WHAT??? Are we seriously believing the hold up is that nobody can figure out how to build a blade that is just exactly as slow as the Compton blades?? Yeah Right...I have a bridge to sell you too)
Knowing the foils retail for over $200 and materials for such things cost well under $50 per pound ( I'm thinking maybe $4 per pound would be plenty), do you suppose someone in the plastics molding business might be interested in having a contract to supply Laser foils worldwide and willing to spend some effort and work out a molding system?
...
The simple fact is somebody who controls the building and distribution of Laser brand sailboats has chosen to purchase a particular new type of foil...
Do you suppose it has to do with perceptions related to potential profits or do you suppose it has to do with some sort of belief related to potential profits??
I got a new boat in germay in august 2010. How can I detect whether I got the new or old foils?
The problem is that you do the development work, and you think that you have a handle on the process, so you press the button and go into full production. Often the process has to be refined once in the production phase. This happens with all products ( i-phones for example) not just the flakey marine trade. What is important is that you have good production staff that can get their heads around the issues and fix the problem quickly before the problems get out of hand (a skip full of scrap parts, and a load of warranty claims, and the product gets a bad reputation and dies in the market).
Crompton appears to have pulled out quite quickly, which has forced the ILCA/LP to quickly find a alternate supplier and hence he development period has been too short. As Tracy indicated a few weeks ago, Crompton did not want to continue supplying boards.What I find surprising is that the new boards were not adequately "developed" before the old ones were discontinued. As many have said before, the builders have a policy on not single sourcing so even if there was a problem with one supplier they can still get stock. Thus, why not continue with the old boards until the new ones are adequately developed and most problems solved.
Unless of course the builder has not been maintaining its dual/multiple source policies (and the reasons why they might not are obvious and look like yet again we are the ones to suffer).
Ian
What I find surprising is that the new boards were not adequately "developed" before the old ones were discontinued. As many have said before, the builders have a policy on not single sourcing so even if there was a problem with one supplier they can still get stock. Thus, why not continue with the old boards until the new ones are adequately developed and most problems solved.
Unless of course the builder has not been maintaining its dual/multiple source policies (and the reasons why they might not are obvious and look like yet again we are the ones to suffer).
Ian
I wasn't involved in the process, but I have spoken to PSA about it, the ILCA did a lot of testing of both the Crompton boards and the PSA boards. The mechanical properties (bending, strength, twist etc) and even some of the dimensions (and weight) had never been determined before PSA started. The ILCA didn't want boards which were mechanically superior to the Crompton boards in the market, so the ILCA determined the tolerances by measuring the Crompton boards and PSA had to develop a board that would fit inside those tolerances. The PSA guy behind the project has had a lot experience in high end laminating development and the product we've ended up with, has significantly worse mechanical properties than what could have been produced, simply because they were having to meet the mechanical properties of the Crompton boards to gain ILCA approval, that is the boards could have been stronger, stiffer, lighter etc.Whilst I'm sure that every effort has been made to make the new foils similar in performance to the old ones ( bending stiffness ?). It is very difficult to match the strength characteristics of the old foils with an infused foil with glass skins and a lightweight core.
Tracy indicated that that this wasn't a key area for Crompton and that they didn't want to continue producing, rather than losing their monopoly, remember that PSA has been developing their board for almost a decade. If anything, rather than Crompton having an issue with an alternate authorised supplier, I'd be looking a their market being impacted by the replica parts market. I have no idea what else Crompton produces, but I very much doubt that supplying rudders and centreboards to the Laser Class would be a major money spinner for any business, the world wide volume is very small and the manufacturing process tedious.My guess is two things happened. The original board vendor first found out that they were being replaced with a new vendor. Next, volumes were cut with a drop in demand due to the global recession. The original vendor had no incentive to continue producing boards, and the new design was rushed in to fill the gap.
Dual-sourcing suppliers would be nice, but I suspect LP doesn't have the volume (especially in this economy) to make that practical. LP's reputation has taken a pretty good beating as of late, but I suspect much of it is supply chain/economy related.