ILCA drop LPE as a builder

Originally posted by iGRF Originally posted by CT249 ]By the way, sailing is actually a very unrestricted sport. No one will stop anyone from creating a new class. If you want to create the Grand Racing Formula class that will allow boats to be made obsolete and impractical each season, no one will stop you. All that will stop you is reality. I want to build a Contender that I or a woman could actually lift onto a trailer and sail and maybe even squeeze my ample bosom under the boom...

Edited by CT249 - 01 May 19 at 10:26am

Originally posted by CT249 So do you actually believe that one side of the dispute is handing out the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?  Any reasonable person can see that those documents don't prove what LPE and their fans claim they do. For a start, the "defect" has been found in ONE boat and there is no evidence in the correspondence that the other 2000+ are similar. ]

And yet you believe without question that ILCA were right to dump LP?

The World Sailing Olympic Class Plaques Terms & Conditions states:

4.3 For one design equipment, the Builder shall supply to WS from time to time with the latest and up to date manufacturing/building specifications (including tolerances and quality control procedures) in use by it.
4.4 The Builder agrees it will not use any amendment to the specifications without the prior written consent of WS. WS agrees any amendments will be reported immediately to the relevant class association and the Builder.

The ILCA letter was a Defect Notice written after an investigation into the PSA boats and states "Appendix 1 of this letter identifies the ISAF Plaque numbers of the Laser class sailboats produced by Performance Sailcraft Australia Pty, Ltd. ("PSA") known to not comply with the manufacturing specification of the Laser Construction Manual ("LCM"). The 2,280 boats identified in Appendix 1 were manufactured between September 2006 and November 2015*".


* Not sure how this is possible given the Defect Notice was written in March 2015…

So, in a nutshell:

. Prior to this dispute, routine ILCA inspections did not discover irregularities in PSA built Lasers for 9 years.
. Prior to this dispute, ILCA did not terminate PSA's contract upon confirming the irregularity and did not, apparently, inform World Sailing.
. Prior to this dispute, ILCA changed their rules to remove the designer's rights.
. Prior to this dispute, ILCA changed the Laser plaques to remove the designer's name, the Laser logo and Laser name.
. ILCA acted hastily in terminating LP's contract – there appears to have been very little notice period and no attempt at settling the dispute prior to sacking LP.
. ILCA acted hastily in changing the name and logo of the class – there has been no membership approval of the changes.
. ILCA acted hastily in photoshopping (what I believe are) LP built (and logo'ed) Lasers to remove the sunburst and replace with the new ILCA logo in their promotion material.
. EurILCA disapprove of ILCA's actions.
. The name of the class association has not changed, so we now have a situation where the International Laser Class Association represents ILCAs but not new-build Lasers.
. The International Laser Class Association (commonly abbreviated to ILCA) are likely to have to defend the case that in their chosen boat name "ILCA" the L does not stand for Laser and that such a name is not intended to mislead the public into thinking the boat is a Laser.
. World Sailing has not approved or endorsed any of ILCA's actions, despite ILCA's claims.

Things I am unclear about:
. Were ILCA within their rights to terminate LP's contract when they did? All sorts of reasons to doubt it.
. Are old Lasers now expected to be referred to as Lasers or ILCAs? Recent race reports on Y&Y still refer to them as Lasers.
. Is it feasible to have a class association named after a different, trademark protected, class and not your own class? Surely not!

Originally posted by CT249 Originally posted by iGRF Originally posted by CT249 ]By the way, sailing is actually a very unrestricted sport. No one will stop anyone from creating a new class. If you want to create the Grand Racing Formula class that will allow boats to be made obsolete and impractical each season, no one will stop you. All that will stop you is reality. I want to build a Contender that I or a woman could actually lift onto a trailer and sail and maybe even squeeze my ample bosom under the boom... That's like saying "I want to build a Mistral Prodigy that looks OK and doesn't go slow"; you can build it but it's not a Prodigy. You can go ahead and build your Contender Lite class and no one will stop you. If you can find enough people who actually want to race a boat that has no fleet to sail in, you may even get a class going.  The thing about dinghy sailing is that if you actually put up and do it instead of complaining, there is no one to stop you from making a new class. That is very different from many other sports, where kit is much more controlled. I'm not a Contender sailor but I know people who love them, for good reason. The fact that you are apparently too wimpy and ungainly to sail one does not mean that they should all lose the great racing they enjoy and have to lose many thousands of quid to replace the boats they love with your version.

Two very different cases there, the one an attempt to bring a class into the modern era once more and the Prodigy was actually faster and preferred at the trials to the RSX but there was nobody left in the political situation at Mistral that had the necessary 'sway' with the IYRU to match Neil Pryde and everyone new at the trials it was just a necessary charade and the deal had already been done.

As to the Contender I would have thought it more a question of being more inclusive to sailors of all sizes and genders, but like I said Classes are from a bygone era, male dominated and will not countenance anything that might upset the status quo of the existing members even if it is to the detriment of themselves and they're own future. So, Sexist, Heightist and Gender discriminatory.

Edited by iGRF - 01 May 19 at 12:08pm

That Farr 3.7 pic that GRF put up the other day really is a cracking looking boat. Wish I was young enough/fit enough to sail one. 

Pedantic, I know but the Solo is also a One Design class (just not a Single Manufacturer One Design class). But you are right, it is more analogous to cycling. I think CT's point still stands though.