More about the Future of the Laser
 |
| Trends in Participation at Laser 4.7 and Radial Youth Worlds |
Note that most of what is covered in the webcast is more extensively detailed in those two articles:
- The Laser at the Crossroads — https://optimist-openbic-sailing.blogspot.com/2019/01/the-laser-at-crossroads.html // https://sailinganarchy.com/2019/01/20/crossroads/
- Laser Class Statement on the Development of New Rigs: 10 Comments — https://optimist-openbic-sailing.blogspot.com/2019/01/laser-class-statement-on-development-of.html
- Durability of the hulls
This is an extremely important point, and Andy is right to assert that we don’t really know about the 3 new designs. What we know is that the Laser has several known weaknesses, such as a) lack of top stiffness of the hull after 1 or 2 years; b) mast step leaks sooner or later in the hull’s life - a problem that exists since the first Laser hulls and is a pain where you know … ; c) lack of consistency in the hulls - some hulls are better, stiffer, more durable than others - most of us have heard for example about the « Aussie Lasers ». We also know that more performing materials such as epoxy and carbon are used in the new designs. Engineering such new boats will have incorporated the latest structural mechanics and fluid dynamics codes. It is reasonable to think that the latest composites and materials science have been considered and incorporated into these platforms with much higher stiffness to weight ratios vs the Laser. Yes, testing should take place indeed, ideally through an independent third party laboratory/company. Related to the durability of the hulls is of course the question of sustainability. A hull that remains a top performer for a longer time does not need to be replaced as often as a hull with less durability, and this greatly reduces environmental impacts.
- Price of Laser v. Competition
I did a comparison of the current pricing in Europe, in the Eurozone. And I based my assertions on this comparison. One of the 3 competitors came out at a cheaper price than the Laser and the two other contestants. But generally speaking, the price differences are not that significant any longer on the European market. I would invite Andy or others to make their own comparison, and then we can compare notes. Instead of putting my numbers forward and then getting instant criticism. Note also that for example with the Radial, there will be a new price increase due to the future composite bottom mast section. I did not even incorporate this in my comparison. Anyway, pricing is intimately linked with longevity. If a boat remains competitive, including at the very top level, for a longer duration (like in classes such as the Finn or the Tornado), then a higher price is fully justified.
- Master Sailing and Boat Acquisition
There are no statistics, but obviously, a significant number of the people sailing the Devoti, the Melges or the Aero, have sailed the Laser before. Most new master sailors are men who decide, typically in their 40s, to go back to sailing. Year after year, the apprentice master sailors (age 35 to 44) are just a small share of the Master Laser fleets. Today, master sailors, who need to purchase a boat, can choose among several models - Laser, Aero, etc. - something that was not the case 10 years ago. So what you may not see that often is someone sailing the Laser as a Master, and selling his boat, and then moving to the competition. But rather people having sailed the Laser in the past, and turning to the competition when time comes to get a new single-handed dinghy.
- Slight Decline in Laser Master Sailing
When I commented online, and indicated a slight (i.e. small, modest) decline in participation, I had not done a full analysis. But my own experience was that the first time I did the Master Worlds in Halifax (2009), there were two Master (45 / 54) Standard fleets. Second time, a few years later, in Kingston (2015), there was only one. It went from 84 to 50 sailors, while total participation in the two events went from 281 to 257. Interestingly, the Grand Master category (55 to 64) saw its participation increase from 40 to 55. As participation in the Worlds highly depends on the location, one has to be very careful in drawing conclusions. But I think that my assessment is right that there is a slight decline in participation. But I am ready to acknowledge at the same time that a big variability: for example a record 511 sailors in Hyères, France in 2014 v. 222 sailors in Nuevo Vallarta Mexico in 2016. What can be seen from the various categories is a slight aging of those participating in the Master worlds. To be also noted is that Master sailing in the Laser has never been really appealing to women, even when the 4.7 was used. That shows how the Radial works only for a handful of very fit women, and that the rig is too powerful for most anyway. And of course, while this modest decline in participation in master sailing takes places, there is vibrant and expanding youth sailing in the Laser, particularly in Europe. (see graph)
- The Finn v. the Laser (cf « love » comment)
In the webcast, I attempted some humor, that seemed to work with many, but maybe not with Andy :) Yes, people can have their Laser in their garage for years without sailing it. It happens. And with age, it’s always a bit hard to find the motivation to get it out. What I really had in mind when I was referring to love is actually customer service, or the lack of such service. Last year I needed a part, and went to a parts shop that used to carry the Laser. And I was told that they did not any longer carry Laser parts, because they had to prepay all their orders, and that they actually had some doubts about the viability of the builder, so that they were afraid of not getting the parts they would pay for in advance. Also, just buying a new sail for the Laser is a tough decision. One knows that the « copycat » and the « class legal » sails are almost the same in terms of performance and longevity. And they probably cost about the same to produce (about 50 dollars or maybe even less). Yet the class legal sails cost about four times more (US pricing: $150 v. $600). So just buying a new sail is a reminder that there is something wrong with the Laser, and that monopoly-like prices are being asked - not true market prices. Of course, Finn sails are more expensive, but there is R&D involved, they are larger, and they use advanced materials. And if you don’t like one sailmaker, you can opt for another. More generally speaking, the customer service for Finn sailors seems to exist, while frankly, for the Laser, at least in some locations, it’s questionable.
- Narrow Weight Range of the Laser
Andy writes that he had not heard about the narrow weight range of the Laser, and that’s surprising. Because it’s a well established fact. Take for example the International Sailing Academy, in Mexico, which trains several of the best Laser sailors in the world. They recommend the 145-155 lbs range for the Radial, and the 180-185 lbs range for the full rig. So a 10 lbs range for the Radial, and just a 5 lbs range for the full rig. See the diagram from the International Sailing Academy. One can consider this as very narrow indeed. Let’s compare with another Olympic sport: weight lifting. For men, there are 8 weight categories, from 123 lbs to over 231 lbs. That’s over 100 lbs range of athletes’ weights. For female athletes, there are 8 categories, from 106s lb to over 198 lbs, i.e. approx a 100 lbs range. The sport of weight lifting accommodates essentially most physiques present in the world. In contrast, the Laser Standard and Radial dinghies accommodate only a very small share of the diversity of athletic physiques. This is actually a reason why equipment choices that could accommodate wider weight ranges are so important. Some of the new designs may just do that - with sail plans depowering more efficiently than that of the Laser, but it needs to be tested objectively, of course. And it’s also why it’s important to keep the Finn to accommodate sailors who are too heavy for the Laser.
- The Five New Rigs
What makes single-handed dinghy appealing is being able to sail with guys who use the same boats. The multiplicity of rigs that is now expected will fragment the fleets and is likely to be detrimental. Why 5 new rigs? It’s simply the outcome of the lack of coordination among the two builders and the class. If weight ranges can actually be made wider, thanks to new technologies such as the ones used for the C rigs, then the actual goal should be to reduce the number of rigs, i.e. have only two rigs. There is already some overlap between 4.7 and Radial. Two new rigs would be great, as long as they are really affordable, and that there is a realistic, cost-effective and consensual plan to move from the old rigs to the new ones. Keep in mind that in many places with very small Laser fleets, including in Montreal where I am located, 2 rigs would be much better than 3 (and obviously 5 or 8). What happened with the June 2018 video, is that it says the class was going to go ahead with new rigs, but without any clear plan for a transition. And then the media release this January is now saying that the existing three rigs will be kept. In Australia, the pricing for the two other C rigs - the c7 and c8 rigs -, have already been announced, so those will become sooner or later a reality. So it’s all confusing. And the two ARC rigs, which were developed independently from the class, and are expected to be launched in May, add to the confusion. The press release by the class, in my view, did not really resolve this issue, especially when suggesting that the market would sort this out. And if there were such great communications between Laser Performance and the class, why weren’t these new ARC rigs not central to those communications? Why can’t the Australian and UK builders agree on the same rigs?
- New Radial Composite Bottom Mast Section; Top Composite Section & Video
As I mentioned in the webcast, the top composite/carbon section seems to be a good patch, but it came late (seems first trials were in 1999), and at a pretty high cost for what it is (625 euros in France for example). I now hear in the grapevine that these top sections are not all the same, in terms of flexibility. I hope this is not true, because that would bring us back to the situation where the top sailors will be testing 20 or 30 top sections before selecting one fitting their requirements. This is not one design sailing any longer. Actually, variable degrees of flexibility of the top section may be a way to accommodate wider weight ranges, but then it should be a stated goal, and not a byproduct of inconsistent production. In windsurfing, you have many types of mast flexibility to choose from. In the Optimist, typically sailors have several sprits and select the one to use according to the expected conditions. Maybe that’s a model that the Laser could embrace. I insist: maybe; it would need to be analyzed in depth. And yes, there is a new Radial bottom mast section that is coming, but again pretty late and at a pretty high cost, as announced in Australia, adding to the price of the boat, while the competitors - D-Zero, M-14, RS Aero - don’t need these upgrades, as they are all already full composite for their rigs (2 parts of the mast, plus the boom - which stays aluminum in the Laser). As for the Sarah Douglas video, which was not part of my slideshow, and on which I was asked to comment, I think she posted it on her Instagram for the fun. I was not suggesting she was using an aluminum top section for racing. Just that it was an aluminum section in the video. What I understand is that many youth sailors still use aluminum top sections in Europe. The price difference between the two types of section is substantial. It seems that at least for the 4.7, where much less boomvang is typically applied, if there was better quality aluminum and and more consistent manufacturing involved, a top aluminum section would be fully sufficient. The last thing youth sailing needs is for the Laser to be even more expensive.
- Universality
I address the question of universality in my May 31 2018 article « Singlehanded Dinghies for the 2024 Olympics: Selection Criteria and Potential Contenders » — see https://optimist-openbic-sailing.blogspot.com/2018/05/singlehanded-dinghies-for-2024-olympics.html Key aspects of universality are that equipment is widely accessible around the world; that success is more related to athletic superiority and tactical understanding than technical knowledge of the specific equipment; and that equipment is simple, standardized and no option is given for development, optimization or customization under its Class Rules. Of course, today, the Laser is dominant around the world, following its nearly 50 years of existence and its Olympic status for over 20 years, since 1996. But what’s stressed by World Sailing is accessibility of the boat worldwide. That’s what will need to be determined. None of today’s Lasers will compete at the 2024 Olympics. None of today’s Lasers will even serve for the Olympic campaigns of the top sailors in anticipation of the 2024 Olympics. As mentioned in the webcast, the top sailors regularly change hulls, typically every one or two years. Many sailors have several hulls. So buying a new boat from another brand is not a big step from buying a new boat from the Laser brand, as long as the boat is actually available worldwide for purchase. And for the sailors who are not those eying the Olympics, in particular youth sailors, I have made abundantly clear that I think that the Laser should be kept as the preferred single-handed youth dinghy, for a substantial period of time, of say at least 4 years. Indeed, for those sailors, sailing a new hull is much less important and there is a strong case for continuing to use the large fleets of Lasers that are say between 2 and 10 years old. What is not desirable obviously is to create a new monopoly, something that would actually be scrutinized by the European Commission and possibly various national authorities. If things are managed properly, the replacement boat for the Laser can become as universal as the Laser, i.e. that boats will be readily available for purchase in all the countries desiring to compete internationally. And the Laser can remain at the same time central to single-handed youth sailing. That’s in principle feasible. I think that World Sailing will not interpret universality as being the most abundant single-handed boat today in the world. If they do, then why did they even bother starting a process to possibly replace the Laser in the first place?
- The Case for Taking a Pause
I argue in my article « The Laser at the Crossroads » that there are two very distinct scenarios. Either the Laser remains Olympic for 2024, or it doesn’t. I will not repeat the arguments here, but what’s essential, in case the Laser loses its Olympic status, is to save youth sailing in the Laser 4.7 and the Radial, and even make it better. So lots of work would need to be done with the youth sailing authorities in the key countries where the Laser is strong, in Europe in particular. Any changes to the Laser will need to be agreed upon with all these authorities along with the builders, and the general membership. Meaningful changes, including to the rig, that will make the Laser a better youth boat, while at the same time not unnecessarily increasing its cost, will likely have a good chance to pass. If the Laser keeps its Olympic status, there will still be a case to reconnect with the membership and figure out what to do to improve the boat and avoid the confusion of the 8 different rigs. So yes, I maintain, there is a case for taking a pause, and this is a very constructive recommendation indeed.
------------------
Andy Roy’s Comments can be found here https://www.facebook.com/SailingIllustratedBlog/videos/813275225705785/ and are copied below.
Note: Andy Roy is not only an amazing Laser sailor but also the North American Chairman of the Laser Class.
====================================
This is to respond to some of your Laser related comments on Tom’s show:
Re: of the 4 boats being evaluated by WS for 2024, you claim the three new boats are “better designed than the Laser”. By what criteria are they “better”? Are they lighter? Yes. Are they a bit faster? Likely a bit due to the weight. Are they more expensive? Yes. Do they last as long? Time will tell. Are they anywhere close to being as universal as the Laser? Of course the answer is a resounding no.
You go on, I think 3-4 additional times, to make the same claim that the other three boats are “better”. Please define, “better”. You claim they “last longer”. How do you know this, and where is the data?
“Many Laser sailors are in that situation (of wanting to sell their boats).” What is your basis for this odd claim?
“(There is) … a slight decline in Laser Masters sailing” What is this based on? There were over 300 entries at last year’s Laser Masters Worlds.
“The Finn brings/generates more love (than the Laser)”. Quite an absurd statement.
“Laser Standard has an extremely narrow weight range (so few people can sail it at the top level)”. I have never, until now, heard this statement or complaints about this. You go on to claim that the “(3 other boats) seem to have a much wider weight range”. What are you basing this on? There has been no racing in the other boats at a level anywhere remotely close to the Laser. I am quite sure that if the top sailors started training and competing they way they do know in any of the other boats you would see the weight narrow down to a similar sized range.
You say the four boats are “similar in price”. Do you have the data on this?
Once again you claim that the other boats “last much longer than the Laser”. What are you basing this on? And then you claim this is somehow an environmental issue for the Laser? I don’t think sailors take their hulls to the dump when they decide to buy a new boat, as there is, as you well know, a robust used market for Lasers. Except at the Olympic level, older hulls can compete just fine. There’s a well-known Canadian Master sailor who competes at the very top level. His hull is 169xxx and loves his hull.
I’m sure if any of the other three boats under WS evaluation were used as an Olympic boat, the athletes would be buying new hulls at a similar rate (and at a higher price) as they do now with the Laser.
Regarding potential new rigs for the Laser, you make a statement that 5 new rigs are being developed for introduction. Have you read the recent ILCA statement on the new rig development? Our Class President, in the C5 video, clearly says these developments are looking towards “the future”, and in the ILCA statement you’ll note there is no intention to introduce any of these new rigs before 2024. ILCA can’t simply stand still and we wouldn’t be doing our duty if we weren’t looking towards the future by introducing newer designs and technology.
In the C5 video it is clearly stated by the sail designer that, “… this allows sailors of very different weights to be competitive over a large wind range”. It’s odd that you earlier say this is a weakness of the Laser (a narrow sailor weight range), yet ILCA working to develop a new rig to open up the weight range seems to bother you. I’m confused: which are you for and against?
You claim that ILCA has been “creating new rigs without testing or consulting”. Well, you are certainly wrong on the “testing” comment, and we’re not yet ready to “consult” with class members as the it’s not being introduced as class equipment yet (even though people are going to be able to buy it from the Australian developers for their own use).
Your next statement is that, “… you hilorsheAgain, basis for this claim? I know of two top Laser sailors who compete in one of the boats, and both receive income from sales of the boat.
And, your next claim is that “ILCA is not in decent communications with LP”. Note that ILCA held its annual World Council meeting in November and a senior LP executive attended (as he or another executive does every year), along with reps from the Australian and Japanese builders. All the parties had very good positive exchanges on a range of topics at the meeting.
Again you claim that: “(Lasers) don’t have huge longevity”. What is the longevity of an RS Aero?
Your Conclusion Slide recommends that the “Laser class take a pause, and it should “reconnect with its membership”. What do you mean by “take a pause”, and how we are we not “connected” to our membership? We welcome constructive feedback.
Wow, once again you claim the 3 boats are “better boats” due to their “wider range”, and the Laser, as a “50 year old design, has to move on”. Do you know that the 470 is a 1963 design and a continual Olympic boat since 1976? Is it not also “too old”?
BTW, the new top section is not “carbon”, it is, however, “composite construction”. (There is a small piece of carbon fibre at one end that was added for cosmetic purposes only).
And I’m confused that you then state that the Laser doesn’t have a new design sail plan, yet earlier you state your outrage that development work on a new rig is going on (in Australia). You of course know that in addition to the new top section we introduced a new sail (the MKII) a few years ago, and will have the new Radial composite bottom section introduced right after the 2020 Olympics. So which do you prefer, not updating mast sections and sails, or working on newer developments to stay current by introducing them in accordance with WS requirements and our own class rules?
You then make it seem that you know solely from watching a video clip of Canadian Radial sailor, Sarah Douglas, breaking her top section in a tack, that she’s using an aluminum section instead of the new composite section. You seem to infer that top sailors are using the older aluminum design instead of the new composite section. You should probably get your facts straight before making such a claim.
