ILCA to Seek a Solution with LaserPerformance - but Only After the Vote for the 2024 Olympics

A document titled « Update from International Laser Class Association (ILCA) » and addressed to World Sail Council and Committee members was published by Sailing Anarchy on May 16. This document was not yet available at the time of writing our own May 16 article Laser Name Change and New Builders: Is There a Plan B?

The ILCA document is obviously in favor of the status quo, i.e. keeping the Laser Standard and the Laser Radial for the 2024 Olympics.

« we are more than well suited, we are well proven and we are clearly the best and only choice for the 2024 Olympics and beyond, » states ILCA.

Unlike RS Sailing, which is open for example to have the Aero to start with the women fleet, or even the youth fleets, the Laser class pretends the Laser is the only choice for Paris 2024.

We provide here a few comments on the ILCA Update, which falls short of addressing the key issues facing the Laser.

The ILCA document provides new information, including 24 possible new builders, and provides ILCA’s perspective on the non-compliant Aussie Lasers controversy.

ILCA also confirms there will be a meeting on May 22nd at World Sailing, involving LaserPerformance, EurILCA and other key parties, to attempt resolving the various issues, including the boat name and the future of LaserPerformance as a builder and trademark owner for the boat.

That meeting, however, is planned after the vote for the 2024 Olympics, due to take place on May 19.

Read the ILCA Document here on the Sailing Anarchy website.

May 22 2019 Conciliatory Meeting

The statement confirms that a meeting is scheduled next week, on May 22 at the World Sailing offices in London, « to explore how we can work together for the future of the class, the sport and the Olympics. »

« ILCA has confirmed the attendance of Laser Performance, World Sailing, and the current builders » …  « A representative of the European Laser Class Association (EurILCA) is also expected to participate. »

Yet, the statement warns that, if no solution is found at that meeting, then the present ILCA strategy, to rename the boat and discontinuing LaserPerformance as a builder, will continue.

« If good faith negotiations do not prove fruitful, ILCA is prepared to propose to its members the necessary changes to allow class-legal equipment to be sold worldwide under an alternate brand name. »

Name Change or No Name Change?

There is little word in the ILCA update about the implications of the name change for the Laser and the hurdles before the boat could be sold « worldwide under an alternate brand name » as suggested by ILCA.

As we analyzed recently, the steps taken by ILCA resemble much the attempt by Bruce Kirby, 6 years ago, to rename the Laser as the « Kirby Torch. » That attempt led to litigation and failed.

The statement re-iterates the intention to hold a vote on the name change (unless a solution is found with LaserPerformance) and to seek approval from World Sailing.

« If any future changes are required, ILCA will conduct all necessary votes of the membership and obtain full approval from World Sailing. »

Yet there is no indication as to what ILCA will do if it fails to secure the necessary 66.6% of the votes from the membership for the name change.

To be noted is that there is an apology by ILCA for the confusion it created.

« ILCA apologizes for any confusion caused by its previous statement that implied World Sailing’s endorsement or pre-approval, or that made it appear as if ILCA would not seek approval of the members for changes. »   

How Many New Builders?

In its statement, ILCA makes public a list of 24 builders from Asia, Europe, North and South America, that have expressed interest in building Lasers.

This includes well-known builders such as Nautivela and even Devoti Sailing, which failed in getting its d-Zero approved as suitable for the Olympics by World Sailing.

The statement indicates that « new builders are expected to come on line in the next 4-6 months with an aim for full capacity by early 2020. »

What is unclear is how many builders will ILCA approve, with what kind of criteria, and how those builders could operate without the name change, as there would immediately be risks of lawsuits.

From an economic viewpoint, there is no indication as to how many builders would make sense. Until the decertification of LaserPerformance, 3 builders were sufficient to satisfy the global demand for the boat. Shortage issues were related to distribution issues, not production capacity.

Related to this is the question of the status of LaserPerformance as a builder. If a negotiated solution is found with LaserPerformance, it’s likely that the company will require to be authorized to again build class-legal boats. In that case, will there be space for new builders?

And of course,  the "next 4-6 months" time horizon may be very optimistic, given the issues associated with the boat name, trademark, etc.

Buidling Compliance Issues

There is also the issue of compliance with the boat specifications. How will ILCA ensure that its expanded number of builders will all produce boats that are fully compliant?

This is extremely complex, and past experience has shown that current control procedures are inadequate to ensure consistency among builders.

The World Sailing report, comparing the 4 single-handed dinghies, recommended that stricter specifications are included in the building manual for the Laser.

The report notes: « the presented tolerances were considered by the Evaluation Panel as too high » and « tighter tolerances and higher controls are deemed required. »

This requires a major revision of the Laser Building Manual, which needs to be approved by all the builders, ILCA (the class) and World Sailing.

In its statement, ILCA does not address at all the need for a revision of the Laser Building Manual and for tighter procedures to control builders.

What Future for LaserPerformance?

The dominant position of LaserPerformance, even if presently decertified by ILCA, remains of critical importance. It controls, via another company - Velum - the trademarks for the Laser for the world, except a few countries in Asia and Oceania. And as the dominant producer of Lasers, until new builders are approved by ILCA and can legally distribute their boats in Europe, the Americas, etc. its ability to produce class-legal boats remains critical.

The ILCA update suggests that there is a 1,500 production capacity with the Australian and Japanese builders. But it fails to mention that those companies cannot market their boats in regions such as Europe, North and South America. With a significant share of the production of those builders destined to the 2020 Worlds in Australia and Olympics in Japan, the report does little to alleviate the fears of an acute global shortage of Lasers, both for charters and sales.

Actually, the report indicates that there is an arrangement for putting an additional 400 class-legal boats on the market, which seem to all originate from Laser Performance.

« In addition, ILCA is working with World Sailing towards a plan to release up to 400 class- legal boats over the next 3 months. ILCA has arranged a contingency supply of class legal boats for the Youth Worlds in Gdynia, Poland so no disruption is expected. »

Maybe there will be no disruption for the World Sailing Youth Worlds, in Gdynia, Poland, on July 13-20, but what about the Master Worlds in September in the Netherlands?

By that time, the rights by ILCA to use the Laser name will have expired. It will then be very risky for ILCA, EurILCA, national classes and clubs, to organize Laser events, as it may lead to trademark lawsuits.

If ILCA achieves an agreement with LaserPerformance, the question of the size of the future production of boats by the company will be a key issue.

With the production of « Club » « Training » boats at a discounted price, LaserPerformance seems to indicate it has room to possibly reduce its sales price. This may dissuade competitors which, unlike LaserPerformance, will need to invest substantially in equipment, manpower training, etc. and may not be able to compete with a recertified LaserPerformance.

Cheap New Lasers from Asia?

An interesting aspect of the list of prospective builders released by ILCA is the presence of candidates from low labour cost countries.

- E6E - Element 6 Evolution, from Thailand, involved in the production of the Nacra 17

- Qingdao Zou Inter Marine Co., Ltd. (ZIM) from China, which already produces a variety of dinghies, such as the Optimist, the Byte, the C420, the FJ and the 29er.

- An unnamed builder out of China.

Will the Laser class approve such builders from Asia? It’s a highly relevant point, as these builders should be in a position to produce much cheaper boats. This will probably be applauded by sailors, but it may put in jeopardy the very existence of builders in higher labour cost countries, including in Australia, Japan and the UK.

To be noted is that there are also candidates from South America (Argentina and Brazil) which may be in a position to produce much lower cost Lasers and threaten the existing builders.


What About the Sails, the Blades, the Rigs?

While the report lists 24 possible new builders, there is no word about the sails, the blades, the rigs.

We have analyzed previously that items such as the class-legal Laser sails are particularly expensive for what they are, even if they are produced in low labour cost countries such as Sri Lanka and the Philippines.

As the sail button fee is very small on Laser sails, there are no valid reason for high price differentials between class-legal and non-class sails. There are several producers of non-class sails, which provide sails from US$99, for a 4.7 sail with IntensitySails. The equivalent class-legal sail is priced at US$574 in North America.

And remember, the ILCA leadership is keen in replacing the existing sails and rigs with the so called "C" rigs from Australia, for which there are reportedly already active patents.

See our analysis of the Laser sail pricing issue.

Similarly, there are no indications if the so called « FRAND » policies now embraced by ILCA will deliver lower prices for rigs and blades.

Universality: ILCA v. World Sailing

In its statement, ILCA emphasizes the universality of the Laser, with participation statistics in a range of countries.

Yet, the Evaluation Panel of World Sailing, that compared the Laser to its 3 contenders (Aero, d-Zero, M14), did not give high points to the Laser for universality.

For example, when it comes to warranty and repair services, source of materials and tooling, the report awards a low score of 1 (out of 5) to the Laser and the d-Zero, versus 3 for the Aero and the M14.

For the question of access to the equipment, distribution networks, availability of charter equipment, mid- and long-term distribution scenarios and durability, the Laser is awarded a score of 3, versus 3 for the M14 and 4 for the Aero.

The related aspect of gender parity / equality is also mentioned in the ILCA statement.

« The Laser class is the clear choice for our sport, for gender equality, and to provide opportunities for all countries to take part in Olympic sailing regardless of their financial resources. »

The Laser is known to attract a significant participation of girls in youth sailing, particularly in the 4.7 and the Radial. But when one looks at senior and master sailing, woman participation is far from being balanced, or equal. See this short analysis done in a North American context.

Aussie Lasers / 2015 Defect Notice

The ILCA document comments on the non-compliant Aussie Lasers controversy.

First, it stresses that LaserPerformance may have breached confidentiality clauses.

« The matter was subject to confidential proceedings and relates to the Laser  Construction Manual (LCM), which is a confidential document. ILCA and LPE, as well as the other builders, have mutual obligations of confidentiality in relation to these proceedings and the LCM. »

Then the document states that

« A full investigation revealed that this was an issue limited to a group of boats built during late 2013 » without mentioning the number of boats.

« Recent online claims of past compliance problems are both untrue and overstated » also states the document.

Note that our reporting directly quoted the 2015 Defect Notice according to which 2280 non-compliant boats were produced between 2006 and 2015. (as uploaded on LP Website: https://www.laserperformance.uk/ilca-news)

Remember also the Defect Notice stated « The defect is an additional layer of approximately 300g/m2 chopped strand mat (« CSM ») included in the hull laminate forward of the centerboard case to the bow of the boats …. the existence of which has been confirmed by visual inspection and technical analysis of a deconstructed sample PSA boat. »

It is hard to believe that this additional layer was just added for a few months - especially as the Defect Notice states: « At the ILCA Technical and Measurement Committee meeting on 14 November 2014, Chris Caldecoat, General Manager of Performance Sailcraft Australia Pty, Ltd., confirmed the existence of the additional CSM in the boats identified in Appendix 1. »

Appendix 1 lists 2280 non-compliant boats produced between 2006 and 2015, and not just a few boats produced during late 2013.

While our first reporting of this issue dates April 9 of this year, i.e. well over one month ago, ILCA did not issue any push back or any document demonstrating that the issue was a minor one, as it now claims it was.

There is no indication either that World Sailing was informed about this non-compliance issue.

And if only a « group of boats built during late 2013 » was non-compliant, then has the class removed the World Sailing plaques from these boats?

And were the results at class events by the sailors who used non-compliant boats called into question?

Clearly, much more light is needed on this issue.

What’s interesting is to see how LaserPerformance decided at the time to collaborate with ILCA and the other builders to keep the issue quiet and not reveal it publicly.

LaserPerformance agreed, according to this ILCA document, on the « remedy » that was essentially an upgrade to the hull specifications in the builders manual.

Nothing was of course told to the membership.

The Ice-Blue line of Lasers by LaserPerformance, considered by many of better quality than the previous LP boats, seems to have resulted from this episode.