Indeed sarcasm is not useful and it was just a useless response to your statements.

I don't believe I have been smearing at anybody.
I certainly complained about poor communication from established glider manufacturers. Being lucky to be an owner, I certainly have experience in this domain.

I don't propound weaker cockpits, if you read carefully, I am suggesting there might be a better safety trade to invest weight in a new rescue system instead of a new 16G cockpit. You don't have this choice under CS but you have it under UL. Of course if you can get both, without significant weight and CG effect and, at an affordable price, it would be the cherry on the cake!

Cert authorities have introduced regulation changes with the right intention in mind but, sometimes not appreciating the value/risk benefit. To use the previous example, if it was possible, from an overall safety standpoint I would rather fly a glider with a cockpit designed under previous cockpit structural requirements (e.g. Ventus 2, DG800, etc.) equipped with a rescue system, instead of a brand new V3 or JS3 designed per the new standards, without a rescue system.

If you are concerned about UL design in EU, you should look at the DULV (Germany) requirements. This is very comprehensive. Because Germany is a large market, UL manufacturers in EU make sure their design can pass the validation tests which can then be reused for other nations validation.