Minutes of Lido 14 BOD
Monday, 11/6/06
- Roll call: the following members were present.
Allan Stults
Steve Schupak
Gabe Ferramola
Eric Bohman
John Papadopoulos
Jim Sterner
Richard Leijonflycht
Quorum established
2. VP Report: Steve Schupak reports that things are moving along well for the 2007 CCR.
- Secretary’s Report: Tracey Kenney was absent due to an auto accident. Allan Stults kept the minutes.
4. Treasurer’s Report: Gabe reports that revenues were down a little.
There was discussion about sending out the bow wave electronically. The membership will be asked how they feel about this.
Jim Sterner volunteered to look into making old issues of the bow wave available.
5. Measurer’s Report: 1)6000 Series Bow Fittings: My recollection of what the "old" Board previously discussed was an Approved Change reading as follows: "Bow stem fittings designed for Lido 14s with hull numbers #6000 and higher may be modified to permit raising of the forestay and jib tack mounting points vertically up to the elevation provided by the bow fittings found on Lido 14 sailboats with hull numbers below #6000."
A)Discussion: The 6000 Series Lidos have a different tack fitting/head stay connection arrangement than the Classic. The 6000 Series fastening points for the tack of the jib are significantly closer to the deck than the Classic. I have not sampled a wide number of boats to determine what the exact difference is but it is safe to say that the Classic Lidos’s tack fitting for the jib is “roughly†2 inches higher than what the 6000 series point of connection is.
B)Impact: Allowing this change would make it easier to get your 6000 Series Boat up to speed. I have been told that the current design of the jib by Qunatum and Ulman is based on a design used for Classic Lidos. A two inch variation makes a big difference. (Speaking from personal experience, easing the jib sheet even an inch to power the boat up in a light spot makes a huge difference on a classic).
C)Recommendation: I am in favor of allowing this change but I would like to locate the Board Minutes from the previous Boards meeting discussing this topic. My understanding is that it is difficult to get a 6000 Series boat up to speed and that by allowing this change, we are making the transition from a classic to a 6000 easier. Therefore, a test of ease of operation is met. Also for convenience, headstays will become equal in length for 6000/Classic boats and sail design will remain consistent for Classics/6000 Series Boats. I propose the language as set forth above.
2) The boom vang rigging: (The request I received asked that I issue a ruling which would allow changes/modifications to the boom vang that many competitors have already made but that are not expressly allowed by the by-laws.) Any ruling on this matter requires the Boards approval as it would relate to convenience and ease of operation.
A)History: (my limited knowledge) - If you read the by-laws literally (in particular, Article XIII Sections 2 and 4), no change to the boom vang is allowed… in other words, what you get from the factory can not be changed. In practicality, most everyone has modified their boom vang, whether it be adding more purchase (allowed by Approved Change (AC) 1, changing the location of the boom attachment point for the boom vang or whether it be adding double sided cleats on the centerboard or a single cleat on the center board cap. Unfortunately, there is nothing in the by-laws permitting many of these modifications even though they have all been made for convenience or ease of operation by an individual boat owner. Note however that similar changes to the centerboard control lines are referenced in either the by-laws or the AC which include having cleats on both sides of the centerboard trunk (Article XVI 2) or putting a cleat on the top of the centerboard cap (AC # 31)
B)Authority given the board - Article XIII (4) states in part that that any change made to a lido solely for convenience and ease of operation must be approved by the Fleet Measurer through the Chief Measurer and the Governing Board.
C)Approved Changes relating to the Boom Vang: For your convenience, you can read AC 1, 22, 23, 25, 28, and 48 all of which address certain components of rigging the boom vang.
D)Applicable Approved Changes: As stated above, AC 1 allows you to have any mechanical advantage for the boom vang – in other words, it is allowing you to add additional purchase to your boom vang. AC 22 and 23 address the cockpit floor attachment points for mounting fittings. AC 23 allows the attachment of wood or other material to the bilge area forward of the centerboard trunk and to the side of the centerboard trunk for the purpose of attaching cam cleats or other items.
E)Discussion:I am nervous that the Bylaws are very specific about certain modifications that are allowed to the centerboard control lines but are silent to the boom vang control lines. I think it would be beneficial to the Class to specifically recognize certain rigging for the Boom Vang in an AC to avoid a potential protest in the future that someone’s Vang is illegal because it is not specifically allowed as an AC.
F)Proposed Language: I propose that the Board consider adding Approved Change # 77 which would read as follows:“A boom vang shall consist of blocks and tackle only and the use of any “rigid device†which supports the boom in an upright position shall be disallowed. When rigging the boom vang, the use of any line, blocks or cleats will be allowed provided that 1) the attachment point to the boom is forward of the forward boom mainsheet block, 2) the attachment pointtothe boat is at a point designed by WD Schock for that purpose and 3) the only location for cleating a boom vang is onthe block and tackle itself,on the exterior surfaces of the centerboard trunk or on the lower aft surface of the storage cubby of the 6000 Series Lido 14.Rigging of the boom vang so that it can be adjusted from any point other than on the block and tackle itself, on the exterior surfaces of the centerboard trunkor, for 6000 Series Lido 14s, on the lower aft surface of the storage cubby shall be disallowed.
There was considerable discussion about these 2 proposed changes.
The first was unanimously approved with the following language to be added to AC #12 (bold type).
"Alternatively, bow stem fittings designed for Lido 14s with hull numbers 6000and higher may be modified to permit raising of the forestay and jib tack mounting points vertically up to the elevation provided by the bow fittings found on Lido 14 sailboats with hull numbers below 6000, in which case a 6000 series Lido 14 shall not use a shackle exceeding 1 1/2 inches in length to attach the jib sail to the deck fitting."
The second one concerning the boom vang was unamimously approved as written to become AC #77 (bold type).
- Unfinished Business: The By-Law changes under discussion at the 2006 Annual Meeting will be published in the Spring edition of the bow wave and will come up for a vote at the 2007 Annual Meeting.
- New Business: Steve Schupak moved the BOD send flowers to Tracey Kenney wishing her speedy recovery from her accident.
There was discussion about where the 2008 CCR might be held. Eric Bohman said that Santa Barbara might be possible. Jim Sterner brought up the District VI proposal from the 2006 Annual Meeting. Jim will look into that with Allan Stults.
Respectfully submitted,
Allan Stults