Meeting organized and chaired (in the absence of an official committee chairman) by John MacRae of the Winthrop fleet. Others in attendence:

Jesse Falsone (Annapolis)
Steve Braverman (Winthrop)
Dan Ronan (Larchmont)
Fran Charles (Scituate)
John Pratt (Winthrop)
Don Lovelace (Indian Harbor)
Pedro Lorson (Manhasset)

Six agenda items were listed by MacRae, with input from Falsone and others in the weeks prior to the meeting:

1. Discussion of local fleet measurement for the Nationals
2. Discussion of the "bow tip" rule, with measurement results and carification of the rule and process
3. Discussion of new sail measurement procedure
4. Discussion of boat building developments and possible enhancements/changes
5. Discussion of possible IC National class organization
6. Other topics

1. Local fleet measurement for Nationals: 1998 was the first year (in recent memory, anyway) in which the national regatta host (Winthrop) requested/encouraged local fleet measurement prior to the event, with results recorded on standardized measurement sheets. The idea was to speed up and streamline the process at the regatta, as well as to gather data for as many boats as possible in order to establish a national database.

   The response from all at the meeting was positive regarding this effort, with Annapolis, Winthrop, Manhasset and Larchmont reporting strong participation and few questions/problems. Winthrop representatives noted the time saved in measurement during the regatta, and the good data collected. Ronan suggested the use of more standardized jigs/profiles for consistent measurements in all fleets; Braverman and Pratt (ad others) agreed, with offers of Winthrop's jigs used in 1998 for future events. Ronan also suggested that trust and consistency would be needed to make this effort successful going forward, which also drew agreement.

2. Bow tip rule: For several years, this rule has seen little (if any) consistent enforcement on the local and national levels. Much angst and confusion have existed surrounding this rule as a result. Nonetheless, Winthrop chose for this year's national regatta to weigh bow tips again as part of the regatta measurement process. Winthrop also provided information to other fleets for doing these measurements locally; Annapolis constructed a jig like Winthrop's for the purpose.

   Meeting attendants reported some success in conducting these measurements, though comments also were offered regarding the cumbersome jigs and the confusion surrounding the exact procedures for conducting the measurement (ie: mast raked forward or aft, etc.). Discussion began on Falsone's proposal to clarify/simplify the process going forward. At this point, Ronan offered a new proposal: do away with the measurement altogether. In its place would be a new rule requiring that all hull corrector weights be placed at/near the thwart (plus or minus 6" was a suggested tolerance). Participants supported the idea and moved to take a measurement sample of some boats at the event to determine the best central location for corrector weights.

3. Sail measurement: Falsone reported that he had worked with Butch Ulmer to develop new/easier sail measurement procedures, which the were used for sail measurements at this year's nationals and (presumably) in local fleets before the nationals. All meeting attendants reported that the new rule/procedure was very easy to understand and administer.

4. Boat construction developments: agenda items proposed by Falsone in advance of the meeting, at the request/suggestion of Guck Boats. (It was believed that Peter Alarie of Guck would be in attendance at this meeting, but he was not there.) Suggested topics for discussion were carbon blade construction, status of deck mold at Guck, and other new construction methods.

   Carbon blades: after proposed by Falsone as a possible enhanced construction method, Pratt voiced opposition, noting potential problems such as brittleness and the amount of carbon needed to provide appropriate strength and stiffness. Questions about cost also were raised. With few voices in support of this method, the topic was dropped.

   Deck mold: Falsone reported that the current deck mold, being used by Guck but owned by Vanguard, is in bad shape and in need of repair or upgrade/replacement. The observation was made by several in attendence that since Vanguard owned the mold, they should pay to fix it. It was further suggested that Guck should prepare a proposal for a new mold with cost estimates, so it could be forwarded on to Vanguard for consideration.

   Hull construction methods: much discussion ensued regarding the Guck boats produced during the year (the first year of production; three boats in attendance at the nationals), and the "vacuum-bagging" method of construction. It was generally observed that, while legal under current IC regulations, the bare hulls produced by Guck seemed to be much lighter than older boats, with some Guck's requiring around 40 lbs of corrector weights to be at national weight. Questions were also raised about the relatively high costs of the Guck boats and whether this was due to the construction method. Falsone (who identified himself as the class liaison to Guck) noted that Guck stood by their construction methods and felt that they were best for hull durability and stiffness over the long term. Nonetheless, several attendants suggested and agreed that the class should consider mandating a bare hull weight in order to make newer boats more consistent with many older boats still sailing. Uniform skin thickness was also mentioned as a positive requirement, though there was some discussion/confusion about whether this already was being done by builders. A target bare hull weight of 175 lbs (with a 5 lbs tolerence) was suggested by Pratt, who offered examples of hull weights of boats he knew of (including his own) as support for his suggested target. The group generally agreed that 175 lbs was a reasonable bare hull weight worthy of adoption by the class.

5. National IC class organization: MacRae suggested that expanding/evolving the role of the Tech Committee to include class marketing efforts and other intra-fleet issues might be good for class growth and promotion. The attendants generally did not feel this was necessary and further stated that the Tech. Committee should maintain its focus on measurement and similar issues. However, the idea of a national web site was proposed, with Braverman volunteering to coordinate. It was also decided that a structure needed to be put in place for choosing nationals host sites, which would rotate on a regular basis. It was suggested that bids would be submitted at the nationals for the next year's site for discussion. Meeting attendants then laid out the pending schedule of hosts for the next several nationals: 1999-Annapolis, 2000-Indian Harbor, 2001-Scituate, 2002-Manhasett, 2003-Larchmont, 2004-Hyannis, 2005-Winthrop.
6. Other business: Pratt suggested the Committee review/change/clarify the current centerboard profile rule sometime in the coming year. Some participants, including MacRae and Falsone, then agreed to go measure several boats to determine thwart locations, in order to get an average location for corrector weight placement suggested by Ronan as part of his proposal to get rid of the bow tip rule.

   After the meeting adjurned, four boats were measured for this purpose: a Guck (Falsone), a Vanguard (Bowers), a Menkhart (MacRae) and an O-Day (Mendez charter). With the exception of the O-Day at 5'7.5", the center of the thwart on each boat was exactly 5'7" from the "T-1" position often used for other measurements.

Respectfully submitted,
John MacRae, Meeting Chair
Winthrop Frostbite Commodore (1998-99)