America's Cup Disaster

I don't think the Dutch boys had a hope in hell of coming up with AII's keel without Ben, they'd simply not have gone there at all without him or Bond. So the question remains at what level of input does it cease to be your design. If it is your concept but you need a physicist to make it work perfectly who is the designer? Once that is defined then we need to look at every defender that won and determine if they where indeed valid 100% US designs.

Also for those that like to throw the 'cheater' BS around lets not forget that the NYC knew about and indeed tried to buy the keel 'design' from the Dutch. Which indicates a complete willingness to break the rule that the AII campaign is now being bashed over the head with. The Dutch didn't sell, now why was that? Maybe because it was not theirs to sell? Maybe, just maybe, they didn't want to have their bums hauled through court to an enviable conclusion by an angry billionaire.

I think if you are insane enough to try to overturn this result and as a consequence all following results you will be forced to go back and examine each challenge and defense for its integrity. I am absolutely certain that this would result in finding an earlier breach that would have the US in default and losing the cup earlier than 1983.

Face it... it has been a dirty race for most of its life & there is a lot more that can be said about that.

The big laugh is that the keel was not all that in the end, yet we have retentives still obsessing over it.

 

Stick that race card right back in the deck, sonny; no point in waving it at me. I probably have almost as much Indian blood as you do.

I notice you once again completely ignored my question: why the Aussies, and why this particular race? What's such a teachable moment about it for your kiddies, as compared to the other thirty-some times the America's Cup was raced for? Why aren't you asking that Dennis Conner step up to the plate instead, and 'fess up to all the dirty pool he played over the years?

I won't ask again; I think we've actually gone backward instead of forward in the last few posts.

 

There's no automatic global examination process on anything like that. Each case is an individual circumstance and you'd need to bring specific information to justify a "look", as you suggest.

In the end, guys, isn't this topic pretty well exhausted by now? Is there really anything that anyone has to say that would suggest a new piece of substantive info here? Or, is it just a case of still having personal energy on a topic that is functionally meaningless, save for idiomatic axe grinding?

Come, on, Gents... what say we let this die before it takes another turn for the worse and a brand new set of epithets show their ugly faces?

 

cause his boats were legal
the Aussie boat wasn't based on where it was designed

sorry but the expectation of dishonesty seems to be just a way of life for some folks
what I notice is if a hand shake isnt worth spit then someones signature is probably not worth much more
and thats why its important for everyone to step up
in this case I think the only boat to actually break the rules and can be proven to have done so is this Aussie boat

as I said
in previous years the rules may have been slanted but at least everyone was playing buy them
in the 83 race the Aussies made a pretzel out of the rules and broke at least one of them
thus
they cheated
and IMHO should step up and relinquish the tittle for that go round

 

Given the way design inspiration works and the fact that all designers work is in some way derivative where does it end?

This is 25 year old sour plonk! At least call this what it is... Dennis lost the cup, big deal, we lost it back, so what...!

 

Seems to me you've freely given opinions on other topics on this board in the past, where you didn't have all the evidence, and didn't seem to consider yourself an arrogant anything when you did so.

I understand why you hesitate on this one. "The Little White Pointer" is a national icon.

I have no interest in seeing asterisks in record books, records changed, etc. However, I would like the history of the Cup correct and complete.


To answer your strangely worded question:

No, I have not stopped pretending anything. That is because I haven't pretended anything.

 

You know in our country you are innocent until proven guilty. I know that it probably runs against your value system but some proof might be needed here in the interests of fairness to a dead man. You have nothing but hearsay so I guess it would be smart to refrain from making absolute statements that you have no tangible backing for.

 

The 'strangely worded question' was, of course, merely an illustration that you can't require "yes/no" answers.

 

The Rousmaniere article contains many quotes that show that the question remains very unclear.

According to the article even Sloof, for example, gave Lexcen the credit; 'The team leader gives general instructions while the team members actually conceive the specific features.' Here, Lexcen was the leader. Slooff told Barbara Lloyd, 'There’s not the slightest doubt in my mind that Ben Lexcen had full design responsibility. But it doesn’t necessarily mean that he conceived the concept.'

Surely the person who (as Sloof says) 'had full design responsibility' would be seen as the designer?

Grant Simmer, for example, is quoted as having no doubts - ''Ben definitely drew the lines plan for the boat and section/detail drawings of the keel,' Simmer told me. 'I have seen the drawings and loftings of the boat and keel, and they were definitely by Ben; additionally, as was Ben’s way, they were changing up until the very last moment.'
'Ben definitely developed the geometry of the wings (which were incredibly crude even by ’87 standards) since I saw him deciding on and altering the shape while the keel pattern was being built.'

And Lexcen (obviously and for several reasons) claimed to have created the designs, according to the article; "Speaking of the Netherlands Ship Model Basin in 1981, Lexcen told Lloyd and Levitt, 'I just went in there, and they just left me alone. I would just sketch stuff, and draw stuff, and take it to van Oossanen, and he would draw it up and feed it into the machine to make models. They were just doing what I told them.'


"Lexcen made a revealing comment to Lloyd and Levitt: 'The situation at the bloody tank puts you almost under conditions that would contravene the spirit of the bloody ruling of the New York YC.'"

Note that Lexcen said the situation ALMOST put you under conditions that would contravene the SPIRIT of the rule. That is quite different from saying that he was under conditions that DID contravene the spirit and/or letter of the rule.

Yes, the Aussies had a reason to say that the design was Ben's own work. And the Dutch had a reason (getting more credit) to say it wasn't. And the Americans have a reason (to say that they should have won the Cup) to say it wasn't.

Who here can claim to be free of nationalistic reasons to prefer one or the other accounts?

So in summary;

The Aussies who were involved say that the design was Ben's.
One of the Dutchmen who was involved says that Ben was responsible for the design.
One of the Dutchmen who was there says the Dutch designed the keel.
Some of the Americans (who were not there) sometimes say that the design was Dutch.

That's not an overwhelming case, either way.

 

===============
I can! I believe Ben Lexcen and John Bertrand-the rest dishonors Lexcen's memory and is questionable at best. At this point in history, with Lexcen dead, no revisionist history will ever sway me. Any attempts to draw conclusions without direct testimony from Ben Lexcen is ridiculous and an excercise in futility. Sometimes in life you have to stand for something-and in this case I stand for the honor, integrity, courage and ingenuity of Ben Lexcen.
And for the greatest 12 meter of her time-Australia II.....

 

"...it seems a little over-pious to start claiming the winners from almost thirty years ago should voluntarily give up their win in the name of integrity." - I agree with Troy on so many topics (Lets stay away from politics, however). Bos, I'd hate for Americans to be thought of as whiny-asses for attempting to discredit another's win...We'd start to sound like; "It's nothing but a drag-race.", "Everybody has lost interest here." (pout like a little girl when saying), etc., because we didn't win every time! I would really rather have one of our guys say "let's do even better next year" than "let's adjust the record." Going back to '83 and trying to get an "*" is as petty as banning Pete Rose from the Hall of Fame for betting on his team. Let's cut the BS on the 27 threads started about the Americas Cup and have some competition! Let's have a billionaire smoke all comers next year, too!
One question... Why don't they agree to arbitration rather than drag the puke thru the courts? It should be a condition of qualifying, IMO.

 

It is a drag race... not a match race but that has got nothing with this subject at all. That is to do with the nature of the current boats sailing... they make very poor match racers. Maybe if you'd ever match raced you would see that. It is possible for skill to overcome a faster boat match racing, there was always that added element that a good crew could make a big difference. Now, not so... if you haven't got the boat no amount of skill is going to bridge the gap. To call that whining is just pure ignorance, its observation, the AC has become more and more a two boat drag race and less and less a two boat match.

Thanks for letting me get that out there one more time.

As for the rest again its the truth and that is about all, I have not heard one media mention of the race in this country, the interest is literally zero! Even our dedicated free to air sports channel that is so desperate for content it shows Nascar (not really a thing here at all!) gave the AC a miss.

You are posting like your good buddy, trolling for a response.

 

I think the unbiased approach is the best when presenting evidence concerning questionable events

the article raised many good points and took no particular side
what it did was show that there were and still remain some significant questions that should have been answered long ago

and I agree that it is tragic Lexcen is not here to answer for himself
frankly thats the strongest argument to let the whole thing to rest I've heard so far

my inclination is to subpoena the records from the Amsterdam facility and get the whole thing cleared up once and for all

personally from all Ive read it sounds like the keel was not an Australian design but thats up to some arbitrating body to decide

I just find it interesting that there is so much evidence and yet the issue is still unsettled

 

You let me know how that goes for you.

 

I would love to see the physical aspects of the boats discussed, even tho I am unqualified to participate on most aspects.
Sorry, sounded like on the precipice of whining. No trolling - I simply have little patience for anything on a boat design forum not having anything to do with boats - particularly when an entire thread looks exactly like a troll. Go back to slugging it out over who designed something 30 years ago, and Bos, get that asterisk in the book!