America's Cup Disaster

[Paul B]

Originally Posted by Zed

1. You are asking people who can't possibly know to speculate.

2. You are asking the same people to provide access to material evidence?!

Come now....!

This is all speculation and you know it!

Well, Bondy and Warren Jones knew, and their answers always included terminology similar to what 249 has used. They have not produced the work showing Lexcen's design of the keel. That should have been easy for them to do and put any question to rest.

From what I understand Sloof took credit in print from right after the Cup.

PvO had a contract and also concern for his reputaion in Oz, so kept his mouth shut. Supposedly he would have kept quiet forever but for some nasty comments in print years later by Jim Hardy.


Just for chuckles, from the man's own mouth:

(John Rousmaniere): Lexcen told his biographer, Bruce Stannard, that the relationship between the Dutch scientists and himself was like the one between university professors and a student. 'I went to Wageningen like a dry sponge . . . I used their brains. I used their knowledge and their experience.' Yet he went on to state, vaguely,'The ideas come from me but they draw them up to fit their own requirements.'


I have no doubt all the concepts in the AII keel were considered at some point prior to the '83 match. That's not the question. The question is WHO designed the one particular keel that was on the bottom of AII when she won the match?

Just to be clear, I was happy to see the Fat Boy lose the Cup. I'm still happy he lost. I don't think anyone should be talking nonsense about overturning the result. I would just like the whole truth to come out. If that shows BenBob did the work, great. If it shows something else, great.

[Zed]

If you want the whole truth why not start way back when and dredge through the entire sordid history of the cup? Why start with the AII campaign?

I think Bondy sold everything he owned, he had some trouble you know!

Also begs the question...

Has anyone produced the claimed original work for AII's keel?

[CT 249]

Originally Posted by Paul B

You are making the same argument that Bondy and his lawyer have been making.

Let's be honest. Forget lawyer wording.

Do you honestly believe than BenBob or any other Aussie did the research and calculations, then drew the keel that was on AII? This question requires a Yes/No answer.

1) Saying 'this question requires a yes/no answer' is worse than any so-called 'lawyer wording'.

2) I may be wrong, but I have never seen Bondy or his lawyer point out that there was an earlier published design study of an Australian 12 Metre with winglets, which proves beyond any doubt that the concept of a winglet-bearing 12 was NOT a Dutch invention.

3) As Zed said, the simple fact is that I have no way of knowing who did the research and calcs and then drew the keel. All I did was note that some of the claims about the nationality of those who created the wing-keel 12 concept were demonstrably incorrect, and that therefore there are glass houses on at least one (possibly both) sides of the debate.

4) I simply don't know who did the research, calcs and drawings. Like many other designers, Ben had other designers working for him a lot of the time, so following normal practice he could have had John King or someone else involved with the keel.

I only ever spoke to him a couple of times, but some say that he did (in his early career at least) often benefit from others cleaning up his plans, after he had created quite detailed concepts. This was told to me by a small-boat designer very learned in such things, when we were looking at some of Ben's original plans.

Therefore the concept could easily have been Ben's, with much work done by John or someone in the drafting.

It's not as if Ben had never designed a boat before.

[Zed]

I love this...

27 years later and that damn keel is still filling US 'head space'.

LOL... and it was so damn good that its a regular fixture around the place today (not!)...

Interesting quote!

Van Oossanen explained: "We would ask you to note firstly that we were associated with the Australia II campaign by way of a tank-testing contract. Their designer Mr. Ben Lexcen…completed the design for both Australia II and Challenge 12.”

Nothing dirty about the fight...

Since the beginning of the month, the Freedom campaign tried to fit fins on the keel of Magic, one of the boats designed by Johan Valentijn. On July 24th Bob McCullough sent a letter to Mark Vinbury (the American measurer) in which he questioned the legality of the Australia II keel and its correspondence to the rule. All the challenger candidates, with the exception of the Australians, were copied on the letter. Apparently, the Americans hoped to sow confusion and perhaps incite one of the challengers to protest against the Louis Vuitton Cup champion. But it was in vain.

On August 3rd, 1983, in cooperation with the United States Yacht Racing Union (USYRU), the Club appealed to the KBTC (the Keel Boat Technical Committee), a section of the International Yacht Racing Union (IYRU). The Americans wanted a ruling on whether the keel should be considered a ‘peculiarity’ according to the principles of the class rule. This could disrupt the measurement of the boat in general.

And... apparently the Dutch where forsale to the highest bidder ...

Jones wasn’t finished. He was amazed that the NYYC would still question the legality of the Australia II keel considering that on July 24th of this year, the same NYYC had secretly asked the Dutch Laboratory of Wageningen to draw up an identical keel for one of its boats!

Warren Jones hammered the New Yorkers. "The NYYC has stated that it had only recently become aware of the details of the Australia II keel. We would like to know where these details were obtained, since it is common knowledge that we keep all details of our boat secret,” he asked.

Yet more filthy laundry...

But the Americans hadn’t finished. The Australians learned that the uncle of Johan Valentijn the designer of Liberty (which would become the defender skippered by Dennis Conner) Wil Valentijn, had gone to the Netherlands to meet those responsible at the tank testing facility the Australians had used. Valentijn was there to persuade them to assert that it was their Dutch researchers, and not Ben Lexcen, who had drawn the hull and the keel of Australia II. But his effort was in vain.

And...

Robert McCullough, speaking for the Club explained "The facts were that we didn’t know about Australia II’s keel or the ruling on it. Had we known, this whole controversy could have been over before it began.” He justified how the Americans had learned about the keel, saying, “I don’t think it’s illegally obtained. I can assure you that we didn’t go after it; it (the information) was given to us …”

LOL...

Give it a rest!

BTW how long did these wonder keels last in 12's?

[Zed]

Originally Posted by CT 249

This was told to me by a small-boat designer very learned in such things

Did he have a fetish for long skinny things?

[Paul B]

Originally Posted by CT 249

1) Saying 'this question requires a yes/no answer' is worse than any so-called 'lawyer wording'.

No it is not. You have made some comments that don't address the question. So I just want to know what you believe. Funny how politicians, lawyers, and religious zealots all have trouble answering Yes/No questions.

I will openly state my belief that Lexcen did not draw the keel. Heaven's sake, Lexcen's own words (note previous post) are pretty conclusive.

Originally Posted by CT 249

2) I may be wrong, but I have never seen Bondy or his lawyer point out that there was an earlier published design study of an Australian 12 Metre with winglets, which proves beyond any doubt that the concept of a winglet-bearing 12 was NOT a Dutch invention.

I believe they have used terms like concept, etc. I also believe Lexcen and Valentijn (hey, where is he from?) explored the use of winglets for their '80 design.

That means nothing when we are adressing WHO designed the actual '83 keel. It was not a concept that hung below AII during the match.

Originally Posted by CT 249

3) As Zed said, the simple fact is that I have no way of knowing who did the research and calcs and then drew the keel. All I did was note that some of the claims about the nationality of those who created the wing-keel 12 concept were demonstrably incorrect, and that therefore there are glass houses on at least one (possibly both) sides of the debate

4) I simply don't know who did the research, calcs and drawings. Like many other designers, Ben had other designers working for him a lot of the time, so following normal practice he could have had John King or someone else involved with the keel..

So knowing what you know about Lexcen you cannot possibly form an opinion regarding whether or not he (or some other Aussie working for him) penned the appendage?

I realize stating the obvious could get you the cold shoulder or worse in a club bar down there.

Originally Posted by CT 249

Therefore the concept could easily have been Ben's, with much work done by John or someone in the drafting.

The drafting would have been the easy part. There were some fairly sophisticated interfaces that had to be resolved in the design of that keel.

[Zed]

... over to fight their battles for them!

“It may be called OneWorld, but the latest America’s Cup challenge launched in Seattle yesterday could be better recognized as New Zealand Two,” was the report in the New Zealand Herald on June 22nd, 2000. Was this an exaggeration? Not really, considering that the challenge launched under the banner of the Seattle Yacht Club by telcom magnate Craig McCaw counted at that moment no less than 15 New Zealanders among whom 13 had come from the 1995 and 2000 America’s Cup winner, Team New Zealand (TNZ).

Among the 15 transfers, there were not only six sailors but also the designer Laurie Davidson who had actively participated in the victorious 1995 and 2000 Team New Zealand campaigns. In addition, fluid dynamics specialist Richard Karn, the engineers Ian Mitchell, Wayne Smith, Neil Wilkinson, Mike Spanhake and the boatbuilder Peter Sowman (the last two from the 1995 campaign) had also left for the American team. Finally, the Kiwi who negotiated the transfers, Sean St. Leger Reeves, was also in the OneWorld Challenge (OWC). Previously a TNZ lawyer and rule advisor he was now the operations manager of OneWorld.

So why all this piousness over Ben?

[Zed]

Originally Posted by Paul B

I realize stating the obvious could get you the cold shoulder or worse in a club bar down there.

I doubt it...

You on the other hand might land on your ass. It's the accent...! ---> Joke Joyce!

and your countries record on similar things --> not so much a Joke Joyce!

[Zed]

It was a dirty year wasn't it?

In mid-June 2002, the OneWorld plot thickened when a copy of an email sent in October 2000 was revealed. It was from the OneWorld mast builder to the management of the Seattle team: “The work we have done…has been essentially copying TNZ designs based on input from ex-TNZ team members…”

OneWorld had had in its possession a disk and a computer containing the New Zealand designs

If this wasn’t enough to keep the story in the headlines, it was soon made public that Sean Reeves had sent a package to Team New Zealand containing not only the diverted designs of NZL-57 and of NZL-60 from the 2000 Cup, but also those of the future OneWorld yachts. TNZ lawyer Russell Green confirmed: “We received the package unsolicited, and…we immediately delivered it, unopened, to an independent professional and later instructed its transfer to the registrar of the America’s Cup Arbitration Panel.”

Eight months after syndicate head Craig McCaw decided to go before the America’s Cup Arbitration Panel (ACAP), the decision fell on Friday, August 16th, 2002. The five members of the Panel, Sirs David Tompkins and John Faire, as well as Professors Henry Peter, Donald Manausse and Michael Foster learned that secrets had been taken by renegades of other syndicates and given to the OneWorld Challenge (OWC). Thus, OneWorld was able to:

[Doug Lord]

"Australia II skipper John Bertrand has rejected claims that Ben Lexcen did not invent the famous winged keel that guided the yacht to America's Cup victory in 1983.


But Mr Bertrand said that Lexcen, who died in 1988, was the leader of the design team and the man who pulled the whole package together.

"There is no doubt that Ben was the principal designer for Australia II, and as to the winged keel, he worked with others, including van Oossanen, throughout the whole design process," Mr Bertrand said.

"He had the responsibility to pull the whole package together ...and he did it in a brilliant manner."

Mr Bertrand said Lexcen had been designing 18-foot skiffs in Sydney and putting end plates on keels and rudders 20 years before Australia II's winged keels.

He said there was one of Lexcen's skiffs bearing the end plates - Taipan - on show at the National Maritime Museum to prove it was his idea.

"Unfortunately, Ben is not here to defend himself and he is the only one who really understands the intricacies and who set the design process in motion," Mr Bertrand said".AAP
===========
The revisionist history now being touted by some will NEVER besmirch the reputation of one of the most innovative sailboat designers ever. It's easy to make these absurd assertions after the MAN is dead rather than to his face and that fact should not be lost on anybody.

[Paul B]

Originally Posted by Zed

So why all this piousness over Ben?

To me it's not about Ben. It is about people just stepping up and getting the truth on record. Seems Ben was more honest about it than some others. I wish those who were involved would be honest now that it doesn't matter anymore. I mean, fer cryin' out loud, Bond has done much worse than bend the rules of a sailing competition.


Ditto all the USA gaming the game over the years. The American way of running the things for 132 years is well documented, and should be. It should be mentioned more. I have no issue with anyone pointing out all the ways the US made sure the rig was in so they could keep the streak going.


Here in the USA we don't just tolerate cheats, we tolerate their unsportsmanlike behavior as well. As Al Davis says, "Just win, Baby!"

It was shameful in '88 when, on one hand, Dennis and Malin and Co. were claiming they didn't have time to respond. Next thing you know they were parading Jim Kilroy to the press with some dodgy data sheets to "prove" his maxi Kialoa was faster on the water than the Big Boat. If that was the case then they should have sailed an IOR Maxi and won. Plenty of time for them to have done that.

More shameful was DC calling Bruce Farr a "loser" on stage after the cup.

Even more shameful, DC calling the Kiwis cheats when they showed up with the plastic 12s. People here quote that with pride, like it was something good.

[Paul B]

Originally Posted by Doug Lord

The revisionist history now being touted by some will NEVER besmirch the reputation of one of the most innovative sailboat designers ever. It's easy to make these absurd assertions after the MAN is dead rather than to his face and that fact should not be lost on anybody.

Joop Sloof was on record with his claim in 1984. He had no need to protect anyone to ensure future contracts. Lexcen was alive at the time.

If you note the previous posts, Lexcen himself made statements that indicate the truth.

[Zed]

Originally Posted by Paul B

Joop Sloof was on record with his claim in 1984.

The thing that gets me about guys like that is... if they don't think its OK, then why do the work?

OR

If they accept that all sides are doing the same thing and decide doing the work is OK then why not be professional and shut up?

If what is suggested is in fact more truth than story these guys are worse than hookers that report you to the police the next day! If its more story than truth then well they are more than a little sad.

I'm guessing it was a dirty game so I would say that few teams where pristine in their campaign conduct and really its the host nation that set that tone many moons ago. You don't get to keep any trophy for 137 years without a fix of some sort being in.

Sad thing is that I can't even tell you the last time we tried for the cup... (2000?) that I think says a lot about what its become, when a sports nuts sailing nation loses interest in it. Good on the Kiwis for keeping on, keeping on, mebe they have more mongrel in them than us

I think a win at all costs ethos really devalues these things. I would dearly like to see a well defined series, with closely matched maneuverable designs where disputes are settled on the course or in the clubhouse at worst! IMHO opinion if some sort of heritage is not rebuilt and preserved then this will die, it simply will lose its appeal to all concerned.

[Paul B]

Originally Posted by Zed

The thing that gets me about guys like that is... if they don't think its OK, then why do the work?

Because Sloof had no idea about any of the nationality rules? He was a scientist who was pulled in to help evaluate a particular problem.

The story goes he visited Newport and was surprised no one had anything to say to him about the good work he had done. So he mentioned it in an interview.

On the other hand PvO must have known what the stakes were, and once he was in...

[Paul B]

Originally Posted by Zed

If they accept that all sides are doing the same thing and decide doing the work is OK then why not be professional and shut up?

Which is what PvO did for all those years. I'm sure it was a sore point for him, and when Hardy made his statements that popped the cork.


Here in the US we have a saying, "Let sleeping dogs lie."

Also, "Don't rattle the hornet's nest."


I don't know if you have hornets in Oz. I know you have dogs.