Log in or Sign up

America's Cup Disaster

Discussion in 'Sailboats' started by bistros, Feb 10, 2010.

Page 6 of 17

Chris Ostlind Previous Member

There weren't any games, B. More like a gift of grace in the matter, which you ignored a few times... and when it was finally explained clearly and succinctly, you looked to pretend it hadn't happened with some kind of mis-direction play.

Please... Won't you just comfortably let it go?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Chris O
www.lunadadesign.com

Chris Ostlind, Feb 14, 2010

#76

Boston Previous Member

can't say that I was really holding on to anything as I find the minutia of sports is hardly worth getting into difficulties over, I have way bigger fish to fry as Im sure you do as well. My take on Grace is ignoring the incredibly rude, antagonistic and personally insulting posts that I and probably yourself also have to tolerate from some of the less desirables in the squad ( I have a stalker in case you didn't catch it ). Obviously you and I are going to be disagreeing on a few things but at least with a modicum of decor.

I just enjoy the races and what happened some 25+ or whatever years ago still brings a smile

It was a high time for all, both the loss and the stunning climb back to the top

I wouldn't have missed it for anything

hope all is well
B

Boston, Feb 14, 2010

#77

Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,709
Likes: 82, Points: 48, Legacy Rep: 467
Location: Sydney Australia

CT 249 Senior Member

Boston said: ↑

all smiles this morning guys
the big tri humiliated the "other guys" ( Swiss I think, it was kinda hard to see who that was way back there ) in boring fashion. Hopefully they will at least make a race of it for #2

The keel fin was by some freak ruled "not an appendage" in a world were appendages had never been allowed before.
Essentially the Aussies claimed it was just a funny shaped keel bulb which was allowed and not actually a fin.
Race comity had probably been up all night partying and got such a laugh out of the explanation that they let it slide.
Ok fool me once and next time the US team shows up with a cat.
Jokes on you guys now eh

I think they should have stuck to 12 meters honestly cause at least then they could race in some more varied conditions

Bistro's I would tend to agree it was a drubbing
15+ at the line
not even a race actually other than an ugly start

They need to bring back the qualifiers next time around and stick to letting the race comity make the rulings ( keep it out of court ) that way the race becomes interesting again.
Click to expand...

Sorry, what in the world do you mean by "not an appendage" and "not a fin"???

What explanation do you think was needed? Australia II was a legal 12 Metre. Was then, is now.

There is nothing in the rule that bans fins, anyway.

I suppose you think that the 'twin rudders' (as some called the trim tab and skeg-hung rudder) of Intrepid were a triumph of design, but a wing keel is cheating?

No 12 Metre before Intrepid had ever had a trim tab, but the media of the day shows that no one called the trim tab some cheating device. Just like Mariner's square stern, or Conner's use of multiple rating certificates in one series (which has never been deemed legal before or since, as far as I know).

Once again, it seems like the thinking is simply 'an innovation that we do is a revolutionary example of design brilliance, an innovation that you do is cheating'.

CT 249, Feb 14, 2010

#78

Boston Previous Member

well lets first establish who actually designed the thing as well as whether or not it was an illegal appendage, and there were a lot more people than just I who felt it was.

Timothy McDonald reported this story on Wednesday, October 14, 2009 12:24:00

ELEANOR HALL: When the winged keel yacht, Australia II, ended a century of US dominance of the America's Cup, it was hailed as a victory for Australian ingenuity.

Now, more than a quarter of a century later, a naval architect says it was a Dutch team, and not an Australian who came up with the winged keel design.

Yachting experts say the controversy isn't unexpected and that the America's Cup has a long history of subterfuge, legal challenges and unfair rules.

Timothy McDonald has our report.

TIMOTHY MCDONALD: Ben Lexcen shot to fame for his famous winged keel design which helped Australia II over the line in the seventh and deciding race of the 1983 America's cup.

That same year he told the ABC he started altering keels when he was younger, after a visit to a design tank at the University of Sydney.

BEN LEXCEN: And I saw a fellow towing a boat and trying to detect the tip vortexes off the bottom of the keel with a little propeller on a piece of stick.

TIMOTHY MCDONALD: Now Dutch naval architect Peter van Oossanen says the Australian played only a minor role in creating the winged keel.

He says it was his Dutch team who came up with the idea and Ben Lexcen's role was minimal.

PETER VAN OOSSANEN: He had, in other words, very little to do with the winged keel at all.

TIMOTHY MCDONALD: He says he's sick of not receiving credit for his work.

PETER VAN OOSSANEN: People like Jim Hardy and others have been, well actually they, even though they knew about the situation, have been fighting and have been commentating that we had nothing to do with it and I suppose that was very upsetting.

TIMOTHY MCDONALD: Sir James Hardy, who was part of the Australia II team, says while the Dutch team worked on the keel's wings, Lexcen turned the keel upside down.

JAMES HARDY: Peter's no doubt saying what he believes happened but I can tell you that Benny's hull shape and everything and his ability to make sails - you wouldn't know which piece of coal made the whistle blow.

TIMOTHY MCDONALD: The skipper of Australia II, John Bertrand, says Ben Lexcen was unquestionably the main driving force.

JOHN BERTRAND: There's no-one else that could have been able to pull together the complexity of that total design package, and that's what a designer's role is.

TIMOTHY MCDONALD: But this is about more than a whinge over a pair of wings.

If Australia II was designed by a Dutch team, it potentially falls foul of the race rules, which said if the boat was Australian its designers had to be Australian too.

But even if Peter van Oossanen thinks Australia broke the rules, he thinks Australia II should keep its victory regardless.

Indeed, the victory has been challenged before and the Australian team was vindicated.

The editor at large of Offshore Yachting, Peter Campbell, says all the fuss isn't surprising, considering the America's Cup has been controversial since US and British yacht clubs squabbled over the race when it was first run in 1851.

He says in many ways not much has changed.

PETER CAMPBELL: Suggestions then that the Americans were changing the rules and certainly they did in the earlier challenge by Australia and then of course, even in Perth when Australia defended the cup there, there was a lot of controversy there.

There was the allegations that the New Zealanders had done something with the construction of the hull and Dennis Conner demanded a core sample of the hull and of course it has continued even more so with, since the cup has gone to Europe and won by the Swiss with constant legal challenges.

TIMOTHY MCDONALD: Peter Campbell says all that controversy is partly because whoever holds the cup gets to determine the rules, and there's a constant temptation to use them to secure a home team advantage.

But other factors are at play as well.

He says there's often a lot more at stake in the America's Cup than a shiny trophy for the yacht club mantelpiece.

PETER CAMPBELL: It's an event in which egos and money play such a huge amount and role. In terms of a sailing contest, it really is not a contest as a true sailing event because it is money and certainly the egos of the yacht owners have always been the case, always been a great involvement almost since the very early days of the race.

ELEANOR HALL: That is yachting journalist Peter Campbell speaking to Timothy McDonald.
Click to expand...

and again

A Dutch naval architect say his team designed the winged keel behind Australia's win in the 1983 America's Cup, not the Australian credited for it.

Australian boat designer Ben Lexcen was famous for inventing the winged keel on the winning yacht Australia II.

But now marine architect Peter van Oossanen, who worked with Lexcen, says it was his team of Dutch designers who invented the upside down keel, and Lexcen played only a minor role.

The Dutchman says he would have taken this information to the grave, but was compelled to speak out after more than two decades when letters and articles started appearing, claiming he had nothing to do with the famous design.

"For me, that was enough reason to say 'well all right, let the facts come out, let the truth come out'," he said.

He says Lexcen originally abandoned a radical redesign of the previous America's Cup entry instead opting for a more cautious approach and then changed his tune when the Dutch team began having some success.

"Ben said to me 'well you go ahead and do the difficult approach. I will look at the small refinements in the hope of finding a better boat for 1983'," he said.

"And after a few weeks he really, really wasn't very interested in what we were doing and he went back to Australia.

"He came back to us later on when we reported very good things but he had, in other words, very little to do with the winged keel at all."

But in an interview with the ABC in 1983, Mr van Oossanen played down his involvement in the design.

"We evaluated Ben's designs, we did calculations for him, and we didn't do anything out of the ordinary for him."

'Skulduggery'

At the time of Australia II's win, rules required that each yacht be designed by citizens of the country it represented.

Mr van Oossanen says everyone in the team, from financial backer Alan Bond to the crew, knew that the involvement of Dutch designers was possibly in breach of the rules.

But he says their enthusiasm and his own was enough to keep the extent of their involvement secret for all this time.

He says the America's Cup has always been rife with skulduggery and the victory should stand.

"The America's Cup has always been a devious affair with a lot of political problems, with the feeling in the Australian camp that we were giving the New York Yacht Club and the Yanks something of their own, of their own behaviour," he said.

John Bertrand was the skipper of Australia II 26 years ago. He has told AM he is confident Ben Lexcen was the yacht's principal designer.

"I regard Ben as the Leonardo da Vinci of this country in so many ways," he said.

"Ben used many consultants in many areas which he had - a very complex project designing the America's Cup boat.

"Ben was the man who pulled all the elements together that was required to finally pull that package together, which included the winged keel."

Mr Bertrand says the Dutch team played a consultant role and that was par for the course in those days.

He says the Americans were doing it too as was every other team.

"So were the British and so were the French and so were the Italians. It just went on and on and on. All part of the overall requirements," he said.

He says Australia II's victory has long been mired in controversy, but every investigation has always vindicated the victory.

"Administrators have gone back a million times, I can assure you that over, particularly during the hiatus of the America's Cup and I am totally confident on that," he said.

Evidence

A yachting expert says the evidence proving that Ben Lexcen designed the winning yacht is stored at the West Australian Maritime Museum.

Yachting journalist and author, Rob Mundle, says all evidence points to the Lexcen taking the credit.

He says it is not the first time the Dutch naval architect has made the claims.

"There's no grounds whatsoever for any investigation. The New York Yacht Club did their level best in 1983 to have the yacht disqualified and couldn't find any evidence," he said.

"And beyond that, if they want to take it further, all the documentation exists to prove otherwise. Communications with the Netherlands ship basin. Everything else - it all exists in the West Australian Maritime Museum."

Australian sailor Sir James Hardy, who was part of the Australia II team, says while the Dutch team worked on the keel's wings, Lexcen turned the keel upside down.

He says the yacht featured technology other than the keel which contributed to its success.

"The upside down keel, the stability it gave Ben's little 12-metre was the main thing rather than the wings," he said.

"I mean Peter's no doubt saying what he believes happened, but I can tell you that Benny's hull shape and everything and his ability to make sails - You wouldn't know which piece of coal made the whistle blow."
Click to expand...

so its really not even very clear who designed the thing

next trick is to pull up the arguments concerning the legality of it and the challenge made to the comity which should lay to rest the idea there was no challenge or that it had no merit in the rules of the time
which it did
although the challenge obviously failed that doesnt mean it was not based on an interpretation of the rules just as the munchkins use of the fin was also based on an interpretation of the rules
its a simple mater of how the comity decided to interpret those rules that some found surprising and thus changing the face of the game forever

all in good fun kids
all in good fun

B
Click to expand...

Boston, Feb 14, 2010

#79

Joined: May 2009
Posts: 232
Likes: 13, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 179
Location: Australia

Zed Senior Member

"Now, more than a quarter of a century later, a naval architect says it was a Dutch team, and not an Australian who came up with the winged keel design."

25 years later, well after Benbob's death, well after his death when he is not around to defend himself! Its sounding like a bunch of sour grapes, probably stirred up by the sore losers... no, sorry, munchkins as they became! Face it, you simply never got over the fact that a larrikin sign writer got together the fun tickets to come race you for the ugly old silverware. LOL! Beaten by a bunch of sports nuts from the colonies, oh my how embarrassing!

Never trust someone who can't say 'I was wrong'.

Zed, Feb 14, 2010

#80

Boston Previous Member

apparently this angle of a rules breach is far more readily available than the appendage angle
however I will continue to attempt and look up the official protest and what specific rules it was based on

until then for your further reading enjoyment

from
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/10/14/2714065.htm

Breaching the rules?

"This was my first project of this type involving a 12-metre yacht. I found it very thrilling," Mr van Oossanen said in 1983.

"But in retrospect after experiencing things which happened in the last three weeks, I have my doubts; I don't know if I'd like to go through it again."

And now he says everyone in the Australian team and the Dutch were aware that what they were doing was a breach of Cup rules.

"Everyone was. This was a well known aspect of the whole thing," he said.

"It was apparent from the very start that if we were ever to become involved we would have to become involved on the basis of not being able to tell anyone of our involvement."

But he says while he was originally happy to take his secret to the grave, he became upset several years ago because of reports which completely dismissed his involvement in the design.

"A question has been haunting me for a number of years. I was very upset in 2003 and 2004 by letters and articles that appeared in technical magazines - that we read and everyone else in yachting reads - [comments] from people like Jim Hardy and people like John Bertrand, others that were very familiar with my role in this whole episode, basically saying that we had nothing to do with it," he said.

But Western Australian man John Longley, the former project manager and crew member of Australia II, has joined the ranks of those condemning Mr van Oossanen's claims.

Mr Longley has questioned the timing of Mr Oossanen claims, years after Mr Lexcen's death.

"The only other people who were intimately involved in that process was Warren Jones who died about eight years ago, [and] maybe myself. Maybe Peter van Oossanen thought I was dead as well," he said.
Click to expand...

Boston, Feb 14, 2010

#81

Boston Previous Member

well I may not be finding a lot about the original protest but I sure am finding a ton of stuff concerning this design issue

from
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/sport/winged-keel-not-lexcens-design-20091014-gvy0.html

Winged keel 'not Lexcen's design'
RICK FENELY
October 14, 2009

A BOAT designer has blown the whistle on a "lie" that allowed Australia to seize glory in the 1983 America's Cup – the claim that Ben Lexcen invented the famous winged keel that propelled Alan Bond's yacht to victory.

Peter van Oossanen, the Dutch naval architect who worked with Lexcen on Australia II, has said he can confirm what the Americans alleged – but could not prove – 26 years ago. The true designers of the peculiar upside-down keel, with its critical winglets, were himself, his Dutch team and the Dutch aerodynamicist Joop Slooff. Lexcen, he says, played only a "minor" role, contributing perhaps 5 or 10 per cent. Strictly speaking, there is an argument that Australia II should have been disqualified because the rules stipulated that competing yachts be designed by residents or citizens of the country they represented.

Lexcen was not even in the Netherlands during "the Eureka moment" in the development of the keel, van Oossanen told the Herald from his home in Wageningen, the Netherlands.

Van Oossanen says he remained Lexcen's close friend until his death of a heart attack in 1988 and still regards him as a "true Australian hero". But at 65 – and having become a "proud" Australian citizen in 1990 – van Oossanen has grown tired of what he sees as the airbrushing from history of the Dutch contribution, particularly attempts in recent years to perpetuate the Lexcen legend.

"Ben was a nice guy," he said. "He had a flair for things, a flair for shapes. But he wasn't a scientist and he wasn't able to understand the full physics of what was going on. He left to go back to Australia on 20th June 1981, before the vital tank tests. The role he played was a minor one . . . Ben did things by feel and intuition, but in the America's Cup that will get you nowhere. It is a very scientific thing."

For keeping the secret, van Oossanen claims, Alan Bond had told him words to the effect: "We'll look after you." After the victory, $25,000 appeared in his bank account – a gift from Bond, which he now regards as hush money.

But he appreciated it then. As chief scientist at the Netherlands Ship Model Basin in Wageningen, where much of the development work on Australia II was done, he had worked only for his salary since contacting Bond, offering his help, in 1978. And he had been paid nothing for his three months in Newport for the America's Cup. He was there because he wanted Australia to win. The story questioning Lexcen's input has been written many times since the Americans raised their unsuccessful protest in 1983, and van Oossanen has, in recent years, added to those doubts with more cautious remarks. But now he is explicitly setting the record straight. Why?

Van Oossanen lived in Australian from the age of seven until he was 21, when he returned to the Netherlands, met his future wife and raised a family. Critically, he was neither an Australian resident nor citizen when he worked on Australia II. But he said: "I love Australia and I wouldn't want to Van Oossanen lived in Australia from the age of seven until he was 21, when he returned to the Netherlands, met his future wife and raised a family. Critically, he was neither an Australian resident nor citizen when he worked on Australia II. But he said in his Dutch-Australian accent: "I love Australia and I wouldn't want to do anything to upset Australians. That is why I haven't discussed this in any detail for so many years."

Van Oossanen has never wavered from his belief that Australia II deserved its victory, when weighed against the America's Cup's history of skulduggery, espionage and cheating.

But didn't the Australia II syndicate cheat, at least technically? "Yes," he says. "If everything had stayed the same, I would have taken this to my grave. But they are writing us out of history."

Lexcen, van Oossanen says, did not design the boat's key elements: the small hull over an upside-down keel with its famed winglets. They weren't even Lexcen's ideas.

"We are talking about the underwater hull, the part of the design that made the boat go faster and win the America's Cup. When we conducted the first vital tank tests with the upside-down keel, and we saw we had 25 per cent less resistance and tonnes of extra speed – that was the Eureka moment. Ben wasn't there."

All this casts a pall over one of Australia's most historic sporting triumphs. The defeat of the Dennis Conner-skippered Liberty on September 25, 1983, ended the New York Yacht Club's 132-year grip on the America's Cup trophy.

Bleary-eyed Australians, who had stayed up to watch the event, danced in the streets. The then prime minister, Bob Hawke, declared that any boss would be a "bum" to sack a worker for taking the day off. Hawke was out of the country and unavailable for comment yesterday.

Bondy – as Hawke called him – would later be exposed as a corporate crook, jailed and stripped of his Order of Australia. The cup is about the only achievement for which Australians retain a fondness for Bond. Now, it is claimed, he cheated at that, too.

But Bond said last night: "Ben was living with me at the time. I saw his drawings, long before were even talking about doing tank tests."

They were for the upside-down keel and winglets? "Correct." When was that? "I'm not going to be cross-examined . . . Of course we did tests, and modified things. I met Ben in Holland myself. It was his idea. The idea is sacrosanct, and to suggest otherwise is mischievous and an insult to his memory."

Lexcen was appointed a Member of the Order of Australia. A car was named after him. In 2006, after years of resentment against the Australians they suspected of cheating, the New York Yacht Club inducted him into the America's Cup Hall of Fame.

Lexcen was already heroic before 1983, in van Oossanen's mind. He had left school at 14, built his first boat at 16 and – with no formal training – designed Bond boats for the America's Cup in 1974, 1977 and 1980. "He was a charismatic, likeable guy with a lot of time for anyone down and out."

But he did not deserve the accolade for the event that made him famous, says van Oossanen. "People are raising him up to be a much greater hero than he was," he said.

Had Lexcen acknowledged who really deserved the laurels? "Yes. He would chuckle, because he knew credit lay elsewhere."

So Lexcen was embarrassed? "Towards me? Yes, certainly." Asked if he had been under pressure to keep the secret, van Oossanen said: "Yes."

Warren Jones, the managing director of the Australia II syndicate, had said: "You know where your loyalty is, don't you?"

Jones died in 2002. Van Oossanen said his caution had hardly been necessary. "They were assured of my sympathy . . . I was part of the team. I wanted Australia to win."

In about August 1983, during the semi-finals of the Challenger Races, a US lawyer visited van Oossanen in the Netherlands while he was back for a short holiday. He wanted him to sign a statement that he and Slooff were the critical designers. "He had done his homework well," van Oossanen said. "But there was no way I could sign that. It would basically have allowed the Americans to protest the Australians and win."

He says there is nothing in the rules to allow Australia to be stripped of the cup. But he fears Australians will detest him for speaking out, particularly as Lexcen and Jones cannot defend themselves. So why expose himself to loathing now?

A letter from Australia's James Hardy to Seahorse magazine in 2004 helps explain van Oossanen's motivation. It was among reports that angered him. Hardy was an America's Cup skipper three times and a director and reserve helmsman for Australia II.

Hardy's letter said the keel was "a 100 per cent Benny creation" and that he "smiled" when detractors suggested the Dutch had designed it.

"I spent some three months with Jim at Newport," van Oossanen said. He believes Hardy was well aware of the Dutch contribution. Had such articles not appeared, he would have let sleeping dogs lie.

Hardy, who became a highly respected businessman and winemaker, told the Herald: "There is no doubt that Peter did a lot of work. I can understand where he's coming from."

But others always contributed. He said Lexcen had adopted aerodynamic elements on his revolutionary 18-foot skiff in the late 1950s.

Australia II's skipper, John Bertrand, said he had no doubt Lexcen was the principal designer but said "success has many fathers".

"Without Ben, there is no way the total design solution of the winged keel could have come together," he said, adding, "it was not only the winged keel, but also the hull shape and the aerodynamic package above deck".

"When eventually it all came together, we had a world-class boat. Only then did we have the technology that was competitive against the Americans."

Lexcen, like all designers, used consultants, Bertrand said."Ben was brilliant. I regard him as the Leonardo da Vinci of this country."

But van Oossanen says Lexcen was not, initially, taken by the radical keel design. The Herald approached him last Friday to follow up an interview he gave to an American trade magazine, Professional Boatbuilder, in which he had gone further than previously.

In early 1978, van Oossanen travelled in Australia to meet Bond and Lexcen. He had known Lexcen from his days in Sydney when they sailed Moths at Balmoral Sailing Club. Lexcen was still Bob Miller then. He changed his name later to avoid confusion with a sail-making firm in which he was a partner.

He went to Perth to meet Warren Jones and sign a contract in March 1981. He and Lexcen built a model. Van Oossanen says he believed this boat's keel was lacking, so he suggested tests on different keels.

He then visited the National Aerospace Laboratory in Amsterdam and met its chief aerodynamicist, Joop Slooff. Together they identified four very different types of keels.

"All four were defined and sketched by Slooff and I," he said. These included an inverse taper, upside-down keel.

Slooff suggested they could modify a computer program, used for aircraft, to calculate approximate values for wave resistance. His results showed the upside-down keel was clearly superior. But he identified a problem – the long length at the bottom created a major tip vortex. The energy caused in forming this vortex caused extra resistance to the hull's forward movement – and loss of speed.

Then Slooff had mentioned "winglets" for the first time. The winglet proved to be an efficient way to get rid of the tip vortex, or for decreasing it substantially.

Lexcen visited the Netherlands again. Now seeing the value of the radical design, van Oossanen says, Lexcen drew sketches of what the winglets might look like. Van Oossanen does not believe these were ever used in the keel design but it is for these that he grants Lexcen his 5 or 10 per cent contribution.

Van Oossanen said he came up with the original design for the winglets. His team made all the drawings for the keel. "Ben had nothing to do with it," he told Professional Boatbuilder.

Lexcen had returned to Australia before the Eureka tank test. Bond, Jones and Bertrand arrived by private jet in the Netherlands in August 1981. Van Oossanen said Bertrand was sceptical but Jones and Bond were utterly convinced.

But there was another challenge. In very light wind, the wetted surface area of the boat was still more than they wanted. The winglets were adding wetted surface. Van Oossanen said he suggested cutting down the waterline length to the minimum. His team then drew up the final set of full-scale loftings, hull design and keel design. "It was all done by us."

Lexcen made the construction drawings. "Ben was, in name, responsible for the design process and he in fact did a lot of work – construction, mast, rig, deck equipment, etcetera – but the actual design of the underwater hull, keel and winglets were all done by us here," he said.

"Ben was good enough, however, to see where the design process of integrating the winglets into the design of the keel was possibly heading although he had very little to do with that, to be able to make one of a number of sketches showing how this integration process could come out."

Was it too crude to divide the credit into percentages? "No. I would say Ben's contribution was 5 to 10 per cent of the underwater configuration. He did most other things by himself . . . Joop's was perhaps 20 to 25 per cent. The remainder was down to my team."

Pressed for his contribution, personally, van Oossanen said: "Considerably more than half."

Van Oossanen told all this to representatives of the New York Yacht Club in 2005, when they were investigating whether Lexcen should be inducted into the hall of fame. Lexcen was finally granted that honour in 2006. Van Oossanen believes it was a diplomatic gesture and the club "did not want to be seen as the bad guys".

The big surprise is that the Australian media did not pursue this story years ago. In 1984, Slooff told an American journalist, 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."

In 2006, the US magazine Sailing World ran a report by a member of the America's Cup Hall of Fame selection committee, John Rousmaniere, who said the Dutch were the principal designers. Van Oossanen revealed then that he had not signed a statement from the Americans' lawyer in 1983 because "the whole of Australia would have hated me for this forever and ever".

Was there a reluctance to cast doubt on a national hero? "I think you've hit the nail on the head," said van Oossanen.

So, should Australia II have been ruled ineligible? "That is a very fair question but one that is very hard for me to answer."

The cup had been plagued by accusations of cheating and espionage. "There has always been deviousness and political manipulation. Therefore, when you see it in that light, I would say, no, Australia won it – although perhaps not entirely – 'fair and square'."
Click to expand...

Boston, Feb 14, 2010

#82

Joined: May 2009
Posts: 232
Likes: 13, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 179
Location: Australia

Zed Senior Member

If its all true then all I can say is good on you Benbob, Alan, John and crew... you screwed the yanks over at their own dirty game. Well done lads, well done!

But its is coming from a Dutch guy who says he has taken a bribe sooooooooooo?

Anyway, details, details... the important thing is that ugly bit of junk silver got unbolted and moved out of that stuffy old boys club.

Never trust someone who can't say 'I was wrong'.

Zed, Feb 14, 2010

#83

Joined: May 2006
Posts: 643
Likes: 49, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 607
Location: UK

Crag Cay Senior Member

I find the case made by Peter Van Oossanen to be quite persuasive, if for no other reason than I can't think why he would be making all this up: He doesn't need the publicity or the kudos as he has plenty of other achievements under his belt. Why would he risk all his professional integrity on fabricating something for no real gain?

http://www.oossanen.nl/a2/index.html

Crag Cay, Feb 14, 2010

#84

Joined: May 2009
Posts: 232
Likes: 13, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 179
Location: Australia

Zed Senior Member

Benbob annoyed the "proper designers" because he was not properly schooled, worked intuitively and often relied upon colleagues to help out with the numbers. At least that is what one designer that worked with him said to me once... I guess he was telling the truth.

Never trust someone who can't say 'I was wrong'.

Zed, Feb 14, 2010

#85

Boston Previous Member

from the time magazine article

The first controversy involved the radical keel of the leading foreign challenger, Australia II. The brainchild of ebullient Australian Designer Ben Lexcen, the keel has provided Newport with gossip, speculation and creative chicanery all summer. Swathed in blue-green skirts whenever Australia II is out of the water, the supersecret keel has been the target of camera-wielding scuba divers from rival camps. One local cartoon lampooned the mysterious keel by depicting it in the shape of a bottle of Swan Lager, a major corporate backer of the Australia II effort.

By midsummer, however, the basic features of the keel were common knowledge around Newport: the unusual appendage rakes forward under the hull into a bulb, then sweeps aft into two delta-shaped wings designed to give the boat an advantage while heeled over sailing upwind (see diagram). The exact dimensions of the keel were well known to the International Yacht Racing Union's Measurement Committee, which had formally examined Australia II for conformity to the complicated 12-meter standards well before the racing began.

With Australia II on its way to an impressive 37-4 won-lost record, Halsey Herreshoff, navigator of the leading American boat, Liberty, drafted a complaint, claiming that the keel was illegal and that the Australians should be penalized, disqualified or forced to change its configuration. Otherwise, wrote Herreshoff in his memo to New York Yacht Club officials, Australia II "will likely win the America's Cup." No foreign boat has ever done that in the 132-year history of the races, and some of the challengers quickly charged that the N.Y.Y.C. was doing its best to make sure that this year was no exception.

Supported by Herreshoff's argument that the Aussie keel fins give the boat added draft, or depth, upwind, thus making it a 12.5-meter or 12.8-meter yacht in those conditions, the N.Y.Y.C. asked the Measurement (TM) Committee to reconsider its earlier O.K. Last week the I.Y.R.U. officials responded with a unanimous no. But that did not end the matter.

Robert McCullough, chairman of the N.Y.Y.C. America's Cup Committee, next asked the I.Y.R.U.'S Keel Boat Committee, the final arbiter on such technical questions, to examine the keel. "In our country," observed Australia II Executive Director Warren Jones, "we take the referee's ruling and go on with the game. Why don't the Americans do the same?"

While the keel affair simmered, a second dispute, potentially more embarrassing to the N.Y.Y.C. mandarins, rocked Newport. Race officials, it seemed, had allowed U.S.

Skipper Dennis Conner to use multiple rating certificates, which gave Liberty an advantage during the June and July trials—without the knowledge of the other American contenders. When expecting light winds, for example, Conner's crew could have removed ballast from the bilge and installed a longer boom, giving the boat less displacement and more sail area without changing Liberty's overall rating. All other boats have sailed under one certification. And so did Liberty, insisted Conner: "If you read the rule, you'd see that it is illegal to have more than one."

Unfortunately for Conner, the N.Y.Y.C.'s keel complaint to the I.Y.R.U. also asked for clarification on the legality of using multiple certificates. "Liberty has done this in our selection trials," McCullough acknowledged. Remarked John Kolius, skipper of the third-place American boat Courageous: "Nobody passed out, but it was surprising."

By week's end, the appearance of impropriety had grown so severe that some officials of the N.Y.Y.C. were privately expressing concern about favoritism shown Conner and the Liberty syndicate. Meanwhile, Australia H's sudden, and probably exaggerated, reputation as a superboat suffered a setback of sorts. Another American boat, Defender, sailed by Tom Blackaller, met Australia II ten miles offshore for an impromptu drag race, a gambit that violated at least the spirit of N.Y.Y.C. rules banning test races between any American boat and a foreign challenger. The result was a dead heat. But few believed the face-off settled much of anything. In Newport last week, everyone was bridling at the rules. As Defender Designer David Pedrick said after his boat's escapade: "It's a bloody shame when lawyers become important members of the crew." —By Russ Hoyle. Reported by Richard Hornik and John F. Stacks/Newpor
Click to expand...

and who was it who was trying to convince me of the good old honest glory days "before" there was any of this lawyering going on

har har har

Told you I grew up with that crap
there has been a lawyer sailing on every boat that ever sailed out of New Port

its a tradition
lmao

I just wonder if some lawyer is going to come along and try and have the Aussies stripped of there 83 tittle

now that would be a hoot eh
talk about bedlam

this is just to funny guys

ok the fin was not wide enough to be disqualified based on its being an appendage nor could it be disqualified because it was movable although the bolts were awfully suspicious to a lot of folks. Apparently as it turns out it was guilty of most likely not being designed by an Aussie which means

you guessed it

it was illegal

what do you wanna bet old Denis the menace raises a new protest

I am laughing my living *** off over here
talk about entertainment

Boston, Feb 14, 2010

#86

Joined: May 2009
Posts: 81
Likes: 2, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 36
Location: Colorado

peterraymond Junior Member

BoatDesignCredit.com

I've enjoyed most of the recent discussion about who should get credit for the cheater Australian boat, although it has been something of a guilty pleasure, since it's only peripherally related the topic of designing boats.

Of course, I was going to mention that, as I remember reading, there was one challenge where the NYYC claimed the right to chose their defender on a day-by-day basis, depending on weather conditions. One boat for light air and a different one for heavy air I assume. Taking the purported variable measurement certificate idea one step further.

peterraymond, Feb 14, 2010

#87

Joined: May 2009
Posts: 16,679
Likes: 349, Points: 93, Legacy Rep: 1362
Location: Cocoa, Florida

Doug Lord Flight Ready

Australia II

peterraymond said: ↑

I've enjoyed most of the recent discussion about who should get credit for the cheater Australian boat, although it has been something of a guilty pleasure, since it's only peripherally related the topic of designing boats.

Of course, I was going to mention that, as I remember reading, there was one challenge where the NYYC claimed the right to chose their defender on a day-by-day basis, depending on weather conditions. One boat for light air and a different one for heavy air I assume. Taking the purported variable measurement certificate idea one step further.
Click to expand...

----------------------------
Totally out of line for the greatest 12 meter in history! I think the revisionist history aboat the Dutch guy is too bad: Ben Miller(Lexcen) was one of the most innovative designers of the period and was the guy behind the keel-despite the recent coments.

yes, it is a Revolution
Fire Arrow Foil System/ 3D SAILING
WOLF https://sailwolffoiler.com/wolf/

Doug Lord, Feb 14, 2010

#88

bistros Previous Member

BMW-Oracles site reports RACING ON for today

Race is on for today. ....

Click here to add me to your ignore list

bistros, Feb 14, 2010

#89
Advertisement:

bistros Previous Member

Now this is racing!

Click here to add me to your ignore list

bistros, Feb 14, 2010

#90

(You must log in or sign up to reply here.)

Page 6 of 17

< Sailing Directly Upwind | 32' Thunderbird by Seaborn ? >

Loading...

Similar Threads

America's Cup-37 Class Rule

AlexanderSahlin, Mar 17, 2021, in forum: Sailboats

Replies:

20

Views:

3,645

BlueBell

Apr 3, 2021
America's Cup 1920: The Log of Resolute

Doug Lord, Jul 10, 2017, in forum: Sailboats

Replies:

0

Views:

1,746

Doug Lord

Jul 10, 2017
America's Cup Website

SuperPiper, Aug 8, 2015, in forum: Sailboats

Replies:

3

Views:

1,896

Doug Lord

Aug 9, 2015
The next (2016 or so?) America's Cup (AC 35)

Stephen Ditmore, Oct 9, 2012, in forum: Sailboats

Replies:

28

Views:

9,190

Paul B

Oct 22, 2012
America's Cup Venue is smokin' (but not in a good way)

CutOnce, Jun 20, 2012, in forum: Sailboats

Replies:

1

Views:

1,767

Doug Lord

Jun 20, 2012
Cockpit scupper tubes using G10

jkenan, Aug 25, 2022, in forum: Sailboats

Replies:

12

Views:

1,641

jkenan

Aug 28, 2022
Americas Cup 1983-Did you hear the thunder from down under?

Doug Lord, Apr 20, 2019, in forum: Sailboats

Replies:

1

Views:

1,441

Doug Lord

Apr 20, 2019
Courageous---Ted Turner and the Americas Cup

Doug Lord, Jun 21, 2017, in forum: Sailboats

Replies:

2

Views:

2,225

Doug Lord

Jun 23, 2017
Americas cup... Last race cancelled due to not enough wind

capt vimes, Sep 20, 2013, in forum: Sailboats

Replies:

1

Views:

1,675

Doug Lord

Sep 20, 2013

Forum posts represent the experience, opinion, and view of individual users. Boat Design Net does not necessarily endorse nor share the view of each individual post.
When making potentially dangerous or financial decisions, always employ and consult appropriate professionals. Your circumstances or experience may be different.