Click on the logo to visit the Vespoli website.

On a personal note, despite his deserved reputation as a fiercely competitive businessman, Vespoli was charitable toward the innovations of other boat makers.

What is the substantive change or innovation of the Millennium with respect to your previous line of boats?

Our new Millennium model shells use a higher modulus, unidirectional carbon fiber in place of woven carbon fabric. Unidirectional carbon fiber greatly enhance a boat’s stiffness, because it's not woven, and because it's stiffer to begin with, so uni fibers provide a double benefit.

Carbon fiber is usually graded as standard, intermediate or high modulus with only the standard modulus material being woven for commercial use. So what we're doing is replacing lower modulus woven fabric with higher modulus, unidirectional material. So the increases in stiffness are pretty dramatic.

And with this boat you also bulked up some different areas in terms of stresses.

The beauty of using pre-preg is the ability it gives us to achieve precise fiber orientation and optimal resin content in the laminate. We’ve been using pre-preg for about ten years now so the switch to a new material wasn’t a huge change for us. However, years ago when we were using "wet" resin, we would rush around like madmen trying to get the boat under vacuum and hoped we got it all wet out in before the resin hardened. When you work with pre-preg, you literally have days to complete the job and have absolute control over weight and stiffness. Pre-preg gives us the ability to place the fibers in the exact orientation determined to handle the stresses on the hull. Woven fiber is very easy to lay down, but we’re forced to use it either in 0- 90 degree or 45-45 degree orientation. With pre-preg uni, we can specifically load areas that receive high stresses.

We've done considerable finite element analysis, and we know the loads on a hull. As a result of this research we've introduced significant changes to the internal structure of the hull since 1995. We redesigned the ribs /bulkhead into an indestructible, all carbon channel with a thick carbon bulkhead that is in full contact with the hull. Also we added a large all-carbon flange along the top of the gunwale and all-carbon seat decks.

The next step was the exterior, which we've done with the Millennium. We improved the interior strength and response to loads, and then went to work on the exterior. It had been recommended to us for years that we should use uni instead of fabric in our hulls but it wasn’t until the Resolute eight came out that it lit a fire under me. The new hull has multiple layers of uni carbon fibers over a NOMEX honeycomb core. The weights of each layer vary, and we've concentrated them differently in different locations and orientations to handle the stresses.

We like to pack the carbon high in the gunwales and low in the keel, as a starting point, for longitudinal stiffness. The further apart the major quantities of fibers are, the stiffer the hull, just like a structural beam. The hull depth becomes critical in terms of a boat’s stiffness. If you ever have looked at these new wing rigger boats that have reduced the gunwale height to get the wings out of harms way you would readily notice a significant loss of longitudinal stiffness. This is the result of an effective decrease in overall hull depth.

The goal is to get as much of a beam-like structure as possible. To achieve this, we want to get the strength up high (on the hull), and you want to get it down low. The large flange adds a tremendous amount of rigidity and is obviously good for rough water.

So we like that, and we also like to load up the fibers where there are torsional forces. We know very accurately where the rigger loads go, so we worked on improving both longitudinal and torsional rigidity. And one of the unplanned, but positive outcomes of using the stiffer fibers, is that the boat is more impact-resistant. It's much tougher and has much better impact resistance. It can be banged up a bit.

For whom is this boat intended; how does it fit into the typical rowing program?

The Millennium was intended as an addition to our line for elite racing, and that's how it was introduced. Performance-wise, it's not going to be tremendously different than the Ultralite; I think you can look at the coxed pair at the Worlds; they proved you can still win in an Ultralite hull. However we build racing shells- not rowing boats, so any improvement is important at the top level our sport.

When we started, our intention was to develop a boat that would help Mike Teti’s crew win a gold medal, and hopefully then help Hartmut’s squad and work with them both through Sydney. And that's how we developed the prototype; we took it down to Princeton, and the guys rowed it while we watched and listened. Mike has shown great confidence in our company over the years, and one of the things we wanted to do, when we went to work on this, was repay his confidence and loyalty with the fastest boat. This is the result of that effort.

Then does every Varsity 8 in the country need to buy a new Millennium?

It was meant to be an elite boat, but we have 40 of them on order already. Are there significant performance differences? Well, I think it will show up at the start, for one - crews will be quicker. The hull shapes didn’t need to be changed; but the improved construction and added stiffness of the hull will mean that less power will be lost in the hull and will make the crew quicker.

The stiffness difference is primarily longitudinal. We are seeing an additional 25-35 percent longitudinal stiffness in the one-piece boats. The people who are rowing the single have really noticed it, the boat doesn't flex at all under them. In the bigger boats, in a college eight, I'm not sure that they're really going to be able to feel it all that much when they move from an Ultralite to a Millennium except at those points in the race were they are really trying to provide extra acceleration, like the start and the sprint and when they cruise through a wake and the boat doesn’t flex.

Torsionally, the boat is better, largely from the changes we've made in the last two years to the interior structure of all of our boats. We know more about the interior structure that is taking the load, and combined with a stiffer exterior, it's better. But if they've been in Ultralites, it's not all that different. It won't be like the jump from our Performer series to the honeycomb construction of the Ultralites, which is immediately noticeable, and worth quite a bit of time on the race course.

The durability of boats is a major issue for most rowing programs, which must milk several years out of every boat purchase they make. This boat has only been in existence for a few months, but what do you predict with respect to longevity and durability?

I believe that any boat made entirely of composites, that has no wood bracing, will last many years. Just like boats made entirely of wood can last decades so will all composite boats, but not boats that are hybrids of the two materials. The boats longevity has to do with strength of bonds, rates of expansion and contraction as well as overall engineering. I have tested our 10-15 year old honeycomb boats for loss of stiffness and it is interesting to find that there has only been a 10-15% loss of stiffness. With the new boat, the situation is ideal, with identical materials throughout the hull, I predict loss of stiffness over time to be virtually nil.

Now, several builders offer a molded, rib-less interior, claiming increased durability and stiffness. We’re looking at that, but we haven't found it to provide enough additional stiffness and improved longevity to justify the increase in price it would require and the loss in flexibility we have to raise or lower seat decks to a customer’s specs. These aren't new ideas - the Robinson was the first molded eight, , and Carbocraft the first honeycomb construction.

I rowed in a Robinson; that boat didn't really work out.

But let's give credit where it's due, it was the first eight with a molded rib-less interior that radically redesigned hull, fittings and construction. Unfortunately it was too radical and a lot of the changes just didn’t work out. We don't want to change everything at once; the rowing community doesn't have the kind of money to support that type of radical R&D and the usually much higher selling price. We could re-engineer the whole thing all at once and put out a whole new boat, but coaches and rowers tend to be conservative with their boat purchases, and as a group they don't typically want to take a chance with their money on unproven, radical ideas. So we see change as an ongoing process, introducing improvements that are part of a larger development project but in increments. This allows us to determine the effects of each change and the coaches to evolve into the change with us with the minimum cost and disruption for us both.

Are there concerns with UV light with these boats?

No. We have UV stabilizers in the epoxy or in the paint or clear coat which stops the boat from degrading and losing its physical properties over time. Most boat builders do a good job of limiting the effects of UV.

Does it have any implications for the care of this boat as opposed to any other boats?

Not really, because it has the same sort of protection as the rest of our line. From what I've seen in the first several months of this year in use and exposure of the Millennium’s, it's not something I'm concerned about at all.

What accounts for the difference in price on the new boat, and between your boat and the competition?

The extra money, about 12% over the Ultralite, just covers the added cost of materials and the increased labor. I'm a little older now, perhaps a bit more conservative and now in my 18th year in this business. I still want to be the best, naturally, but I also want to see as many people rowing as possible. I want the sport, and our boats, to be affordable. Making rowing more available to more people is more important to me; to see rowing grow. We'll fight like crazy to get orders, but also to keep the price of racing shells within the reach of all programs.

There are going to be some people who say, if it costs a lot more, it must be better. I guess its the "snob" effect. It’s like, "Look what I can afford." Or some others who believe if it's imported, it must be better. Our company’s goal is to offer the best combination of speed, service and value.

Is there any downside of the boat, possible drawback for some types of crews or programs, anyone for whom this boat is not appropriate?

Depending on the skill level of the rowers, you might want to look at one of our lower price models, such as our Performer or Challenger, both "Single Skin" models. If your program is young or needs more seats to get people out on the water, you can almost get both an eight and a four for the price of one Millennium eight. Then once you have some boats, go into the honeycomb boats. However, if your going to be a finalist in your league championships you should definitely get into a honeycomb boat . You're going to see a big performance jump.

At, or below the FISA minimum in all categories. At Worlds, and these are sectional boats remember (ed. note: FISA rules require that all eights are sectional), Mike's boat (the heavyweight men's hull) was 1.2 kilos over the minimum. Hartmut's boat was three kilos under, and the junior's boat was under. We will build them at weight, but in Mike's case, he said to go for maximum stiffness, so it was a little over. When we started, we didn't know what the boat we made for Mike would weigh. We were going for stiffness.

There is when it comes to cost or athlete safety.

There are three components to this issue for us: price, durability and weight. These three factors are like three intersecting circles. How much one circle intersects with the other two determines the characteristics of the boat you want, need and its selling price. You can make it extremely stiff, and it will certainly be more expensive and depending on material choice it might be also be lighter in weight.

I do advise people about the downside of extremely stiff boats; if we make boats so stiff that there is no give in the hull or the fittings, it can cause problems. I’ve often wondered if intercostal muscle pulls and back injuries might be the result of some combination of big blades and stiffer boats.

There's a lot of development of materials and hull shapes, but far less for simple ergonomic changes, which runs counter to what is going on in many industries. For instance, I can't remember a toe that I didn't have to fix and alter.

And I can't remember a rowing seat that was comfortable for more than a few minutes. Part of it is just personal preference but of course some of it is engineering. When we design new hull shapes, we include more hip room for women rowers, more stable hull shapes and longer staterooms for heavyweights and lower roll stability numbers and less wetted surface for lightweights.

Our goal, for the next three years is to develop a complete new fleet of boats, from singles to Eights, that will help the US win gold medals in Sydney, that will have rower "comfort" as a key consideration in all design changes.

We're going to revisit the various hull forms we created several years back, and are in ongoing discussions with our naval architect, Bruce Nelson. We will maintain each boat's "rowability" while seeking to squeeze out every drop of speed possible which of course will include the ergonomic considerations you mentioned. This research will be self-financed so both the risk and the reward will be ours alone.

What are the critical factors working on a hull, and how have you addressed them with your design changes?

When a boat is going down the course, around 80 maybe even 90 percent of the resistance on the hull is form drag; that's resistance to the hull shape from the water. The other resistance on a rowing shell that amounts to the other 10 -20 per cent is wave drag. With form drag, you want to reduce the wetted surface, but you can't reduce it below what will float the crew. A hull needs sufficient displacement and therefore the Naval Architect is bound by that constraint when design changes are considered. The resistance created by wave drag can be reduced by design changes which include, among others, very fine ends.

Our research clearly indicates that a longer water line without increased wetted surface allows a crew to achieve the highest average speed. The shorter water line is a death knell, particularly on a man-made course with a water depth 3-4 meters. We think the longer water line is absolutely critical for all conditions but especially in 4 or less meters of water. Just decreasing the wetted surface of the boat by shortening the water line or making the hull more semi-circular clearly won’t make the boat faster and more rowable.

You also have different models for different size crews, which is not true of all boat builders. How important are the differences between the designs?

The design of the hull will vary greatly depending on the size of the crew. When we design a boat for a specific displacement… (pauses) and displacement is sex-blind, doesn't know if it's male or female, just knows that it's two hundred pounds, or 165 pounds... (resuming) we then have to make some decisions about how round that hull can become, recognizing that a semicircular hull from a hydrodynamics point of view is the most efficient. But from a practical point of view, it can't be rowed with any great effectiveness. So everything is a compromise.

What we found on the heavyweight men's side, as crews boated taller men, more of their total body weight is further from the keel and they needed a boat with increased stability to be effective while still maintaining a longer water line. We made a trade-off, accepting about a 1% increase in wetted surface to give the crew about 20 % more stability. Now this gives them a considerably more stable platform and lets them hammer away.

Conversely, as we looked into the designs for displacements of rowers weighing 150-160 lb., we found out that they could handle a more radical design than we could ever try with heavyweights. Our DS series of pairs, fours and Eights, for example, has significantly lower roll stability than our heavyweight boats. These hulls float that weight class perfectly. They are easy to row even though we reduced the wetted surface by 8%.

How did you come up with an increase in stability by 20%?

That was a decision we made after calculating the righting moment for the higher center of gravity. Our naval architect, Bruce Nelson, would draw the hull cross sections and Karl Skraggs, the guy who does the number crunching, he's a numerical hydro dynamist, would give us values for each set of changes. We would talk - Bruce would say to me, "Give me the ergonomic requirements of the rowers and I will design the hull around them" We provide him with all the dimensions including hip width, rigger height off the water, stateroom size, depth of heels ,etc. With Carl’s numbers, Bruce would know how many square feet of wetted surface he needed to float the crew and would then draw the most efficient shape. That's how we work, the practical and the theoretical together, trying numerous designs, to get just the right performance mix.

The big issue is - how rowable is the boat?

If you can get a rowable boat that handles the conditions well, you have a winner. The results from this summer’s racing confirm it pretty conclusively.

What about your single? You haven't spent as much energy perfecting that boat.

To a large extent, it’s a perception issue. People think because we build so many eights and fours that we can’t build fast singles. I can count on the fingers of one hand how many American-made singles got any kind of world or Olympic medal in the last ten years. On the heavy men's side there have been none. On the women's side there were a couple of Van Dusen’s. In that time our singles have won Olympic bronze, and bronze and gold medals at the World Championships. Those results go pretty much ignored because we have been stereotyped as being a "big-boat" builder.

Has there been as much design attention given to your small boats?

We have looked at the pairs/doubles very closely and their designs reflect the research of using a long water line with shallower bow and stern ends with rounder cross sections. We haven’t put as much energy into the hull shapes of singles until recently. Our current design is very comfortable to row and has been updated with sloping decks to stiffen it longitudinally as well as lowering the seat deck to eliminate track "bites." We have commissioned our design team to create three size specific designs that we hope to test this summer.

Finally, the question of the month: what's the difference between the Resolute and the Millennium?

To begin with we have a difference in design philosophy. Resolute has opted for a short water line to reduce their wetted surface while maintaining a stable hull. We, as I said earlier, have longer water lines.

Another big difference is price. The difference is between five and nine thousand dollars, depending on how you fit out the Resolute. It just doesn’t cost that much to make a boat that way.

We are also organized differently than Resolute. They use subcontractors to build the hulls and buy in the fittings from different suppliers and then run their business/marketing operations from another location. Much like the "virtual" corporations you read about in the papers. We are more conventional and build everything at one site dedicated solely to the construction of racing shells and their fittings. This method gives the consumer a product that costs less because we have control over all facets of production and service.

Lastly the Millennium has proven itself on the water at the highest levels of our sport. The Juniors won silver and bronze, the under 23’s won a silver at the Nation’s cup and the elite men won the gold ! It was amusing to hear how after the Men’s eight won at the worlds that most of the Europeans who saw the race on Euro sport TV just assumed that our eight rowed in a Resolute. I hope they know by now that it was a Millennium!

There’s much more to the rowing world than Millenniums and Resolutes and that’s a very good thing. It’s the competition from Resolute and all the other shell makers that will strengthen rowing in the US. Boat buyers have choices and that makes all of us builders work to build better boats, and in the end, I believe rowing benefits.