Ferraris at Cavallino Classic -- from John Barnes

Thanks for posting this info. I would like to see the events on different weekends, as would most other local south Florida car fans. I think part of the reason PBSCW was scheduled on the same weekend as Cavallino classic was to get more interest from participants that are not local south Floridians that would be here anyway for Cavallino.

The way I view the two events is that Cavallino is the best venue for Ferrari, and the old money lifestyle on Palm Beach. PBSCW is more of a total exotic event and is more relevant to the lifestyle represented in South Beach. Both classy events that I enjoyed greatly.

The 0846 and P4/5 debate will surely continue for some time. I can see Cavallino's position that you verify through the original source (Ferrari) what you will allow for judging is a sensible one, and one that should keep the standards as high as possible.

John T. will be a successful promoter for his events as they are becoming well known for what they offer. I would like to see his timing moved so that I can participate in more of the events rather than splitting my time between competing venues.

Alicia, thanks for keeping the communication open on these issues. It is appreciated.


BT

 

Stacking the events would help the weekend as a whole. Kinda like what's happened to Monterey.

It's ashame that Cavallino won't accept the P4/5. They certainly allow other custom Ferraris. Probably the most UNAPPROVED Ferrari, that being the 250 GT 'Breadvan' was invited some years back.

 

listen mr. Cavalino!!

you make some Statements with nothing to back it.
lets take the P4/5 for example... You say it is not FERRARI CERTIFIED.. well it is with documentation as well i believe , YOU WERE NOT GIVEN THE RIGHT TO THE CAR FOR YOUR EVENT OBV REASONS FROM THE OWNER!!!!

You are obv scared by what PBSCW has done cause if u were not you would not pay any mind to it at all.. I sense a lil bit of fear in you... CAVALINO is about duck pants penny loafers and ferraris. PBSCW lets any type of exotic into the show.. so how does this compromise your event ( ie YOU TAKIN A BATH ON YOUR MARALARGO BRUNCH!!) You state they should change the date, for what reason??? Cav is on sat PBSCW is on sunday 2 diff events for 2 diff types of people..
I TAKE YOUR STATEMENT AS A GOOD THING TOWARDS PBSCW cause somewhere deep inside, you know your event will be overshadowed in the future.. You do not own PB OR all events in FL so i say share the wealth..

If YOU were a businessman you should think about not hatin on PBSCW but embracing it.. it can only make the weekend grow to be somehtin bigger and better..

Sorry if they stole your thunder...

KB

 

Sorry friend, but your tone seems angry.
The reason to have these two distinctly different events on different weekends is that they both offer events for several days. Sunday Cavallino offers an event at Mar a Lago that you cannot fully enjoy and still be at PBSCW at the same time.

If duck pants and whale belts do not suit you, and you do not like the older Ferraris then you might not be interested in Cavallino. I would highly doubt that Cavallino will go 'down the tubes' due to the PBSCW, but it might move to another part of the country. That would be a bummer for me, and it would also severely take some thunder away from south Florida as a gathering place for the exotic car enthusiasts, thereby also hurting PBSCW.

Anyway, the technicalities of the P4/5 being accepted as an original Ferrari, or being Ferrari certified may well be two different things. I accept Cavallino's explanation. I think the agreement from Ferrari given to the P4/5 is not the same as Cavallino's requirement that the car be an 'original Ferrari'. It clearly is an original car, but not one conceived by Ferrari. It is a collaboration of Pininfarina and Jim G, using the Enzo platform as a starting point.

I've goota go get some popcorn, be right back!

BT

 

Keep it civil. There is no reason to offend or start a hate war.
Besides your spell'n leaves for more edumacation.

 

i am not writing a Legal doc i am typin fast so I apologize...
its a shame you can only make comments about my spelling and NOT MY CONTENT!!

 

I HAVE REWRITTEN MY ABOVE STATEMENT OVER FOR FCHAT MEMEBERS: ( cav motors.. just for you cupcake...)

Avert your attention this way, Mr. Barnes!

You have alluded to some things with nary a fact with which to back them up. For example, P4/5; you say it is not Ferrari-certified. Well, I believe it is, and with documentation as well. You knew the owner of said one-off wouldn't bring this car to your event, for obvious reasons.

You seem a bit perturbed by the achievements of the Palm Beach Super Car Weekend. If you weren't, you wouldn't even acknowledge it. I am detecting some fear on your part. Cavallino portrays a certain style: duck pants and penny loafers; and incorporates Ferraris into the mix. Alternatively, PBSCW exhibits myriad exotics, Ferrari and non-Ferrari alike, factory original and otherwise. This does not compromise your event (for example, your having to suck up a loss of multitudinous thousands for the Maralago brunch, which flopped). You solicit the notion that the PBSCW should change its date. Why, I inquire? Cavallino's final event is on Saturday, the PBSCW takes place on Sunday. Additionally, these are two different events for two different types of people.

Your statements regarding the PBSCW are perceived positively by the organizers of the aforementioned event. This is because we believe the PBSCW will soon overshadow Cavallino as the premier event for the weekend in question. Since you don't own Palm Beach or the subsequent events taking place therein, I think you should simply, as the saying goes, share the wealth.

If you were a businessman, you would perhaps consider embracing the PBSCW, rather than shedding its effects on Cavallino in a negative light. It can only enhance the weekend as a whole, appealing to more and more people.

Please accept my (in)sincere apologies if the PBSCW liberated Cavallino of its long-standing thunder. Thank you."

 

Obviously you have a choice of how you run your event. I find it very sad though to see that Cavallino Magazine takes a position publicly and yet does not offer the owner of "P3/4 0843" the opportunity to rebut Cavallino's decision in a letter sent to you by said owner after you made your views on P3/4 0843 public.

Again, your choice of how and what you want judged. Obvioulsy P4/5 IS a Ferrari since it IS built on the chassis of an Enzo built at Ferrari in Maranello. By simply changing the body of the original car you still end up with a Ferrari.

If a change of any Ferrari is not allowed then we should not allow any Ferrari that has a Tubi since it alters the "original".

Personally I see it as sad that Cavallino Events needs to have the need to please Ferrari spa and FNA and continue the rediculous battle over the P4/5 being or not being a Ferrari. Sometimes it is a good thing to step up and say:"...this goes too far."

Again, personally, the increase of the 360/430/575/612/599s that made the field this year are deluting the event. Then, those I guess were "real Ferraris" according to FNA.

Where would a Prodrive 550/575 come in? Judged or not? Certainly not a "real" Ferrari.

Anyway, no need really to respond! Your event, your choice!

 

I did not take the post from Mr. Barnes as necessarliy negative on supercar weekend. So I am not sure why the harsh tone. I met Mr. Barnes at FCA LA at the Peteson dinner and he was very personable. He is very respected in the Ferrari community. As for the same weekend, I see pros and cons for both, but my opinion does not really matter on that one.

 

Does not the P 4/5 have a Ferrari emblem on the hood? That is a new car, therefore the history is known and not vague; how did Jim get Ferrari to put it's marque on the car if they don't recognize it? It's a friendly question...



-Joe

 

You are making several statements that are not even close to being correct and by my comments you see that I am further on your side that on the other.

Just as JT has a right to run his event at any date he so choses does Cavallino Classic have the right to host ist event on any given date. There are no public statements made by Mr. Barnes about PBSCW. As such there is no need to start such rage on the organizer.

You don't like the CC event, don't go. You rather hang with the people from the PBSCW, feel free to do so. As you said yourself, different events for different people. No need to put those down you don't want to go out with.

If you are involved with PBSCW I suggest that you keep things civil on this public forum. Mr. Barnes did not give you or anybody from the PBSCW any reason to slander him or attack him. I think I made it clear in my posts where my personal position is on some of the subjects. I also made it clear that those are MY positions and that any organizer has the right to do whatever he pleases. This includes JT's "partner" (LOL) who has opened "even so slightly..." the registration for 360s.

 

I go along with Bill's 1st posting

 

What does this mean (sorry uninformed outsider)??

 

don't worry....way too long to discuss here, the person in question knows...and those that were part of such statement. Has nothing to do with the excellent event.

 

fantastic... thanks..

 

ii apologize if my words are bein construed in the wrong way CAV. i am in no way slandering his event, i frequent it every year.

 

Why you find it necessary to post the exact same thing in multiple sections of FCHAT is beyond me but as you have I will post the same answer I gave you in the last place you posted this.


Dear John

Why you continue to show a reckless disregard for the truth remains beyond me.

As you were informed in writing on June 14th, 2005 in a letter that you refused to print, even though it corrects indisputable factual error in your magazine concerning among other things that the wheelbase of P3's and P4's are not the same but differ by 12mm, you were clearly informed that Ferrari has never stated in writing that the original chassis remains of P 3/4 0846 were destroyed.

Ferrari has very clearly, in writing, twice stated that they were "scrapped" "written off" They have also in writing stated that: "Therefore eventual pieces retrieved from the trash container should not have been used to rebuild or to revival a car which was written off". As Ferrari S.p.A. helped me to rebuild the car that you have referred to as ""the current car that carries the s/n 0846" by manufacturing P4 Uprights specifically for me to use to rebuild this car in 2002 I find Ferrari's latter statement a bit disingenuous but that is a different matter.

As you are also aware because of your refusal to publish my letter correcting factual error in your magazine I consider you unworthy of having my cars at Cavallino and therefore as you know I haven't submitted any of my cars for Cavallino since your refusal to publish my letter. Before then I did submit 0846 and you responded that unless Ferrari "Authenticated" 0846 which we both know that by Ferrari's authentication criteria is impossible as 0846 does not of course have it's original chassis stampings, you would not accept 0846 and as I told you I have no problem at all with that.

P 4/5 has NEVER been submitted to Cavallino as you are quite aware of, as you are also quite aware of the fact that none of my cars ever will appear at any event associated with you so why you would discuss if P 4/5 could appear at Cavallino with "Ferrari" is bizarre. After your track event was over so as not to encroach on your event in anyway I simply drove P 4/5 from the Ferrari of Long Island Transporter to Mar a Lago where I was staying. Why you felt it necessary to threaten me with arrest as Benie and others have told me that you did is also beyond me.

Now as for Ferrari P 4/5 by Pininfarina. Luca di Montezemolo absolutely confirmed to Andrea Pininfarina that Ferrari was officially recognizing this car and allowing Ferrari badges to be placed on the car. Indeed the two of them jointly agreed on it's exact name. Jean Todt confirmed that this car was officially recognized by Ferrari to me at Pebble Beach and among other things commented he felt that the shields on her should be enameled not painted. I would appreciate it if you would name the Person at Ferrari who told you that Ferrari P 4/5 by Ferrari is not officially recognized by Ferrari as I would like to pass this information on to Luca and Andrea.

Sincerely

Jim

For the record a copy of my June 14th, 2005 letter to Cavallino follows:


June 14, 2005


Dear Cavallino:

Bill Wagenblatt's letter to Mauro Forghieri, and Mauro Forghieri's response, reprinted in Cavallino 147 is very interesting but as regards Bill's question # 4, Mauro's answer # 4 is incorrect by 12mm.

Question #4 Bill Wagenblatt:
The dimensions, such as wheelbase, are the same as the 330 P4 and is
2400 mm.

Answer # 4 Mauro Forghieri:
Yes. The database for the P4 was originally the same as the P3.

As the "TECHNICAL DATA SHEET" of "330 P3/P4 Chassis n.0846" clearly states, the P3 wheelbase of 0846 was 2412mm and was changed in December 1967 to 2400mm when 0846 was converted by Ferrari from a P3 to a P 3/4, the "bastard 330 P3/P4" Mauro referred to in his answer #6.

This is a small but very significant difference that is confirmed by physical measurement of my 412 P 0854 and LS's 330 P4 0856. (Links to the 0846 Papers which go into this in detail and contain the "TECHNICAL DATA SHEET" of "330 P3/P4 Chassis n. 0846" and other reasons why I, and others now believe that the car I own contains substantial portions of the original chassis remains of 0846 are listed at the end of this letter).

I have no quarrel with your “* Publisher note,” except of course, when you refer to 0846 as "s/n 1046” in the latter part of the note.

“* Publisher note: Readers should know that there is presently a great deal of controversy over the current car that carries the s/n 0846. The car is presently under discussion between the owner, the Factory, and a large group of experts. It is not our intention here to enter this controversy. This


letter is simply presented as a clarification of what s/n 1046 (sic) was, and other "P" cars were at the time they were racing."

I do take issue with your use of the word "destroyed" in your second Publisher's note, especially if taken to mean that the chassis remains of 0846 no longer exist.

** “Publisher's note: “At the present time, the Factory considers the original car destroyed”.

In an email dated 6/10/2005 Joanne Marshall of Ferrari S.p.A. wrote:
"We confirm that, as far as our factory records are concerned, the chassis in question (0846) was totally written off in 1967 after the Le Mans incident."

"Written off" does not mean ceasing to exist.

There is not, nor has there been for years, any question that, under the definitions that Ferrari has chosen for their "authentication" process, 0846 as it exists today could not be "authenticated" by Ferrari. As an aside, under those same criteria the Le Mans winning Ford MK-IV J5 couldn't be either as it, unlike my Ford MK-IV J6, no longer has its original chassis plate.

The only question was, and is, if my beliefs as stated below are correct:

"After Le Mans 1967, Ferrari 330 P 3/4 0846 was returned to the Ferrari
factory where it was deconstructed, investigated and scrapped. Years later, James Glickenhaus acquired remains of 0846, including remains of the original chassis, and with help from Ferrari S.p.A. who recast suspension uprights, commissioned Sal Barone, Alberto Pedretti, Bob Wallace and John Hadduk Jr. to restore 0846 to original specifications."

(My recent acquisition of 412 P 0854 and its original coupe tail and doors
will enable me to restore 0846 to it's original spyder configuration and 0854
back to it original coupe configuration using the spyder tail that is now on
0854 which, by the way, is originally from 0858.)

In a letter dated October 5th, 2004, Umberto Masoni of Ferrari Maserati
Classiche described the research and documentation that is behind my beliefs:


"Subject: Ferrari 330 P3/4 Chassis 0846

Dear Mr. Glickenhaus
We wish to thank you for the extensive documentation that we have received
for competence, from Mr. Montezemolo's office.”

This "extensive documentation" “the 0846 Papers" is posted on a website
copyrighted by Ferrari S.p.A. CLick Owners/ Classiche/Forum.

For those without access to that website click:

http://www.glickenhaus.com/jim/project.pdf_


It's interesting that over many years while some continue to scream fake, no one including Ferrari S.p.A. has refuted the "extensive documentation" behind my belief as to what happened to the chassis remains of 0846 and how they wound up where I believe they did.

Sincerely,



James Glickenhaus

 

Jim:
I think I am responsible for the P4/5 being dragged into this. Some reference statements I made.

Otherwise....I have no further comment

 

Awww...I really don't want to jump into this but I think as a regular guy it may not be a bad idea to let everyone involved know how this is playing to (at least some) of the crowd.

1) CC is willing to accept 0846 if it is somehow "authenticated" by FNA/SpA. JG knows this cannot happen due to a technicality and he is cool with that. +1 to JG for being über classy and not pushing the issue.

2) CC won't print JG's letter explaining the numbering dillema with 0846. As I see it, that alone won't do anything to "authenticate" or allow 0846 onto the field, so CC is just being stubborn. -1 to CC

3) CC admitted the mistakes openly regarding the F40 and the NART spider. That takes guts and I respect them more for it than if they just tried to BS their way out of admitting the error. We all make mistakes and they get a +1 for admitting theirs.

4) JG seems so p*ssed about the whole 0846 debacle that he won't show his cars at CC. That is a bummer for those of us who prefer to see historic and unique Ferraris in a marque-centric show where you can see different examples of the same model and a certain timeline of the marque. -1 to JG

5) FNA/SpA have apparently not put in writing the "status" of P4/5. That is ludicrous when you read the amount of press the car has gotten for Ferrari and if I were JG, I'd be pretty miffed at them, especially since they seem to have verbally accepted the car as an "authentic" Ferrari. -1 (or more) to FNA/SpA

6) By my count CC and JG are even in points...so if CC were to apologize to JG for not printing the letter, and JG were to put P4/5 in the '08 Classic (as soon as Ferrari get off the fence and "authenticate" it) everyone would win. Of course this is unlikely to happen, but Ferrari should try to broker a peace here...for crying out loud...Piero Ferrari is an honorary judge at CC and they can't solve this?

7) The threats at Moroso and some other details of this story may turn out to be hearsay...It seems on my second reading that some of these things were not said face to face and are thus questionable as facts. I'll tell you what...I buy dinner, a nice bottle of Barolo (or two) to get in the Italian mood and we work this out face to face. My treat

 

Excellent response. Sorry you had to do it.
Beautiful cars. Good luck and Health with them!!

 

Work this out and your off to Iran next!

BT

 

Mr. Barnes,

I wouldn't go around admitting this, or you will have antitrust lawyers knocking on your door. Competitive collaboration is illegal and can get you thrown in jail.

 

Really? What is the problem with trying to coordinate schedules so there is no conflict? If the NCAA had its championship game the same date and time as the superbowl I am sure there would be some meetings. Same difference.

BT

 

Interesting that you bring up the NCAA, since they got in more than a little trouble for anticompetitive trade practices over mandating the number and kind of television appearances of each member school.

Quite simply, you cannot meet with a competitor and agree not to compete in terms of output. To quote the NCAA case, "As a matter of law, the absence of proof of market power does not justify a naked restriction on price or output. To the contrary, when there is an agreement not to compete in terms of price or output, no elaborate industry analysis is required to demonstrate the anticompetitive character of such an agreement."

I didn't say that C.C. is necessarily breaking the law. I just suggested that, at the very least, they are certainly near the line of an "unreasonable restraint of trade," and if I were they, I wouldn't go around bragging about how they met with a competitor and suggested that they not compete with each other.