David Piper restores the Talacrest P4

Hi, I don't recall making any promises of any kind. My departure from this thread had much to do with its "scrapheapness" My opinions are well known.I have listed many times reliable sources for what are well known answers to your questions. Answer these questions yourself in detail with published sources and this might help scrape some of the scrap from the heap. tongascrew

 

I followed the first page of this discussion. As read, it seems Mr. Collins wishes to sell the "chassis" for the highest price. This, in my opinion as a scale modeler and Tifosi, is "capitalist at heart" and does not reflect the concern for the "true history" of the Ferrari marque. This 330 "Canada" will be lost forever and is an important/historical example of the development at Ferrari of the CanAm line of racing cars that came from the firm. If this attitude prevails then all the 350 CanAm cars could be reduced to the P4 parentage and also lost. This is a shame and "travesty". Money rules and and history drools.
Rossa156-63
Patrick Galleguillos

 

Very unfortunate post. However I do agree with Tongascrew on one thing, this thread has perhaps gone on for rather too long. The car has been restored, sold and hopefully the new owner is enjoying it.

At the end of the day that's all that matters really, that someone is enjoying the car.

On a more light hearted note, just imagine taking this debate from the virtual world of the internet and putting some of the main characters around a table to debate this face to face, would be quite interesting I think.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aFcfQoniGM

 

Do you know the definition of restoration?

If a car is not completed the way it was originally built it is not properly restored. Period.

It is not a discussion of just how the body was made but the overall restoration. As has been clarified in this thread there is much more that was completed incorrectly then just the body.

BUT as far as the way the body was built does matter as it is not the just a difference in methods that yield the same results, these two different methods yield DIFFERENT end results. Therefore a car done with the wheel will never be as the body was originally built. Sure you can cover both in filler and make them appear/feel the same but by doing this the body is no longer as it was in the day. As mentioned many times before barely any filler/primer was added to smooth the shaping marks out of the body to keep the cars light for racing. Therefore these high low/spots left from the hammer can be seen/felt on a properly restored car and will not be present in a car built with the wheel. What about this difference in shape do you not understand is important to finishing the car correctly? If you think there is no difference in the end results of these two methods then I would have to guess your standards would lead you to believe there is no difference in the end results/look/feel between the wheel and a stamped panel. It's the same difference of a lake being choppy versus being smooth as glass.

And if it doesn't matter at all then Why did Talacrest bring it up in their video when explaining their attention to detail and the way it was done?

Hmmmmm.....

My buddy restores old mustangs. I should say he oversees the restorations as pro restorer's do the bulk of the work. There's a drip that was caused by the way the factory sprayed them that went from the roof down to the b-pillar. It took many attempts and additional costs to my friend to get this drip just right, an imperfection to create the perfection that enthusiasts of this car look at as being essential. If this kind of detail is demanded in a 100,000 dollar mustang I don't see how you don't feel more should be expected of an 8 figure cars restoration to build it as it was in the day, not to how it could be completed today to get it done and sell it.

Perfection in restoration is not in perfection. It is in the perfection of imperfection. That is what the bulk of 80's Ferrari restorations got wrong. They were trying to turn the cars into something they never were and in this the true soul of the cars were lost. To have a body without the flaws of the hammer method for the better finish of the wheel is to lose the imperfection of perfection for this car.

But enough about the hammer Vs. the wheel. Lets move onto the improperly shaped body and the improperly shaped windscreen.....

I don't believe it matteres how the car was in the day. Without that body to copy I think it can be agreed that the two will never be exactly the same. As was stated the body for this was measured off of 0900 so logic would state that it is not a copy of 0858 but a copy of the panels of 0900 so therefore logic would state that there is no way this car is an exact copy of in period 0858. But for arguments sake lets be happy with it coming as close to the general shape of an authentic P4 done as close to possible to what is available today. Afterall I think that is all that can be expected of a restoration, to build it as close as possible utilizing what is available today. For me that is where the car misses the mark.

Sure it is better to see the car in person. More detail can be seen that way. But when the shape is glaringly off it can easily be seen in pictures. As has been done many, many times before on this site with various GTO/SWB recreations that missed the mark. Sure minor imperfections may need to be seen in person but if a car is done wrong it can easily be seen in pictures.

Sure panels were replaced and the minute shape of the car changed as the car was shunted but the overall look of the car did not. Whereas in this case the look of the car is off to the point where it can clearly be seen in photos.

As far as the red herring... I don't believe the proper building methods of a car are a red herring when the point of the thread is the building of a car. But I semi-agree with this statement as the main point of the thread has always been not how it was built but that it was built at all. The main point of the thread has always been that an original piece of Ferrari history has been sacrificed for a fantasy of a car that is no longer with us and to many of us that is an injustice to the true history of 0858 and Ferrari. That is the true shame of this thread. But obviously fantasy is more important then history for some.

 

I find it funny that you wont state if you think the shape of the car is correct.

But to each their own.

You said wait and see and we waited and are now seeing. I guess the answer to if you think the shape is done correctly lies in the fact that you wont answer the question.

 

It will have to wait behind legions of sports fans that comment on how certain players perform at their job.

 

No. I think a car is the sum of the parts and the body is definitely one of these parts. And as the body was the major scope of this recreation I think it is a very important factor.

But as far as the Old Man goes it is widely known that you bought the engine and the rest was gravy. So as far as his view goes the motor in the car is not correct either. Even if it was a motor that was once used in a P4, which it has been argued not to be, it has been modified and therefore no longer correct. To restore is to bring back to original condition and we all know the motor wasn't.

But most people have no idea what a motor in a Ferrari looks like. The public's love and identification with these cars is mostly rooted in the shape of the body.

As far as the transplant goes they may be the same person underneath but on the surface they are not as is the case with this car.

Please clarify what you mean by my previous post? I don't get your point? What's underneath definitely matters as does what's on top. If I said that it was to define an argument without muddying it up with other arguments.

But like I said. As have many others. The point of this thread is not how it was done as much as that it was done at all.

Any day of the week I'd rather have a P4 then a 350 Can Am.

BUT

Any day of the week I'd rather have a real genuine in period Ferrari then a recreation built on one.

 

ever heard of a little thing called 'free speech'?

There are only facts (0858 has been in 350 Canam configuration shortly after it was born as a P4 and has been in that configuration for almost all of her life) and opinions stated.

 

Once again your priority is on the Value of the car versus the History here.

To some of us these cars are more then just the sum of their selling price.

Some of us actually like them for what they are then what profits we can maximize out of them.

I guess there is nothing wrong with buying a car as investment, but I think, at least to me, the true enthusiast is more interested in preserving the real deal versus how many vacations they can take with the profits.

 

Yes and I believe fully in it, but if you make a claim whether it be on a soapbox in the park, or in print then you need to stand by it when legally challenged.

If your view is a correct one then you have nothing to fear.

There are many people at the moment here in the UK on twitter, facebook etc etc who are in the process of facing litigation or have been prosecuted for airing their views.

 

Yep.

If it does get used and enjoyed then it is a positive note for this car in any form.

I'd hope that the builders and buyers had/have a good time with it.

 

Paul, you seem to be throwing up any and all arguments to stop people from posting positions contrary to your own. This really doesn't enhance your credibility.

 

There are no comments here (I haven't read any) whereby malice can be proven on the part of the publisher for any defamation case lodged and one polite letter/email to Ferrari will enhance greatly a defense based on justification, that being confirmation that this car was indeed altered by the factory into a Can Am, that the factory still recognize this car as a Can Am and they can also confirm how and when this P4 was originally manufactured. Any court worth their salt would take issue with a person or persons posting their restoration on various forms of social media only to take issue when they encounter mixed feedback. Enthusiasts have opinions, as do facebook subscribers, as do youtube subscribers.

Your threats are truly pathetic. If you represent an interested party say so, if not all you are doing is scaremongering.

 

How am I making any threats or subduing debate? if you dont believe the facts regarding internet based litigation then do some research rather than just using it to justify your arguments. Its out there and happening. Give me a mo and I will post some factual links.

Slate someone or something on the net and your are accountable, end of.

How would you feel if it was your car that a load of internet warriors were slagging off publically, and trying to devalue as a result. I imagine the owner, the companies mentioned and the individuals concerned are far from happy about the claims made in this thread, as I am sure you would be if you were in their shoes.

 

Are you accusing those who were 'slagging off' this restoration of DELIBERATELY trying to devalue a car?

That's quite the allegation if true. Perhaps you should take 5 minutes from scaremongering and read your own links VERY carefully.

Posters can have opinions that may be less than positive without having ANY malice or intent to devalue. I haven't read anything that is beyond the norm.

 

I think the risk of litigation lies with anyone who tries to present 0858 as a genuine P4.

 

Find me a post where I have named any one person doing such? mine is an observation from an interested outsider of a general trend on this thread.

If its scaremongering then no one has anything to be worried about do they, so just ignore me and carry on.

 

Twitter libel: Sally Bercow says she has 'learned the hard way' as she settles with Tory peer Lord McAlpine over libellous tweet - Crime - UK - The Independent

Blogger beware: Postings can lead to lawsuits - Los Angeles Times

USATODAY.com - Jury awards $11.3M over defamatory Internet posts

Just a few I quickly found.

The skills of the companies and individuals concerned have been publically questioned on this thread by numerous posters, the description of the car made by the seller has been publically questioned on this thread, etc etc.

and one of them is known to litigate and win

http://www.motorsportmagazine.com/miscellaneous/mark-hales-found-liable-in-piper-case/

Not threats, not scaremongering, not attempts to strifle debate, just facts at hand. Take of it what you will, and go forth with your eyes open on the matter

 

Paul, do you really believe that anyone here is posting out of intent to harm any individual's interests?


Those that take exception to the fate of this car do so out of a sense of history. As far as I know no one has questioned the right of anyone to enjoy his property as he wishes. That does not mean that we don't have the right to take exception.

 

The only trend is that there are posters present who clearly don't share your opinions and it has irked you.

Your legal speculation was pathetic and I only hope your comments are ignored and posters continue to share their opinions without fear of threats.

 

Once the derisory comments start then the argument is lost.

 

I imagine that the irony of your statement is lost on you.

 

...and your court case involving debate regarding restoration of a historic vehicle?

Two american links involving threats to kill/harm, allegations of fraud in Florida, and in the UK an allegation of sexual abuse of a minor and a blown Porsche engine.

I think its pretty clear what your motivation is.

 

It is irrelevant what the content of the original litigation was about, post things on the internet and your are accountable, that is what those links show.

Another nice one about originality and the law which does involve a car

The Case of the Bentley Old Number One

Anyway I am off to bed, its nearly midnight here in the UK and I need my beauty sleep