David Piper restores the Talacrest P4

Have to agree, it looks like its upside down compared to other examples, but in the period photos above this example did seem to differ from the others in that respect, the inlets do though seem to be at a sharper upwards angle than in the period shots.

This nose though must have been modelled like that for a reason, I cannot believe it was done by accident given all the other level of detail in the rebuild, it must have been done for a reason that maybe has not been disclosed yet based on knowledge that came with the car

 

Yep.....

 

Just a WONDERFUL Display !

Do we know who the new owner is,
and his relationship to the FERRARI world ?

 

I am at retromobile and the car looka better now but still not perfect. But hey the car is already butchered so why not butcher it some more

 

Good for you. Absolutely correct. Both 21 and 24 had these roof vents.I have located the picture in my file that confirms this. A few questions remain. Was 0850 scheduled to be the E.F. entry at LeMans in 1967. If so was it withdrawn due to the DNF at Spa? Was this DNF due to a crash and was the car unable to be repaired in time for LeMans? Did S.F. originally schedule 0856 as one of its entries for LeMans and then loaned the car to E.F. as the replacement for 0850? In Rogliati's book 0856 was the E.F. entry at LeMans so did the Le Mans officials allow the change or was 0856 renumbered to 0850 just for this race? Ferrari had successfully done this renumbering trick at Le Mans before with two 250 TRs. There still seems to be some question as to what may be the correct original s/n for this "restored"car with #21. As I have said previously I am one who agrees with this "restoration" back to the original P4 Le Mans specs. But going back to the Can Am rebuild it seems to be unclear which is the correct original s/n. and which two engines went with the car. tongascrew

 

Its terrible. There are so many period photo's out there that show the nose clearly to refer to yet its apparent they must not have looked very carefully.

 

To my eyes the nose looks pretty similar to P4 numbers 6 and 7 (more like 7) which are different to number 8 at the BOAC 500 Brands Hatch, 1967. Pics from the excellent Joe Honda book. Please excuse the quality as I took them with my phone.
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Every period photo shows the nose inlets to be parallel to the ground, or very close to being parallel. I just cannot understand it.

The other thing that has to change is the roof of their tail, it needs to start the curve down, but has been built too straight upsetting the flow of the roof. This is very obvious in period photos.

I understand this is very hard to do right but heck this is one very expensive car. I'd be researching panel shops ...

I guess it looks stunning sitting there by itself but as we know with important cars the experts pop out real quick so it has to be right, number 21 or 3
Pete

 

Poor thing looks like its frowning.

With good reason.

 

Nah, she's snarling!!!

 

Either way she's mad at someone.

 

i.e: from post 2807, compared to 2798 ... in case somebody does not know what we are talking about. Now this point does not matter what angle the photo is taken from, parellel is always parallel
Pete
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

I want a Camoradi Maserati Tipo 63 birdcage

 

The differences between the period photo of #7 and the current photo of #21 include the set of auxiliary intakes at each end of the main opening. On #7 the lower edge of these auxiliaries are parallel to the the lower edge the main opening, and they terminate at the sides of the main opening. On #21 the lower edge of the auxiliaries are parallel to their upper edge, and they terminate at the lower edge of the main opening. If 350 Can Am 0858 ever wore auxiliary intakes with this shape, then this would be OK. If not, then this is a major mistake.

 

Yes ,the nose inlets aren't quite right and could easily be corrected. Not a BIG deal in my opinion. The top of the roof line from the windshield back to include the equivalent part of the engine cover is definitely not right and spoils the overall look.It could have something to do with a camera lense but I have my doubts.If this is true it could well be corrected. Considerably more involved that the nose inlets but totally reasonable considering the overall investment in the car. tongascrew

 

It's clear from the pictures of the three P4s at the 1967 BOAC 500 that the nose was different on all the P4s. The degree of difference in the new nose to the originals is no greater than that between the three original P4 noses. Given that it was actually made using hand beating methods as well as the English Wheel this is to be expected.

 

I disagree. It is way off. They are trying to make the Lemans car so that is the model to which the car should look like.

Here are two front end pics of the #21 at Lemans, which is the car body they tried to replicate. The nose is not correct at all for this car. I'm not even sure I have seen inlets like that on any P4 nose. I've seen them slant down on P3's but not P4's. But even so, this particular chassis had a consistent nose throughout its P4 racing life before the Can am body. You can't even compare to other P4's because as you stated, they are all different. But not unto themselves, unless they were crashed badly and needed a new nose.

http://www.islandcollectibles.net/Ferraripics/F330P4/330p4n21c.jpg
http://www.islandcollectibles.net/Ferraripics/F330P4/330p4n21.jpg

 

I think the nose was already made before the new owner converted the car to a Berlinetta and liveried the car as P4 number 21 at Le Mans 1967. If so, the nose was not modelled on car 21 at LM '67. Look at car number 9 at Spa, 1967 (said to be 0858 before the revision of history?).
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Miurasv,
I know you are trying to be nice but the nose is miles off any P3, P3/4 and P4 front (and its not just the air inlet angles, I've also tried to be nice here too ... but the bottom of the opening is too high or something giving it a thick bottom lip look) and the differences back in the day were extremely minor not massive like this.

It just has to be fixed, as does the rear section roof angle, otherwise this car will continue to have threads like this all over the internet. If my company made the nose and tail, I'd be correcting it for free ... assuming I wanted a future in bodywork.
Pete

 

I agree the roof doesn't look right in all the pictures posted so far.

 

The thing I cannot get my head around is that this is a multi-million dollar car and as we have discussed there are a few mistakes. Now I assume that whoever made the body was given a fair amount of money, maybe they weren't and this could explain the result, but heck I don't know.

All I can say is that I am restoring a 1971 Alfa Romeo 1750 GTV and not long ago remade one small corner of the front as it had accident damage that had not been fixed properly. I tried to hammer it out but I was getting nowhere so I cut it off and remade the area around the head light from scratch. Now this area has lots of curves in different directions and it took me a couple of goes, including making a wooden buck from the other side, to get this right so that if I looked at it from any direction it matched the other side. I even went as far as after a trial assembly I had ~1mm gap around the headlight whereas the other side, that I had not touched, didn't ... so I cut and rewelded the headlight support on the other side to also have a ~1mm gap as I preferred the gap as it would ensure I don't remove paint as I installed the headlight rim, the headlight is more concentric in the opening and also aid cleaning, etc.

Now I'm not a professional shop that gets paid for his work and also my Alfa will never be worth millions so I just don't get it. There are hundreds of photos of these prototype Ferraris, he had a very good replica to use as a copy and was used to make a buck ... it just doesn't make sense. Surely somebody stood back and muttered ... "hmmm, something is not right here"

Or was it like an IT project ... no money left just get it done
Pete

 

Am I correct in my understanding that the engine in this car is not original to 0858, and is not the exact configuration that would have been found in a 330 P4 in 1967? There's a displacement difference, among possibly other things as well, yes?

>8^)
ER

 

I think the bottom line on if this nose was intentionally shaped like this due to past P4's, the answer has to be no.

Piper himself said that they were using 0900, which was close by, to do the measurements, build the buck etc., so the nose shape would be coming from 0900.

If you look at 0900 compared to 0858 it is clear that something got lost in translation, versus it being an homage to whichever period P4.

 

The body that 0900 utilised in its creation is the discarded body from 0860 and it's this body that was used to copy for 0858's new P4 body along with the Factory P4 drawings given to DP by Enzo Ferrari. DP is known for using fiberglass/replacement bodies on his cars to save the originals. I'm just wondering if the body on 0900 that is being compared to the new one on 0858 is the original 0860 or a spare he has had made???

 

Would be interesting to know...one must wonder how many spares were made.