David Piper restores the Talacrest P4

Look, Jim. I have no idea why you're going off on one. Staffan said in his message to me that he used AutoCad, not CAD, as I mistakenly said before I edited my post.

 

CAD implies that something is accurate. AutoCad does not mean anything regarding accuracy.

You made a mistake and an edit when you realised it which is fine.

These are forms produced by CAD.
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Here's a better, bigger image of Staffan Berggren's drawings of 412P #0848.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

This blueprint is better.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Thanks, Boudewijn.

 

AutoCad is just the name of the software, isn't it? Just means that's where he drew it... Not that it was scanned or anything...

 

I'n no draftsman but I thought CAD is just a generic term for Computer Aided Design and AutoCad is an actual computer program or the name of the software as you said.

 

CAD is the name of the technology and AutoCAD is the name of one popular CAD program. You were correct to use either term, CAD or AutoCAD, because that is exactly how the drawing was rendered. CAD takes the human element out of rendering the drawing, so it looks more precise, but that doesn't at all mean the drawing is accurate. The dimensions going into the CAD program have to be exactly correct for a CAD rendering to be accurate.

 

True but in today's Automotive world an image or object rendered of a car that was DESIGNED in CAD and the tooling thereof was produced by CAD or in reverse an object scanned into CAD and then turned into a rendering is an accurate representation of that car or object while using a "CAD" program to draw something rather than real designed in CAD in no way means that, that drawing is in any way accurate.

 

True, but I don't think Steve was representing it as a CAD design. Probably the word that was less than optimal in the statement was "superb", which has the potential to be interpreted as meaning "highly accurate" rather than "really cool drawing" as it was probably intended.

 

True.

Historical Photo's tell the tale in this case not drawings based on no real data even if drawn on a "CAD" program. IMO the P4 replica body currently fitted to 350 Can Am 0858 is not very accurate as to how 330 P4 0858 looked at Le Mans in 1967 nor is it's 350 Can Am engine as raced at Le Mans in 1967, etc., etc.

 

I use Autocad every day, the drawings produced by it can be accurate or not, it simply depends where do you take your mesures from....if you measure correctly de real object you are able to do a correct representation of it, if you don´t have the real thing it will never be an acurate drawing, it´s as simple as that.

 

Ain't that the truth! tongascrew

 

I'd say looking at historical photos is also barking up the wrong tree. The same car can look quite different depending on the type of lens used etc.

 

Well Jim you got this right. So far there seems to be only two issues with problems with the work on 0858 both of which are easily fixable. It would be nice of you to at least say a few positive things about D P who gave you your start with the P cars. He is and remains the grand master of the bread. Show a little respect It will do wonders for your reputation. tongascrew

 

For which race they painted the yellow stripe? Targa Florio maybe?

Thank you

 

Le Mans 1967.

 

Do you think this was 0856 or 0858 at Le Mans in 67? It's strange that Ferrari would come up with this right before the auction but maybe they felt (legal reasons?) they had to say what they believed?

The scrutinizing documents clear show that the only way Ferrari is right is if they restamped both 0856 and 0858's engines and swapped thier chassis plates for that race but it could have happened.

Strange and even stranger that the new owner would ignore the history that Ferrari put in the Classiche Document.

 

Which car(s) ?

 

I wouldn't post drawings of the cars as I haven't seen any that are correct. The best thing to do is to ALWAYS USE CORRECT PERIOD PHOTOS!!

I can not stress this enough when trying to explain and show what is right and what is not from a certain period of time.

As for this "real" P4 in particular. The builders dressed the car up as the #21 car from LM67. That being the case they failed with the body, plain and simple. The car does look pretty, but none the less, there are areas that are just not correct for that car as it ran that day in 1967.

Is that nose correct for some P4 during some race in 67/68? Maybe. But I have yet to see a pic that shows it and I have a collection of around 500 pictures from that period in time.

Everything can be fixed. The nose, the rear window area, etc, but it will be more time and money and hopefully by someone who will study the shape carefully.

These cars are important cars from a historical standpoint, forgetting for a moment the monetary value, and for that reason alone deserve to be done properly. The resto looks really nice, its just not completely correct.

 

CAD = Computer Aided Design

I think the guy was just using the term to say it was done with a computer.

too bad it wasn't Solid Works

 

Veloce do you work for SolidWorks? Cool company, I was an intern at their ad agency in Boston in the summer of 2010....

 

Very pretty drawing and once again, innaccurate.

Here's just a simple fast look and I can see a problem.

The rear vents behind the rear wheel on a 412P should number 7 not 8 as represented in the drawing. P3's had 8. P4's had 7 as did the P3/4.

P3 and 412P's are NOT at all the same car as I'm sure most everyone knows yet thats how the drawing is labeled.

The argument that period photo's should not be used because of lense distortion is a little ridiculous. Yes a lens could alter the shape if that is what is intended (or maybe accidentally) but a round tire/rim is round. If the lens distorted it then it would be a different shape. You can tell when something is not right in a picture. And you would not use one picture. If certain pictures from the same angle do not agree then you would have an issue. But that is why its necessary to collect many period pictures, or at least several to compare. No matter how distorted, its still would not distort the nose as bad as this car has it.......

I am editing my post but leaving it unedited at the top because here is why period pics are also important as I just checked some.

The 412P that the drawing depicts is 0848 which HAPPENS to use 8 vents behind the rear wheel, not 7. All the other 412P's I have pics of have 7 vents. I learned something new today.

 

I have no idea if it was 0856 or 0858 really. I guess for the moment I'd have to go with what Ferrari say. Ferrari will only give the revised race histories for 0856 and 0860 to the owner's of the cars if they submit them for Classiche attestation. I think I read in this thread that 0856 has already been Classiche attested. As I'm sure that you will know Lawrence Stroll, perhaps you could ask him for the revised race history for 0856? As we have the history for 0858 we can work out the history of 0860 by elimination.

Yes, it is strange that 0858's new owner has ignored the revised history, which is actually superior. Has it been established who he is yet?

 

0850 currently has 8 vents, though it had 7 in period.
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login