The (one and only) '0846' Debate Thread

Bear in mind the perennial strikes in Italy (shocker) - reason behind less P3 frames - I.e. no spares - all of which were prototypes. Of the 3, Ferrari could only afford to enter 2 in '66 LeMans - 3rd was entered by NART.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

MiuraSV,

Expanding on you hypothesis,
What unaccounted for crashed and repaired 330p frame could this be?

 

All Five P3 Frames were manufactured in 66. As you say because of strikes only Three were built up into cars in 66. Two were built into cars in 67. The wheelbases of all of them ARE VERIFIABLE BY SIMPLE MEASUREMENT. Align the adjustable suspension so that the half shafts are in their proper square position and the rear wheels are square. This is adjustable.
The distance from chassis tube for the rear gearbox mount to the bulkhead is fixed. That FIXED MEASURABLE DISTANCE AND ALIGNED SQUARE REAR SUSPENSION ADJUSTMENT DETERMINES WHEELBASE BUT THE KEY EASILY MEASURABLE DIMENSION THAT MISALIGNED SUSPENSION, WHICH DOUG'S SILLY POST PROVES HE DOESN'T UNDERSTAND, AND DOES NOT AND CANNOT CHANGE WITHOUT CHANGING THE METAL AS WAS DONE IN 0846'S "UNIQUE" P3/P4 CHASSIS AS SHOWN IN THIS PHOTO, IS THE LENGTH OF THE FIXED CHASSIS TUBE FROM THE BULKHEAD TO THE REAR GEARBOX MOUNT. THAT FIXED METAL MEASURABLE VERIFIABLE DISTANCE IS EXACTLY THE SAME IN THE FOUR ORIGINAL P3 CHASSIS I HAVE MEASURED, 0844, 0846, 0850, AND 0854. THAT FIXED METAL DISTANCE IN ALL OF THEM IS EXACTLY THE SAME. ONE THING DOUG WROTE, ON PAGE 408 OF HIS BOOK IS CORRECT THE P4 "WHEELBASE WAS DECREASED" BUT OF COURSE THE 1 INCH DISTANCE HE WROTE ON PAGE 408 IS WRONG IT'S HALF OF THAT EXACTLY 12MM.

Trolls come and go but the length of the metal between the rear gearbox mount and the bulkhead of a P3 chassis remains the same.



http://p45c.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/project.pdf
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

I really have no idea. I merely pointed out that in Appendix 4C from the Hans Tanner and Doug Nye book that Jim has referenced, which is NOT from the Official Factory Record Book as Jim said, that the length of the wheelbase of the 330P at 7' 11" matches that of the length of the wheelbase of Jim's car. The factory could have scrapped any of those chassis on any of the cars that were damaged in testing/racing and had new ones built.

David Piper owns 0824 and he has had a spare frame made for that. 0830 was scrapped after Bruno Deserti was killed in it in testing. David Piper also owns 0836. Has he had spare frames made for that to save the original as he has races his cars extensively???

DP also has owned many engines including P2, 365 tipo 214, 412P, P3, 312F1, P4 and 350 Can Am engines. The point is that DP could have had any of the many frames he's obviously had made modded to accept the numerous engines he has had.

 

"I assume the circular mounting lower down and closer into the cabin is the mod that was added into the frame which pulls the drivetrain closer into the cabin hence shortening the wheelbase as well as lowering the cars centre of gravity, and that the higher mounting is the original."

Yes lower forward mod P4. Higher rearward original P3.

"If thats the case then the rear suspension mounting points, and any further forward engine mounting point would also have had to have been brought in by a similar distance, is there any evidence on the frame that this happened as well? apologies if this has been covered many times before, but it would help if an explanation is linked to the recent pic."

No metal modification is needed to suspension as that is fully adjustable. See post to WAX. YOU HAVE GRASPED A VERY IMPORTANT POINT REGARDING THE NECESSITY OF THE NEW P4 ENGINE MOUNTS THAT WERE ADDED TO 0846'S P3/P4 CHASSIS HAVING TO "PUSH FORWARD". THERE IS METAL MODIFICATION TO 0846'S P3/P4 CHASSIS THAT EXACTLY DOES PUSH FORWARD ,NOT BACKWARDS, AS A VERY IMPORTANT POST PREVIOUSLY REFERENCED OF NATHAN'S PROVED BEYOND THE SHADOW OF ANY DOUBT THAT NEITHER HE NOR DAVID UNDERSTOOD EXACTLY HOW FERRARI VERY CLEVERLY DID IT, WHILE LEAVING 0846'S VESTIGIAL P3 ENGINE MOUNTS IN TACT ADDED ADDITONAL FURTHER FORWARD P4 ENGINE MOUNTS TO 0846'S P3/P4 CHASSIS. (See linked pdf.)

"With regards Steves suggestion? that a frame similar to a p3 frame may have been modded and supplied to David Piper as a P4 (instead of the original one from 0846) which then became your car, is that possible?"

Truly laughable. Compare compare a P3 to any other Ferrari chassis and report back. Then compare 0846's P3/P4's chassis to 0844's P3 chassis and 0856's P4 chassis and Davids replica "P4" chassis as I have many years ago as clearly published in the link below.

All of this has been covered many, many times.

I'm off to ski and then to the races so if after reading the pdf. you have further questions it may be a while before I answer them but I'm done answering the same questions over and over again from people who haven't read the entire thread and the pdf.

Cheers



http://p45c.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/project.pdf

 

Have a safe trip & best to you and yours.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Jim: Why obscure the wheelbase lengths of the P3 and P3/4 of 2.40 m as stated in the "SCHEDA TECHNICA" Technical Details that you cite in your 0846 pdf papers and on numerous other internet posts? It just sounds like you're trying to match bits of information from various sources that don't give the full picture to support your claim that your chassis is the original 0846. That along with your many misquotations by omission that give different meanings, as has been proven, would make any open minded reader of your claims highly suspicious.

 

No, not really. I think you should re-assert your claim to a party of none.

 

I am an open-minded (i.e. skeptical) reader regarding 0846 and most anything else I read on the web. But I have found a shortcut to correct opinions on 0846: if miurasv writes it, it's wrong.

 

Paul

Your post made me look at something. One thing I posted was not correct. The rearward chassis mounting "hole" is not the gearbox attachment point. THE REAR MOST ATTACHING POINT IS THE REAR P3 ENGINE MOUNTING POINT. THE LENGTH OF A P3 ENGINE AND IT'S FRONT AND REAR MOUNTING POINTS AND THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THEM ARE FIXED AND EXACTLY THE SAME FOR ALL P3/412P ENGINES. SEE PDF FOR PHOTOS OF P3/412P ENGINED 0844. THIS IS A PHOTO OF 0854'S P3 CHASSIS REAR P3/412P CHASSIS AND ENGINE, ENGINE MOUNTING POINT. AS A P3/412 ENGINE CAN BE SIMPLY DROPPED INTO 0846'S P3/P4 CHASSIS THIS PROVES THAT THE ONLY POSSIBLE WAY THAT DOUG NYE'S STATEMENT ON PAGE 408 OF HIS BOOK COULD BE TRUE, THE P4 WHEEL BASE WAS DECREASED VS THE P3 WHEELBASE AND IT IS TRUE, IS BY THE MODIFICATION CLEARLY EVIDENT IN 0846'S P3/P4 CHASSIS TODAY. P3 AND 412P ENGINE BLOCKS AND FRONT AND REAR ENGINE, ENGINE MOUNTS ARE EXACTLY THE SAME DIMENTIONALY.

Once again read the pdf and the whole thread.

Cheers
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

It will take me some time to read 365 pages and the PDF but I will give it a go when I have the spare time.

I am surprised the suspension can be adjusted sideways by the required 12mm in order to get the driveshafts etc to line up correctly again as a result of the reduced wheelbase, without the need to relocate the brackets holding it all on, not seen that need before with suspension but I am learning every day.

Out of interest why was the wheelbase of a P4 reduced by 12mm from that of a P3, was it in order to compete in revised regulations at the time?

With my own F3000 single seater, at some point in the past the suspension needed to be adjusted by a similar amount as a result of changes in the sidewall size of the tyres being used and the effects this had on the cars balance. All the brackets holding the wishbones had to be moved as a result. Luckily they just bolt into the magnesium gearbox casing, so it appears it was just a case of relocating the brackets to the revised points and retapping the gearbox casing and bolting them back in, but the evidence is there of the change, and the suspension on that car has huge amounts of adjustability.

 

Which "TECHNICAL DATA SHEET" is Jim referring to in his letter to Cavallino above? If the statement in the sentence I've highlighted in bold is true then please let us see it. Thank you.

 

These pics belong to Mr G. I found it helpful to see them side by side.
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

+1, I realized that many pages ago.

I suppose one can look the track records of posters here and draw ones own conclusion, this forum history is more than enough to base ones decision on.

 

The original triangulation between those two frames appears very different, Ideally both shots would be taken from the same height, distance to compare properly though.

I realise additional bracing was applied to the revised frame to strengthen the new mounting point, but the original bracing points do not appear to utilise the same angles in the triangles. The lower brace sits forward of the original engine mount on the revised frame, where as it sits behind the engine mount on the original.

Surely it would have been far easier and simpler at the time just to cut out the tubes where the original mount was fitted, fabricate new tubes and brace them up properly with the engine mount in the new revised position to allow the reduced wheelbase. The way its been done in the revised frame seems to have been a bit of a faff, and taken just as long to carry out.

Side by side they look like different frames all together in those pics.

Also you can see the shock top mount position. In order for the wheelbase to be reduced by 12mm that top shock mount also has to come over by 12mm, if there is enough distance between the mounting points on the fixed bracket fitted to the frame then yes it can be shimmed over, but looking at it that would have required the shock to originally have been way over the one side of the mount, and then brought right over to the other side in order to accommodate the 12mm. All subsequent adjustment is then lost for the future.

Its hard to tell just by close up pics though, and its not as if you can pop into your local garage to take a peek at a P3 and P3/4 frame and I imagine far better engineers than me have poured over the real deal at the various shows over the years and would have piped up if they had doubts.

With Jims frame its as if it was done that way so that you had the option remaining to install both types of engine in the future, was that a viable option back when the cars were converted? earlier p3 engine for certain races, later P4 for others?

 

I saw what you are saying, regarding the triangulation tubing near the mount bung. The angles of those triangulation tubes differ from the two chassis. I then realized that those triangulation tubes would have to be moved in order to properly distribute the load (load patch changes with new mount location). So it makes sense to have moved/replaced those triangulation tubes to suit the new location (load path) of the revised engine mounting location.

Though I do believe the lower left triangulation tube could have been placed in a slightly more ideal location.

Chris

 

Thats the thing Chris why go to all that hassle and bother of modifying the original triangulation tubes, as well as keeping the original engine mount in the tube, far simpler to just chop out that section of tubing and start afresh, and then make it all properly triangulated?

Its as if the original mounting point was kept for a reason?

 

Ferrari said they changed the rear toubulare and they did. P4 engines have different dimensions L/W/H and different mounting points. Think about a car that began as an AC with a small engine and got a 289 Ford dropped in becoming a Cobra and later a 427 Ford.
To fit a P4 Engine into a P3 chassis Ferrari changed a number of tubes in the rear as they said they did. 0846 was a P3/4 mule. When they made the P4's they took these changes and made a new P4 chassis that only had P4 engine mounts as clearly shown in the pdf by photo's of P4 0856's P4 chassis. Read the pdf. The KEY IS NOT HOW THEY CHANGED THE REAR TUBES. THE KEY IS THAT THEY LEFT THE VESTIGIAL FRONT P3 CHASSIS ENGINE MOUNTS EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE NO LONGER NEEDED AND DID NOT MATE TO THE P4 ENGINE, ENGINE MOUNTS SO THEY ADDED NEW FORWARD P4 CHASSIS ENGINE MOUNTS TO THE P3 CHASSIS FOR THE NEWLY INSTALLED P4 ENGINE. AS THE PDF CLEARLY SHOWS WHEN THEY MADE NEW P4 CHASSIS THEY DID PLACE THE TUBES AT THE PROPER TRIANGULATION OF THE NEW FORWARD AND REAR P4 ENGINE MOUNTS NOT AT THE POINT OF THE VESTIGIAL P3 ENGINE MOUNTS THAT WERE AND STILL ARE ON P 3/4 0846'S ORIGINAL CHASSIS AND WHERE THE FRONT P3 CHASSIS ENGINE MOUNT TRIANGULATION STILL GOES.

 

I hear ya, that does sound like a simpler route to travel. Obviously, all we can do is speculate as to why, perhaps, they didn't. There would be more measurements needed to fab a completely new section of tubing to facilitate the new mount, versus making 1 measurement for the new mount bung, then place the triangulation tubes where the load path falls?

Additionally, you would lose the flexibility of swapping between P3 and P4 drive trains. The P3 drive train had a defined level of performance. At the time, the P4 drive trains had not (right?). Just as Enzo hedged performance between Monza and V12 drive trains previously, perhaps this configuration provided a hedge against a less optimum P4 drive train? Again, just playing with "what if's".

I surely don't have the definitive answer, but having some fun with the "what if?s"!

Chris

 

Look at the pdf. They had to do the rear to make the engine fit but the solution they came up with for the P4 front chassis mounts was very elegant and strong even if they left the vestigial P3 front chassis engine mounts which triangulated there. They even used the front half of the vestigial P3 chassis engine mount as a take off point for the new forward reaching Triangle that became 0846's P4 chassis engine mount.

 

Gotcha. As a mule for the future "definitive" P4s, it makes sense since it was more a development chassis - thus the decision to leave the original engine mounting structure in place. As the revisions and ultimate transformation in design progressed, the execution became more elegant.

Thanks.

Chris

 

I have had a quick look through the PDF now and can see/understand the logical changes between a p3 and a P4 frame to accommodate the revised engine, and its obvious the frame in Jims car is very different to the other Piper P4 frames.

Why Piper or his mechanic never spotted this is a weird one, surely it was obvious when they started building up the frame that it was very different to the others they had? and then why did they not ask this of the supplier? its not as if they did not have various engines/gearboxes to hand to measure up and verify.

Then after it was sold to Jim why still claim it was to the same P4 spec as the other frames they purchased when the photos clearly prove otherwise? I wonder if they did know of the differences, but not the actual reasons for such and thought of it as a lesser spec frame and did not want to make it an issue as such, without fully realising a potential link to 0846.

Regarding keeping the original mount in the hybrid P3/4 frame I can sort of see the logic of ferrari hedging their bets at the time just in case the P4 engine did not work, then they still had the option of the P3 engine as a fallback. Once the P4 engine proved itself then actual later non hybrid P4 frames would not need the original mount incorporated.

Just playing devils advocate here, I have no answers just questions.

With regards suspension pick up points, were they then revised on the p4 frame to accommodate the shorter wheelbase or did the reduction still have to be shimmed out as well?

Oh and any idea why the 12mm reduction was required in the first place?

 

Ferrari's of that period generally need/use a lot of shims. The "reduction in wheelbase" that Doug Nye wrote about P4 vs. P3 made the car more nimble and the revised P4 tail spoiled lift better so the longer P3 Wheelbase wasn't needed as much for stability on the straights. Keep in mind that the P 3/4 and P4's were factory cars and the 412P's were customer cars and while Enzo wanted them to pick up points he didn't want them to win and made them less powerful (FI vs. Carbs) and slower in the turns. The P3 Body aerodynamics weren't nearly as stable as the P4's and P3's needed more wheelbase.

 

PROVA = "Test"
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Scuderia Cameron Glickenhaus ? Ferrari P3/4 0846