The (one and only) '0846' Debate Thread

Did Piper ever crash or had a fire damage to 0003?
Why would Piper make fake repairs or welds to a chassis?

Off topic: does 0858 has its original chassis or a Piper one? You may answer in correct thread. Do you have proof?

 

Wow.

You finally responded!

The proof is that the people that worked on the car before Piper had the frame, can clearly identify which welds/work is theirs.

Also that Meade, has clearly stated, that this frame is 0846 that he pulled from The Ferrari Graveyard.

Plus 10,000 other pieces of evidence Napolis has connected to the frame. Maybe even 20,000. Could even be 30,000.

You have no proof whatsoever that the frame isn't what it is stated to be.

Give one fact. ONE.

It's funny how you change your stories as it suits you. A little while ago you claimed the exact opposite of what you are relentlessly trying to prove now. But from what I've seen you change your opinion often....

I bet at this point, due to you, he regrets sharing them. Makes you understand why Ferrari guys, such as Medlin,become reclusive and hide their stash from the public, they don't want to deal with guys like you. It is a courtesy for them to let their cars see the light of day and guys like you shut the door.

But lets be honest. You didn't really know much about the car two years ago. But in that time it seems like you've become an expert...

I guess it comes down to doing the proper research, right? I have to admit that I thought it was pretty one sided of you to only ask questions and not answer them. So I did my research and found some answers to my questions and realized why you avoid answering them. Quite frankly I don't believe you believe your own answers????

I was confused by your answers here because they are the exact opposite of what you posted in the 0858 thread??? But you seem to flip flop all the time to suit your needs?

Such as what do you consider 0858 to be?

Good GOD man. Do you have an opinion? or just go with whatever will please whoever you are trying to impress that day?

Even though I have found these answers I am still confused as your opinion seems to change with the wind?

So Once again....

What do you consider this car to be? The real 0846? A repro frame with Ferrari parts? Do you consider it to be a real Ferrari?

What do you consider 0858 to be as it sits today?

I have to be honest here. You having no backbone whatsoever in what you truly believe the facts to be, weakens your argument to the point that it is not worth listening to or even considering.

Pick what you believe in and get some facts before you go around slandering a historical object that was key to the building of Ferrari. The brand you supposedly "love"????

 

The chassis of 0846 when it became P3/4 had more than just P4 engine mountings as a change. The rear part of the chassis was transformed to accommodate a supporting engine. This would have been in the form of strategically placed tubing. Is there any evidence of this in Jim's chassis?

Actually, the "SCHEDA TECNICA" Technical Data Sheets that Jim cites on pages 64 and 65 of his 0846 pdf document may not actually describe Jim's chassis. See Below:

" -330 P3/P4 - SCHEDA TECNICA" (TECHNICAL DATA SHEET) 330 P3/P4 (1967)
Telaio N 0846 Trasformazione di un modello P3 secondo le caratteristiche del modello P4. TELAIO Telaio Tipo 593/603. Trasformazione della parte posteriore tubolare del
telaio per i nuovi putoni del motore Tipo 237."

"330 P3/P4 (1967) Chassis n. 0846 64 Transformation of a P3 model according to the characteristics of the P4 model. Chassis Type 593/603. Transformation of the tubular part at the rear of the chassis for new Type 237 [P4] engine mountings."

The tubes on Jim's chassis have not been transformed but only had additional engine mountings added for the P4 engine. The correct "SCHEDA TECNICA" Technical Data Sheets description of Jim's chassis should read. "Additional engine mountings added to accommodate the P4 engine." I would say that from the description, 0846 P3/4 would have had new tubing and only one set of engine mountings to suit that of a tipo 237 P4 engine with no "vestigial" P3 engine mounts.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Why would the guys that fixed the car state that the repairs made to the car are the ones they made before Piper had the frame?

 

LOL

 

My guess is Miura SVU will conveniently pretend to not have read the facts as stated by him.

Nor will he comment.

But we all know that he's read them as have we.

And we all know that him denying this shows the thread of his character in this debate.

 

Why didnt Piper use the papers to stamp a chassis with 0846?
When you have an original or period chassis made by V&B and many original parts let someone give me ONE GOOD reason why he DID NOT use that number? You would then have an original P car which no one doubts to be fake (if there is a GTO with a spare chassis we dont call it a continuation either....or do we?)

 

I'm not being obtuse, Wax. Please would you post the "scrap" letter so that I know exactly which one you're referring to? Thank you.

 

This easily describes the mods done to Jim's frame. You are assuming things here. Where does it say that tubing had to be added?

All it says is that " Transformation of the tubular part at the rear of the chassis for new Type 237 [P4] engine mountings." [/i] [/b]

First off the rear part of the chassis may be referred to as any point past the cockpit.

The new type 237 engine mountings are clearly there and are the basis of the facts that this is 0846.

In NO way does this imply that the frame beyond the engine had additional work, and if it did, how does it negate having two separate mounting points for two different engines?

All it implies is that there was a transformation of the tubular part part of the chassis to accommodate the 237 engine.

Which is exactly what happened and is present in the frame. The transformation is welding the mounts to the tubular part which is the rearward part of the frame that supports the engine.

In no way does this imply that " This would have been in the form of strategically placed tubing."

But since you want "Is there any evidence of this in Jim's chassis?" Maybe you should do some research and look at.... the evidence in Jim's Chassis (plural), as in compare the frames of 0846 and 0854 in the pictures in the preceding pages and you will clearly see the additional tubing added to 0846, that is not in 0854, to support the engine.

Before you go waving your needle at least look in the haystack.

All you are doing here is twisting words to fabricate hypothetical evidence when the truth really lies where it always has and others have repeatedly said.... in the metal.

Facts. Fiction is slander.

 

So do you believe the word of Ferrari is what matters or not?

It is important to establish how you view this before this evidence is presented because once presented we all know you will twist it to fit your agenda.

This is clearly shown in my previous post showing how your opinion flip flops to suit yor need.

So, once again, does Ferrari's word matter or not?????

Cause to be honest with you pal. You are contradicting your beliefs all over the place.

 

Thank you for demonstrating that I have the power to reason and to change my mind. If Jim would provide the evidence I have asked for to substantiate his claims and evidence, this would certainly sway any decision I may have made or may make in concluding that his chassis is the original 0846 that raced at Daytona and Le Mans in 1967.

Oh, and thanks for the compliment about my becoming an expert.

 

Exactly BECAUSE Jim's car has both mounting points is why it's 0846. It's the only one!!!

Perry
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

So then. If you've changed your mind what do you consider 0858 to be as it sits today?

Would love to hear your "expert" "opinion"

Answer peoples questions and maybe Jim will answer yours? Who knows... I guess that's up to him.

 

I am no expert. I believe 0858 is a P4 that was also configured and did battle as a Can Am car that is now back in P4 configuration. That it retains the Can Am 4.2 litre engine displacement it can and should be celebrated for both its forms. Here's one I made earlier:

 

Perry relax .... No need for the picture either.

There will always be this conversation/ controversy, this thread is 10 yrs old now, and still going.

I do not understand why so many people are going after miurasv.he is entitled to ask his questions, and provide his point of view.

If you took a burnt Testarossa and some tubes, and built a car around it, would that still be considered a Testarossa?

The reason why we gravitate to Jim's car, is because he tried damn hard to recreate it again To how it was .... Some call it a replica, some call it 0846 .... Whatever one may call it, it is the closest we all will ever get to what was 0846.

Those are the facts, and everyone needs to accept the history.

The rest of these discussions, are noise.

 

Hey, just having fun, and I know he's entitled to his opinion. Sorry if the picture offended. I enjoy the debate.

Thanks,
Perry

 

Yes I understand all this but I would just run the car with the axles slightly angled forward so the wheelbase stayed 2400mm. Heck the angle would be like 1 degree ... honestly who cares. Not a reason to change the wheelbase and alter handling characteristics IMO.

It's not. These engines have 4 side mounts, 2 at the front and 2 at the rear. The engine was potentially moved forward when they converted #0846 to a P4. I'm not aware of any front mounts ... this was before Ferrari properly used the engines as stressed members, only semi-stressed, even though Jano had shown them how with the Lancia/Ferrari D50 many years earlier. Lotus had to reinvent this ...

That is why I said it would be interesting to measure both #0846's engine and #0854's to see where the back of the block versus bellhousing is positioned. If they are the same we confirm that the difference is definitely the transmission, if not we prove that Ferrari moved the engine forward.
Pete

 

Only if Piper had a P3 chassis made to modify, which as far as we know he didn't.

Remember he only had P4 drawings. A P4 chassis has the tubes repositioned and triangulation altered so they correctly line up with a P4 engine mounts, so if Piper had a spare P3 engine lying around he would have reverse modified a P4 frame to accept a P3 engine (ie. the adaption brackets would have been made to enable a P3 engine to be installed not a P4). This is NOT what has happened to Jim's frame.
Pete

 

Careful ... that is pretty close to what did happen to a very historic Testarossa ...

I guess we should create another thread for that car ... the only difference is clear continuous history.
Pete

 

You mean a clear paper trail.

 

Yes .


Now heading off in another direction.

A few have wondered why Piper did not reconfirm that #0003 is actually #0846 and potentially make more money. Well I think we have the answer in the fact that he only sold the 3rd (or is it 4th?) chassis he had made to Max Wakefield around 10 years ago. The chassis had been sitting up in the roof of his shed since ~1977.

My point: I don't think Piper viewed these cars as a money making scheme so much as a way of providing the glue between the large number of spares for these cars and making them active.

In the end Piper, as has been proven over and over again, is a racing driver/competitor not a historian or a financial wizard.
Pete

 

We know that DP has had chassis made for other cars. He could simply have used the P4 drawings using its dimensions for the engine mounting points to modify one of these chassis to accept a P4 engine. In that sense the description that Jim states DP gave him of the chassis would be true.

Much more importantly the description that Jim says DP gave him of the chassis needs investigation I feel as the 1987 auction description of the chassis matches what 003 is, modelled along the lines of 0854, a P3/4 (meaning 412P in this case) using a P3 type/style chassis. I feel that the "Certificate of Origin" describing a 1967 330 P4 chassis may have been at Jim's request? There is actual evidence in this thread that he was under the impression at the time of purchase that the car would have to be 1967 or earlier to pass US Emission Regulations as he was buying this car for use on the road on Sundays as he likes to do. If the true date of manufacture of the chassis (early 1970s?) had been stated then it would not have complied to the 1967 rule that Jim thought it needed to be.
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

That's the scenario that makes the most sense.
Not that making sense is a compelling motive to all.

 

Now you're accusing James Glickenhaus of being a Lawbreaker.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

No, I am not accusing Jim of being a law breaker.