The (one and only) '0846' Debate Thread | Page 239 | FerrariChat

The (one and only) '0846' Debate Thread

Discussion in 'Vintage (thru 365 GTC4)' started by El Wayne, Nov 1, 2003.

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.

  1. Vincent Vangool

    Vincent Vangool Formula 3

    Oct 6, 2007
    1,249
    Zanskar, Kargil district, Ladakh, India
    Full Name:
    Vincent Vangool
    #5951 Vincent Vangool, Apr 4, 2014
    Last edited: Apr 4, 2014
    Yes.

    He knew nothing of these cars 2 years ago but now his expertise questions the guys that were there and are experts due to expierience and have flat out pointed out that there work from 67 is what is present today.

    And his agenda changes with whoever he is trying to impress that day...

    I bet at this point, due to you, he regrets sharing them. Makes you understand why Ferrari guys, such as Medlin and Meade 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?

    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"????

    To which he replied this...

    Which completely contradicts this that he said a few days prior.....

    Like I said his opinion changes with the wind, day by day, to fit his agenda.

    So which is it Miura? The car is what Ferrari says it is or what it was in it's past?
     
  2. PSk

    PSk F1 World Champ

    Nov 20, 2002
    17,673
    Tauranga, NZ
    Full Name:
    Pete
    But what is driving this I wonder? Surely killing his chance of ever working in this industry, so it must be something significant, or unfortunately it's become irrational ...

    Saying that the internet is a dangerous place and one can easily loose all rational thinking arguing on the internet, which is why it is often best to turn it off for a few days

    Unfortunately I do not think we will ever get to the bottom of this, but: Surely it is possible to research CERVAN Corporation to verify that companies ownership history. I believe all companies have to be registered. The ownership of that company in 1977 would potentially improve the continuous history paper trail due to the carnet papers viewed by Marcel.
    Pete
     
  3. VIZSLA

    VIZSLA Four Time F1 World Champ
    Owner

    Jan 11, 2008
    41,692
    Sarasota
    Full Name:
    David
    Its easy to lose sight of your best interests when things get heated.
    He took it on the chin in the P/4 CanAm thread and appears to be looking for pay back.
    Posters here have responded indulgently and honestly to his "points" but it's become obvious that his agenda has little to do with the purpose of this thread.
     
  4. Vincent Vangool

    Vincent Vangool Formula 3

    Oct 6, 2007
    1,249
    Zanskar, Kargil district, Ladakh, India
    Full Name:
    Vincent Vangool
    #5954 Vincent Vangool, Apr 4, 2014
    Last edited: Apr 4, 2014
    I feel there is way more proof here then other cars that have been verified as original.

    Who's to say that anyone of the barn finds that comes up is the real deal and wasn't actually fabricated by Dr. Evil with a sinister plan to cheat the world?

    We accept those cars as they are because the facts and continuos history are there.

    I don't see him, ever, furiously debating any of those, or questioning the validity of cars that were built up from a toggle switch?

    My guess, Miura is possessed by an irrationality to not be wrong so he can believe himself to be an expert and rub elbows at the Quail
     
  5. wax

    wax Five Time F1 World Champ
    Lifetime Rossa

    Jul 20, 2003
    52,414
    SFPD
    Full Name:
    Dirty Harry
    Alternating reality beats Reality. At least he's got the Constipated Convention photo for a souvenir, shared on his profile aka wannabe Curriculum Vitae.



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  6. Vincent Vangool

    Vincent Vangool Formula 3

    Oct 6, 2007
    1,249
    Zanskar, Kargil district, Ladakh, India
    Full Name:
    Vincent Vangool
    I don't feel that questioning the car is wrong.

    It only benefits everyone to get the best possible picture, of what is really sitting in front of us in the quest to preserve actual history.

    But that quest should be pursued rationally, which clearly Miura is not doing here.

    I also feel that bringing up unsubstantiated doubt just to create doubt, is a violation of a great cars history and that is what is being done here.

    I like to like everybody, and to his credit, I feel that in other areas of this forum Miura has contributed a great deal and does have some impressive knowledge on various cars, but after awhile I just can't respect somebody that stirs the pot with no factual explanation of why he feels the experts are wrong. Or in this case.... lying.
     
  7. lgs

    lgs Formula Junior

    Mar 26, 2006
    503
    "... violation of a great cars history ...": rather romantic attitude (not to say more)
     
  8. Vincent Vangool

    Vincent Vangool Formula 3

    Oct 6, 2007
    1,249
    Zanskar, Kargil district, Ladakh, India
    Full Name:
    Vincent Vangool
    Spend five seconds of the slowest lap this car has ever taken on the track and tell me that's not romantic,
     
  9. VIZSLA

    VIZSLA Four Time F1 World Champ
    Owner

    Jan 11, 2008
    41,692
    Sarasota
    Full Name:
    David
    Either you get it or you don't.
    There's no rationality to it.
     
  10. miurasv

    miurasv F1 World Champ

    Nov 19, 2008
    10,752
    Cardiff, UK
    Full Name:
    Steven Robertson
    #5960 miurasv, Apr 5, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 7, 2017
    How did the P3 motor meet the bulkhead and its bulkhead engine mounts if the vestgial P3 rear engine mounts on your chassis are 12mm further back? Is the P3 motor 12mm longer than the P4?

    Top two are Jim's pics of 0854. Bottom two of 0846 from 0846 pdf.
    Image Unavailable, Please Login
    Image Unavailable, Please Login
    Image Unavailable, Please Login
    Image Unavailable, Please Login
     
  11. Erich

    Erich Formula 3

    Sep 9, 2003
    1,190
    Poway CA
    Full Name:
    Erich Coiner
    #5961 Erich, Apr 5, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 7, 2017
    Look at the pictures on page 66 and 67 of Jims pdf.

    Compare the engine mounts on the blocks of the P4 and P3. They are different designs located in different spots on the side of the block.
    The P4 mount is between the first and second exhaust ports
    The P3 mount is directly below the second exhaust port.

    To figure this out we need measure the location of the mounts on the blocks relative to the front of the engines.
    There is an offset in the two mounting points in Jim's frame, that combined with the different mounting points on the P3 andP4 blocks yield the motor location in the frame.

    P4 engine left, followed by P3 on right
    Image Unavailable, Please Login
    Image Unavailable, Please Login
     
  12. miurasv

    miurasv F1 World Champ

    Nov 19, 2008
    10,752
    Cardiff, UK
    Full Name:
    Steven Robertson
    #5962 miurasv, Apr 5, 2014
    Last edited: Apr 5, 2014
    From the way Jim described it I was assuming (perhaps wrongly?) that the rear engine mounting positions on both engines to be the same with the front ones being different????

    The rear of the engine where it meets the gearbox would have to be 12mm further forward in the chassis for the 12mm reduction in wheelbase given the same transaxle dimensions???
     
  13. retired

    retired Formula Junior

    Jul 30, 2004
    286
    #5963 retired, Apr 5, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 7, 2017
    Please see Post number 7523 for picture of front engine bolted to the frame of the front bulk head. The bolts mount to the cylinder heads.


    Note the Threaded holes in each of the heads
    Image Unavailable, Please Login
    Image Unavailable, Please Login
     
  14. PSk

    PSk F1 World Champ

    Nov 20, 2002
    17,673
    Tauranga, NZ
    Full Name:
    Pete
    Thanks. Learnt something that I had not realized/understood.
    Pete
     
  15. miurasv

    miurasv F1 World Champ

    Nov 19, 2008
    10,752
    Cardiff, UK
    Full Name:
    Steven Robertson
    #5966 miurasv, Apr 5, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 7, 2017
    I'm having a major problem with the "SCHEDA TECNICA" that Jim cites in his 0864 pdf and in this thread as the basis for his belief that the chassis he has contains at least 80% of the remains of the original Ferrari 330 P3/4 #0846 chassis that raced at Le Mans and Daytona in 1967.

    This is how the original in Italian reads:

    " -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 puntoni del motore Tipo 237."


    And this is how it may have been mistranslated.

    "(TECHNICAL DATA SHEET) 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."

    After asking 3 fluent Italian speakers this is how they all said it should read:

    " (TECHNICAL DATA SHEET) 330 P3/P4 Chassis n. 0846 Transformation of a P3 model according to the features of the P4. Frame Type 593/603. Transformation of the rear part of the tubular frame for the new Type 237 engine struts."

    The word "puntoni" = "struts" which are rods or bars and does not = mountings. If it meant mountings it should say "supporti" not "puntoni".

    Engine mountings are attached to the struts meaning the bars or rods. Notice how it says "Transformation of the rear part of the tubular frame...." The whole of the tubes and struts were changed according to the SCHEDA TECNICA not just the engine mountings. Jim's chassis has had additional mountings added to the existing struts and mountings. The rear part of the tubular frame has not been transformed.

    Now, here's what is of great concern to me and potentially much more important than the above. Look at the pictures of the additional P4 engine mountings added to Jim's chassis, especially the one in the top pic. Well, I'm no Adrian Newey or Ing. Forghieri but to me this does not look like the work or design of Ferrari. The Ferrari space frame chassis are set up in a certain and exacting way as can be seen in the pics of 0844 and 0856 in the bottom 3 pictures. The engine mounting points need to be at the central point of the meeting of the tubes for maximum rigidity or the load from the weight of the engine will be distributed incorrectly at the chassis weaker points and the rigidity of the chassis will be compromised wouldn't you think????? I think Ferrari would have replaced the whole of the relevant tubes at the rear for the ones as in the Tipo 237 P4 utilising the engine as a stressed member with only the P4 engine mountings in place and no original P3 mountings remaining.
    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
     
  16. wax

    wax Five Time F1 World Champ
    Lifetime Rossa

    Jul 20, 2003
    52,414
    SFPD
    Full Name:
    Dirty Harry
    Refutation du jour.
     
  17. Vincent Vangool

    Vincent Vangool Formula 3

    Oct 6, 2007
    1,249
    Zanskar, Kargil district, Ladakh, India
    Full Name:
    Vincent Vangool
    #5968 Vincent Vangool, Apr 6, 2014
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2014
    Seeing that this frame has been racing around tracks for 40 some odd years, and is still structurally sound today, I would have to think you're wrong, and thus the reason why you are not designing frames for Ferrari.

    What's your point? The engines have different mounting points and the modification of the tubes/mounting points was done so the P3 frame can accept a P4 engine, which it does. According to your translation, this is exactly what the TECHNICAL DATA SHEET describes. " 330 P3/P4 Chassis n. 0846 Transformation of a P3 model according to the features of the P4. Frame Type 593/603. Transformation of the rear part of the tubular frame for the new Type 237 engine struts."

    Whether the translation comes down to struts or mountings doesn't matter, due to all of the above was modified to facilitate adapting the frame for the P4 motor.

    You can clearly see that additional triangulation tubing was added to 0846 that is not on 0854:
    https://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/143018163-post7301.html

    The car was a mule and used to figure out how to build the P4's. When they went to the P4's they figured out the right way to construct the chassis from the P3/4 mule and did so accordingly, creating the structurally sound frame that you want.

    And once again, the engineers who built 0846 must have known enough to know there modifications on it would hold up, as it has for four decades.

    So what point are you trying to make?

    That you don't like the way Ferrari Engineers do their work?
     
  18. lgs

    lgs Formula Junior

    Mar 26, 2006
    503
    This is really a great tread and leaves space to everybody for wonderful stories and speculation. All this is fine, should be continued and it’s fully understandable, that the story has an engaged audience and is discussed in a passionate mode. But all this cannot change the fact, that Ferrari – as the car's creator and holder of all rights – had officially eliminated #0846. A Ferrari with this identity had stopped to exist. This is the only relevant fact about the car’s existence. Ferrari has brought #0846 to death and not even the US law or any "documentation" can change on this. And yes, David Piper probably used later some remains or even many recycled parts of a scrapped chassis to build a new car. But this very creation – and its later modification – is a new car, has a new identity with a new chassis number and cannot be “reconverted” just as little #0858 could be “reconverted” in an earlier configuration. #0858 is no P4 and always remains a (now modified) 350 as well as #0848 remains death, because in both cases the final will and intention of the car’s creator in period are the – only – relevant facts. For sure, the new car is an outstanding creation with a wonderful story and perfectly made with beautiful Ferrari parts, but definitely not Ferrari’s #0846 even if it should be displayed in Maranello with Montezemolo at the wheel and Piero Ferrari as his co-driver.
     
  19. Drive550PFB

    Drive550PFB Two Time F1 World Champ

    In my neighborhood, the sanitation department sends its trucks around every Tuesday morning to pick up things we leave at curbside. Usually, this is a standardized 40 gallon plastic container on wheels that we call a "trash can." These trucks usually arrive around 10:00 am.

    Every Monday morning about 5:00 am, I hear this pickup truck with a hole in its muffler riding through my neighborhood. The few times I have been up and watched the truck drive by my driveway, I see items in his truck. A couch, a fan, a coffee table. Recently, I replaced my gas grill, and left my old one by the side of the road. He stopped and picked it up.

    If you read Napolis' story, you will see that Luca said to him something like "We threw the car away and you rescued it from the rubbish bin."

    So, does my gas grille cease being a gas grille when I throw it out? Tell that to the guy who had it in his pickup truck and restored it and sold it for good green money.
     
  20. 180 Out

    180 Out Formula 3

    Jan 4, 2012
    1,286
    San Leandro, CA
    Full Name:
    Bill Henley
    #5971 180 Out, Apr 6, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 7, 2017
    You should ask your Italian speakers if it would not be idiomatic to use the word "puntoni" to refer to the protrusion in the P4 engine block casting, that is indicated with the "B" arrow in the attached photo, and that is used to bolt the engine to the chassis.
    Image Unavailable, Please Login
     
  21. PSk

    PSk F1 World Champ

    Nov 20, 2002
    17,673
    Tauranga, NZ
    Full Name:
    Pete
    Any period photos that show that engine mount adaption for 'B'?

    And lgs, I personally completely disagree. Paperwork versus reality ... Reality should win!
    Pete
     
  22. miurasv

    miurasv F1 World Champ

    Nov 19, 2008
    10,752
    Cardiff, UK
    Full Name:
    Steven Robertson
    #5973 miurasv, Apr 6, 2014
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2014
    Read the "SCHEDA TECNICA" that Jim cites in his 0846 pdf and elsewhere. I'll use the word "struts". Re the chassis it says: "Transformation of the rear part of the tubular frame for the new Type 237 engine struts."

    Let us look at the word "transformation" which means a marked change or changed into something completely different which is not something minor. The rear part of the tubular frame has been "changed into something completely different" for the new type 237 engine struts where struts are the bars. This means the rear part of the chassis has been transformed (completely changed) into the tipo 237 P4 to accommodate a supporting engine and P4 gearbox. The block of the P4 engine had been stiffened for this purpose.

    Don't forget this is a car that was the state of the art endurance racer incorporating everything Ferrari had learned from Sports Car racing and Formula 1 in a year that Ferrari faced his stiffest competition ever. Enzo Ferrari upped his game for 1967 as he was determined to overcome the challenge from Ford and Porsche. 0846 served as a design basis for the P4, a car designed to run flat out for 24 hours and up to speeds of around 200 mph and win races as it did at the 67 Daytona 24 Hours.

    A number of engineers had worked on this chassis headed by Mauro Forghieri. Look how beautiful the tubework is on the original frames as on 0854's bulkhead. The additional engine mountings on Jim's car are not consistent with them being Ferrari's design or Vaccari's work. The "SCHEDA TECNICA" does not describe at all what has happened to Jim's car which has only had P4 engine mounting points added as well as leaving the P3 mounts intact and in so doing because of their positioning I believe may have compromised the rigidity of this chassis due to the exacting way the tubes need to be built and the exacting way the engine needs to be mounted in those tubes in order for them work as designed.
     
  23. Vincent Vangool

    Vincent Vangool Formula 3

    Oct 6, 2007
    1,249
    Zanskar, Kargil district, Ladakh, India
    Full Name:
    Vincent Vangool
    #5974 Vincent Vangool, Apr 6, 2014
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2014
    What part of the frame is holding together today, after YEARS of brutal racing, do you not understand?

    I'd have to say that is pretty rigid!

    Obviously the engineers knew what they were doing, pretty or not.

    And there was triangulation (tubes) added if you look at the 0854 Vs 0846.
    https://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/14...-post7301.html

    If this was the case, why did Ferrari never challenge it and say that's not the frame we built, we build the pretty frames?

    You can twist definitions around as much as you want to suit your purpose but logically, you should realize that changing a frame so the car can hold a different motor is a transformation of that car from a P3 to a P3/4.

    Brandy may look Like Bruce , but now she's Brandy. Are you gonna say that's not a transformation?

    You are trying to twist one persons wording to define what happened versus take the proof of the actual work itself.

    How much work do you want them to do to transform it? Do you want them to add completely unnecessary changes so you can use transformation to its fullest extent? They transformed the frame to run a P4 motor. Transformation done.

    Would you say that a P4 frame is a transformation of a P3 frame?

    Sure they're similar, but due to P3/4 one has been transformed into another.

    If this is not a transformation, what is?

    If this is not 0846 how did this frame get here?

    It may not be pretty enough for you, but that's a good thing. For it is these areas that are identifiable by the guys that worked on the frame through its life, and due to these differentiated areas, they are able to pick out their work and confirm this is the frame that they worked on back in the day. What about that is so hard for you to comprehend???

    They were figuring out here how to do it. It may not be as pretty as one built from scratch due to this was them experimenting.

    My guess is they threw it together to get the engine in there. Blueprints are blueprints but actual seat of the pants shakedown/testing is where the theories are put to the test and dialed in. I would have to think they would develop this frame so it can be changed, if necessary, and developed in the least amount of time possible. If you can take what would take a week to do, and get it done in two days and get the car out on the track for the other three, that is probably the wise decision when you are trying to perfect the car you hope will obliterate the competition. When you figure out what works then you go and build the final version. That's how development of ANYTHING works. It has to look ugly before it can look pretty. Whether this development mule of a frame looked pretty or not, I'm sure the engineers were confident in it, as they raced it and it ended up doing O.K. at Daytona.

    Not the work of Ferrari? Have you seen the work of Ferrari in that time period? Although they built beautiful cars under the bodies the work wasn't always what one would expect.

    They were building this frame to develop the frame/car/components for a new car that would race in the next couple of months. Not frames for the lawn at Pebble. Getting something done on a timeline, is a domino effect of getting the thing that needs to get done first, done, so then, you can do the next.

    They took what they learned and made it look pretty in the next frame.

    Development first.

    Pretty comes later on.
     
  24. miurasv

    miurasv F1 World Champ

    Nov 19, 2008
    10,752
    Cardiff, UK
    Full Name:
    Steven Robertson
    Ferrari S.p.A have not inspected Jim's car so how could Luca say that the car Jim rescued is the car Ferrari threw away? If Luca did actually say it he must have been just humoring Jim?
     

Share This Page