The (one and only) '0846' Debate Thread

As has been CLEARLY stated MANY times before Meade did not want to get involved and waste his time with detractors and fanatics.

SO WHAT IS YOUR POINT?????

 

I have no actual evidence of Vaccari & Bosi building any of Piper's frames as most of that knowledge came from hearsay on this site. However, if I was asked as to how many of Piper's P4 frames they did actually build, on reflection and regardless of what I may have thought and written on here before, I would guess it may have been only one, for P4 0900. And yes, that is hearsay too.

No, I am not saying Napolis is a fraud.

 

Well maybe before you propose that the people building the frame didn't know what they are doing you should get down to who built the frame.

I can tell you right now but you are free to do your own Research.

If it was built by Ferrari and is indeed 0846 the frame was built by Vaccari and Bosi.

If it is indeed 0846 it was modified by Ferrari, and thus by their engineers/craftsmen and most likely by Vaccari and Bosi. Either way designs carried out per Ferrari's engineers.

If it is indeed not the original frame it was built for Piper by Vaccari and Bosi. As has been mentioned many times Pipers 0900 was built by the original frame manufacturers. Which was Vaccari and Bosi.

If it wasn't built by Vaccari and Bosi it further shows that Piper doesn't know what he was doing as he was the one that commisioned the frames to be built and lived with it for MANY years. If it isn't the original 0846 and was built from scratch Piper was the one who would have had both mounts built into the frame. Seems very unlikely that he would, but according to your description of proper frame building, Piper doing this was a hack.

It wasn't built by Napolis at all. As the frame came to him with a P4 engine installed and it had been seen in Piper's ownership with a P3 engine in it.

Anyway you cut it, the hack engineering you claim it to have was completed by the time Piper had it. So either hacked by Ferrari or Piper. So which is it?

According to you, you thought it was wrong of Napolis to beat down 0858 as a less then perfect car and that it is wrong for him to think that 0846 is. Problem with that logic is Piper knew what 0858 is and changed it making it not what it is. On the other hand Napolis thought he bought a replica and upon discovering it could be 0846 did his research to prove to him and most of us that it is. Therefore he is not being duplicitous by critiquing another car saying it is less then perfect when his isn't either. He believes through reasonable investigation that his car is 0846 and therefore through his impeccable restoration is as close as he can get to perfection. So your logic there falls flat.

So if their was a mistake made as per P3 and P4 engine mounts being in a non original frame and this frame was not an actual original frame that had the 0846 conversion to P3/4 it happened under Pipers watch.

So before you try to prove that it is not the frame due to bad engineering, it would probably help your argument to actually know if it is bad engineering.

Cause anyway you look at it it was carried out by Vaccari and Bosi and I'd have to guess they are not hacks and know what they are doing.

In other words your point that the engineering is not pretty and in your opinion is not sturdy has no bearing on what really happened.

In reality you are saying that either Vaccari and Bosi or Piper are hacks.

If I were you I'd find out for certain who built these frames before you make the mistake of trying to prove some point by assuming the engineers didn't know what they were doing.

As they most likely knew exactly what they were doing. When in reality you most likely don't have a clue of what you are talking about when it comes to frame construction.

 

Your lack of engineering knowledge is showing....

With the engine now being much stiffer and basically now becoming part of the chassis, triangulating the rear mounts was LESS important that it was when the car had the P3 engine in it.

The change to making the engine a stressed member, with much stiffer front mounting, the flexibility of rear chassis mounts becomes essentially unimportant since now the engine block is stiffening the whole back section of the chassis.

Besides, the change to the frame is very small with regards to rear chassis stiffness anyway. The amount of bending in that short tube, since the distance between the mount and the main longitudinal tube is small, is essentially insignificant.

Forghieri used 0846 as a mule and modified it to fit the new P4 engine. That is a fact. The modifications to Jim's car are perfectly consistent with those types of modifications based on sound engineering and realizing the costs involved. Making a whole new rear frame section would only be marginally better, and if you are making a new frame you would do it right, but the modifications on Jim's car are entirely consistent with how any good engineer would modify a P3 to use the new engine.

You are simply ranting now and just making wild accusations that have no basis in fact.

 

I wish we could remove the emotion from this thread and just go back to a proper fact based investigation.

It does appear Steve that you do have a bone to pick and it is based on #0858. I'm not sure of your involvement but surely you do not consider that (lets ignore the only surviving 350 Can Am part and lets call it a) restoration a quality one. The final shape was not just a little wrong which would have been acceptable, it was very wrong. Yes all these cars have slightly different shapes, especially the mouth and brake vents but heck they made a mess of #0858's front. They also got the engine cover roof section wrong as it is supposed to curve down so that it flows with the roof.

So can we shake hands, with all of us and Jim (who said no different than the rest of us and who has tried his best with using correct methods on his cars) and lets continue researching #0846.

I myself find it fascinating and interesting at what we can find but equally frustrating that we don't yet have that convincing photo, of say and empty engine bay taken when the mechanics were fettling the engine. That would be gold.
Pete

 

Seriously, if we find you a job somewhere, will you go away?

Your mindless cyclical arguments are very tiring, to the rest of us.

You think you are witty and clever and you are very obviously upset of Jim's opinion of Pipers treatment of the Can Am 350. He's entitled to express that there!

But you go on and on about 'value' and 'money' and yet you cannot possibly ever participate at that level of ownership ..

WHAT could you ever hope to gain in using your REAL name here to aggravate the very clientele you are one day hoping to serve??

I just don't get it, your overall objective...whatever it is, you are failing.

 

The death bed confession letter.

Maybe not Tom's letter directly.

But I believe these to be Tom's words.

Did he write it. No.

Do I believe his partner is telling the truth that this was Tom's belief. Yes.

 

OK. You now join fmanny and Peloton on my ignore list.

You are known by the company you keep. Goodbye.

 

May I ask your engineering credentials? I admit to not having any. However I believe that whatever extra rigidity the stiffened P4 block may bring to the chassis is lost in the less than ideal positioning of the P4 mounts. A structure may only be as strong as its weakest point.

You don't know at all what Forghieri did so please do not spout what you think as fact. I do not believe that the modifications to Jim's frame are consistent with how any good engineer would modify a P3 chassis to use the new stiffened engine block and utilise the extra rigidity it would bring to the structure. The SCHEDA TECNICA Jim cites matches more the solution that I describe than Jim's does, with new tubes containing correctly positioned P4 engine mounts. And there's nothing more wild in what I am saying about the mounting points than Jim is saying. So how am I ranting and Jim is not?
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

LOLO, perhaps because he doesn't give a **** what you think?
Since you seem to be the only one having doubts about 0846 autenticity perhaps you should commission Marcel a proper report, this way you can be satisfied..because the rest of the people already are...
By the way, to even compare the job done to that poor 350 can am with what Jim did on 0846 only shows you are being completly partial on this...you just have to look at both cars and a period picture to understand wich of them as the right shape....and you don't have to be an expert, only to have one good eye,..or the corrrect lenses!!

 

Steve keeps baiting his trap - which this thread has become - and we all keep reading and responding. His posts evidence either an irrational fixation that approaches psychosis or represent the cleverest trolling scheme intended to excite, irritate AND INVOLVE a lot of intelligent and Ferrari-passionate people. He will go away when EVERYONE declines to return to, read and respond to his goads. Perhaps that will occur before they reach 8000 posts.

I'm finished. Goodbye.

 

FACT: As the car sits today it has mounts for both a P3 and a P4 Motor.

FACT: Someone had to do this work to the chassis.

So if, in your opinion, the mounts are not the work of a good engineer and you do not believe it to be the work of Forghieri, I believe there are only two, possibly three options that you are stating this frame could be the result of. Please elaborate if you have any others?

Option one: Jim Glickenhaus is a fraud and with all of his resources, in a sinister attempt to deceive the world, he could not find competent engineers that could counterfeit the frame correctly.

Option two: Piper is a hack as he is the one who commissioned this frame to be built and lived with it for MANY years. Even though Piper had two, or is it three?, other frames commissioned that were built to P4 spec, this was was done differently and with hack engineering or it was modified in house by his people.

Possible option three: Space aliens came down and swapped the original correctly built Piper P4 frame with this hack job of a frame to start internet mayhem in an attempt to take over planet earth.

So what do you think happened here Miura?

I'd guess it is the work of Ferrari and the engineering seen here is the legitimate work of converting P3 0846 chassis to accept a P4 motor thus making it P3/4 0846. But that's just me. And basically everyone else on the forum.

So I guess we'd like to hear your opinion after hundreds of pages and know what you are trying to say?????

Another thing I'd like to add about your 0858 grudge is that I don't feel any of us dislike Piper. I feel it is quite the opposite. Their probably is a good amount of respect for the man and what he has accomplished in his life. As I have said before his life is one I would love to have lived. Tom Meade as well. But when it comes to 0858 I feel that the majority thinks that what was done with it was in bad taste in regarding Ferrari history. And in the end was it a good job? No. But in all fairness, Piper is a race car builder, not a restorer.

 

As a matter of fact I am an engineer by training. I have a masters degree in mechanical engineering from a major university, and have been practicing my craft for almost 40 years. I have extensive experience in aerospace structural analysis including finite element analysis of complex structures. In addition I have raced and built racing cars as a hobby for almost 35 years. I have extensive experience with chassis tuning and suspension development. I think you can trust me when I tell you that, as a practical matter the modifications to the structure, while not optimum, are so minor that even a skilled driver would not be able to discern any difference in handling between a proper P4 and this car.

Since you have stated that you have no training or knowledge on the subject you need to rely on someone who does. Just because you "think" that the structure is much less rigid and that the mounting location makes a difference does not make it so. You need to look at the amount of bending and flexibility between the mount and the longitudinal element under torsional loading, and since the distance is small, the bending in that element becomes insignificant.

Perhaps a little education is necessary here.

The critical element that we are talking about here is the torsional stiffness of the chassis. It is not the beam bending stiffness and it is not the fore and aft loading into the mounts. While these mounts are a bit softer in the axial direction, the stiffness of the engine increases the stiffness at this frame element by transmitting a vertical load vector into the frame. That is, the engine helps resist torsion in the frame by imparting vertical stiffness to that element. Since the frame is still triangulated, just because the increase in stiffness is not at a node, it is still there and it significantly helps the frame in torsion. The small amount of offset at that one node is not enough to make any real difference since the torsional loads result in a vertical component and the angle of the tube is near vertical and the offset from the node location is small.

Come back after you've taken at least three courses in the mechanics of structures and then we'll talk. Until then please refrain from telling us what you "think" on this subject.

As I have noted, the modifications to this frame are exactly how a good engineer would have done it if faced with the same budgetary and time constraints that the builders faced at the time. Since the loss of torsional stiffness is minimal and the amount of bending induced in the frame elements are small, as a practical matter modifying the P3 frame as shown makes perfect sense. For a mule car and to get on test quickly, it makes perfect sense.

 

Now the frame for 0846 doesn't exist. It was made by unicorns and fairies. Perhaps if 0846 ran over you you may believe in it's existence.

Perry

 

Thank you for the education. You have demonstrated that whoever made the additional P4 mounts to the chassis did a good job of it so Jim can feel secure in the knowledge that his chassis will be safe. However, you have also stated that they are not optimum. To take full advantage of the P4 engine's stiffer structure and used as a stressed member the mounting points would have had to have been changed to their optimum position at the central point of the meeting of the tubes, not offset. You say a skilled driver would not notice the difference but we are not talking about merely skilled drivers here. We are talking about world class drivers racing in the most prestigious, most competitive and gruelling endurance races in the world that are so very hard on each and every component.

I do not believe this is the work of Forghieri and his engineers. Don't forget that they had plenty of time to incorporate the optimum positioning of the P4 tubing and engine mounts as the chassis had been tested at Daytona in December, 1966 through the Daytona 24 hours race of February, 67 where it won, Le Mans Test in April, 67 (1st), Targa Florio in May, 67 (DNF) and Le Mans 24 Hours in June, 67 (DNF). Ferrari in 1967 pulled out all the stops to face its stiffest challenge ever from Ford and Porsche to make the P4 a superlative car, not one with compromises.

 

Before he died, I had an audience with Enzo, and he told me that 0846 that Jim has is the real deal.

Of course, this is hearsay, and of about as much value as anything you put forth.

Perry

 

Game.
Set.
Match.

Hard to argue with an expert.

 

ONE last time, brother....and then if Seth is "out" I am as well....you really should investigate who some of these people are, that you engage.

They could have al the time in the world, but at Ferrari in those days, money was in short supply as well, It is also well known that labor disruptions sometimes impacted production, although I am not saying that was the case in the Racing Shop, as those men were the chosen most loyal employees.

It was a far cry from the Ferrari we know today, or even the Ferrari after the first agreement with FIAT..

They did not go around creating new cars to "optimize" anything, in fact dismantled cars to salvage used parts, as the components of this era clearly shows.

I wish you could engage in the discussion in a more open minded manner.
You have the most closed minded view of your "beliefs" of any participant ever, of this thread, and as others have tried to tell you, your extreme bias, or else your lack of comprehension is now showing.

it's not pretty.
Bye!

 

I'm out of this too. It's apparent that no one matter who weighs in, this person will continue to argue with and against any and all comers. So be it. He has an agenda, something to do with 0858. Perhaps it is a personal vendetta. Who knows. Anyhow, best of luck with this.

 

Hey guys. Don't be such downers.

At the very least "Jim can feel secure in the knowledge that his chassis will be safe." Even if the work of whoever built this frame is not "optimum."

Glad Miura SVU has researched and confirmed this as I don't feel the 30 years it has been brutally raced really told the full story.

Personally I'm so happy for Jim that he can finally relax and enjoy the car rather then worrying all the time.

But in all fairness, I have changed my view and now agree this is not the real 0846, because Ferrari would have pulled out all the stops to perfect and build nothing short of the space shuttle to win that all important season in 67. Deadlines be damned. Money be damned. We are Ferrari and in the 60's the quality of our cars was just absolutely super duper expialidocious amazingly flawless.

After all they had plenty of time to incorporate the optimum positioning of the P4 tubing and guys like Ferrari can just whip them together quickly. Building stuff doesn't take much time guys. And these were drivers that would notice any difference even if there was no difference at all.

But...

One has to wonder how this frame then came to be?

Hopefully Miura SVU will crack the case!

 

Whatever it is it makes for unpleasant reading but I suppose with a profile like it has its hard to take him remotely seriously because we have no idea who he is trying to impress...

 

Here's your richly deserved "F" in engineering. I am not an automotive engineer either, but I know enough to know that the essential task of a racing engineer is to blend compromises into a finished product with the best possible chances of winning a race. Lightness vs. strength vs. straightline speed vs. cornering speed vs. endurance vs. cost, etc. etc. The idea of any motor vehicle lacking in compromises is a non sequitur.