The (one and only) '0846' Debate Thread

This thread has become very very boring and very very repetitive

 

This thread has become very very boring and very very repetitive.

 

And that is the moment you started to twist and interpret everything with obfuscation, exaggeration, misinterpretations.

If there was a frame that was built the way you said it should have been and that is YOUR interpretation of the "SCHEDA TECHNICA" that's fine, but if that frame was actually built and Jim's car is not the actual frame then how did Jim's frame that is built incorrectly (with engine mounts consistent to both motors run in its chassis in period, The one that has been with Piper since the Mid 70's) come to be? What are it's origins and where was it built?

 

You just have to compare the tone of his posts here and on other threads to see that this matter has pushed a button or two.

 

What exactly have I twisted, exaggerated, obfuscated and misinterpreted in this thread?

 

Where is the proof that Jim's car ran in period i.e from 1966 - 1967?

Err, it's a replica frame manufactured to original form modelled on 0854 that's had mountings added to accommodate a P4 type engine..
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

I'd be interested to know at what point you were convinced that Jim's car is the original 0846? What evidence actually convinced you of this fact? What was the thing that made you realise that his car is the original 0846?

 

How about terms and definitions for starters. Creating non-stop circular arguments that never end based on your interpretation of the meaning of another persons words.

Transformation can mean either the work we propose was done, or the work you propose was done. You keep arguing a useless point based on your interpretation of transformation, when an engineer clearly told you that the way it was done is entirely feasible to believe it had happened this way. Truth is it could have happened either way.

So if you believe it was really done the way you propose fine. Then it is time to help substantiate this by answering the other questions I asked in that post.

How did Jim's frame with both sets of mounts, that sits with us today, come to be?

 

He is here to troll and should be banned.

He came here not to find out if Jim's frame was real but because his guys were criticized for killing originality.

Everyone knows that.

 

Just some unsolicited words of advice....

You have not "LOOKED INTO THE METAL".

You have yet to look at anything besides some basic books, slips of paper and internet postings and you have admitted as much. You have spent countless hours wasting time and bandwidth on this, all while telling anyone who does know a good bit about these cars that they are wrong and demanding "proof".

There are some extremely knowledgeable people here in the Vintage section and many more who lurk without posting (a growing number since your participation here). Many are laughing at your buffoonery offline. Knowledge and information is valuable and will not always be given away freely in the public domain and certainly not to someone as abrasive as you have shown yourself to be.

Put on your big boy pants, grab a tape measure, a camera, period photos and an airline ticket and make an appointment to go see the car. Go talk to people who were there, especially the mechanics who knew these cars better than anyone. That is what historians do. They don't have an opinion and desperately look for "facts" to support their opinion. They are open minded until actually doing some hands on research.

Regrettably for you, that sort of research will likely be pretty difficult at this point as you have proven yourself unprofessional in these very pages. Until you can do this you are merely an uninformed annoyance who has done more to hurt his job prospects in the vintage Ferrari community than you have helped, regardless of your opinion on this particular car. You are merely the latest incarnation of Horsefly and his ilk, someone who wants desperately to be involved, but who is not and likely never will be.

 

No, you are quite right I have not seen the car in the metal. I was referring to the metal dimensions of the 2412 mm wheelbase that Jim states his chassis is with the P3 mountings which does NOT agree with the "SCHEDA TECNICA" he cites which states the wheelbase as being 2.40 m and also the other stated and known charactristics in the "metal."

I notice that not one of these very knowledgeable people or historians you speak of actually publicly backs Jim's car as being the original 0846? Please tell me I am wrong and name one.

May I ask what was it for you that convinced you that Jim's car is the original 0846? What evidence actually convinced you that the replica he bought is actually the 1967 Daytona winner? What was the deciding factor?

 

Are you sure? This is just hearsay. Were you there?

Just taking on the Muira questioning profile.

Perry

 

You missed my point completely. Never mind.

All the best,
Andrew.

 

Do your credibility a favor and attempt to do so.

Two things.
1. Historians don't "actually back" anything. They find and study evidence and see what fits that evidence and give opinions. It is an imperfect process often involving talking to people who were present at major events, sometimes hearing conflicting recounting of the same events and having to make judgments as to credibility. Historical events are never 100% sure unless you have personally witnessed it. One talks in percentages of surety and the market often places a value on that surety.

2. A historian does not put words in another historians mouth or another's conclusions in a public forum. They may share their opinions on their own if they wish. What people are willing to discuss privately they might or might not wish to share publically. You are asking me for names that maybe you recognize and maybe trust, which I will not. It would be inappropriate for me to do so. I am not convinced that even if I were to give you names that it would have any bearing on your opinion. I also believe that David Piper is not 100% certain of what happened in Italy on his behalf.

See #1 above. I am not "convinced" as you state as I was not present when the chassis was retrieved, nor is there a single piece of "smoking gun" evidence. I do find the existence of this chassis substantially plausible having looked at it carefully, spoken to individuals present when it was in active competition, noting damages and repairs that still show on the frame, and understanding the way both Ferrari and the Italian automotive infrastructure in Modena operates. It is clearly not a "new" car and the Modenese rarely really threw something away. More often, if they could reused for another project, items were made into something else.

One has to remember that in the late 1960's and early 1970's these were old race cars and really not worth the time or effort to most. There was not a big market for them and few people wanted them. They were difficult and expensive to maintain and repair and certainly not really worth building more of from scratch since they were obsolete. Piper, having never bought a complete competition car directly from the factory, was supposed to build a chassis to make his spare parts useful. He ended up "building" 3. This chassis does not match the other two and one has to wonder why. If he wanted to have a chassis built for a P3 engine it could have been built that way. Likewise for the P4, which they were.

Now, some will point and say that once Ferrari closed the book on the car, it ceased to exist and that it should have not been reused. Ferrari seems to be of that opinion, although they too cannot state for certain that the chassis was dismantled. It is my belief that it was simply used for another project in a very Italian way and that does not negate its prior history. Many of the cars of that era had a short, tough lives. Some were thrown away, cut up, repurposed or scrapped to a degree that disconnects them from their past. Others were crashed, modified, burned, rebuilt, rebodied, and bodied back to original. That does not eliminate their prior history, but in fact builds upon it. Nor are they completely original in the traditional sense of mass produced automobiles.

When one looks at this chassis being a hybrid of the two P3/4, the circumstantial evidence of the repairs and reuse, after speaking with people who were there, and by comparing this car to other examples of the era it becomes very likely that the collection of welded tubing, despite what Ferrari says that they did with them, was 0846. Is that 100%? No. Does the car have a storied history? Yes. Could a complete P3/4 chassis been built in the early 70's. Yes, but not likely given the limited need. Does this chassis therefore make a plausible and credible claim on having been 0846, been crashed, been abandoned by the Factory, been through changes, been repurposed and brought back to being 0846. My opinion is that it does. We are fortunate that a few people found these cars important and interesting and kept them around and are fortunate that the Modenese did reuse bits like this.

You have spent countless hours on this already, for what purpose I do not know. I urge you to make the effort at uncovering substantive information, not just spend time behind a keyboard looking for clues and casting unsubstantiated doubts and questions into the ether. It is unproductive, unsatisfying, leads nowhere and does nothing to advance the historical record....unless that is your true purpose after all.

 

Well here is another well raised point, its amazing how posts in this section have dropped off since the arrival of some self appoint expert who clearly has some personal agenda to fulfil or someone he is trying to impress.

I personally feel this is not the forum for such antics but clearly the mods of this section disagree.

I for one miss the participation of the abovementioned knowledgeable people because they bring just that: knowledge and no personal agenda's and axes to grind.

 

I have no agenda other than finding out the truth. What evidence was it that convinced you that Jim's chassis is the original 0846? I answered your question earlier now please answer mine.

 

No one believes you are here to find the truth. I'd have to say everyone is pretty much laughing at the blatancy of your vendetta but fair enough, if your real purpose here is to get down to the bottom of this, then you can also answer our questions.

I have been asking you this same question for quite some time now, but you have conveniently avoided answering it.

If you propose this is not the real frame but can't answer these questions, or have at least formed a hypothesis by now, then in now way have you searched for the truth. You've only trolled.

 

If you check back you will see that I did answer your question.

 

I've looked but am unable locate your answer.

Please be so kind as to give me the quote.

 

For the time you spent to spell this out - thank you.

That the message will fall on deaf ears of the intended recipient is unfortunately a shame.

>8^)
ER

 

While I've learned quite a bit from the responses I'm perplexed why people still think that ANY answer will satisfy him.

 

The frame of Jim's car is without doubt not the remains of 0846.

 

Nope.
An end to this is not what he's looking for.

 

Probably because people going onto the home page see that the most recently updated thread in the vintage section and assume there is nothing else new here.

Hopefully with the Copperstate 1000 and the Tour Auto taking place this week there will be some interesting new threads in the next few days.

 

Touche.

You've out thunk me again.

Guess confusion through clutter is his running goal.