The (one and only) '0846' Debate Thread

It is only a debate when relevant or pertinent FACTS are being presented. For the past several months, nothing factual has been added, the primary poster has advanced no additional information and presented no additional research. If I were to ask "do you still beat your wife" in every post in a public forum, it would be considered harassment, as it is not for me to remedy that situation, but that of the police or the courts. The same holds true here.

Yes, one can not click on the thread or comment in it, but when one thread dominates the entire vintage section it becomes boring and repetitive, to the detriment of the entire site. While I am not arguing that it should be closed, some moderation of the thread until supportable facts can be provided is appropriate.

 

There is also a possibility, however slim, that all the recent contributors -- *all* -- could learn from this thread a little bit about old car history and how it's done, and how uncertain it can be under the best of circumstances, and how it does not turn on how an advocate can construe words to fit a preconceived conclusion. It is a slim possibility, but the world will be a marginally better place if this were to happen.

 

The thread is 10yrs old , some think/know it's a fake , some think/know it's real parts.

Whatever the case, this will be an ongoing story, closing it would only entice more threads to open. At the very least it's still contained here in one thread and section. I still don't understand all the pile on , arguments and proof are available for everyone on both sides.

Like it or not, it should stay open.

I think Jim built an awesome car , I hope he has all the health and happiness to enjoy it as long as humanly possible.

Remember we are all entitled to our own opinions , but we are not entitled to our own facts.

 

Plenty of very pertinent and differing facts and possibilities have been contributed regarding the facts that Jim has presented as evidence in this thread and his 0846 pdf. Lots of questions have been asked, the answers to some of which may even help him identify his chassis as the original 0846. Alas, no answers.

Your analogy is not representative of the differing questions asked.

 

Indeed

Way to miss the entire forest as you focus on the tree...

I don't care much about uninformed opinions, but am interested in serious factual research, especially related to 1960's Ferrari race cars. I have done mine and have urged others to do the same. Every time I click on this thread hoping for new information, I get leftover dreck, and reposted twaddle. Moderators can moderate....place the thread in the proper forum...either it stays in Vintage or gets moved to Replicas and Reproductions. I suspect it will stay where it is.

You ask many questions, many of which have been asked before. If fact, you take snippets from years before and present them as "proof". You provide no answers and seem unwilling to make any serious effort to do so. Go get some and report back when you do....or don't. ....still beating the wife?

 

I must say I agree with Ney.

Either all posters can be required to provide some sort of proof for their posts or no-one needs to. If no-one needs to provide any sort of evidence or proof then we can expect nothing more than circular arguments eternally leaving the door open for people to accuse and/ or abuse. The proof is there in the metal and may also be there in the documents but without actual time and effort put into proper ressearch its all pretty pointless. I have read every post in this ridiculous thread and now believe that it is highly likely to be #0846 but that is no proof of anything, just a belief. Others believe otherwise and fair enough.

Scientific proof of course is never absolute, it is only an assessment of the facts in comparison with proposition A, B or C or whatever. Its never absolutely clear-cut and would be good if some of the debate reflected that FACT (pun intended)

 

Yey for Ney.

 

I agree.

There has been way too much posting of unnecessary debate in the last month. Some 50+ pages I believe.

I don't believe anything factual has come out of it from anyone that has not been rehashed before.

I do believe the car is real. Sure I may have thought the Mead letter was a good part of the story but when I heard your point of view I did not beat it into the ground as fact or even challenge your opinion. Why, maybe you're right and I'll form my opinion on that as more knowledge comes to light. Are you right that the letter may not be mostly factual? Maybe. Are you wrong that the letter may not be mostly factual? Maybe. But I'm not going to beat it into the ground until I have more of a factual reason to truly doubt you.

The reason I keep posting is I feel that MiuraSV is slandering this car with arguments that have no basis in reality and just running them in circles as long as he can.

If they were at all based in fact it would be one thing. But arguing forever that the frame was built incorrectly (when you don't have the knowledge to say so), and therefore can't be the work of Foghiari, so therefore it is not the real thing, is nothing but slanderous speculation that wastes pages, mostly when the logical answer is you have no real proof of what Foghiari did so you can't decide either way based on on an uneducated opinion versus any fact to back up what Foghieri did.

He's already proved that he doesn't think it's 0846. In his head the papers don't add up, the testimonies don't add up, the metal doesn't add up. So if there's much discussion left it is factual discussion of how this frame came to be if 0846 was destroyed. Cause that is his argument. Not random points picked out of a haystack, that will run in circles due to logical answers from qualified people will be disqaulified and scrutinized to the point of driving the discussion crazy.

I guess I post here mostly to vette out what I see as pure speculation.

Hoping in some way that would help some illogical questions to come to an end.

But I have found that it does not, it only helps to fuel the fire.

I'd be more then willing to stay out of this thread as long as Miura does the same. I would definitely be the sacrificial lamb for that cause.

 

1.2 No "Trolling": Please do not post any topic that disrupts the peace and harmony of this community. Don't create meaningless threads with the sole purpose of starting a dispute. This includes messages in profiles and signatures.

 

Nothing new been offered? Absolute nonsense! What about the fact that Jim in his 0846 pdf, in this thread and everywhere else says that the "SCHEDA TECNICA Technical Data Sheet" states that the 0846 P3 wheelbase was 2412mm that matches the wheelbase of his chassis utilising the P3 engine mounting points for starters. IT DOES NOT. IT STATES IT WAS 2.40 M. This is a central point in his evidence in identifying his chassis as the original 0846. Disproving that fact alone destroys his case completely.

From Christian Huet's Cavalleria Ferrari P3/412P.
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Nothing new. Posted a month ago

 

Err, who posted that then?

 

What is the source of the jpg described as "From Christian Huet's Cavalleria Ferrari P3/412P" Does Huet represent it to be a copy of an original Ferrari document?

Second question: is it possible that the document in the jpeg, entitled "P3 - P3/412P - 330 P3/P4 - 330 P4 -- Scheda Tecnica" is a different document than the one described by Jim Glickenhaus as "the 'TECHNICAL DATA SHEET' OF '330 P3/P4 Chassis n.0846'"?

We can see from the face of the document in the jpeg, which you describe as "From Christian Huet's Cavalleria Ferrari P3/412P," could not have been in existence at the time when no. 0846 was built, or when it was converted to P3/P4. This is so because the title of the document refers to "330 P4," a model which did not exist when no. 0846 was built. This suggests very strongly that Jim Glickenhouse is referring to a different Sceda Tecnica, i.e., one which was created more or less contemporaneously with the construction of P3 no. 0846.

In light of the fact that the document in the jpeg post-dated the construction of no. 0846, it follows that the information regarding the wheelbase of no. 0846 set forth in that document is hearsay with respect to what was the actual wheelbase of no. 0846. (Actually the statement would be hearsay no matter when it was written.) Hearsay is not necessarily false. Its defect as in-court evidence is that the author of the hearsay information included in a hearsay document, or in an oral statement, is not in court and is therefore not subject to cross-examination by the party who disputes the hearsay information. We can see this defect in the present case: that the author of the document in the jpeg is not available for us to ask him or her about the source of the statement regarding the original wheelbase of no. 0846, or to ask if the representation that the wheelbase of no. 0846 was 2.400 meters, not 2.412, was a transcription error.

Finally, question three: is it in fact the case that the wheelbases of P3's 0844, 0846, and 0848 were 2.400 meters, not 2.412? If they were in fact 2.412 meters, this would refute one thousand jpeg documents stating a wheelbase of 2.400 meters

 

I have asked Jim on numerous occasions the source of the "SCHEDA TECNICA Technical Data Sheet" as this information is essential in considering the evidence he offers in this thread, his 0846 pdf and elsewhere. Do a search of this thread for the words SCHEDA TECNICA. I have put it to him that the source is Christian Huet's Cavalleria book Ferrari P3/412 P as the wording on pages 63, 64 and 70 of his pdf is exactly the same as in the book. It looks like he's lifted the information straight from it. Throughout the book it lists the wheelbase of the P3 as being 2.40 m, not 2412 mm as he states. He has not responded.

According to this book that illustrates the "SCHEDA TECNICA" the only cars from this group that had the 2412mm wheelbase are the 412Ps which used the P3 chassis when they utilised the ZF 5DS gearbox. 0846 never had a ZF 5DS gearbox. Jim's chassis does not match any of the cars from this group as he states the wheelbase with P3 mountings = 2412mm with the tipo 593 and 603 gearboxes. The source of the SCHEDA TECNICA Technical Data Sheet" is not listed in the book as far as I can see.

Top 2 pics are from the Huet book and the bottom 2 from Jim's 0846 pdf.
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Jim refers to the shortening of the wheelbase by 12mm as being in the build sheets in the post below. I have asked for a copy of the build sheet. He has not supplied it.

http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/142082567-post434.html

Jim refers to the SCHEDA TECNICA as period factory documentation regarding P3/4 0846 in a post in a separate thread here.

http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/142082607-post437.html

 

Trying to distill your unfocused and nonresponsive answer:

* We agree that Jim Glickenhouse's chassis has engine mounts for two wheelbases. One is 2.412 m. and the other -- the one currently in use with the car's P4 engine -- is 2.400 m.

* The new jpegs in this post -- presumably consisting of two photos of a single page in Christian Huet's book Cavalleria Ferrari P3/412P -- regarding "330 P3.P4 (1967) Chassis N. 0846" include no information about the wheelbase of this car.

I agree with your theory that Jim Glickenhouse's statements regarding "Scheda Tecnica" are references to this book, and not to a separate -- and contemporaneous -- document or documents. This is based on his use of the term "as per Technical Data Sheets." The plural form suggests that he was referring to a compilation of multiple Technical Date Sheets, and I am going to assume that Ferrari never released such a compilation document.

Nonetheless it remains the case that the statement in the Huet book, that the wheelbases of P3's 0844, 0846, and 0848 were 2.400 meters, not 2.412, is hearsay and may have been the result of someone's error along the way.

It is also the case that Jim Glickenhouse's description of the frame in his car -- that "The P4 engine is pushed forward 12mm . . . shortening the wheelbase by 12mm as per Technical Data Sheets" -- immediately follows a quote from (apparently) the Huet book's data regarding the "412P (0850; 0854)." One construction of the reference to "Technical Data Sheets" in JG's description of his frame is that it is an accurate reference to Huet's 412P material which immediately precedes it: that the wheelbases of the two referenced 412P's were 2.412 m. Another construction is that it is a false representation of Huet's 330 P3 material (as depicted in your previous jpeg), which states that the wheelbases of the three referenced P3's (0844, 0846, and 0848) is 2.400. I think the former construction is the correct one. You seem to prefer to think that JG made the false representation.

In any event, I don't want to participate any further in this tedious parsing of JG's statements or of hearsay transcriptions of hearsay-on-hearsay information, the original versions of which were created more than 45 years ago. What I would like is an answer to my question, is it in fact the case that the wheelbases of P3's 0844, 0846, and 0848 were 2.400 meters, not 2.412? If they were in fact 2.412 meters, this would refute one thousand jpeg documents stating a wheelbase of 2.400 meters'.

An answer to another question might be interesting as well: Who do you think created the frame in JG's car, with the engine mounts for both a 2.400 and a 2.412 m. wheelbase, and why?

 

Reading these pages may help you. The relevant information is on the second page.

It states how the P3 chassis 0844, 0848, 0850 and 0854 received the ZF 5DS gearbox when they became 412Ps and the wheelbase increased from 2400 mm to 2412 mm. It also says how the rear part of 0846's chassis was transformed to accommodate a supporting engine and P4 gearbox. The rear part of Jim's chassis has not been transformed.
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

The "SCHEDA TECNICA" Technical Data Sheet" says absolutely nothing about the shortening of 0846's wheelbase by 12mm. Ask Jim to produce evidence of it. It does NOT clearly state as Jim says that the 0846's P3 wheelbase was 2412mm anywhere. Throughout the book the wheelbase is given as 2.40 m when a P3 and a P3/4.

For clarity here is the full info from the "SCHEDA TECNICA" from Huet's book relating to 0846 as a P3/4 INCLUDING THE WHEELBASE at 2.40 m over the 2 pages.
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Steve, I have concluded that you are incapable of seeing any constructions of ambiguous statements other than the one which supports your preconceived conclusion that Jim Glickenhouse's representations about his car are false. More than once I have suggested the alternative, non-dishonest constructions, and on every occasion you ignore them and go right back to the single construction which supports your conclusion. It's a waste of time to hope for any other result.

 

Please could you state the alternatives again. Apologies if I missed them.