The (one and only) '0846' Debate Thread

Instead, why don't you scroll up just a couple of posts and try reading thoroughly?

 

I already had. I was hoping that he would be more clear in expressing the alternatives so thanks very much for...

 

I think it is understood that your argument against Jim's 0846 being genuine revolves around the quoted wheelbase by various texts, the all important "SCHEDA TECNICA" and Jim's own data. There's apparently a 12mm "difference" between some catalogued measurements and today's measurements as she sits. It is also known that that difference can be made through adjustment in the suspension (both then and now, yes?).

Just as many "facts" and information over the years (involving many cars) has been adjusted/updated/clarified - perhaps this one particular aspect of 0846 simply needs to be re-evaluated and clarified? Maybe this singular tidbit of information has been misunderstood and unjustly used as the singular "fact" that Jim's car "isn't" 0846? Maybe there is another bit of evidence that proves your theory?

Oh, wait. There isn't....

 

Jim's chassis wheelbase was altered from 2412 mm with the P3 mountings to 2400 mm with the P4 mountings.

Regarding your interpretation of the general response - this would mean that the wheelbase length could be dismissed as an identifying feature anyway.

 

Thanks Wayne.....

The other traits, the modified engine mounts, as well as the crudely modified water tubing to the second engine configuration, are far more telling in my mind, also.

In a purpose built P4 frame, original or Piper replica, these traits would NOT be present or required.

Now, I am done with this thread....

*door slams*

 

Exactly - modified engine mounts which does not = a "transformation of the tubular part of the rear of the chassis for new P4 engine mountings" and does not = "the rear part of the chassis was transformed to accept a supporting engine and P4 gearbox as the Scheda Tecnica and the Huet book publishing it states.

A better description is that extra P4 engine mountings have been added to the existing tubular part of the rear of Jim's chassis.

 

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?

Along with 180out I would love to know the answer to this question... please

If you are certain it is a replica frame you must have some information to back that up so please do share....

 

I've answered this question a number of times. Please read the thread.

 

I agree with you 100%, Wayne. It is equally as frustrating for me to see someone repeatedly argue against a singular aspect of this vehicle, and blindly disregard everything else that has been documented and catalogued over the years. Is there a discrepancy over the definitive wheelbase dependent on book/text/document printed regarding technical aspects so 0846? Yes. But 0846 wouldn't be the first chassis to have such discrepancies printed over the years.

Dwelling on a singular aspect of a vehicle that could be varied by it's very design is pedantic. It doesn't progress the debate and only emotes ill-will on behalf of the protagonist.

 

Steve if you compare the tubes around the two seperate mounting points between Jim's 0846 chassis and his p3 chassis you will see by comparing the angles in the triangles that tube modification has been carried out, its not just a case of adding in new mounting points and a couple of extra support tubes.

It would have been far easier if this is the original frame of 0846 at the time to have chopped out the original mounts and just added in then braced the new ones to take the P4 engine.

The only reason I can fathom why it was done this way was Ferrari were covering both bases just in case the P4 engine did not work out and still had the fallback option of a P3 motor in this chassis, hence it being a mule or bastard as described.

As it did work out then there would be no need for this option in the follow up P4 dedicated chassis.

So in theory this could justify Jim's claim but is not the smoking gun unless the original fabricator or Ferrari confirm this was the case, and that they did the work.

 

I'm not dwelling on a single aspect at all. The way the engine mountings have been added to the chassis of the existing tubes and existing P3 mountings do not match the description of the Scheda Tecnica he cites in his case in identifying his chassis as the original 0846.

 

But that's just it, Steve. The TECHNICAL DATA SHEET doesn't say or show exactly "how" it was done - simply that "something" was done using an ambiguous formation of adjectives. It's vague. So, it is impossible do definitively say that what was done on Jim's 0846 fits that vague description or not. The TECHNICAL DATA SHEET isn't as precise a document as needed to rule-out the modifications made to Jim's chassis. That's all I'm trying to convey.

 

Okay, if as you say it doesn't say exactly "how" it was done, is "vague" and the description is made using an "ambiguous formation of adjectives" it deserves no place in Jim's case to identify his chassis as the original 0846. There is no corroborating evidence backing up his chassis' identifying features as the original 0846. There is no proof in his 0846 pdf that his chassis is the original 0846.

 

My word !!

This discussion has been going on since November 2003 ???

Wow and I thought I had to much time on my hands....

 

Oh, it has a place in Jim's PDF, as does all the rest of the information contained. I see Jim's PDF as a collection of information/data points with various amounts of merit. One has to take each piece of information and formulate a conclusion for themselves. It's not about 1 piece of information. It's about the collective. It's about the "Forrest through the trees." Perhaps this singular piece of information need revision. I am certainly not the person to make that decision or revision. However, IMO, there is more to Jim's chassis than this one data point. And it is through this complete collection of information that I have drawn my conclusion.

 

I really wish Mr. Piper would make a statement about this to somebody..He probably doesn't care either way, but it would be really interesting to hear what he has to say.

 

Please answer my questions on how the replica frame was built, by who, and why?

Also who, how, and why it was modified from a P3 to being able to accept a P4 motor.

These are the questions that I believe everyone is referring to?

Your pin point literal definition of transformed does not hold any water. Any logical person would realize that transformed could just as well mean transforming a car to hold a different motor. They don't have to rebuild the whole thing. They just have to transform it so it does something different then before. You are basing the proof of your argument on making things specifically literal when they aren't and everyone knows this.

Also my questions pertaining to the auction description and why Piper, through a second person, claimed this car to be a P3/4 when it was modeled after a P3/412P and was later called a P4 in a letter signed by Piper

Are you sticking by the auction description as to fact of how that happened? Is this your explanation? Someone else's hearsay?

If so define what modeled means?

Also please supply any evidence, preferably pictures, of Piper using this frame in its P3
pre-P3/4 combination.

Please read back and answer all of my questions in my recent posts regarding how the replica frame came to be including Pipers and Napolis's involvment of making the frame the way it is as it sits today. Do you believe these modifications came before Napolis?

That is what matters in proving to the world that it isn't what he says it is.

If you can't answer what the frame really is, you don't really have an argument. Al you have is a grudge and everyone is getting tired of answering your ignorance of their answers due to your prove it wrong single visioness.

We need you to write your explanation of how it all happened and the how the replica frame sits with us today.

It's as simple as that.

 

Pretty sure he has in a way via the Talacrest videos in relation to 0858 where its said Jim's chassis is not the original Ferrari 0846 one.

 

It's clear from the above that you really haven't read this thread in its entirety or Jim's 0846 pdf at all have you, Vincent? You need to read it all to get the full perspective. I believe one of Jim's supporters has seen this chassis with a P3 engine in it. Again the details are in this thread. I'll help you on the P3/4 bit. The 412Ps were called P3/4s by most people even though they were officially termed 412P by the factory.

 

I know someone has seen it with a P3 engine in it. But you would call that hearsay. Was that P3 engine in its P3 configuration? Around 74 when the car was built? Or was that P3 engine in it when it was in the configuration where it was already modified to accept either motor?

I am specifically asking for proof of it being used as a P3 with no P4 modifications in place. When it was a P3 specifically. You could run the car today with a P3 motor and that's the point.

I know they were called P3/4's. but an expert like Piper should know the difference mostly when we are taking the definitions so LITERALLY.

A P3 is not a P3/4. A P4 is not a P3/4. P3's and 412P's were LITERALLY never P3/4's. Calling them so is not upholding the literal standard that you have set.

And even if there was some non literal explanation going on in the auction statement, which I believe, explain why Piper signed a document claiming it was a P4 if he built it as a P3 or a P3/4?

Are these his words? How do YOU define modeled?

You have not answered my questions and I do no need to re-read the thread as everyone else is asking you to answer these same questions but you still have yet to? Obviously we think these questions are still valid and unanswered.

Please look back and answer all of the questions I have asked in your words and not with someone else's post.

IN your words what is the factual history of how this frame came to be.

Cause you haven't provided that yet. Thus the reason all of us are asking you to do it. STILL.

Literally.

 

Actually Vincent the 412Ps have not only been referred to as P3/4s but also P3s. Piper and Alain De Cadanet have referred to them as P3s as well as P3/4. Watch the 0858 videos again and also the Victory by Design De Cad vid where he drives 0850.

The car was bought and sold as a replica. I believe the 1967 P4 paperwork may have been to help Jim get the car road registered due to Jim thinking incorrectly that certain US Emission Regulations prevailed at the time he bought the car. Again, full details and evidence of this are in the thread. I'm not actually quite sure how the engine was described at the point of sale as there is some uncertainty as to its capacity. Perhaps somebody could post fuller details of the engine at the point of sale.

 

At point of sale it was considered a F1 engine. This was proven incorrect as the block is a P4 casting not F1. Yes there are strengthening rib differences.

I wonder also if some saw #0854 not Jim's #0846 when they saw a P3 engine? Would be hard to tell the difference for many.
Pete

 

Just a guess that 0854 was in the US when the the car was seen in the UK with a P3 engine.

Regarding Jim's engine, DP3 chassis in 87 had a 312 F1 3 litre unit in it from early/mid 66 as it is a 2 valve design. Also had Webers which is incorrect for F1. Where did the P4 3 valve heads and Fuel Injection come from then? And what's the thing about Jim alleging that DP had called it "Vrai P4" (Real P4) if it was a 3 litre unit he sold him. Confused.com.