The (one and only) '0846' Debate Thread

I agree that they have. But you dwell in literal definitions and just cause it's said doesn't make it so.

It's amazing how loose you can keep definitions when you want to but how literal they stay when you are trying to use them that way.

But... we are talking about the difference of saying P4 versus P3/4 when it really comes down to it.

That's fine. Maybe Piper cooked up fraudulent paperwork? I would think he did it due to he looks at these cars as continuation chassis, and therefore it is a 1967. But that is neither here nor there. Just speculation.

The problem for me here though doesn't really have anything to do with 1967 either. If it was cooked up for the year why did he make it a P4? Why not a P3/4 as it had been in the auction? Or even a P3 as your replica was originally built as? Surely the P3 and the P3/4 were in existence by the time the P4 was built? but I will re-read the thread?

But still wondering how much wording of the auction is Pipers words? You can call it what you want in a video, but legally when you are selling something you need to call it as it is. If there is ever a time to be literal it is then.

So you stand by this auction posting as being factual? If not what parts are not factual?

And if so, once again, what is your definition of the word modeled?

STILL wondering all the questions from above.

How, when, and why.....

Any pictures of the car as an original P3 replica?

DO you think the work on the frame happened before or after Napolis received it?

 

Is it also a guess that 0854 was there to be copied for a replica frame?

If it was copied from 0854 would both have a 2400 or 2412 WB? What do you feel the wheelbase on each should be as they sit today?

 

Read the thread, the pictures of the SCHEDA TECNICA and the pages from Huet's book I posted. Better still buy the book. Doug Nye described the car for the 87 auction. I'd guess that at the time of writing the spec of the car was as described and accurate. You keep forgetting that it's Jim who has to prove this car is the original 0846 as he claims. I don't have to do anything.

 

Hahahaha.

Same old lazy retort.

Jim did the work when he proposed it was 0846 and did a much more thorough job then you have done when you proposed that the car is not 0846.

I could look back and find your quote but I'm not wasting my time. You said that the person that proposes something has to prove it.

Well you have proposed that this is a replica frame. The good thing about your story is that it has no holes. Both a strength and a weakness due to it's obvious you don't have a story what-so ever for what you propose.

Scheda blah blah blah is just one piece of information that may or may not be correct. It tells nothing of all the research that is also there.

Whereas you have done no research to prove what you are proposing. That this is a replica frame.

Get to work.

Also answer the other questions everyone knows you are avoiding.

All you have is a vengence for it not being 0846. What you don't have, is any idea of what it is or how it came to be to actually have a view, that honestly tries to find out what it really is.

All you have is a desire for everyone here to spoon feed you information that you will then deconstruct at all costs. The highest of that cost being logic.

Like I said before. You just ask questions and don't feel like answering them is beneath you.

Everyones answer to Scheda Technica is that it may or may not be correct.

Please tell me what the wheelbases of the two cars should be today?

What is your definition of Modeled?

I am not here to read the book. You define what you are saying. Not pass off someone else's article that you can later interpret one way or another.

 

According to the Scheda Tecnica it's the ZF 5DS gearbox that is the variable that adds the extra 12 mm to the wheelbase of the P3 chassis. 0846 never had a ZF 5DS gearbox in it so going by that Jim's wheelbase with P3 mountings at 2412mm doesn't match any of the chassis. That's the forensic evidence.

Well, it's Jim who cites the Scheda bla bla bla and him who has misquoted it in his 0846 pdf. If he hasn't then tell him to prove otherwise. I've been asking for weeks. My research has been more thorough than Jim's it would seem. You're absolutely pathetic. Your posts are not worth reading. You've contributed nothing whatsoever to this thread.

 

Funny that people are asking you my questions...

I'd have to say that is quite a contribution.

Along with contributing many other questions you avoid . Such as what is your definition of modeled?

You not answering them. A very telling contribution to how much research you have done to form your point that it is a replica chassis.

If you are waiting for Napolis, I'm pretty sure you blew that courtesy out of the water. For everybody.

Read the above. Step up to the plate and tell us where your replica chassis came from.

Also what wheelbases do you think Jim's cars should have as they sit today?

Or maybe be content to wait for Jim to bow at your feet. Good luck.

 

You're all asking the same question because none of you have read the thread or the 0846 pdf. Have a wonderful life, Vincent. Goodbye!

 

I am not looking to form my opinion of your opinion on this, based on what other people have written. And have some sort of evidence as you require no heresay.

You need to state it into your own words, with a hint of logic compared to what Napolis has done.

How, Who, why.

Till then I suspect no one is really gonna buy a word of what you're preaching.

Cause 12mm or not you have no idea what this frame is. You can't answer the question because you have never thought that far.

 

I haven't gone at all but as far as I am concerned you have.

 

Rock on SVU.

 

And while we are at it, what was Marcel Massini position? and if the consensus is it's a replica, why is it being called 0846 ?

This is all getting rather cumbersome.

 

You really don't "fact check" a single thing you say here, do you????

US emissions laws took effect on road cars here beginning in 1978, with the introduction of catalyst equipped exhaust systems, and more and more provisions related to evaporation of fuel vapors when parked.

Past that, all states except for California now "exempt' any car past 25 years of age from emissions compliance, so similar to your MOT, they check the horn, tires turn signals headlights and with a blast around the block, for brake performance, grinning ear to ear, give your car back to you.

So from Day 1 in New York none of this applied to Jim's car.

It had to comply with 1967 road car standards, which in those days, might have considered seat belts a "new thing"....his Lola and Ford GT40 passed also.

Don't make up motivation!!

I'll close the door gently this time....I hear a band tuning up, down the street.

 

Who needs facts when you have a grudge.

Seat belts did not become law until January 1, 1968 in the US. Any vehicle built before that date was exempt.

Long live the Republic of Texas, Big Tex.

 

Always better to discuss what we think they may thunk of the cars than actually wait for some form of official announcement. Maybe we should agree to charge $1 a post and use the funds raised to pay for a Marcel Massini report....... Just saying.....

 

It's you who hasn't fact checked. Read my post again.
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Given the facts, focus is on safety, not emissions.

 

I was told I'd just be banging my head against a wall with most of the contributors to this thread. How right he is. It's the fact that Jim may have incorrectly believed certain regulations prevailed at the time he bought the car that would prevent a car after 1967 being road registered. He may have been under the impression, rightly or wrongly, that he needed paperwork for the car to be 1967 or earlier.

 

You sure about that?
Sixty eight saw shoulder belts mandated. Seat belts were in us cars earlier.

 

Just for the record, the 1965 Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Act was the first form of federal regulation of automotive emissions. Its emissions standards became effective with model year 1968, which actually hit the showrooms in autumn 1967. The Act required closed PCV systems (that is, no more open breathers) and, using 1963 vehicles as the baseline, required a 72% reduction of unburned hydrocarbons and a 56% reduction of carbon monoxide. Motor Vehicle Air Pollution Control Act of 1965, United States. The most common tool to achieve these targets was exhaust gas recirculation and air injection reaction, aka the smog pump, which forced fresh air into the exhaust manifold near the exhaust port. If the EPA, in the mid-70's, was requiring imported cars to meet the standards applicable to their model years, this would explain a preference for anything from '67 or older. To retrofit EGR and AIR to a '68 or newer race car, which would already be running a high overlap (i.e., high emissions) cam profile, to the satisfaction of a mid-70's EPA bureaucrat, would be a daunting prospect. I have enough trouble getting my '83 400i to pass the California Smog Check every two years, and that's with 3-way catalytic convertors that would be pretty difficult to retrofit to a 917.

 

Definitely sure about the grudge part.

Key word in my statement about the belts is "law". While lap belts were in use before that time, the first law (federal in this case) requiring use took effect January 1, 1968.

Best,
Dave

 

No grudge whatsoever.

 

Thanks.
I know GM had lap belts in sixty seven. Whether they were mandated by law or not I don't know.

 

No grudge. You just want to find out the real identity of this frame. except you don't want to find out the real identity of the frame.

You just want to make sure it's not 0846. No matter what. No grudge there.

 

I have been subject to personal attack in this thread many, many times yet you have very rarely warned the perpetrators, but your point is taken.