The (one and only) '0846' Debate Thread

Steve has given an answer as to how he believes the frame came to be.

There is very little information on DP 003 race history prior to Jims purchase ?

This may have been answered but in the video clip Piper talks about a frame being built at the factory using the correct tubing. Do we know how many frames were actually built and if they all used the Kappa tubing

 

Wayne, please accept my apologies for the above post. A friend reminded me that you have been very fair and he is right. Again my apologies to you, Vincent and the forum members.

 

Thank you for your understanding.

 

The Tucker had seat belts in 1948.

 

As we have seen in the video, David only talks of one chassis, 0900, being made by the factory who I presume he means oversaw the making of it at Vaccari & Bosi along with Mike Parks, or was it Manicardi e Mesuri? It sounds like the "Kape Emme Oh" KMO tubing was in limited supply at the factory. I'd say that if another 2 chassis were actually made by whichever chassis maker, only David's 0900 would have got the Ferrari Factory supplied KMO tubing. I'd guess that KMO tubing could be found elsewhere but is there any way of finding out if Jim's chassis has KMO tubing?

The 1987 auction description of Jim's chassis states that it has a P4 Pedal Lay Out and Pedal Box which may match The Scheda Tecnica description for 1967 P3/P4 0846 as follows: "Modified front section for the attachment of the lower tubes of the pedal assembly chassis and the 603 Type Steering Rack." These could be identifying features in consideration of all the forensic evidence if the mods do match the description and if it can be proved they were done in period. Conversely it could be something that rules it out as 0846.

The Certificate of Origin may state the car is a P4 due to the NOS aluminium Mario Allegretti P4 Berlinetta body that Jim bought with the car. Presumably he got it Road Registered with that so it would make sense to describe it as such rather than as a P3/4.

The auction description describes the car as new with no history but the major factory parts have a history of their own.

 

Perhaps I missed this, but exactly how was the wheelbase changed?

I understand moving engine mounting points for different engines...I understand different output shaft positioning (due to different gearboxes) affecting the ideal position of the suspension components...

BUT...to change wheelbase, one must actually MOVE THE WHEELS.

How was that done? Is there a 12mm difference between P3 suspension castings and P4 suspension castings? Were the suspension mounts moved (in which case the casting's geometry might be the same)...?

IOW, from a wheelbase standpoint, it doesn't matter how or where the engine was mounted...it doesn't matter which gearbox was used. If the wheels are not moved, the wheelbase does not change.

 

I asked this question as well a few pages back and the reply appeared to be that the rear mounting points remained fixed in the chassis for the suspension fixing and there was sufficient fore and aft gap in these suspension mounts to shim inwards to compensate for the difference

 

All that refers to a Porsche 917????

 

Correct.

My 1967 Pontiac Firebird Convertible 400CI had PCV system, and lap belts only, in case you flipped over upside down, I guess!!!
It had a hood tachometer and Rally pack gauges too.....loaded!

 

I don't feel he has given any real sort of description of how the frame came to be.

There is a guess with no real basis in research or fact. And most of that guess is based on someone elses hearsay which he wont accept.

Although, I do appreciate that through speculation he has stated a fragment of a theory on how it came to be, but at this point this theory is just a guess and not more then just speculation. He demands more then theories and speculation so my guess is people expect the same from him. Thanks for the speculation but now lets make it worth something and fill it with facts, or at least some heresay.

His explanation is based on someone elses second hand interpretation of what Piper was saying. Did Piper call it a P3/4 or did he say it it was modeled after 0854? Did Nye write down P3/4 cause he thought that's what 0854 was even though it is clearly a 412P and he misused the cars actual designation due to the loose use of the terms at the time? I don't know. This is only speculation. As is his point that it did happen this way.

It would be nice if Miura could define modeled? Was the body of 0003 modeled after the body of 0854? The Chassis? The the entire car? Was 0854 available in probably 1973 to sit for months upon months as measurements were taken from its chassis to build 0003 side by side?

Or were blueprints just made from 0854? If so where are these blueprints?

If it was completely modeled after 0854 at the time of the auction why doesn't it have a P3 engine?

What exactly does modeled mean?

But lets just say Piper went through the extra expense and effort to build a P3 frame for whatever reason?

Are there any Pictures anywhere of a Piper P3 bodied car?

Or did he just build a P3 so he could convert it to a P3/4 eventually, and the car only drove with the fiberglass P3/4 bodywork that Napolis eventually purchased with the car?

But... lets say the car was built, even though we have no idea who built it, how, or why???

If Miura wants to at all prove his point that this is not 0846 and is indeed a replica frame he should be able to explain and document on this frame where the supposed Targa Florio and LeMans damage came from while the car was under Pipers Ownership?

Are there any pictures of 0003 with any sort of damage whatsoever?

Are there any reports of Piper damaging the car while racing?

Are there any police reports that Piper damaged the car while out shopping for groceries?

Can he come up with any proof, heresay or not, to substantiate his guess in the wind of how this frame came to be and that this frame has lived the life to bear the significant markings that it does?

When answering how this frame came to be, as it sits today, one has to assess what happened to the frame from the time the tubing was first cut to how it sits today.

 

Don't sweat it Miura. My skin is not thin. I don't take any of this personally. I'd gladly have a beer with you some day.

 

I was traveling, hence my delayed response. It is clearly #1 as the thread is not meaningless and it was good to confine it within a single location. However it continues to create a significant disruption of peace and harmony within the community through the nature of the questions and the perceived agenda of some posters. For your edification, please refer to the intransitive verb.
Dispute - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

A debate without facts is not a debate at all, it is merely an unproductive argument. Allowing it to be conducted in that manner in a public forum not a debate, but public harassment. I have no problem with people disagreeing, arguing, debating or disputing provided they make an effort to present factual information.

I have never recommended the thread be closed, nor do I wish to silence muriasv. I have simply urged him to stop reposting the same stuff that was posted 8 or more years ago, asking the same question that he has asked again and again and again, or pointing to a printed error from the past as some new fact. For quite some time he was busy posting without having even read the very thread he was posting in. As far as not pretty, this thread at 7900+ posts, some 7,000 of which contain little new or factual information is a prime example.

Again, I do not urge silence and I am not at all uneasy about the questions. This will never be settled in the minds of some unless they individually inspect the car in question for themselves. Most never will. That you too have suggested to muriasv through PM to make a clear, concise and un-repetitive argument indicates concern for the manner in which he has presented himself, yet you have let it continue for more than 50 pages. Factual knowledge has not been advanced in that time. You have admitted to not caring much for or being an expert in P cars, so perhaps moderation of this type of content holds little interest as well. It seems you let some of the inmates run the asylum, in my opinion to the detriment of the Vintage section.

My own inspection, research and knowledge lead me to my conclusion and a late 6600 series post supports it without a single word. That the owner and prolific poster on this site is done with this thread is a clear indication as to the levels of inanity that this thread has spawned. I support that and therefore you all may continue this debate, dispute or keyboard masturbatory exercise without my further contribution. I will retire to the relative safety of P&R.

 

General Motors installed front outboard seat belts in all 1964 automobiles.

About 1/2 of all states required seat belt anchorages at the front outboard positions, though the seat belts themselves were not required. Most U.S. manufacturers installed seat belts in the front outboard positions.

Depending on the source, in 1964 or 1965, all U.S. automobiles came standard with seat belts in the front outboard positions.

 

The biggest changes to auto regulation in the USA were for 1968 and then 1973.

Cost and Weight Added by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
"The safety technologies installed in passenger cars by model year 1968, responding to the initial FMVSS of January 1, 1968, included lap/shoulder or lap belts at all seat positions, energy-absorbing steering assemblies, dual master cylinders, and seat back locks, among others.� In addition, model year 1968 passenger cars were equipped with side marker lamps, anticipating a requirement that would take effect on January 1, 1969.� These technologies added $169 (in 2002 dollars) and 18 pounds to model year 1968 passenger cars.

By model year 1974, cost had increased to $302 and weight to 70 pounds.� Side door beams were installed in response to the original static crush requirement of FMVSS 214.� Front-outboard seats were equipped with head restraints.� Safety belts were substantially upgraded: drivers and right-front passengers received integral 3-point belts with locking retractors, and rear-outboard lap belts were equipped with retractors.

Cost and weight in passenger cars changed little from 1974 to 1986, as no major new FMVSS went into effect."

 

I didn't need to have read the whole thread at the time I asked Jim where Ferrari had confirmed in writing that he had resurrected 0846 on its original chassis at the time that I read his statement such was the scale of that statement.

What stuff have I reposted that was posted 8 or more years ago and what printed error are you referring to?

 

Your reliance on the Cavalleria series #11 "beauty book" as gospel, for one thing.

 

As far as I can see it's Jim who is the one who is relying on it, not me.

As Jim has totally failed to supply the source of the "Scheda Tecnica Technical Date Sheet", and after putting it to him that it is the Cavalleria book you refer to above, the natural conclusion is that is the main source of his corroboration in identifying the characteristics of his chassis. If this is the case he has misquoted and misinterpreted the main facts contained therein that source that he has stated in his 0846 pdf, on this forum and other places to convince everyone his car is the original 0846. If the "Scheda Tecnica" is from another source then please, Jim reveal it. He at least owes it to the people to let them know the source of it who he hopes to convince and who actually take the time to read and consider his 0846 pdf document.

 

I don't think he will return, he has other irons in the fire, at this point.

He did call the other day, but I was out.

 

You obviously have a direct line to Jim so why don't you call and ask him the source of the "Scheda Tecnica Technical Data Sheet" cited in his 0846 pdf? I'm sure he'd love to hear from you.

 

That ship has sailed. If you want an answer it's time for us to do our own research instead of relying on Napolis to spoon feed it.

You can ask and ask and ask but I'm willing to bet there will be no answer as I'm pretty sure that courtesies bridge has been burnt.

I think the reason people feel you have grudge as your motive versus the desire of an real enthusiast to find out the truth, is the excitement you get when you finally think you've cracked the case. You are here to win the game of make 0846 a fake.

But you wont answer any real questions that help to prove what it is. That's what would help get to the real truth.

The thing your missing is that the goal here as a real enthusiast of Ferrari is

-Not to find out that this frame is not 0846.

-Not to find out that the frame is 0846.

The goal is to find out what this frame is and how it came to be a car sitting in Pipers shop.

That is the only way to get down to the bottom of this. Did Piper ever build a P3 frame?, Not speculation but honest hard facts.

If you really want to know it's time to do real research versus waiting for someone who has to give you all the answers.

One other question I have for you is when you are talking about the ZF 5DS gearbox how does it add an extra 12mm? Is it 12MM longer in overall length or is it 12MM longer from the front mating surface to the center of the drive outputs?

Another thing you need to research is the difference in lengths between the two engines.

Are they exactly the same length?

But once you've gotten down to the Scheda Technica, you'll still need to research how the frame came to be and what accidents caused the damage to convince any of us that what you are on is nothing more then a witch hunt.

 

If this is the case, wouldn't the wheelbase of the chassis be totally independent of the engine location? Instead, the wheelbase would be more of a choice than a hard specification (allowing chassis set-up based on conditions). If we assume the half shafts are 45cm long (random, hypothetical number), a change of 12mm at one end is about a degree and a half (far less than the simple up/down motion of the suspension). A change from 2412mm to 2400mm is less than 0.5%.

Are there detail photos of the suspension mounts and the shimming?

On page 108 Jim says that the wheelbase "is a small but very significant difference that is confirmed by physical measurement of my 412 P 0854 and LS's 330 P4 0856."

I have a hard time calling it significant if one could simply re-shim and end up with either result (as has been implicitly suggested).

It's unfortunate that Jim's document is unclear on this issue...the "shimming" is glossed over as part of the assembly (mentions that it was done, but no more (page 36)), but the revised motor mount location is repeatedly given as the reason for the altered wheelbase (e.g., pages 70 & 75). Again, one must move wheels to change a wheelbase.

I fully realized that 0.5% can be a significant change to a race car's behavior...but, if a shim can be moved to alter the wheelbase, then it becomes rather meaningless in identifying one chassis vs. another.

 

Isn't it the case that this was the only chassis built and modified in the day, to accept both a P3 and a P4 engine, a mule, that this is the only genuine one, and is therefore 0846?

And isn't the difference in wheelbase, since it's so small, attributed to the motor mount points alone, no matter the transmission?

I am not an expert at all, just curious.

Perry

 

There is no proof that the original 0846 chassis was modified to accept both P3 and P4 engines. All we know is that it was transformed to accept the P4 engine. There is no proof that the P3 mountings remained in the original chassis when it was transformed from P3 to P3/4 specification.

 

I would guess that it is adjustable.

I would also guess that length of various components from the mating surfaces back to the center of the transmissions output would help determine the center of that adjustability.

I do not believe the overall length of the transmission matters or where it attaches at the back end of the transmission as the wheelbase figure stops at the center of the axle.

So if the back end of the frame past the axles was modified due to transmission length after the axles I feel that is a non issue.

Yes. There are two sets of mounts that will fit both a P3 engine in one and a P4 engine in the other. The P4 mounts,most likely, were welded on after the P3 frame/Mounts were built and are welded to the P3 mounts. This is the main reason this is believed to be 0846. For why would Piper build a car this way? And if he did where is ANY proof that he did????