The (one and only) '0846' Debate Thread

Your guess to the P3 and P4 type bulkheads is spot on, Vincent. 0858, 0844, 0854, 0003 (0846?).

 

OK.

So I'd have to figure the difference in the configuration is most likely due to bulkhead mount spacing on the different motors?

Do you know why your highlighted area is different from the P3 to the P4? I'd guess motor mounts but who knows?

So theory goes that Piper built a frame from the P4 plans. Except for the area starting at the bulkhead and going back from there was done per P3 frame copied from 0854.

Then later that rear area was modified to accept P4 engine.

If so I'd have to ask why Piper would do what you believe Foghieri wouldn't if he had the P4 plans in hand?

I think it would be acceptable for either Foghieri or Piper to do it this way but if he had the plans why would he not transform it as you think it should?

Ferrari makes more sense, as they were figuring out how to build the P4's whereas that was already figured for Piper with the plans.

To do it this way would mean having to engineer the frame versus just using the plans to complete what they started. A P4 Front with P3 rear into a full P4.

Then one has to beg the question....

If he was willing to do this much work to have a full P4 why not just use the frame hanging from the ceiling?

I do respect that you are looking deeper into this. Either way, I honestly think that figuring out how the frame came to be is the only way to get a real answer.

 

Interesting, well summarised and thank you for renewing my interest in the tread

I struggle to accept that the current configuration evolved from an English built chassis, multiple engine configuration and race damage. It is also curious that if it was built this way, David Piper has never come out and killed the claim that the frame incorporated Foghiere's work.

 

I'm not summarizing that it happened this way.

Just trying to look at the possibilities.

Although Miura's theory of how it was constructed has changed over the last day or two, from mostly P3 to now mostly P4, I have to say that I do respect him for having an open mind and following through on trying to piece together this version of how the story went.

I think that Miura's find will become an interesting piece of the puzzle as there has to be a reason why this part of the chassis is built one way on a P3, and another way on a P4. My guess is that the two engines have different mounting points in this area.

I believe David Piper may have said that, or at least that the frame was built from scratch.

 

The third picture from post 7929 is of 412P #0850's bulkhead which also has a P3 chassis, not 0854 as I said previously in posts 7929 and 7939. See here: http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/143065397-post7929.html

0850 P3 type bulkhead in the small first pic.
0854 P3 type bulkhead in second pic.
0846? P4 type bulkhead in third pic.
0858 P4 type bulkhead in fourth pic.
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Remember that Jim has never said the whole chassis is original, but ~80%.

Also why are we making such a big deal about the bulkhead? Are we saying that the front engine mounting points (on the heads) are in the same place exactly between a P3 and P4 motor? If not, then of course #0846 would have been modified to P4 format. Note this is a very simple modification not a massive one that redoing all the rear chassis would have been.

Again though the only solution to this discussion of this area of the chassis is period photos. Nothing can be proved without them ...

We also have to remember that Piper had #0900-002 which is 100% P4 so if he wanted to run a P4 engine I don't understand why he never built that frame up. Also if he wanted to allow for the running of a P3 engine as we'll then why make the whole rear of the chassis to P3 format. Makes no sense, all he needed to do was enable the side engine mounts and leave the rest P4 format. Piper has proven clearly over and over again that originality is not his thing ... something I actually respect him for ... so the logic does not add up, but again we need period photos.
Pete

 

Jim said his 0846 chassis was 80% original at the absolute least and probably as much as 95%.

I am told that the front engine mounting points on the heads of the P3 and P4 engines have the same coordinates which looks to be the case from the pictures. I really don't think Ferrari would have gone to the trouble of changing and replacing 0846's P3 bulkhead tubes with new P4 tubes that had had the same mounting point positions as there would have been no real need to do that, and after doing that not changing and replacing the side tubes in the rear for the side front mounting points on the engine that did have a different position, then adding the P4 rear side mounts in less than optimum positions and leaving the P3 mounts in place. Now that doesn't make sense. In short, they'd have changed the back tubes if they changed the front bulkhead tubes imho.

Top 2 pics 0854. Bottom 2 0858.
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

The P4 engine is different than the P3.

Look at the top center front of the P3 and P4 pictures with the engines installed. The reason the chassis are different is that the water outlet on the P4 won't fit in the P3 chassis, it will interfere with the chassis near the top center of the frame where the tubes near the center are triangulated.

Consequently it is, in fact, necessary to have to modify this bulkhead to put in the P4 engine. And this would have to have been done when 0846 was modified to accept the P4 engine, as recorded in the documents shown earlier. The reason to do the minimal modifications on the rear engine mount is because this has an insignificant impact on chassis stiffness and it was easy and simple to do the way they did it. The front bulkhead had to be modified to clear the water outlet on the different engine.

The detailed photographs show exactly that.

So your theory that they would not have modified the bulkhead if they didn't mod the rear frame has been thoroughly discredited. As can be readily seen in the photographs, if you were going to fit a P4 engine in a P3, you had to modify the bulkhead to the P4 layout.

Thanks for going through all this effort and providing the photographs that disprove your theory. The more you look you more you see that it makes sense that this is indeed a modified P3.

 

Solofast:

Once the bulkhead was modified to fit the P4 engine do you feel that a P3 engine would fit into the revised chassis?

Miura:

Wondering how you feel the chassis was built from initial build through modification to P4 engine.

What sections of the original build do you feel were built to P3 Specs?

What sections of the original build do you feel were built to P4 Specs?

When modified how and where did this change?

Thanks.

 

Not so fast, Ing. Solofast. I actually did think Ferrari may have changed the bulkhead as well as the rear tubes on the original 0846, but if as you say the P4 water pipe won't clear the P3 bulkhead tubes, they as you have correctly said would have had to do it and would be the reason for the difference in the shape there. However, this is only relevant if Jim's chassis was actually the original 0846. If as I suspect it was originally built to P4 plans in this area, as David Piper says it was, that central area of the upper bulkhead would have been that shape from the start and would clear both P3 and P4 water pipes anyway and would not have been an issue. That said I am genuinely respectful of your experience and expertise.

 

It looks to me like David used the P4 drawings he had to get the frame built as such with differences in the geometry of the rear tubes to correctly fit a P3 engine that he probably had and it was later was modified to accept a 312 F1 engine.

 

O.K. Thanks.

So you believe the whole frame was built per the P4 plans except for the engine cradle behind the bulkhead which was built to P3 spec from copying 0854.

So your initial view that the frame originally started out as a P3 no longer applies.

In other words Jim's chassis, if 0003, should not be P3 spec anywhere on the frame except for the P3 engine mounts that were subsequently added onto with the P4 mounts.

Thanks for your opinions and research.

 

I think it has to be borne in mind, Vincent that P3 and P4 frames may be very similar and only differ in details. If this is not the case I would like to be corrected.

 

I understand.

But your belief thus far is as stated above?

 

I promise you I am not trying to evade your answer but I won't be cornered. I believe much more credence should to be given to David Piper's description of it through Doug Nye in the Christies' catalogue, so please refer to it. If I am able to find out more I will let you know.

 

Not trying to corner you. I realize you are trying to figure this out too.

Yesterday you though it was built per P3 and today after more research you believe P4, I respect that you have revised your thoughts and just wanted to know what you thought now.

 

You may find it hard to believe, Vincent that I have always been open minded regarding Jim's car. It's a fabulous machine regardless of whether its chassis was born in 1966 or 1974.

 

There is only one tube change in the bulkhead going from a P3 engine to P4 engine, as Solofast says to clear the water inlet pipe. They compromised the triangulation for this water inlet. This change would logically be made to #0846 because firstly it had to be, but also because very simple. Changing the whole rear chassis to suit the side engine mounts of the P4 is not at all simple so I don't think it was done ... but no proof.

Muira, the rear chassis, as Jim as pointed out many times, is considerably different between a P3 and P4, it is way more than a couple of repositioned tubes. The rear bulkhead around the gearbox area (made out of many triangulated tubes) is very different.

I wonder if there is evidence of cutting and rewelding of that one tube in the bulkhead that had to be removed to fit the P4 engine on Jim's chassis ... but one assumes they fitter would have ground it nicely smooth ... but?

Again though Muira I can see know reason still why Piper would have replicated the rear section of a P3 when it would have been considerably simpler to just weld on some extra engine mounts. I still agree with Jim, he or somebody saved time and reused #0846's chassis.

The jig and setup required to make a rear section of a P3 chassis would take considerable effort ... compared to lowering in an engine and welding in some engine mounts. Probably done in a couple of hours, compared to many long days of tricky effort.
Pete

 

Yes, no problems putting a P3 engine back into Jim's car once it was modified to fit the P4 engine, since the rear mounts are there for both engines, and the front mounts are the same you can readily use either engine.

Exactly

All excellent points. The rear section of Jim's frame is clearly built to P3 prints. The bulkhead is constructed to P4 configuration because it needed to be to clear the water outlet in the heads, and the rear mounts for the P4 were added because that was a quick and easy way to do it. The P4 engine substantially stiffens the rear frame, and once installed makes the chassis triangulation in rear mount area unnecessary and redundant.

To think that anyone would go to all of this trouble to install the P3 features into a newly built chassis simply makes no sense since as PSK has noted it would be far easier to add a rear mount for the P3 engine to the new frame that you are making the jigs and fixtures to the P4 configuration.

While all of this is circumstantial, the more you look the more it makes sense that this particular chassis started life as a P3 and then was modified to the P4 configuration. There is really no reason for Piper to do this when he was building his P4 chassis. While circumstantial evidence is not absolute proof, it often adds up to preponderance of evidence and that is where I am with Jim's car. You really have to reach to come up with reasons to think this is chassis was built as a combination P3 and P4 features from the beginning. Then you start to add in things like tubing replacements and straightening in areas were 0846 had known crash damage and now it starts to become overwhelming that this chassis is 0846.

 

All pertinent points until you look back and ask yourself if Piper commissioned his p4 frames from the original supplier surely when this alleged p3/4 framed turned up alongside his P4 ones he and his mechanic would have spotted the differences straight away and gone back to the supplier asking whats going on?

Its very naive to think they would not have noticed the extra mounts etc and just shrugged their shoulders and got on with it, and then later come up with the description in the auction defining the changes, way before it was sold to Jim

 

Below is from Jim's last post 7497 and the differences he describes between the P3 and P4 bulkheads are incorrect.

See here for the full post: http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/143032748-post7497.html


"The front end of the P3 motor and the P4 motor forward placement is limited by the chassis tubes that form the rear bulkhead. In a P3 chassis the bulkhead is different than a P4 chassis as a P4 motor is semi stressed and additional tubes were added to allow this but this bulkhead tubing in the P3 chassis and P4 chassis and the unique P3/P4 chassis all limit forward positioning in exactly the same place. The rear position of a P3 engine and a P4 engine is is determined by where the rear engine mount of each engine meets the triangulated structure of the P3 and P4 chassis. (See photos of 0844, 0854 and 0856's P3 and P4 chassis in the pdf and in the thread) In the unique P 3/4 chassis of 0846 which began as a P3 chassis the structure triangulates at the point of the original P3 rear engine mount as one would expect. The rear muled P4 engine mount does not align with the original P3 rear engine mount as the P4 rear engine mount is 12mm further forward than the P3 rear engine mount. Remember the forward position of both the P3 and P4 engines are limited by the rear chassis tube bulkheads. That's why the wheelbase was "decreased" P4 vs. P3 The rear engine mounts P4 vs P3 butted up to the rear bulkhead are "decreased" exactly 12mm. On 0846's P3/4 chassis as photo's clearly show the triangulation is at the exact point of the rear P3 engine mount and a new additional P4 rear engine mount was added to the chassis to mate with the P4 engines 12mm shorter vs P3 rear engine mount. Some have noted that this vestigial triangulation was not ideal and Ferrari realized this and that's why P4 chassis such as 0856's triangulate exactly 12mm further forward (closer to) the rear bulkhead chassis tubes. Of course 0846's P 3/4 chassis also has the additional P4 chassis tubes to allow a P4 motor to be mounted semi stressed as well as it's original P3 non stressed center bulkhead mounts (cradle). All of this has been clearly documented for many years. Once again the metal tells the tale."

 

I doubt that anybody was looking at the frames for relatively small differences. Things that are readily noticed, like the shaping of the frame in the main bulkhead are the same. Only when you look closely at the engine mounting point is it noticeable. When the mechanic was putting it together, so long as there were bolt holes to put into the motor, and it all lined up and bolted up, nobody is likely to say anything or even take notice. If the frames were painted and looked new unless you were specifically looking to notice differences I rather doubt that you would.

If Piper had wanted to make the frames different than the plans he had, I'm sure he could have, but that is something that he would have most surely remembered doing. He has never said he specifically did that and that has to cast doubt that he did.

 

Oh come on, those extra engine mounts both front and rear and different triangulation would jump out immediately to any mechanic used to working on these cars, especially when they had another p4 frame to look at and compare.

I bet Pipers mechanic knows these cars like the back of his hand, even if David may not have known the finer points, the mechanic would have spotted the differences straight away and reported back to Piper who would have then got straight onto the supplier asking them what's going on?

If I paid for a brand new P4 frame to be built and I suspected they had recycled an old damaged P3 one I would be less than happy and demanding to know why and seek a reduction in price.

That is unless it was a frame that could add a lot of provenance to the car, if Piper or his mechanic suspected it was linked to 0846 as a result of having the dual mountings then that would have been capitalised on in the auction listing, and the sales pitch to Jim, none of which ever happened.

Its wishful thinking to believe otherwise and that Piper and his crew would have been ignorant to the fact, if thats how it had played out.

Its also clear in the auction description how the car came to be

 

Is it? Miura originally thought from the auction description that the frame was copied from 0854 to be built as a P3. Then when new information came across from the modification of the bulkhead, the auction description had new meaning to him as a frame that was built up as a P4 per P4 Plans not a P3 per copying 0854's frame.

Fair enough. He is working hard trying to help figure out how the frame came to be, and I think he is doing a great job considering the possibilities. As he learns more I understand that his perception will change but I feel it shows how little the auction description actually clarifies how the chassis was built.

The auction description states that the car is modeled after a P3. Where does it mention the chassis was built to P3 or P4? or modification to P3/4? It mentions a P4 center section being built by Allegretti but that is most likely referring to the center section aluminum body being built not the chassis itself. It mentions the P4 pedal assembly. It also mentions a P4 chassis center section, are they talking about the Allegretti body work here again? Are they talking about the modification to the bulkhead tubing? If not what are they talking about when they say "P4 style chassis center section" Where is there any actual description of how the chassis came to be? Not the car, the actual chassis itself?

0854 is not a P3/4. It has a P3 engine. There is a difference. May have been called a P3/4 but that doesn't make it so. Where in the auction description does it describe what the frame is? How it was built? By who? All it is are second person generalizations that don't describe how the frame came to be or what it actually is. 0854 is a P3/412P period. It is not a P4. It is not a P3/4. Was the frame, if built by Piper originally a P3? P4? NONE of this is clarified by the auction description.

My guess is 412's were called P3/4's due to they had P3 noses with P4 tails but they are still P3's/412's due to engine configuration.

I believe when thay say modeled after 0854 they are talking about the body. And the molds most likely taken from 0854 to build said P3/4(P3 nose-P4Tail) Body. Not once is the actual chassis construction, or the process to do so mentioned.

0846 P3/4 was named that due to it started out as a P3 and then Modified to a P4 motor and the reason it is the ONLY P3/4.

?Please explain your interpretation of how the chassis was built from the auction description?

Also I think you are looking at this with the eyes of a restorer versus a race team.

Yes. I believe a restorer would notice these things as they are closely looking at the frame from an originality stand point but I feell that racing is racing. They were looking for a frame that could be built up into the car that they wanted and the frame fit the bill. There wasn't the emphasis on originality etc back then. Value of the car as a historical object wasn't even a consideration then. If you've ever raced anything I think you would have to realize that the mentality is much more get it together and run what ya brung then trying to build a museum piece. If parts bolt up and the frame is solid then you're good to go.

I think how and from whom the frames were ordered would help. Were these all built in 1974? Were they built by different suppliers? I feel they would be built by the same supplier as why mess with quality and the learning curve by having them done at different places.

In the end we need period pictures as PSK has mentioned.

But in the absence of period pictures, if you believe Piper built this frame from scratch then we would need proof of how, who ,where, why, and when of the accident damage under Pipers ownership.

I also believe a story of how it was built under Piper that made sense would be nice, as would any idea of by whom, how, when, and to what specification would help.

If it's not 0846 then a factual story of how 0003 came to be and thus damaged under Piper's ownership must exist.

 

Isn't it funny how Luca's questioning reply to what Andrea Pininfarina told him in Jim's post in pic 1 has become distorted to what he said in Jim's post in pic 2 to a general perception of a statement he has most certainly NOT made above?

Where should the quotation marks by Luca have ended in the first post below? Wasn't "That's funny" said by Jim, not Luca?
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login