The (one and only) '0846' Debate Thread

Defend what exactly? His use of this forum to try and find employment?

Its one thing to debate, quite another to debate with an apparent agenda.

 

Defend his position in the debate, on this debate thread.

The other areas of contention outside of this thread I believe were history, Steve had been told from up high on fchat not to go down certain roads on other threads, which he then did not.

He was banned due to his debate on this thread is my understanding, which actually had stopped happening quite a few weeks ago, I dont know when he was actually banned? it must have been very recent as El Wayne came onto the thread only a few days ago to tell a poster not to try to bait Steve.

 

Rob, we all know they wont surface now, so its a one sided debate.

It may not read like it at times, but I am very much on the fence, I would love Jims theory to be proved correct, but until such time as more credible concrete evidence is produced, then the car is still is, as it was sold, which is a Piper P4 replica that has been superbly converted to resemble the original 0846.

 

What facts did you add about the conversion? Did it explain factually how the chassis was built? Cause in reality, when you get to the bottom of it, that is the only fact that matters. That one fact of how did Piper build it, if he did, would answer the important question.

I do not doubt that Piper assembled the car. But I do doubt he is the original builder of the chassis.

Who cares if the car was sold as a Piper? That is not what this thread is about. This thread is about the idea that chassis that was discovered, is believed to have been originally been built by Ferrari and not by Piper at all. Thus the car may have been assembled by Piper, but that in reality it is a Ferrari, not a Piper.

It boggles my mind that with 410 pages you stil have not grasped the concept of this thread. That the chassis was built by Ferrari and not by Piper. That it is not a Piper as once thought but is actually the lost Ferrari 0846??????????

BTW assumptions lead to premises, which lead to debate, if it is real debate hopefully that leads to facts.

BTW a troll has nothing to do with post count, it has everything to do with intention and motive.

There is no proof Piper built the chassis to be this way. There is more proof that Ferrari did.

I really doubt Piper " superbly converted to resemble the original 0846." Like he would go through the trouble, in no collector car value days, to re-create 0846???? The only story that makes any sense is he built a P3, then made a P4 out of it. But for him to re-create the car to resemble 0846 is ridiculous. If he did as such why was the car not billed as an 0846 recreation?

 

Vincent you bore me now so this is my last post on the matter, the thread will die anyway as you will have no one left to argue with.

You just argue for the sake of arguing, thats not a debate. I did not say Piper built it as 0846 you plank, he sold it as he had built it, a Piper P4 replica, Jim is the one who has converted it to resemble the original 0846.

 

OK.

Believe what you will.

I see your point and with your explanation I stand corrected-ish, here's why, with your past beliefs I believe you are changing your story to fit your argument. As I see it now, you believe Jim converted the car to the P3/4 engine mount configuration then?

As in it was reverse engineered to add the P3 mounts? Cause that is what leads to the belief it was a P3/4. The dual mounts. It has nothing to do with any other part of the car. If it was sold as a P4 that was by name not by construction. As it is believed that both mounts were in place when Piper had it as both engines are believed to have been seen in the car. If you are saying Jim converted it and it was not a P3/4 when delivered by Piper then the P3 mounts would have to have been added by Napolis as that is what defines this chassis as being a P3/4. Not what someone calls it on a bill of sale. Funny that you once argued that the auction slip detailed it as a P3/4. But I guess your story changes as time goes on....

There is nothing clear in the auction description of who built the chassis or how. By your own words you have said it was built by an un named vendor.

I would love to see you contribute to the thread and tell us one thing that is more important to the conversation then finding out how the chassis was originally built. I don't think you can, in my eyes finding the answer to that question is all that matters.

As far as you insulting me by calling me a plank.....
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Plank+insult

Maybe you should take your own advice on the matter....

Cheers

 

To my eye..there is just not enough of the original car left to call Jim's car 0846. If it does contain bits and peices, that's great, but it's still not complete enough to label it as the real deal 0846 as it raced. If this was a modern Ferrari, it would have a salvage/ rebuilt title and nobody would want it.

 

Worse, it would be called a FAKE.

 

If that were the case pretty much every race car out there could be called a fake.

They all swapped parts and the likely hood that 0846 ended up with parts it ran with are as good as any. At the end of the day it has the right parts. No one in the real world is going to discount any collector race car that is built with the right parts. Even in street cars as long as the right part is put in no one is going to say there isn't 70% of the original parts there. Date codes matter, matching numbers matter value wise, but if the chassis serial number is there with the right parts no one cares if they are original to the car. This 70% of the original parts is a fantasy. As time goes on all cars require repair and replacement. What matters is that the correct parts are put in. And this car has the correct parts and most of them most likely could have ran in the car back in the day.

They are all re-built from race to race out of a box of parts that was flipped from car to car.

And there are many road cars that have much less that has survived that was original original to the car as this one.

If you think this needs to be 70% original is a determining factor, tell Ferrari Classiche to shut down cause they are building fakes.

This has been discussed many times before.

 

You need to go get a life.

This nonsense you do only makes you look like a fool.

The best thing jim did was walk away from this thread .... People like you trying to create a jig saw puzzle and the others taking it apart need to find other more fulfilling things in life.

Give it a rest.

 

Cool story.

 

Greenwich Concours d'Elegance and Bonhams Auctions coming to Connecticut and New York City this May 31, June 1 - Autoweek

 

Perhaps i can add something of value to this debate (more on the structure of argument, than anything particularly relating to 0846) ...

Burden of Proof

Let's say that a person, after a fair amount of research, satisfies himself that he has indeed become the owner of an original (but perhaps modified), historical Ferrari chassis. He lists xx items documenting his conclusion. He has, to his satisfaction at least, proven the authentic heritage. And he "postulates" that heritage to a debate forum.

Now, there may be some experts (as well as laymen) that still doubt the conclusion.

The question is : where does the burden of proof lie?

I submit that it may be informative to consider the following: If serious, unanswered challenges to some of the xx listed items arise, one may very well be justified in concluding that authentic heritage has indeed not been satisfactorily proven. Does the challenger need to demonstrate, then, where the chassis might have come from, if it's not authentic? The rules of logic and debate would say quite clearly that the answer is NO ... it is sufficient to successfully challenge the original proof, in order to conclude that the original postulated heritage remains unproven.

In short, it seems to me that a challenger to the postulated heritage does does not need demonstrate or prove where the chassis may have come from, to be justified in concluding that the postulated heritage remains unproven.

 

This isn't a lawsuit. There isn't a jury. There isn't an official judge.

I respect the idea but there's been 12 years of burden of proof and it hasn't lead anywhere.

Either you want to find out what the frame is or you don't. Isn't that the main point? That we all want to find out what the frame is? Real or not?

I would think if one is an enthusiast they are looking for the truth. I would think they were looking to find the answer. Not relying on someone else to provide burden of proof. Truth is you can provide burden of proof for twelve more years and those that want to be skeptics will always want more burden of proof.

People say nothing new ever happens in this thread.

Something new would be pooling resources and information to actually figure out where and when this frame was truly built, and who it was truly built by.

Not to mention the guy that actually has the access to supply the burden of proof, no longer seems interested in being burdened to provide proof.

You can hope for burden of proof all day long, but a this point, without a judge and with a biased forum, I doubt it's gonna get you anywhere.

This isn't a competition. It would be nice to see people working together to find out information that leads to the truth versus it boiling into a fight that leads to nowhere.

 

Of course, the ultimate goal would be to establish the frame's genesis beyond all doubt. However, absent that, one can still reasonably conclude that a postulated version of the genesis has not been proven.

"Burden of proof" is not provided ... it's a principle to be followed. The burden of proof is upon the original postulate; and the evidence presented may be challenged, casting reasonable doubt upon that postulate, without providing a more compelling heritage.

Again ... i'm not hoping for burden of proof. I'm merely suggesting where that burden lies ... and that the original postulate can be questioned & challenged without providing an alternate theory of origin. If those challenges are strong enough, and unanswered, it may be concluded that the original postulate is unproven ... without providing an alternate theory of origin.

Further, the challenges to the original postulate are not diminished by the absence of an alternate theory of origin; the questions asked of the original postulate don't lose any merit, simply because the person asking doesn't provide an alternate theory of origin.

That pretty much sums-up by what i mean by "burden of proof" ... who has the "burden of proof", in principle? And, what constitutes a meaningful challenge to that "proof"?

 

I understand and respect all of your points.

I just don't think in this arena, without a judge, that is ever going to happen.

No matter how concretre the facts are, there will always be someone to refute them.

In the end, I guess what I would hope to see, is a group of car enthusiasts working together to find an answer, whatever that answer may be.

I feel as enthusiasts, the joy would be to find out more information about the car, and try to piece together what really happened.

To me, if you love cars such as this, you should be excited to find out what happened or didn't happen at Ferrari, and what happened or didn't happen at Piper.

Take all of that and find out what the true story of the car is.

I don't think this should be a competition, I think it should be an adventure for the group, into every corner that could provide a clue of what the life of the car has been.

I think you need to know everything possible about every possible aspect of the cars life.

I feel that is the only way to get a true answer.

And for me piecing together the Piper years is a huge part of it. As are piecing together the Ferrari Years. As are piecing together the Napolis years.

I would hope the frame survived, and would also hope Ferrari enthusiasts would be overjoyed to see an important part of Ferrari history survive. But in the end if it didn't, then that's what it is.

 

... and I share your passion! As do we all, i suspect. And it is indeed hard to remain unbiased, where passion runs so deep.

I will only add that the principle of "burden of proof" applies not only to a court of law, but also to science, mathematics ... any endeavor where logic applies. By way of example, a scientist may present a theory of the origin of a species, a mountain range, or a even a distant star. He may present evidence to support his theory ... but anyone may challenge or question pieces of that evidence, without presenting an alternate theory of their own. What's "left standing" may very well be the "best" theory available ... but it may still be far from "proven".

Best,

Jeff

 

I understand.

I guess I just look at it as there are two ways to skin a cat.

And why not do both if you really care to find an answer versus win an argument.

For instance one theory that is presented is that the chassis was built by Ferrari, so why not look into that.

Another theory is the chassis was built by Piper so why not look into that.

For me finding the burden of proof for each argument will lead to a clearer picture of what actually happened. We love cars, why not spend our time learning as much as we can about them. If it wasn't built by one, it had to be built by another, why not look at both and try to find which one it was.

Worst case is the mystery of the Piper chassis and his legacy will become more fleshed out and become part of the Ferrari history versus getting lost in the fog of time.

I guess in a public forum, to me, only trying to prove burden of proof for one side of an argument is a fantasy as the internet leaves a wide open space for people to refute anything they want. Whether there is a reason to or not.

It becomes the politics of global warming. No matter how much proof either side has there will always be others that will refute it. And as long as someone refutes it, it will never be proven. There are some that still think the world is flat. You can give them all the proof they want. They will still pester you for more.

Also I feel that people are saying that the frame was indeed built by Piper and that there is a burden of proof attached to that for them.

 

While I now hate this thread and can see 100% why Jim has left this site, the view that Jim has to constantly prove his theory is why I never want to own a historically significant vehicle. It simply is not fair.

Take for example people that have owned old Ferraris or Alfa Romeos (as I'm a Alfisti) and kept them quietly for many years. Then suddenly somebody decides to use their chassis number as a replica. All of a sudden they have to prove their car is the original ... that is simply completely unfair, and in many cases because the replica has been out there classis racing it is not as easy as it sounds.

In #0846's case Jim has published his theory. Surely if somebody questions that theory they should have to provide some proof to support their challenge?

Otherwise I could from the other side of the world just constantly challenge without any substance ... just like Steve was. The end result after 20 years of this is Jim will take his #0846 to the nearest metal recycling station and have the car squashed into a tiny metal cube to end the BS. Is that what we want?

So challenge by all means, but there has to be a basis to that challenge, ie. a new old photo has come to light, etc. Otherwise just randomly saying things like Ferrari would never have made the engine mounts like that, or I don't agree that Ferrari would not have modified the whole rear chassis is baseless and IMO not fair.

Pete
ps: When I enter my Alfa Romeo 1750GTV in a concours competition I expect to get a few challenges about certain details. Fair enough. Where possible I will provide reasons for say choosing green ignition leads, etc. but if it continues like it has on this thread for no reason other than somebody thinks that say the ignition leads should be red (but can provide no backup for this claim) then I will quickly disappear from the show and concours scene and be last seen zooming off into the distance to enjoy my car by driving it .

I remember reading about Scuderia Veloce's founder, David McKay, when he entered his at the time 250 LM (6321) in a concours competition and lost marks due to the completely original something on his car. The expert judge had worked on ONE other 250 LM and it was slightly different in that area and based sorely on this decided David's car was wrong. David quite rightly thought that was a load of utter BS and I'm sure he never entered another show.

Both examples are not the same as verifying Jim's #0846 but hopefully you can understand my point: Challenge by all means, but there must be a basis for this challenge, not just "I don't agree".

 

.......

I agree, but we must put the point about what a car means.
Obviously it is a bunch of materials, rubber and steel..just a little interesting for some mechanical questions...
What make a car like this an important piece of hystory iare the people who work on it, the soul od the drivers, the storical day.What the victory means for the fans and the owners...
From this point of view no matter if some parts are not originals, we think again at those days, when we are joung, when a little factory like Ferrari figth with the big Ford.
We see again the pics, know new facts, discover new things...remember lost drivers.
To find or not if she is "all original" is important for the seller and the buyer..seem to me this is not the case.
So why don't open a new thread called like"Investigation about Ferrari original cars" and let this one to the fans?
Not Jim fans, but Ferrari fans.
About Forghieri and the way Ferrari build race cars, I know that a car, after a race, was often sell to a new owner or dismounted and arranged for a new race.Anyone know what gear, part, was changed.Just the mechanic who does it!
Sorry for my english, I'm italian!
Alessandro

 

Of course!

 

Of course.... there needs to burden of proof that the frame was built by Piper!

No one HAS to provide burden of proof, either way.

But many ALSO wont believe it wasn't built by Ferrari and was built by Piper till it is proven that it's was.

Public opinion goes both ways!!!

 

I didn't think it made him look like a fool. I thought it was a reasonable post.

 

I am very grateful that there are owners such as Mr Glickenhaus who do not compromise in their pursuit of creating "correct" cars such as this and for the knowledge they impart.

Although I felt that the information finally published on the chassis was short on "forensic examination" detail, as the owner says, it will never be a "no stories car" and I am happy to believe the intriguing "story" that the discarded remains of 0846 lives on in this car.

 

Where did they get the idea that 002 is the second oldest Ferrari in existence?