The (one and only) '0846' Debate Thread

Excluding the two AAC car is this not true ?

 

Let the controversy begin....

http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/vintage-thru-365-gtc4-sponsored-vintage-driving-machines/264109-02c-020i.html

http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/vintage-thru-365-gtc4-sponsored-vintage-driving-machines/203274-chassis-1c-10s-updated-information.html

On a side note:
I believe one of the AAC cars still exists.

 

Until there is another plausible theory of how such a unique chassis came to be, I believe most feel this way.

In the end, I feel the logic and research of the chassis being built by Ferrari outweighs that of it being built by Piper.

And it will probably stay that way as no one seems interested in putting any effort into finding out the legend, of why or how Piper the legend, had it done.

 

Yes, it's the ex-Alberto Ascari car and resides in the Mario Righini collection, in Castelfranco Emilia.

 

But just like an ALFA is not an Alfa Romeo an AAC is not a Ferrari, might have been made by Ferrari but not badged as such.

But I now feel that some of you have massive resentment of Jim and his money. Sad ... really hope that is not why this thread keeps grinding on.
Pete

 

I wish that more posters would identify themselves, their history and their interests.

But give how Jim, the most open and available owner here has been treated, I can't really blame them.

 

The issue between Mr. G and Cavallino event is personal.....between the two men themselves, as I understand it.

 

Perhaps, but Jim is showing Dino Competizione there this year.

EDIT: He's showing the car at Pebble Beach, not Cavallino, mixed it up after hastily reading Jeff's original post. Apparently though, same judging boards..

 

In a nutshell....but he actually is busy. I don't think he totally left his Day Job....I would hope not, a guy needs a reason to shave....

 

That was rather my point...but thanks for catching that.

I don't think he will ever unload the truck at Cavallino, in fact, it was actually about the truck unloading there, in the first place.

They were trying to get to another car.
I only post this as it "kind of" relates to this thread but not really.

I think if one prefers to think of it this way, Ferraris ONE statement on 0846, saying the frame "should not have been retrieved from scrap" if indeed, it was....that's as close in Italian, as you are ever going to read, in English. But then, there were two cast rear uprights, in the box with the letter..

Some deals are just done that way.....I doubt they were returnable, nor had a warranty.

 

Thank you for this input and conclusion.

The relevant matter is to prove that the car is not a Piper replica. The car was sold, bought and imported as a replica. The full burden of proof lies with anybody who feels that the car is not a Piper replica but a Ferrari’s works prototype #0846. Such proof is simply missing. And of course, there is no reverse of evidence and miurasv nor anybody else have to prove, that the car is a Piper replica and not a Ferrari because Ferrari itself confirms that the car is no more.

But even if it could be proven that eventual pieces were used for Piper’s replica, the car would certainly not become Ferrari’s works prototype #0846. This chassis number has officially stopped to exist. And remember: Not a production racer was written off and scratched from an owner/customer. No, Ferrari itself as the manufacturer has officially scratched a works prototype, wrote off its chassis number and “eventual pieces” … “should not have been used to rebuild or to revival a car”. #0846 is no more and cannot be “resurrected” at any rate. Ferrari’s position can be further ignored in this tread but is among other concerns the very reason that the car is not admitted for IAC/PFA events at Pebble Beach, VdE, Cavallino etc.

 

The truth is nobody has to prove anything either way.

Unless that person, on either side of the debate, cares enough to want a real answer either way.

The truth is Napolis just has to start it up, drive it, and enjoy it.

The other truth is he's the only one that gets to do that.

You can try to say who has to prove what all day long.

I'm sure the only thing he has to prove is his identity if he gets a speeding ticket.

What you believe has absolutely zero effect on his, or our enjoyment of the car.

 

Now, this is the best post you have posted in this entire thread.

 

Thanks Mr. Diggler.

Glad you liked it.

Sometimes you gotta swing the bat 1000 times to hit a home run. The trick is to keep on swinging.

 

Sure, but I believe he shared it as an enthusiast for other enthusiasts. I feel he felt he found a lost car and did what he could to put the pieces together the best he could.

I don't think he thought by him opening the door of his garage to anyone who wanted to take a look, it would turn into the scrutinization of the century.

Whatever. I would figure fellow enthusiasts would love this. An owner that lets the general public have a piece of the enjoyment pie. That they would be interested in finding out more collectively, rather then waiting around the courtroom for someone to do all the work, in an ever increasing refute, that demands more and more burden of proof, without any real case for their refutes. Enthusiasts that would rather burn a possible survivor then take the time to dig in and figure out what it actually was. To build up the initial findings rather then just cast stones in an attempt to shoot down what they will never have.

I guess what one learns in all of this is keep your garage door closed, cause there will always be somebody that wants more and more burden of proof spoon fed to them.

I use to not like the Idea that Bardinon did not allow pictures. But at this point I believe him to be a very wise man. Why let others enjoy your cars when they are going to do all they can to suck the enjoyment out of you.

It is one thing to question in an attempt to find more concrete answers. It is another thing to beat some one down because they let you in.

There have been very few owners that disclose a car this way.

And after instances like this I am sure that few will care to.

He seemed like a cool dude. A guy that took the most exclusive of clubs and opened the door to everyone, regardless of if they were in the club or not.

And for that he just got a bunch of people that wanted to S#!t on his carpet rather then help to clean it up.

 

None of those cars are disclosed as openly and available for comment as his projects were.

He opened up the door for everyone to be part of it rather then just to take a look.

 

Hardly full disclosure. Could be 100% a replica and if perfectly made nobody would no. And no chance for a debate!

I've never been lucky enough to see so much of such an historic car (even if not real it is very similar to a real P4) before. When you go to car shows there is no naked cars, they are completely assembled and usually finished restorations and the chassis number is whatever they tell us. Over here in Australia I cannot just pop down to world renown restoration shops and stick my nose in ... was lucky enough to do that when touring the South Island of New Zealand with Auto Restorations and was the highlight of the trip for me.

I'm sure many people come to FerrariChat for many different reasons, but I mostly come to this site to watch in progress restorations because being a bit of an engineer I like to see what makes them tick, and the skill of the restorer.

I really was hoping that Jim would purchase a 250LM as I'd love to have followed that restoration as the LM is my favourite Ferrari. Usually all you get is, if you are lucky, a few before and after photos ... heck we got to enjoy the rivetting on the body process, pretty much everything on both Jim's #0846 and #0854. Absolute gold.

Yes this debate needed to happen, but I am disappointed with the moderation as all that needed to happen to make it involve quality research is that all who questioned or confirmed provide proof or reasons for their point. Instead we allowed posters to simply say: "I don't believe" and never did we ask them why ...

As I've said before Jim must be the most patient man on this planet, but even he has a limited.
Pete

 

I have been asked to post this on behalf of Miurasv who is prevented from posting it himself. I have not helped Steve with this and I can truthfully state that this is all his own research, and that he contacted Forghieri himself. Over to Steve;

<removed by Rob - can not post messages from banned users>

"Dear Mr.Robertson

I will say what I remember of so old days. In 1966 we design the 330
P3-0846. This car take part at the 12 h of Sebring number 27 drivers Parkes
Bondurant. I like to make clear that P3 and P4 are from aerodinamic point
of view very close. The draft was done by the tecnical bureau of Ferrari
racing DPT. Mr Drogo had nothing to do with the cars of Ferrari racing department.
The 330 P3 spyder was modified at the end of 1966 in a new P4 with the new
3 valve engine, curved intakes with injection, new Ferrari gearbox, minor
modifications to the chassis with 2400 wheelbase. The modest wheelbase was
thanks to the good aereodinamic stability developed at the aereodinamic
wind tunnel in Stutgart.
This prototipe was the test car for private test (first in Ferrari History) in Daytona December 1966.
The 0846.P4 spyder was used in the following races 1967:
Daytona 24 h winner Amon-Bandini n.23
Targa Florio Vaccarella -Scarfiotti
Le Mans 67 Amon-Vaccarella
Amon was hit by a flying wheel and the car caught fire and was badly damaged.
The car was discarded by Ferrari and the chassis was destroyed.
The pictures, sent to me, show some solutions to accept the 330 P4 engine. Never the factory could accept the showed solutions to bolt the chassis to the engine. At the factory was easier to modify in correct way the triangled-tube necessary to have a perfect engine mount.
Your chassis is a P3 arrenged by somebody to accept the P4 engine and
the correct wheelbase 2400.
I hope to have been of some help.
Kind regards
Mauro Forghieri&#8221;


Let the flaming begin!
Nathan

 

Interesting

Curious as to why FL deleted same post/thread and banned miurasv after he posted same.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Flaming??

These are some very interesting observations by someone that would have directed and been a part of 0846's conversion from P3 to P4 specifications. Now it might be pen to discussion how good Forgheri's memory might be on details from 45+ years ago.

Jeff

 

Jeff
The same might be said about the memories of Tom Meade and Wayne Sparling?
Nathan

 

Yes, the fog of time makes many statements suspect without additional corroborating evidence. But in Forgheri's instance talking of general work practices for the shop carries some weight versus who said what on which day.

Jeff