The (one and only) '0846' Debate Thread

Thank you for your post, lgs and the welcome back. I also appreciate the respect you show for Ing. Forghieri, the creator of the real and original 0846.

 

NO. ONE. CARES.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RwVFHf1HbdY

 

I've never met anyone who had to be so right. Even ex-wives would roll their eyes. Sheesh...

At this point and with Jim's intentions there is nothing to argue, but the only things that stick with me from this thread are:

There is a guy who has a period correct machine that brings smiles to all of our faces.

and

Another guy just has to be a colossal d i c k about it.

 

Wait Brian this is the historical section of the site and history is to be discussed. Its a hobby after all. There are serious people who have questioned Jim's car which doesn't make much of a difference to our enjoyment of it.

 

This discussion has come to a point that reminds me of the oft quoted academic who to his dying breath insisted that Shakespeare's sonnets were NOT written by Sir Francis Bacon, but by a completely different poet also named Francis Bacon.

Its been said in this thread before, but perhaps not musically. So at this point...

[ame]http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=moSFlvxnbgk[/ame]

Let it go.

 

+1

 

Serious/credible or not, if this hasn't been resolved in 8700 posts, it ain't never gonna be. And while the academics, trolls, detractors, boosters and cheerleaders debate over the Internet, Jim Glickenhaus is driving what we all can agree is some sort of dream machine. Beyond one's verve for engaging in debate, I'm at a loss for what vested interest anyone has in disproving (OR proving) the authenticity of this car. Who beside Jim is a legitimate stakeholder here, and what would he even gain at this juncture? I doubt it makes the other three survivors more valuable if found to be fake, or Jim's car any more valuable than the private offers he's previously received, if real. Bottom line, any one of us would happily take this car for our own without question.

 

As if anything Ferrari issued or did at those times is 100% correct or trustworthy! I remember the technical data sheet for the 500 Superfast that claimed 400 hp when it actually had less than 300! (#8253 dyno page showed 290 hp). Or the homologation of the 250 GTO or the existance of the 25 512 S at the day of homologation scuteneering!

 

Come on now - if it fits Steve's narrative it's gospel.

He'll be back to explain it all again, I am sure.

>8^)
ER

 

+1

Sooooo true.

Enough.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

+100,000,000,000,000

 

is that the show-off of your bank account - you must be really rich, congrats !!!

Carissimi saluti
Ben

 

I have only just recently been rengaged into this thread and I cannot comment on all of MiuraSV posts, but I don't think it's proper to call him a "colossal d*ck" for his recent posts which I found both on topic and interesting.

MuiraSV

As the head of a firm that is fairly well known for successfully deconstructing very complex and high stake factual claims (many of which occurred many years-or even a decade after the occurrence), I found your recent posts interesting. In our cases (which can have hundreds of millions, or Billions at stake) you really bear down on the risk that you are wrong about "what really happened." What you first determine is that witness testimony and memory is often very inaccurate, even when you are faced with very knowledgeable people who are trying to recall and or record events as they happened.

I found the most effective tool is to take all of the known or suspected facts and analyze them historically and chronologically and focus on the causal connections of each successive event in the causal chain. If you find an unexplained break in the chain or illogical succession that you cannot explain, this break in the data exponentially increases the risk of you being wrong about "what really happened."

I have read your resent and very thoughtful posts. While I find your posts well reasoned and interesting, I am still perplexed, and IMHO I find Jim's original inquiry still unanswered.

Why would someone, who embarks on producing very accurate replica P4 chassis, take the original P4 blueprints, make replica P4 chassis, and then when deciding to make another P4 chassis, make instead a P3 chassis and then perform a "DIY job" to modify the P3 chassis into a P4 chassis?

I am not casting judgment that you (or Huet) are wrong to conclude that "the DIY job" was not be done by Ferrari, and that Jim is right that it was. But as I recall, Jim's discovery of this conversion lead to the subsequent (and now decade long inquiry) to determine why. Jim has a logically consistent conclusion for why the evidence of this "DIY job" exists (the only person that would have logical cause to modify a P3 chassis into a P4 was the person tasked to do this to the chassis 0846). Do you have an explanation for what would cause someone to do this?

 

Describing the posture and attitude of the presentation while claiming no financial benefit (I still think I smell something.)

Relax the shoulders and open a debate of information. It would be welcome and would probably help with the community of brains we have available at no billed hourly rate

I'd love to sit for hours on end with all of you, a mound of paperwork, and some good cigars and cocktails to sort the best case out.

Though I'm quite sure Jim is capable without any of our intervention...

For info though, I worked (through no prior knowledge) with the guy who created all of the false paperwork for the (Mid-Atl famous) Osama El-Atari case. Some of the documents he created even after Osama was caught were masterful and scammed a LOT of people out of a LOT of money. I have lost faith in ALL documentation.

 

Is it not obvious that the P4 engine mounting points clearly came after the frame originally was built to house a P3 motor?

I'm not sure how the whole 2412 thing really matters as an end all be all decision to what the frame is. What I do think is important is that this frame was built one way in its original construction( as a P3) and quite obviously modified (to mount P4) on top of its original construction.

I think it is pretty clear that this was not originally built as a P4. I also think it is pretty clear that Piper did not knowingly build a P3 frame.

If it was Pipers intent to have a dual purpose dual motor frame from the get go, don't you feel he would build a more eloquent design to accommodate both motors?

This is clearly an addition branching off of original construction.

You can hypothesize all you want, but it is pretty rich to think that both these mounting points were constructed at the same time from a P4 chassis starting point. The P4 mounts branch off of the P3. To build it first as a P4 makes no logical sense. Why would you build in reverse? Starting with the messy P4 add on mounting point and then later constructing it back to a properly built P3 original frame. And if built at the same time both mounting points would be consistent with original construction versus what it is, an afterthought to modify when the P3 changed over to the P4.

This frame was built as a test bed to design a chassis to house the new P4 motor. Maybe not as perfect as a scratch built P4 frame but it did what was required to learn how to perfect that new frame. Also This frame ran with both motors. Sure a P4 frame may? be more optimal to run a P4 motor in due the reasons Miura has stated? But to say that this frame is not capable of running a P4 motor due to design is not true, as it has many times.

My guess is the frame may not have been the perfect scratch built P4 design but was still very functional on the race track.

If it wasn't foghieri would definitively state it was not usable in that configuration with a P4 motor in professional racing.

Does anyone know what the first motor used in this car was when Piper had it?

 

Totally confused by what this post is trying to say

 

Thank you for your post. I will try and clarify with concision and without being a "colossal d i c k" or an "ass".

Jim's cited witness/corroborative evidence in his 0846 pdf are the TECHNICAL DATA SHEETS which were written by Christian Huet over 20 years ago. What Jim claims the TECHNICAL DATA SHEETS state as the identifying features of the original P3 0846 and its transformation to P3/4 and what they actually state are completely different. Therefore he does not have a witness or any corroboration.

Examination of the TECHNICAL DATA SHEETS prove:

1. Jim's stated P3 wheelbase length of 2412mm is wrong .

2. Jim is wrong that the TECHNICAL DATA SHEETS actually state the P3 wheelbase length is 2412mm. They state it as 2400mm.

3. That the P4 wheelbase was shortened by 12mm from the P3 is wrong and that they were in fact actually exactly the same at 2400mm.

4. Christian Huet has stated that the transformation of the rear part of the P3 chassis for it to accept a supporting P4 engine on the real 0846 was not carried out in the way that it has been on Jim's chassis. The TECHNICAL DATA SHEET quoted on page 63 of Jim's pdf does NOT describe the way Jim's chassis mods have been done as I've said for a very long time.

Regarding the engine mountings of the original and real 0846 Christian Huet stated in writing (in French which was translated):

"I have found the notebook for my books about Ferrari, where I wrote my questions and Mauro Forghieri's replies. Concerning 0846, the modification of the P3 type 593 chassis, into a P4 type 603 required the total replacement of the rear of the chassis, which was then, absolutely identical to those of the P4s type 603."

After looking at the pictures from his 0846 document of the engine mountings on James Glickenhaus's chassis, Christian Huet stated the following:

"Concerning the photos showing the engine mounting of the P4 motor on "the so-called 0846", I deduce that it's a "DIY job" without any relationship to the original 0846 and without any relationship with the work practices of Ferrari, which I have studied/known for many years."

There is no question regarding Huet's or Forghieri's memory. Huet consulted his notes that he wrote over 20 years ago in physical meetings and correspondence with Forghieri who designed and oversaw the build of P3 0846 and its modification to P3/4. It was not another department or elsewhere at Ferrari, it was absolutely Forghieri and his Racing Department.

Forghieri said: "Never the factory could accept the schowed 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." The engine mountings are the main feature that Jim claimed identified his chassis as the original 0846. The genuine 0846 had new and geometrically correct tubing at the rear of the chassis to accept the different positioning of the engine mountings of the P4 engine. The P3 tubing and engine mountings were removed. It did not have two sets of mountings as are on Jim's chassis.

The engine mountings were placed at the central point of the meeting of the multiple tubes of the chassis for maximum torsional rigidity, NOT OFFSET by the use of bolt on adaptors as they are on Jim's chassis, where the rigidity is compromised. The engine block was a stressed member in both P3 and P4 chassis. The tubes were thinner than previously used on earlier designs so it was absolutely essential that the engine block was mounted in the correct position for it to give strength to the structure. It doesn't work otherwise. The P4 block was strengthened over P3 with ribbing. To take advantage of this extra strength the mounting points were moved hence the need for new mountings. The P4 chassis was designed to be stiffer wherever possible over the P3. What is the point of adding a strengthened block designed to add strength and then mounting it incorrectly which weakens the structure? After losing the championship in 1966, Forghieri was under pressure from Enzo to build a superlative Ferrari for 1967 and he was given the funding to do so. Italy was counting on Ferrari to defend the honour of the country's entire motor industry against the American Fords in regaining the Constructors' Championship.

The P4 Blueprints could well have been used by Piper's chassis builder to build the chassis accepting a P3 type engine. All that would have to be substituted on the P4 Blueprints are the tubing lengths and coordinates to match those of the engine mountings of a P3 type engine. It's very simple geometry. The reason Piper would have commissioned it like that is because he did not have 3 P4 engines or 3 engines with mounting points similar to a P4. We only know he had one engine at this point with P4 type mountings which was the tipo 247 350 Can Am engine which went in his Ferrari sanctioned continuation P4 #0900. He is known to have had more than one engine with P3 type engine mounts though as this car has been seen with early on. See pictures.

When the chassis was pictured and Doug Nye did his description for the 1987 auction, the chassis had a 1966 312 2 valve F1 engine in it with Webers (see pic below with engine with red heads). This engine had similar mountings to a P3, NOT P4. At this point there would have been no need for the bolt on P4 adaptors that the chassis later had. Kerry Adams who built the car up with the 1966 312 F1 engine told me he didn't do the mods to the chassis. The 1967 312 F1 3 valve engine got the extra ribbing and the same mounting points as the P4. This is the type of engine that was added later hence the the "DIY job" bolt on chassis add ons.
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Christian Huet has been a well known authority on Ferraris in France for the past forty years, but also on other cars (notably the Bucciali if my memory serves me, etc...)
His knowledge of Ferraris is extensive, and he frequently advises auction houses on those; he is also legal expert in court ("expert près la Cour d'Appel") for litigation on cars; but also gives valuation expertise on collector cars for insurance purposes, and many owners of "standard" Ferraris had their cars estimated by him for their annual insurance appraisal.
If my memory, etc...he must be now 71 or 72 years old.

Like any other expert on Ferraris, he could also be confused from time to time by the datas from the factory, which were notably inaccurate. Not speaking of the race department, but of road cars, I would like to remind all the persons who had, or still, own(ed) a 308 "Vetroresina" that the factory gave, in its day, the weight of this car as 1090 kgs in some brochures, 1150 kgs in some others, and 1240 kgs on the official data sheet for certification to the department of road transportation of Italy. The engine power as "255cv" to the press and "226" to the department of road transportation.
That the weight officially given to the press by the race department in 1966 for the presentation of the first 3 litre V12 car was way optimistic, as was the power of the engine?

Furthermore, having myself a degree in Modern History (more or less a "master", although comparing french degres of thirty years ago is difficult...) one of the first thing I have been told in those "before Internet" days is that you should never base any reasoning on second-rank sources. Huet's "Technical sheets" may be entirely right, but they are NOT the original material from the factory race department, and so, even very interesting, cannot prove anything.

As said above, almost all "official" data given by the factory, either from the race department or the "production cars" department on weight and power was "questionable" at best. Taking the data sheets published by Huet as a proof of anything is not valid for any historian, whatever exceptional Huet's work might be.

Rgds

 

You are forgetting that it's Jim who actually cites Christian Huet's Technical Data Sheets in his 0846 pdf and everywhere else as his witness/corroboration. I do not agree with your post regarding Huet as both an expert and a second rate source. Make up your mind. However, if he was incorrect, you have just given another reason why Jim has no witness/corroboration to prove his car is 0846. I have also posted the Official Factory Technical Data Sheets stating the wheelbase as 2400mm for P3 and P4. You are also not taking into account that it was Forghieri, who was in charge of the Race Department, that designed the original 0846. His statement alone proves Jim's chassis is not 0846.

 

I'm sorry, maybe I didn't use the right words, but you do not seem to understand:
what I am saying is that a second-rank source does not prove ANYTHING, that's all. Period. Neither one point of view or the other. It is, for any self respecting historian, a clue, but not a proof.
The Official Factory Technical Data Sheet establishes how the modification SHOULD have been done, not how it was ACTUALLY done: the only "proof" would be a picture of the modification being done.

I have in a book a statement from Mauro Forghieri that he did not design the P4 himself, that it was done under his supervision by a team of different engineers, because at the time he had so much work with all the Formulas that Ferrari was racing at the same time that he could not have done everything by himself.
And don't get me wrong: I have an immense respect for Forghieri.

As for Huet, he is well known here in France; he was even somewhat involved in the Favre/ GTO copies story, so his reputation as an "expert" in Ferraris is not new. You may qualify as an "expert" this will not gives you the right or the power to state the TRUTH: an expert gives an ADVISE, that's all.
That's even legal, because here in France the correct LEGAL expression is: "un avis d'expert", i.e, an "expert advise", not a statement of truth. Interestingly, to be recognised as an expert on some matters by the courts here does not need any particular qualification or degree, only that the court considers said person as "an authority on the matter", at its discretion. Legally speaking, in courts (at least here) the legal decision is stated by the Judge, using the expert advise as one of the arguments for his decision. But legally, in court, it is the Judge who states, not the expert.

From an historical point of view, we have clues, we do not have any proof. At least yet.
From a legal point of view, I suppose only the original manufacturer of the car would be entitled to say what it is, even if that may, or may not, be satisfying from an historical point of view.
Now the TRUTH is a completly different matter...

Rgds

 

I actually think the wheelbase issue is a complete red herring which Jim probably grasped on initially as a sign that the Piper car could be using elements of the original chassis from 0846, based on the info in the Huet data sheets using the 2412mm figure which has now actually had the reverse effect on that belief.

Wheelbase should be measured from the central point of the front hub to the central point of the rear hub, and this changes only if and when the chassis mounting points for the front or rear uprights are moved, hence changing the hubs location.

Just moving the engine/gearbox combo in the chassis will not affect the wheelbase, all this will do is change the alignment of the driveshafts going into the rear hub.

If both the P3 and P4 share the same wheelbase of 2400mm then the car Piper sold to Jim, regardless of its origins (replica or not) should also be 2400mm.

There would have been no need for Piper to have had a frame built to a wheelbase of 2412mm regardless of what engine he planned to install.

If I were a betting man I would say Jims car is actually 2400mm, and whats 12mm between friends anyway the 12mm error could simply be down to the way the hubs are shimmed into the suspension/ the suspension is shimmed into the chassis.

What does the above achieve? not a lot, in fact it throws the cat amongst the pigeons once again.

The over riding question is who carried out the changes to the chassis to allow the installation of the P4 engine? was it Ferrari under the watchful eye of MF whilst converting 0846 from P3 to P4 spec or someone else.

Answer me this the guys who are sure Jims chassis originated from the remains of 0846, why would Ferrari go to the considerable trouble to design a brand new engine block with extra strengthening, modified engine mounting points etc and then install it in a chassis that clearly has had pretty crude alterations, and then go on to race the car in an endurance event in that guise, when clearly it does not look up to the job? when as MF clearly states the correct way would be to cut out the old mounting points and install a fresh set of tubing to mount the engine in the chassis correctly to make use of the extra strength the new block provides. It would have actually been more work in the chassis shop to do the work the way Jims car displays than to chop out that section and start afresh.

Maybe I can answer my own question with a hypothesis, with no evidence what so ever to substantiate it!

Could Pipers/Jims chassis have been a period hack about of a spare bare and un numbered/stamped P3 chassis by the factory to quickly test out a prototype P4 engine block installation whilst it was being designed? that way it could still have been used for a P3 in period if needed urgently by a P3 race car, hence why the P3 engine mounts were retained. Once the P3 race cars became obsolete and 0846 became the transition p3/4 race car then this "theoretical" chassis would no longer be required and simply sat in some scrap heap or chassis builders workshop until along came Piper who either bought it as it was, or it was recycled by the chassis builder in order to meet Pipers order for another p4 chassis.

 

And the thread just became really interesting

 

An excellent summary. Thank you