The (one and only) '0846' Debate Thread

Miurasv aggressive and factual arguing is truly frustrating in this thread. It is a disappointing because the fantastic effort by Jim has preserved a piece of history. While the history may have some factual anomalies history generally isn't created to withstand forensic examination.

Sometimes the how is more important than the why.

When analysing the history of this car I would be extremely wary of applying modern thinking of modern day race car fabrication to when this chassis was built. Development was probably done in a very short time, any design errors would have been fixed on the run with an oxy torch and welder.

The era when the chassis was prepared, everything was drawn by hand no cad programs to make sure every thing fit. So if the engine etc was not not available during chassis fabrication for final test fit, or someone said move it an inch, or the wrong drawing was used then a quick cut and shut to get it done would meet the fabrication deadline.

Some examples from the Ferrari production cars of the period.
1) photos of the raw shells of the era siting out in the elements rusting prior to paint. Today this is a total no no, we understand that for rust prevention and quality paint that the metal has to be meticulously clean.
2) some restorations of old ferraries where the owner has to make a choice on the the welding quality for appearance. Horrible appearance is period correct, but still functional.
3) it amazes me that the chassis (or more correctly what can't be seen) for the vintage ferraries can be so rudimentary with angle iron, miss matched tubing and an ugliness that can be in stark contrast to the beautiful art work of the exterior and interior that are on show.

I like the history and discussion of how the vintage ferrari cars lived and died and were resurrected, and the people from that time were also an important part of the history and were not perfect.

The copy and pasting of the same arguments with different parts bolded, and updates in italics may be missing the point.

Jim you enjoy your cars. After all they were built for enjoyment and spectacle not arguments.

 

+1

 

No offense, but posts like the three above are a distraction to this thread as anything else.

There is no doubt this is a beautiful machine no matter if its chassis has connections to the real deal or not.

Miura's posts may come across a bit harsh at times but he has no doubt brought up some very interesting points. I still think this case is quite solveable at this point if DP and his crew are interviewed as to how this car came to be more than 35 years ago. I fear it may shatter some dreams though.

 

BINGO! What does Piper say?

 

Replica chassis built up with period original Ferrari parts. Had been advertised as such many moons before JG got it.

 

Do we know how many (spare)chassis have been built?
Metallurgical test between 0844/"0846"/0848/ and the others Ps could proof they all are from same "batch"/tubing and "0846" could be an unnumbered prototype chassis?
Maybe Jim had already metallurgically test his chassis with 0854..

 

He told me emphatically that the chassis is not 0846 and that he built it meaning he got a chassis builder to build it.

Just to remind people of the 1987 auction description by Doug Nye: http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/143064931-post7918.html

 

But seeing as how Piper wasn't there to watch the chassis being built, he really couldn't know - no matter how emphatically he proclaims. His statement really doesn't add much of anything to the discussion.

>8^)
ER

 

Who built this chassis?

 

PROBABLY an outside contractor, I think the Name has been already mentioned, I maybe able to find it in my archives before tomorrow. Ferrari rarely built its châssis inhouse: for example - Just for example - for road cars in the seventies it was "Vacari and Bosi".
Rgds

 

Piper told a friend of mine last year that it was built by a very good chassis maker in Modena. He didn't say who. When asked if the chassis maker was Vaccari & Bosi he nodded in the negative. Piper also said that 0900 was built by Manicardi e Mesuri under the supervision of Mike Parkes and Enzo Ferrari no question at all.

 

Page 108 of Jim's document says:

So my understanding is that Jim's claim is that during the conversion from P3 to P3/4 the engine was moved and the wheelbase was changed...

If that is the case, there would be evidence of the suspension mounts having been changed...NOT just the engine mounts. Moving the engine does NOT change the wheelbase.

AFIK, Jim has never suggested that the suspension mounts were moved.

I read Jim's document differently. There are a number of places in the document where he suggests that the December 1967 conversion from P3 to P3/4 involved changing the wheelbase...it WAS 2412mm (P3)...he suggests it is now 2400mm (P4).

On page 20 he suggests it:

On page 70:

Page 75:

Page 76:

Page 77:

Again, the Internet (and this thread) have many pictures of P cars with engines removed and wheels attached. Therefore, wheelbase is determined by the suspension mounting points, not the engine location.

So...it could be suggested that Steve's wheelbase argument actually fits the "metal" better than Jim's. Steve could be confirming that the lack of suspension mount change would be proper when converting a P3 to a P4.

 

There are several ways a wheelbase measurement could change with zero effect on the chassis mounting points.

>8^)
ER

 

It's a pretty tall tale to tell that Piper knows how the chassis was built when he doesn't even know the name of who built the chassis.

You know, it was built by those guys, in Modena, yeah... Those guys.

 

+1

 

It's more than plausible IMO.
If you have ever had the pleasure of working in a factory that makes labor-intense physical assemblies/sub-assemblies, it is an indisputable fact that solutions which afford the benefit of reduced time and/or reduced costs will always surface; especially in a time of dire need. It may be against what someone said, it may be against the norm or company policy, it may be in direct conflict with legal obligations but it happens. Smart people who have the dot to perform find a way.

 

Yup...but moving the engine is not one of them. So, how was it done...if it was, in fact, done?

 

Or...as simple as a different offset machined or cast into the suspension pieces...

All things that have nothing whatsoever to do with engine placement.

 

Your post demonstrates very well the extent of Jim's total misquotation/misinterpretation of the TECHNICAL DATA SHEETS.

See here: http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/144256085-post8748.html

 

Perhaps David Piper didn't feel inclined to answer the question. Perhaps he has no interest in getting involved in this never ending debate and i can't see any benefit to him in doing so!

 

Piper has quite sensibly stayed out of this whole debate, Jim went to him to buy a replica and that is what he was sold, Piper has nothing to gain by commenting further on the matter officially, but unofficially his thoughts were conveyed via John Collins in one of the 0858 videos during its conversion back to P4 spec.

Of course he knows who supplied him the frame! but as Ferrari only sanctioned one chassis I doubt he wants go on record as to who made the rest of them.

 

All those are options, but what is the point for the sake of just 12mm if it was done intentionally.

 

Please do not misquote me. I told no tall tales. Nowhere in my post did I say Piper doesn't know the name of who built the chassis. That said it's quite plausible that someone may not remember off the cuff who did work for you 40 years ago in 1974.

 

Do you know who built all p3 and p4 chassis, one manufacturer or maybe two?
As said metallurgical test could tell a whole new story.
Did pipers chassis builder use EXACT same tubing from same supplier from same batch as where Ferrari built theirs...