The (one and only) '0846' Debate Thread

Sorry, but you forget (conveniently?) that I have answered that post of yours, and again I say what I have said in post 7246: even if you might by right about the car, your methodology is WRONG form an historical point of view: no-one (either one party or the other) can acceptably proves something from second rank sources, this is how historians work all over the world.
Huet's work, how admirable, precise, exact it might be, is not a proof but only a clue. Anyone qualified as an "expert" in a country (and that qualification varies from one country to the other) can only issue an advice, not a decision. UNLESS a definitive proof is available, which, in that debate (0846 vs anything other) is not. At least not yet.

Jim pointed out our attention on a few details from his car’s chassis that lead him to believe that it was not the one he thought he bought, and that the chassis he has might be 0846, or the remains of it. That it is 0846 indeed has not been proven yet. Anyone is free to consider the clues onto Jim bases his reasoning as “frail” or “insufficient”, and his conclusion as “flawed”. You choose to accept it or not.
From a methodological point of view, it depends on Jim to bring us an evidence, or proof, that the car is 0846 indeed, and this is lacking. We have some clues, but nothing conclusive yet.

Now, to prove that his car is definitively not 0846, we need:
- to find the “true 0846” whereabouts: we have every indication that the chassis has been discarded, but no proof that it have been destroyed as it should have. And we know that some others chassis that should have been destroyed were not. So 0846 chassis may be existing somewhere, at least in parts; admittedly, it may seem a stretch, but we cannot exclude it completely. (Some other questions would be here the one of continuity, and the one of how much remains do we need to have to consider the car as being 0846: will 65% of the chassis members not qualify, but 66,66% qualify, for instance?)
- to prove that Jim’s car is 003 without any doubt: then how do we explain the differences that Jim brought to our attention? Until today, no definitive proof that the car is 003 indeed, either. Some clues, but nothing conclusive yet.

If the car is 0846, it is now 50 years old. People who were there are not young anymore; memories are failing, period facts were not well documented…if it is 003, then it is 40 years old.
Will there be any definitive proof that it is one thing or the other, I doubt it.
Anyone is free to accept one reasoning: “this clue + this clue + this clue authorize this deduction” as more solid than another; but from a methodological point of view, a collection of clues, however solid these might be, is not a PROOF.

Forghieri's letter tells us how the modification SHOULD have been done, not how it was ACTUALLY DONE.
As posted by myself in #7316, Forghieri was the chief designer of the team that designed the car, but he certainly did not do all the work himself.

I have no problem whatsoever with the car being, or not, 0846, 0003 or whatever. But contrary to what you would like to believe, you have not proven anything yet. What you have done is that you have brought a number of clues to light, clues that you have used to build an argumentation, to the logic of which some readers of this thread might choose to submit. But as you have brought no PROOFS (yet?), some others will not surrender to it, simply because PROOFS or EVIDENCE is lacking, not because they disagree with you.

From a methodological point of view you have not PROVEN anything. At least yet.
And because your point of view has only been build only on your own argumentation, and on your choice to consider some clues as facts, but not on definitive PROOFS, there are still doubters, and there will remains so until someone brings a definitive PROOF.
And there are still a number of persons who believe you are too forceful in trying to convince us that your arguments are proofs, which, I repeat, are not. They are your own deduction built on some clues, and nothing more.

Rgds

 

+87

The process of discovering the truth is generally helped by some sort of adversarial (though hopefully polite - that's the part that has been missing here from time to time) debate. Hypotheses need to be tested, and confronting adverse evidence is part of that testing process.

No one (Napolis, his fan base, or Miura or his fan base) should be looking at any evidence as an "attack." The goal is to drill through all the leaps of faith and contradictory claims and find some bedrock, if that is at all possible. MiuraSV is presenting Napolis with an opportunity to examine some evidence that possibly contradicts his conclusions about his car, and either accept it, simply acknowledge it, or present additional research to show why MiuraSV's evidence is invalid or not credible. That's a good thing, and Napolis has the passion and resources to do what is necessary to assist that testing process.

 

Yes, agreed but then a claim is posted more than once that "I have proven" rather than "I have posted proof of my claims". I am aware this is only a minor semantic point but it changes it from a line of inquiry to something much worse.

 

A more even handed presentation was here.......
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Why don't you post the article, Tex?

 

Very fair and well said. You are correct.

 

Ok... So I have read this thread once or twice over the years and I can't recall and I am not going to go through 370 pages of text to find out... but has Jim done a metallurgy test on the car? I can't remember. I have a small suspicion in my gut saying they did, but I can't quite remember now.

Wouldn't this shed some light on the situation?

 

Now after 7300 posts you want fair debate?

With so many dollars and pride at stake is it possible to have fair debate on a US based forum about expensive cars ? Most experts with any brains won't risk a multimillion dollar law suit to be right about a car.

A few maybe, but most will just take a pass posting in a public forum.

 

No, not really. The tubing in these chassis is generally chrome molly steel and is similar to that used on aircraft. You might be able to tell if the steel was different at the front compared to the back, but it may not be and all that might tell you is that parts of it may have been repaired with different material which is obvious anyway from the welding of various tubes.

Much has been said that the aft part of the chassis is modified and is not consistent with the other P4's and that therefore this chassis can't be 0846.

In that vein, remember that in period repairs that were performed on 0846 appear to be present on Jim's car. This as well as testimony from some of the gentlemen who did those repairs that this looks like the work they did at the time is about as close as you are going to get to sorting this thing out.

Given the damage to the car that occurred latter at Le Mans and the fact that this was not repaired at the factory following the race, and the subsequent writing off of the chassis means that someone, somewhere had to rework the right side of chassis aft of the cockpit.

For this reason I would tend to believe that the area of the chassis where the engine mounts are located could well have been modified to fit both engine types when Piper was having his chassis made. Or, to put it another way David may well have wanted the features that we see in this chassis incorporated so that he could install whatever engine that he wished, and since he wasn't swimming in engines, this would make a lot of sense. And the work may well have been done to a standard that wasn't consistent with the factory because it didn't matter.

Frankly I don't care if the chassis behind the cockpit isn't original on one side. As they say "that's racing" and things get modified. There is significant evidence that other areas of the chassis bear the scars that were inflicted on 0846.

Until someone can explain how or why that evidence is still present in the other parts of a car that was "newly built" for Piper then you might have a chance at swaying my opinion, but for now I remain unconvinced that the chassis is anything other than 0846 with some changes that were done either before it came into Piper's hands or after.

 

I think it can be agreed that this chassis started out as a P3?

If so the back end of this chassis is consistent with that of a P3, not the P4, so naturally it would be different compared to other P4's that were originally constructed from scratch as a P4. Unless if Ferrari or Piper were to completely re-do the back end fresh as a P4 eliminating any trace of the original P3 construction which this chassis does not, there is in the metal evidence of its time as a P3.

I also think it can be concluded that the modification to add P4 engine mounts on this chassis came at a later time than the initial building of the P3 frame?

If the P3/P4 engine mounts on this chassis were done at the same time to build a dual purpose chassis, I feel the P4 mounts would be more integrated into an overall design versus what looks to be a later add on.

If so, the question still arises how did Piper go about building a P3 frame that he later modified to also fit a P4 engine?

Still wondering what engine was first used in the car under Pipers watch? P3 or P4?

Also wondering if there is any evidence of Piper ever damaging this car. It seems pretty odd that there are repairs to a car that has no record of ever being damaged as far as I know or from what I can tell anyone else knows of?

How did he build it?

How did he wreck it?

Funny that no one has a clue about any of this.....

Hmmmm......

 

Although you acknowledge there is nothing conclusive from Mr Glickenhaus and that he needs to bring us evidence, you should be directing your above post to him, as it is him, not me, that needs to prove. I do not need to prove anything. The funniest thing I've read in ages is that you say that Mr Glickenhaus is saying that the chassis he has MIGHT be 0846. Allow me to enlighten you. Mr Glickenhaus has said for years that his chassis IS 0846.

We can safely say that Forghieri is a "first rank expert witness" as the Chief Technical Director of the Ferrari Racing Department that designed and oversaw the build of 330 P3 0846 and its modification to P3/4. He held this position for 22 of the 27 years he worked in the highest rank at Ferrari where his contribution has been fundamental in making Ferrari what it is today. There is no higher authority on the Ferrari prototypes. He is "THE EXPERT". He was the one ultimately responsible carrying the can and would have had to sign off any designs he made in collaboration with his design team. He would have known exactly how the chassis modifications were done on 0846, not just how they should have been done. His finger was on the pulse being totally hands on in attending the races with the prototype cars.

We have no evidence that Forghieri and Huet have memory issues as you imply and this most certainly would not have been the case over 20 years ago when the TECHNICAL DATA SHEETS were written by Huet in conjunction with Forghieri. Forghieri's communication tells us Jim's chassis cannot be 0846. To diminish Forghieri's statement as just a clue is disrespectful and shows ignorance. Huet's statement as the author not only negates Jim's TECHNICAL DATA SHEET evidence but goes further in saying the mods on Jim's chassis are a "DIY job......." The Glickenhaus chassis is Piper 0003, a replica, as he bought, and was sold to him.

It has not been proven that the Glickenhaus/Piper 0003 chassis is the genuine Ferrari 0846, therefore for FerrariChat to be seen to be impartial and just then this thread should be transferred to the Recreation/Replica forum. If this car belonged to anyone else other than Jim Glickenhaus this thread would have been relegated there a very long time ago.

 

Scacco Matto.
Ben

 

+1

 

MiuraSV,

All the above simply proves my point, that you do not use a serious methodology, which, from an historical point of view, makes all your posts self-destructing; and this is why many persons here simply do not accept what you write.

I have never said or implied that either Forghieri or Huet have memory issues, only said AND I SAY IT AGAIN that Huet work, as a second-rank source and only as such, (however excellent or admirable it might be) does not qualify it as an evidence for anyone used to research.
Historians do not take their own assumptions for facts or proofs: “this is a thorough work by a serious researcher, so it is a proof”: Sorry, but it doesn’t work that way: only the technical sheet from the factory is a proof, and only a proof of how it was designed to be, not a proof that it was build this way.

You say Forghieri "would have known how the modification were done": as you use the conditional form (= "would"), you are saying yourself what I am trying to tell you: there is simply no proof that he knows. But you take your own "supposition" (= he WOULD have known) and decide that it qualifies as an evidence (= Forghieri knows), just because it suits your purpose.
Furthermore, you are even making assumptions that are plainly wrong: you say that: "We can safely say that Forghieri is a "first rank expert witness": there is simply nothing to substantiate this assumption of yours, as it contradicts what Forghieri himself has said, that he WAS NOT WITNESS of the modification to the chassis, and that he is only able to say how it should have be done, not how it was done?

Trouble is is that you are so passionate about proving that the car is not 0846 that you are transforming legitimate doubts and clues into evidence and proof just because it suits your purpose, as the two examples above show; unfortunately, it is wrong from a methodological point of view and makes your own assessments self-destructive, because flawed.

What that car is, I don't know; although I have an opinion, but nothing more. That's not my point: my point is that your demonstrations are flawed in their construction and methodology. I do not deny that you are raising legitimate doubts and questions, but all your deductions are just deductions and nothing more: no evidence, no proof, because your methodology is wrong.
Assuming that "Mauro Forghieri is a first rank expert witness" is the best example, as the man himself clearly says that HE WAS NOT HERE to see how the modification was done. Taking legitimate doubts and questions, extrapolating on these and deciding that this clue and that one are sufficient to be transformed into EVIDENCE and PROOF is methodologically wrong and of no value: by using this twisted way of construction, you are nullifying your own conclusions.
And as I intend not to be a bore for all the readers here, I shall therefore remain silent, considering that I have now said what I have to say.

Rgds

 

Well seen!
All cars manufactured today, out of Maranello plants, with tools and modern machinery, have nothing to do with the Ferrari of yesteryear.
A Ferrari is manufactured at Ferrari with their equipment and their men, like for Cobra, or Jaguar.
The 330 P3 / 4 manufactured in the United States, is a beautiful replica, and nothing else.

Bien vu!
Toutes les autos fabriquées aujourd'hui, hors des Usines de Maranello, avec des outils, et des machines modernes, n'ont rien à voir avec les Ferrari d'antan.
Une Ferrari est fabriqué chez Ferrari avec leurs materiel et leurs hommes, pareil pour les Cobra, ou les Jaguar.
La 330 P3/4 fabriquer aux Etats-Unis, est une très belle réplique, et rien d'autre.

 

What are you trying to say? Manufactured in the U.S. does not pertain to this car. Sure, it was built/restored outside of Maranello, the frame possibly manufactured by Ferrari or Piper, most likely in Italy but definitely not in the U.S.A., most of the parts were without question manufactured at Ferrari, that is where Piper got the parts from and that is common knowledge.

In no way does your statement make any sense. If this were the case any car on this website that was restored outside of Ferrari would be a replica?

Care to clarify this? Cause if the frame proves to be real the car was manufactured at Ferrari just like any other Enzo era car and was restored/built outside Ferrari just like many of the Enzo era cars you see on the lawn.

So if the frame proves to be real and these are your standards? Then most of the cars on this site are replicas.

 

What race car isn't a bitsa?

What race car did not go through the same process as this one using bitsa parts over the course of its career?

Take any race car that was wrecked or repaired, those parts came out of a spare parts bin manufactured by Ferrari. the parts for this car came are spares manufactured by Ferrari. The parts were manufactured by Ferrari and restored outside of Ferrari just the same as many other cars on this site that has been restored, manufatured by Ferrari, restored outside of Ferrari.

Sure there is the issue of the motor, F1 or P4 (and even if F1 there is a chance the motor ran in a p4?) but IMO this car isn't much more of a bitsa than most of the Enzo era race cars or even many Enzo era cars that make it on the lawn. A good percentage of wrecked and restored cars/vintage racers have more recreated parts than this one.

But he is saying that this car was manufactured outside of Ferrari, which if the frame is real it wasn't. if the frame is real most of this car was manufactured at Ferrari just like any other car and it was later restored outside of Ferrari just like many of the cars on this site.

What he is saying does not hold any water. These parts (with the frame in question) were manufactured at Ferrari just like any other car. He is saying that the car was built outside of Ferrari (he calls it manufactured) so it is not a Ferrari, if that were the case any car restored outside of Ferrari would be a replica. They are not.

A car can be restored outside of Ferrari and still be a Ferrari.

 

Although Marcel is a fine gentleman and a recognized Ferrari expert but he is not the only one in the world. Others have made their stance known and it does not support the 0846 claim. That someone uses "0846" when discussing this vehicle should be recognized as a shorthand reference. Maybe the new term should be DP003 (0846).

 

You have completely bypassed the issue of provenance and continuity. The best this vehicle can ever be is a bitsa if the frame is in fact 0846 (which I no longer believe is true). Yes, other race cars have had components replaced during their life but they were a complete car and remained a car. What they were not was parted out, the frame discarded and then at some later date reassembled with an assortment of parts that did not know each other years later.

The British have a term of "built from the number plate up". Only in this case there is not the number plate.

 

From what I've read from your statements, these other experts disqualify the car not due to they have knowledge of the frames creation but because they think it's a bitsa (as any other race car is IMO)

That may be their opinion but I feel that most here are discussing the frame and the bitsa qualification is a discussion that pertains not only to this car but also many other race cars that have been rebuilt.

I may have missed it but what proof do any of these other experts have that the frame is indeed not 0846 and what proof do they have that the frame was indeed built from scratch by Piper?

Cause all I can remember hearing from you is that the car is not allowed on the lawn due to they consider it a bitsa, and that no matter what evidence came about they would not change their minds and consider it 0846, which in my opinion renders their decision as an opinion versus fact.