The (one and only) '0846' Debate Thread

This seems like one of those black & white statements mentioned previously...

Steve is pointing out some inconvenient bits of evidence. IOW, taken as a whole, everything still does not slot into the definitive without some leaps of faith.

If this were a (US) criminal case? No way there's a conviction. I.e., it cannot be proven to be black or white.

...a civil case? Depends on the jury. Plenty of shades of grey.

 

Steve, you have studied these pics in greater detail than me, could it be that when Piper bought the frame it was pure P4 as altered by Ferrari and he simply did the opposite, and added the P3 mounts to the P4 frame in order to make use of his P3 engines as well? that was my thinking.

Edit

Actually, thinking it through, in my scenario the P4 engine should be fully and correctly mounted in the chassis with no adapter plates needed at all, and its the P3 engine when installed that would have adapter plates!

Confusing myself now

 

No. My point is that Jim's 0846 has been definitively identified as "partially" 0846 by the guy that built it. Jim has always stated parts of his 0846 were not original, but modified at some point. Sure, the exact chronology has not been determined (who did what and when). Personally, I don't really care. Many may choose to continue that debate. Best of luck to you. Another 1000 posts won't provide the answer.

I simply think it is time for some to accept certain truths and move-on.

 

To me, this long conversation -- a conversation that seemed like it would never end, and certainly not end constructively or definitively -- has not only ended, but ended constructively and definitively.

Post #7535 is so specific and clear that it seems to put to an end to the discussion about what the chassis is and it is a good result for everyone to know that large portions of 0846's chassis have survived and have been preserved (and put to good use!).

The objective facts seem settled now. The subjective interpretation of what those facts mean may never be settled. Personally, I find it difficult to rationalize the MF/Ferrari assertion that the car should not be called 0846 when it has been deemed a proper P4 that was built on significant portions of chassis 0846. They scrapped the SN when they scrapped the chassis, but the chassis was recovered, so I can't think of a valid argument to say that a paperwork scrapping of the SN should trump recovery of the actual chassis.

 

Wait. Steve. You are dodging a question that's been asked of you that's important to the civil discourse of Ferrarichat, and your reputation.

For the sake of your own reputation, are you going to admit that based upon the standard of proof you defined over and over, at least part of Jim's chassis won Daytona in 1966?

The issue is squarely your honesty, integrity and your reputation. Many thought you were not being honest or had integrity when you doubled down on the recollection of an 81 year old man about his recollections of a photo of something that happened 50 years ago. Many reading this thought you were not showing honesty when you said your interest was a search for the historical truth. But you insisted. You doubled down, claimed MF's recollection was fact and the end of the story.

Now MF has told you, in English and Italian, and over and over, and signed his name twice to letters that part of this chassis won Daytona in 1966.

Now, you have two choices. You can follow your logic, and standard you set forth, and defend against charges against your integrity, and you can admit that yes, based upon the standard of proof you subscribed too, at least part of this chassis won Daytona in 1966.

Or you can deny this. Now that the evidence you put forth supports Jim (at least partially), you can abandon it. You can take a position that an 81 year old man's recollection of something that happened 50 years ago is flawed. You might be right or wrong factually here. But if you do so, it will prove to many in the collector car world that you are bias and are going to pick and chose evidence you'd proclaim to confirm whatever you please.

Jim probably cost himself $10 million dollars in value when he followed the evidence that FORD was wrong and his GT40, J6, did not win Lemans. He followed the evidence wherever it led. Not many people's character can withstand 10 million dollar hit. Jim's did. And he has credibility for that.

It's my understanding from reading correspondence that you value your reputation in the collector car world. Am I correct that if in a public forum your integrity and reputation were impugned in this forum, you believe it would cost you money? And from what I understand you'd go to far lengths to protect it. i for one don't begrudge you for that. You should take your reputation seriously. It's your livelihood. I do too. A collector car historian destroys his reputation of he's publicly caught messing around with facts he sets forth. As a collector if I was dealing with you, if I found out you'd pick in chose the historical evidence for your own ends, I would never do business with you. And neither would Ferrari.

So Steve, let's get some clarity on your integrity. We are in a public forum and your reputation is at stake.

Are you willing to admit, that on the standard of proof YOU subscribed to and asked others to subscribe to, namely MFs recollection, that at least part of Jim's chassis won LeMans in 1966?

You may find conceding this point to be unpleasant. You should not. Really. Conceding this point after being accused of campaigning against Jim, would actually help you silence ANY question of your integrity, and prove yourself an unbiased historian. That you are only following the evidence wherever it leads you.

BTW Steve "miurasv" great tag. Selling 4870 after so many great adventures was my biggest mistake.

 

Tried to edit. "Daytona" not "Lemans"

 

This is a very well written and well-constructed post. It is courteous and thought provoking. Sometimes, controversy brings out the best in F-Chat. Well done.

 

And 1967 and not 1966.
Sorry, couldn't resist...

Rgds

 

Lol. Thanks. Typing on an iPhone before power runs out between airports in Asia has apparently produced some flaws! Fchat now has a timelimit on edits and that hurts!!!

 

Ah, understood...
Disgressing a bit further...I was thinking, about Daytona 1967, that it would be nice if Chris Amon could one day be reunited with Jim's car. At 73, the man is still very alert, but not leaving New Zealand very often.
I have said this quite a number of times in other posts, but I have interviews from the eighties of Mauro Forghieri, in which he states clearly that Chris was, and will remain, his favorite among all the drivers he has worked with, for his technical abilities and dedication to hard work.

Rgds

 

gentlemen. utmost respect for Ingegnere Mauro Forghieri. no critics. just respect. my 2 cents. cheers. clemente

Mauro Forghieri

The name of Mauro Forghieri is linked to legendary successes in F.1 ; as Ferrari Technical Manager he won no less than 12 World Championships (8 constructor’s and 4 driver’s titles).

He founded Lamborghini Engineering in 1988 and was the company’s Technical Manager for 4 years.

He then worked for the prestigious Bugatti Automobili for about two years.

Today he writes technical articles for specialist journals, and is often invited to talk and lecture on his experiences by universities and television channels.

His work over the years has made a major contribution to the prestige of Italian automotive engineering world-wide.

I Fondatori

Oral Engineering was founded on January 1, 1995 as a specialist design, research and development centre for the automotive sector.

Oral Engineering belongs to the ORAL Group, a pool of companies that has been specializing in high-precision machine tool processes for the automotive industry for over 30 years.

A management team with immense experience in the automotive sector has enabled the company to work in partnership with leading international constructors.

Oral Engineering has provided its services to various teams competing in the Formula 1 and MotoGP Championships.

Oral Engineering s.r.l.

 

What? More weaseling, looking for flimsy excuses, even after his prime witness confirmed the opposition's case?

Bravo, as said above an extremely well written post.

Agreed, everyone here agrees that Ing. Forghieri deserves the utmost respect. Steve used to agree, but now does not seem so keen to share that opinion since Ing. Forghieri has blown his arguments out of the water.

Come on Steve, everyone is waiting.

 

Steve really has nothing to gain by admitting he was wrong, but I do give him credit for being man enough to post the evidence that proves it.

As I said before - long live #0846!

>8^)
ER

 

Ingegnere Forghieri... He IS Ferrari ! Should have his own thread.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Thanks... A Forghieri thread from 2010 with only one post. Incredible...

 

Those with memories to add are not here chatting!

 

We should hire the grandchildren to listen and type.....they should hear the history too!

Kudos to Mr. G.....

 

Well, as johnhoughtaling put it, he does - "The issue is squarely your honesty, integrity and your reputation". Steve can either sink by continuing to dodge the overdue acknowledgement, or salvage by admitting his error.

 

Steve is not weaseling out at all in relation to the matter of how the chassis in Jims car came to have 2 sets of engine mounting locations. MF has clearly confirmed they are not the ones originally carried out by Ferrari.

Steve has quite rightly made a key observation that has not been answered yet with anything practical. If Piper did this modification post Le Mans/post scrappage then a P4 engine would simply slot into Jims chassis with no adapters needed, it would be the P3 engine that would need those.

The mystery is still there in relation to that element of the present day chassis.

It should also be remembered that the engine/gearbox/bodywork/suspension/wiring/glass/wheels/brakes/ etc etc etc have not been linked to 0846 yet, only the front of the chassis so far.

I do think it is very important that there is now a direct, first hand link to at least one original element of the first 0846 chassis in the present day example, it was only best guess theory prior to MFs confirmation.

Harking back to 0858 both Ferrari and Jim said it was no longer a P4 when most of those elements listed above were still actually in place in the Can Am version and when it was reverted back to P4 spec by Piper and the later work by its new owner.

On that basis then is Jims 0846 a P4? MF actually says yes it is. I wonder what he would say about 0858

 

Only if he cares what people think of him. Up to this point his behavior appears to have been clearly to the contrary on that whole idea.

>8^)
ER

 

I imagine just like Jim, Steve cares little for what people on an internet forum think of him, these are just people that they will never probably meet and have no impact on their lives.

Both have views on a subject that they feel passionate about, and have expressed them in writing, thats it.

This is just one thread in billions on the net, I don't agree with the personal insults being bandied about on here whoever they are aimed at, on what is at the end of the day some simple chatter about a car!

Its internet bullying plain and simple. The participants remind me of the stone throwing scene in the life of Brian!

 

Irrelevant to the primary point of this thread, going back years - is the chassis of Jim's car from 0846, the Daytona winning car? MF has said yes, it is. What happened after Ferrari scrapped the damaged frame and Ferrari wrote off the serial number (ie who modified the engine mounts) doesn't change the now-established and confirmed fact that it is Jim's car that was 0846.

Steve actually does need to acknowledge that point, then can worry about who made the engine mount modifications to the 0846 chassis. Those engine mount investigations won't change the fact that Jim's car is built on the scrapped chassis from 0846.

 

Irrelevant when it suits!

It is actually very relevant, the back end of Jims car is not P4 spec! when the original 0846 chassis was tossed onto the scrap heap it was very much P4 spec. MF has confirmed the front end reminds him of the work he did to the Daytona winner, he is adamant the back end does not.

How can one end of a car be unequivocal proof it is a particular car when the same person clearly states the other end is not that car? Something happened to cause that, if the back end showed elements of P4 spec then yes its probably later crash repairs/modifications by persons unknown, but the rear end of Jims car has gone back in time to before its Daytona P4 spec it would seem?

 

Ing Forghieri actually chooses his words very carefully and precisely, even in English. Nowhere does he state that "the other end is not that car" - aside from stating clearly that Jim's car is the P4 that won Daytona, he says with respect to the modified rear frame that it was not done in the manner Ferrari would usually have done it. That doesn't even state clearly that Ferrari did not do the modifications, only that they would not normally do them that way - leaving open the option that they might have done those modifications in the different fashion in a rush, emergency fix, or a junior employee not familiar with the normal process?

He also suggests that the modifications might have been performed by someone else - which again, does not state in any way, shape, or form, that the car is not the Daytona winning car formerly known as 0846, only that the modifications to the Daytona winning car formerly known as 0846 were probably not done by Ferrari.

In all his statements to Jim and to Steve, Ing Forghieri has been clear that the car is the P4 converted from P3 that was raced as 0846.