The (one and only) '0846' Debate Thread

Correct me if I am wrong, but there is no evidence of this happening with 0846. It is all conjecture, but no proof.
There is no proof that it was thrown in the trash.
No proof that it was 'rescued' by Tom Meade.
No proof that it was sold to David Piper.
There is no proof, not one piece of evidence afaik. Simply an explanation of how it COULD have been. Conjecture isn't proof.
Nathan

 

Indeed ; this is important to keep in mind, always.
Conjecture is no evidence, no proof. Deductions and hypothesis are only constructions, but not an evidence or a proof either.

As to me, but I may be wrong in this in English because I have the French words in mind, is the difference between an expert and a witness (“un témoin”, “un témoin oculaire&#8221.

An expert is someone who has a good to exceptional knowledge of a subject, who is recognized as such, and might be entrusted by parties or by a court to produce an advice; said advice would become a statement if made at the request of a court or a judge, and will take legal effect therefore.

A witness is somebody who has personal knowledge of a particular event (“témoin&#8221 because he was there and has been an actor of this, and/or in some cases has seen everything with his own eyes (“témoin oculaire”, oculaire coming from “oeil”, the eye: he has actually seen it happened) and can certify that things had indeed happened in such way in front of his own eyes.

We have many persons here that have good to exceptional knowledge of these cars, so could qualify as “experts”; the most proeminent being of course Mauro Forghieri.
But very few, if any, witness(es), that is persons who:
- had been present when the chassis of 0846 was dumped into the bin and could certify that it happened that way (the fact that “it must have happened that way” because that how it happened in those days does not establish that it has indeed happened that way) or had been present when it was melted and could therefore say: “it has ceased to exist because it has been melted, or chopped to pieces, or sawed in a zillion of razor blades”.
- had been present when it was rescued form said bin (if it was indeed rescued)…
Etc.

Rgds

 

The reality is that we are all just guessing. My prior post, and this post, are just guesses. That said, if we look through the appropriate lens of the circumstances back then, when the SN cancelled, and the circumstances now when the question is whether it should/could/would be resurrected, it becomes a pretty educated guess (or maybe it's just drivel, I don't know ).

Back Then: There was no historical or financial value to serial numbers. Cancelling the number was insignificant because the SN was just a number and it was appropriate to cancel it because, at the time, the remains were tagged for destruction. Even the race cars that survived intact back then sold for very little money once past their prime because, in period, there was no meaningful appreciation for the future value these cars would have as historical artifacts. There is no ambiguity that through the lens of the period, cancelling an SN had no meaningful significance and was appropriate based upon its presumed destruction.

Today: There is a huge drive, both for historical purposes and financial purposes, to preserve whatever remains of Ferrari's racing history. It is not just about finances, nor even primarily about finances, every true Ferrari enthusiast feels an unshakeable desire and obligation to preserve whatever remains of Ferrari's history. Through the lens of today -- even though it is just a guess on my part -- I have no doubt that if Ferrari had just discovered the remains of the 0846 -- the chassis it thought was destroyed -- sitting in one of its warehouses, Ferrari would rebuild it and unambiguously refer to it as 0846. Critics would say they would do that for financial gain, but I feel pretty certain that the obligation to preserve history would compel them to do that independently of the financial gain (though the financial value of the result would undoubtedly be used internally to justify the sizable investment of time and funds required to rebuild it).

To say the SN can't be reinstated because it was once cancelled just doesn't seem appropriate if the chassis was never destroyed. That's a bit like saying somebody who was presumed dead can't be considered alive even though they were much later discovered as such. Of course, in this case, it's not a live person that was discovered, but just a skeleton -- or maybe a couple of elbows. The difference, of course, is that we have the technology to do some "Steve Austin" surgery to bring what was found back to it's former self and there would be a moral obligation among true enthusiasts to do just that.

 

No there is no absolutely proof that what I said actually happened, but the car was put on the transporter and returned to the factory race facility, that is a fact. Once there, so far as anyone knows, it never left there as a car again, that is a fact. There is no record of it ever being sent to a scrap yard as a single piece, and the engine and other parts had value as spares for the remaining races that season and two cars planned for the Can Am Series next year. They didn't need the chassis, but since there was a potential need for spares, it was most certainly stripped of what was useful or salvageable, at least the valuable parts that were not fire damaged were pulled off., specifically the engine, transmission, remaining suspension pieces and things like the radiators and instruments.

Here is a link to a set of photographs of the car at Le Mans, post fire.

http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/vintage-thru-365-gtc4-sponsored-vintage-driving-machines/19289-tale-0846-lemans-2.html

As can clearly be seen in the photos, the fire damaged the rear body cover and some of the bodywork aft of the cockpit, but the reality is that 3/4 of the car was not fire damaged and since they could use it in the Can Am car the engine and transmission were most certainly salvaged. Notice in the pictures that the spare tire isn't even burned, so it is very probable that the transmission was fine after the fire. The biggest damage is that everything got sprayed in putting out the fire and that was a mess to clean up.

Given that they had three good chassis available for the rest of the season, and the fact that 0846 had accident damage from the two times it crashed in the Targa, it wasn't going to be used for the Can Am cars, they had better chassis with no damage history available for that. Most likely 0846 would have been stripped and scrapped or sold off at the end of the season, it was, as was typical of the time a "pretty well used up" old race car and the factory had no more plans for it. To the "old man" a used up race car was just that and he invariably got rid of them as quickly as he could.

While the P2's were sold off to privateers and NART, those cars had a place to race while the prototypes were still racing for the next couple of years in the endurance series. With the downsizing to 3 liters of prototypes the following year there was no reason to repair the chassis and rebuild the wreck, since it was of no value as a car. But they could still use the parts and that is what would have happened. Things like engines and transmissions were expensive and since there was a use for them they would surely have been kept at the factory.

 

By your own definitions MF is an expert WITNESS in stating that the Glickenhaus chassis is not the one that he took to Daytona for testing. He designed 0846 and he took the car to Daytona where he modified it, personally oversaw its testing and race win. It is therefore not 0846 and the winner of the 1967 24 Hours of Daytona.

 

Please can you post in the man's own words where he states this to be his opinion of Jim's chassis.

 

Having designed, developed, overseen its build, modifications, maintenance and been present at all 0846's races and tests, MF can also be considered an expert witness when he states that the rear of the Glickenhaus false P4 chassis has been made new and the detail differeces (not discussed before) I pointed out would not have escaped the chassis builders that made the original P4s and that the front of the chassis is even further from original.

 

As others have also stated it is all conjecture but then people make all sorts of statements as if they are the truth and the truth is assumed to be a single point or thing like an object which it isn't because your truth and my truth can be two different things due to perspective.

- Mauro Foghieri may indeed be the best expert but he would need to be asked for his opinion in the open in a manner that the questions or answers cannott be manipulated and whether they like it or not the truth is that MF's comments posted on this forum are conjecture due to their divergent nature.

- David Piper built at least three cars that have been numbered #0900 and it would seem that contemporary documents said he could make one. Discussion of why, what and how is conjecture, especially without hearing from DP himself. He can be the greatest or the worst expert or whatever but that doesn't explain the how's or why's.

- Hypotheses can also be an adjective conjecture. Much of science is based on making hypotheses and then testing them and we currently have two hypotheses, either the car was built on a new frame less than 10 years after the original or it was based on a part frame and both presumptions need to be tested.

My 2 cents

 

Absolutely. Except that until This minute, what we have seen is a statement from him, signed by his hand, in English and Italian, said to "make faith", which means more or mess "binding", which says that J.G car Is built with the remains of the 1967 Daytona winner.
Not that I doubt your word, Steve; but that statement is, for the time being, his official position as an expert. Technically, he should retract it. This could be difficult for him, and one of the reasons that made me think that he should have been left out of This debate.
Rgds

 

It's painfully hilarious watching certain people still so desperately trying to close the barn door after the horse has already left.

Whoever said badgering the witness is exactly correct.

>8^)
ER

 

That claim can be equally applied to both sides of the discussion, what have you actually added to the debate, either for or against?

 

There are some differences between the Glickenhaus chassis and of what is a genuine Ferrari chassis, 412P #0854 that you can compare it with. Please see pics attached

Picture 1 is of the Glickenhaus chassis DP0003.

Picture 2 is of the chassis Ferrari 412P #0854.

Picture 3 is the same picture as Picture 1, chassis DP0003 with arrows pointing at the differences which are as follows: the tube with the arrows pointing at it does not meet the other tubes at the bottom in the same place as on the genuine 412P #0854 chassis. On the Glickenhaus chassis it meets exactly in the middle of the other tubes, directly above the hole for the engine mounting bolt. On the chassis of 412P #0854, this tube meets/joins the other tubes slightly offset to the side of the central point of the hole for the engine mounting bolt. Also in the middle of the bulkhead/firewall there are small tubes, which I have drawn around in red, that are positioned differently to a genuine P4 chassis. Please see the P4 chassis pictures attached. Please note I am not referring here to the difference between a P4 and P3/412P chassis as a tube was moved to clear the water outlet on the P4.

Picture 4 shows the same picture as Picture 2 (412P #0854) with arrows pointing at a tube which is NOT present on the Glickenhaus DP0003 chassis. This tube, which is not present on the Glickenhaus chassis, IS also present on the genuine chassis of Ferrari 412P #0850. This tube is not present on genuine P4 chassis either but the Glickenhaus chassis is claimed by Mr Glickenhaus to be P3, which is what the 412P chassis were built from.

Picture 5 is of the chassis of genuine Ferrari P4 #0856 where you can see the different positioning of the small tubes in the bulkhead which are angled more inwards.

Picture 6 is of genuine Ferrari P4 #0858 (which has now been converted/rebodied back to P4 specification from Can Am specification) where you can also see the difference in the positioning of the small tubes in the bulkhead, in front of where the engine is placed, which are angled more inwards than on the Glickenhaus chassis.

There are other differences that I have noticed but the above proves, given that a P4 or 312 F1 engine, does not fit without the bolt on adaptors that the rear of the Glickenhaus chassis is neither genuine P3 or P4.
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

The tube that is placed slightly differently in Jim's car is IIRC one of the tubes that was damaged when Vacarella hit the curb on the Targa. It was reported that the two upper diagonal tubes on the chassis opposite the impact buckled. These repairs were done not in the chassis jig, but as a "field repair" and in doing so well have not been replaced perfectly. The tube is indeed in a very slightly different position, but that is consistent with the documented damage history of 0846.

The tube that is missing on Jim's car and is missing on a P4 would have been removed when the chassis was modified to P4 configuration. Since the P4 engine mounting is different and the engine is a structural member of the chassis, that tube would not have been necessary and since the intent of 0846 as "mule" to test the P4 configuration it would make sense to remove that tube and do the testing and make sure removing this tube didn't introduce other issues.

There were indeed differences between the P3 and the P4 in the bulkhead since the mounting locations on the cylinder heads were different between the P3 and P4 engines. I don't know if the 412 and P3 were the same in this area since the 412's were later cars, even though all the P3 and 412 P chassis were originally built in 1966.

The bulkhead tubing in Jim's car is slightly different than both the 412P, the P4 and even Piper's 0900. If it was built at the same time as 0900, you would expect it to be similar. 0846 was modified to accept the P4 engine and the mounts on the cylinder heads were changed. The fact that this is different from both a P3 and a P4 may well be consistent with the modification that was done to adapt the P4 engine to a P3 chassis. The P3 "triangulates" the two upper tubes of the bulkhead, but the P4 engine interfered with those tubes and that is why those two tubes were "spread" on the P4 to clear some hardware that was up in the center of the engine up near the cross member.

0846 was modified in late 66 to accept the different P4 engine mounts at the bulkhead and always was a "one off". In this area I would not expect it to resemble a P3 since those parts were removed and modified for the P4 engine. This modification was done in the factory and was not done in the bulkhead jigs. The later P4's and Pipers car were supposedly made in the same jigs, and they all look the same. Jim's car is clearly different from those later cars. One could deduce from this that this chassis was not made at the same time as 0900 since if it were it would have the tubes placed as they are in 0900 and in the P4's. Moreover, if it was being done with the new engine in place it may have been done "as appropriate", to fit as well as possible around the new engine and not perfectly "to print". These always were and still are race cars where things are done in a expeditious manner, and not always to a perfectly drawn print. Or, it could have been done to an earlier print and the location revised for any number of reasons such as accessibility to parts or bolts. The fact that it doesn't perfectly match P4 prints doesn't rule out that they could have realized that this wasn't optimum and then changed the location in making the remaining three chassis.

At any rate you're assumption that Jim's car should match either a P4 or a P3 exactly in every aspect isn't realistic given that it always was a P3 modified not in jigs and fixtures, but in the factory race shop to essentially P4 specification.

 

The above by Solofast all seems perfectly plausible until you introduce the question why would they go to all that trouble modifying tubes etc to allow the p4 engine to fit nicely, then just dangle the stressed member engine in the engine bay off a couple of bolted on brackets between it and the chassis?

MF has clearly stated that was not the work of his team. He has so far though stated the front end work however was/is. Either side of the debate cannot have it both ways, either the views of MF have to be accepted or not, they cannot pick and choose only the elements that suit their cause.

It appears Steve is in discussions with MF about the front end so hopefully will be able to expand on that info in due course.

Jim would need to be doing the same in relation to the rear end to balance the debate.

 

There is no reason to assume that the mounting of the engine in the car currently is exactly what Ferrari used. The mounting may well be different since all of that hardware was long gone by the time Piper got the car. The tubes for the right side engine mounting may have been damaged during the fire and these may have been replaced at the time the chassis was refurbished in Italy at the chassis builder. All of this happened over 40 years ago. When it was changed and by who is a matter of conjecture and it is likely that we will never know who did what and what was their intent at the time.

The engine in the P4 acts as a stressed member in torsion. The mounts on the side of the engine support the engine, but they don't do much more than that. Torsional loads are transferred from the rear transmission mounts to the main bulkhead through the mounting locations on the bulkhead. Bending loads are not transmitted through the engine, those loads are transferred from the rear transmission hoop to the bulkhead by the long diagonal tubes, so there is no reason or need for the engine mounts on the side of the engine to do any more than support the engine weight.

 

Complete and utter BS from start to finish with conjecture stated as fact and totally ignoring things that have already been disproved by MF. The solution on JG's chassis to bolt the engine to it with bolt on adaptors does not work in what they were trying to achieve with the P4, which was to stiffen it up. It does the opposite and compromises it. I will remind you that the P3/412P engine is also semi stressed in the chassis.

With reference to the tube on the LHS of the chassis that joins the other tubes in the middle on Jim's chassis and more to the side on genuine Ferrari chassis 0854, at the RHS side of JG's chassis the corresponding tube also does so in the middle. See pic. See also pic of the RHS of 0854 which demonstrates better the distance of the meeting point of the tube from the central bolt hole and the other tubes. This has nothing to do with the kerb accident Vaccarella had at the Targa in 67. The disproved repair described by Jim in his 0846 pdf was totally different to the one you describe. See pic attached. Nothing has been documented about any repair on the real 0846, only what has been written in the fantasy JG 0846 pdf. The rear of 0846's chassis was identical to a P4 in 1967 anyway which further disproves the alleged Sparling weld on JG's chassis.

The angle between the two tubes that meet in the middle of the bulkhead is narrower on Jim's chassis than on both 412P and P4. See pic with yellow lines between the tubes.

The tube that is not there on Jim's chassis was never there which you can tell by the way the other tubes meet. I was going to go further but I'm not going to waste my time banging my head against a wall. I am however glad that you can see the many differences and that's because it's a replica and not genuine Ferrari.
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Ha! That literally made me LOL 😃

 

In front of witnesses at 0858 auction, DP Could Not explain differences between P3 & P4.


via Tapatalk

 

What exactly was DP asked and what was his response?

 

...and as you brought the subject up, who were the witnesses?

 

Since Steven is all knowing and all seeing of all things related to this car how does he explain the differences between Jim's car and all of the other cars as it relates to the bulkhead where the tubing configuration obviously different from any other car, be it the 412/P3's and the later P4's. Inquiring minds want to know???

Recall that there were 5 chassis originally built and that the first 3 were built into cars (0844, 0846 and 0848) the last two chassis were not built due to the labor problems so they were essentially spare frames that were sitting around for the better part of a year. 0846 was modified to P4 configuration and the last two P3 chassis were built to 412P's and sold as customer cars, as were the two remaining P3's. Three new chassis were built for the P4's, and no other chassis were built, so far as anyone knows there were no spare chassis ever built.

Piper comes along and ostensibly had "three" chassis built by the original shop in the original P4 jigs and his 0900 chassis looks just like a P4, with the same bulkhead configuration. And one of those three "new" chassis that has a tube on the left side misplaced as well as a different bulkhead configuration and has other damage consistent with repairs and modifications that were known to have been performed on 0846 in period???

Are we supposed to believe that this oddball chassis that has other P3 attributes and weld repairs was built new for Piper when he built 0900? It has different diameter tubes in some places and a clearly modified water hose fitting that is consistent with a P3 modified to a P4. If it was built new at that time it would have had the same bulkhead configuration as 0900 and the other P4 chassis that were built in those jigs and that it clearly doesn't have.

And where did this chassis come from if it wasn't made in the same jigs as 0900? In order to build a complete chassis that all the P car parts bolt up to would either require a herculean effort or access to the chassis jigs and the original P4 prints. Piper had the resources, but why would this chassis be any different than 0900 if it was built at the same time in the same jigs???

The simple answer is that it wouldn't be different than a P4 or 0900 if it was built at the same time as the other Piper chassis. The only conclusion that you can make is that this chassis wasn't built at the same time as the later Piper chassis for 0900 and the other Piper chassis.