The (one and only) '0846' Debate Thread

No idea.

Pete

 

My opinion which is worth NOTHING...but since you asked is...

There is alot of "stretching" to get to those conclusions or theories. In other words there isn't any evidence in it.

I am going to over exagerate to just prove a point here... but how do we know that the rear section on Jims car wasn't made by princess diana and Enzo Ferrari after they found out they both had a love for purple?

I am not aware (and stand to be corrected) that there was evidence that the back half of 0846 was completely chopped off.

I am not aware (and stand to be corrected) that if it they did chop it off they saved it (why would they save scrap metal of an old design that would really just be thrown away.

I am not aware (and stand to be corrected) 0846 was chopped in two and left in two pieces when it was "scrapped"

So... this sentence

" Jims chassis does not have the p4 rear end 0846 did have when it left Ferrari for the last time, it also does not have its original chassis stamping, both facts point in the direction that the chassis of 0846 was not in one piece when it hit the scrap heap."

Should be written in my opinion this way

"Jims chassis does not have the p4 rear end 0846 did have when it left Ferrari for the last time." Its entire rear section is not of factory origin and is not original 0846. PERIOD FULL STOP.

"it also does not have its original chassis stamping." PERIOD FULL STOP

"both facts point in the direction that the chassis of 0846 was not in one piece when it hit the scrap heap."

I don't know where to begin with this. Unless I am completely turned around... This reasoning only works if Jims car is 0846. In other words it only works that way if we work backwards from now and without a shaddow of a doubt Jims car is 100% confirmed as 0846. Unfortunately we have to work from the beginning until the end... otherwise you are starting with a predisposition to find out what you want as opposed to find out what is true.

There are no facts that point to that 0846 was ever broken in two and discarded. There is no testimony to that. There of course are no pictures (boy I wish there were). Even if you used Marcels evidence that he saw a P3 or a P4 chassis and we run with the it was 100% 0846 theorey he said it was a P3 or P4 chassis... Not two or multiple pieces of a chassis but ONE entire piece.

I don't see how the statement of 0846 was in two pieces holds any water. Obviously 0846 was modified in the rear section as race cars got modifications and the car went from P3 to P4 specs so yes there were modifications but no one has ever stated that they hacked the back clean off and started fresh. That hasn't been suggested by anyone familiar with these cars.

Also... to make this post even lengthier...

I still think the rear bulkhead firewall looks different between period pictures of 0846 and Jims car. I don't see why there would have been a change or why that section would need to be modified for P4 spec. It looks like a different chassis all together. THere is just no reason why those particular tubes would have been changed or modifed due to the factory needing to adapt P4 specs. It doesn't make any sense to me.

 

Paul500,

DP003 does NOT have a P3 rear end, the rear of the chassis is 100% P4 with extra engine mounts to take a P3 and a F1 engine. Steve has proven that DP003 is 100% P4 chassis wise thanks to research and photos he has posted here.

See Steve's posts about 10 pages back
Pete

 

Vincent has dug up a post by Paul dated 27.3.16 when things were less clear.

 

Yes I have.

But let's talk about standard of proof. Paul has claimed that it could have happened. Will he flip flop on that now?

Fact: The only 1967 photographic evidence, that could ever be considered to be close to a case closer and irrefutable evidence is if the chassis, as it sits today, was an exact match to the period photo.

Fact: The 0003 claim is that it was built from scratch from Piper and due to this, that the accident damage is not from it's use as 0846, but the results of crashes that Piper had with the car.

Fact: The car has been modified past it's initial construction. If 0003, done by Piper.

0003 Logic dictates, that Piper has crashed and repaired the rear end as well as modified it. To what extent in this scenario, we don't know. Until we know, when it comes to building evidence, anything could have happened since the picture was taken.

I do agree that Paul's logic is a bit extreme. But we know that changes took place to the rear. So to base that it has to be the same as the picture, as being irrefutable evidence is lacking, in truth. Anything could have changed in the aft bulkhead section, and there is factual proof if you follow 0003 logic, that it did.

And PSK. Steve has not proven that the Chassis was that of a P4. His theory is that the area aft of the bulkhead is P4. And the fact of the matter is, and has always been, is there area's of P3 construction in the chassis?

 

Please could you tell the forum members exactly which P3 elements in the front you have identified. Thank you in advance.

 

Please could you tell the forum members exactly which P4 elements in the front you have identified. Thank you in advance.

 

Jeff was right. You're not worth responding to.

 

Only cause you don't have an answer for that.

Whereas, I do.

 

Ok, well let's hear your answer.

 

Vincent,

You have made statement that you notice P3 in the front section. Since Steve has already demonstrated that he can do his homework and come up with photos for evidence why don't you bother to show that you have similar skills instead of deflecting the questions.

 

Gee Jeff. I didn't think I was worth responding too.

So photographic evidence is the only admissible evidence these days?

Is that photo concrete proof? Let me ask you this yes or no question. Has the aft bulkead chassis changed, at all, under Pipers ownership?

 

It's not my answer.

First let's address Houghtailings Standards of proof discussion. For those desiring a civil conversation, I believe that is the groundwork for that.

That being said. What validity do you give Mauro Forghiari's word?

You can think on it. I'm busy till later tonight.

 

Another deflection. I had better not post anything I may get reprimanded for by the moderators.

 

So you will not establish a standard of proof regarding the validity of Foghiari's word?

Do you believe Forghiari knows of what he speaks?

If so. How much.

Until you can state that. There really is no discussion.

 

I had better not post anything I may get reprimanded for by the moderators.

 

You have not been. But this time you are making an offer of evidence. As such, this time, there is a possibility of meaningful contribution.

So as not to make multiple posts:

John Houtaling may be an excellent litigator but when it comes to this discussion he lacks sufficient understanding to legitimately challenge credibility.

 

Does Forghieri lack sufficient knowledge?

 

Im not sure if I am worthy of civil conversation... but I would certainly and genuinely like to hear what you think the front of Jims car is!

In all sincerity... if you have something i would be interested in learning about it. To me... this whole thing is a discussion. Id love to hear your thoughts or facts or whatever you or anyone else wants to call it.

I hope you have pictures not as evidence... but so a remedial person such as myself can follow along! I was always better with picture books as a child and picture menus as an adult.

 

Stop deflecting and post your evidence on the frame.

 

Anybody have direct knowledge or evidence of the car being at the factory undergoing investigation? Has it been seen at Classiche?

 

So let's recap what we think we know...

Steve has produced numerous photos and defined details that indicate that Jim was probably incorrect in believing that his car was a P3 that was modified to take a P4 engine.. I think we can all accept that.

It is also fairly apparent that there are modifications made to adapt the chassis to support the engine that is currently in the car and that this engine is somewhat different than the P4 engines that were used at Le Mans, based on the old photos of the "rope gang" installing a Ferrari engine in the time tested manner..

The photos of 0846 at Daytona indicate that the back end of the chassis was brought up to a P4 standard and that some details of this chassis (notably one or two tubes on the left rear side) are slightly different from those same tubes on Jim's car as it now sits.

The question is and it has not been answered so far as can recall, is, "are the small differences in the rear chassis tubes between 0846 and Jim's car consistent with

A. The P4 that is "unmolested"
B. The 412/P3 series cars?
C. The Piper built cars, 0900 and his other chassis.
D. None of the other "P" cars??

This would be important to know since it could point to where this chassis came from.

In the bulkhead area there is some difference between 0858 and Jim's car in terms of how the tubes from the heads meet the cross tube, (0858 splays inward and Jim's car they splay outward) and the position of those tubes on Jim's car appear to be consistent with Piper's 0900, but is this consistent with all P4's or just the Piper built P4 chassis? And why, would 0858 be different if it was built to the same P4 drawings as the Piper cars???

As I said Steve has invested a huge amount of time to find these photos and to do the leg work here and for that we are all grateful.

But if he has proven that Jim's car is the same as a P4 from the bulkhead back it then conforms to what 0846 was at Daytona, based on those same photographs.... While he's trying to disprove that this car is 0846 by attacking Jim's contention that it was a P3 configuration, he's making the case that it well could be 0846 if the chassis is indeed very close to the P4 configuration, which 0846 was at Daytona in 1967... Also, realizing that because it was modified from a P3, it may well have some details that would make it different from all of the other P cars, or it may have been changed/modified by Piper in some ways to fit his needs.

Just some random thoughts and questions that inquiring minds would like to know.

 

I think this is a good point and for sure needs clarification.

I believe you are confused (hopefully its not me that is confused) but Muirasv (steve) has not proven that Jims car is P4 from the bulk head back. It is a complete jumble of stuff with some/very little resemblance to actual P4. I believe what steve has been doing is debunking that the back half of Jims car is P4 at all. It is not.

 

Interesting to have you two together. I may be wrong but I believe both of you to be engineers? And I believe may both work in structures with at least an interest in chassis construction?

When I say you two, I am referring to technom3 and Solofast.

Now I may be wrong, but I believe back in the day Solofast had a post on why he felt the bend in the frame could possibly be a result of the accident at the Targa Florio.

If that is true? I wonder if you two could vet out your opposing views?

 

This Jumble of stuff had to have a beginning. And the launching point had to most likely be that of either P3 or P4 construction.

So which is it?

And could that jumble of stuff that grew off of the original construction be the result of change over time, due to use, accidents, and modifications?

If those changes were to happen is it factual that this car, if 0846, would have to look exactly as it does in the picture?