The (one and only) '0846' Debate Thread

Fair enough.

 

Information links to posts from this thread that prove the P4 replica with a 3 litre 312 F1 engine #DP0003 that James Glickenhaus bought from David Piper is NOT Ferrari's 330 P3/P4 #0846, the 1967 winner of the 24 Hours of Daytona.

P3 Wheelbase = 2400 mm NOT 2412 mm. Mr Glickenhaus misunderstands/misquotes Scheda Technica/Technical Data Sheets in his on line 0846 document.

Scheda Technica/Technical Data Sheets wheelbase lengths of P3, P3/4, P3/412P, 412P and P4.

Ing Forghieri’s email reply to me regarding the engine mountings on the Piper/Glickenhaus P4 replica DP0003.

Official 330 P3 Press Notification Statistics Document quoting 2400 mm wheelbase.

Official 330 P4 Press Notification Statistics Document quoting 2400 mm wheelbase.

Christian Huet author of the Scheda Tecnica cited in Mr Glickenhaus's on line document refutes information quoted.

Wheelbase and Engine Mountings Misinformation.

March 2016 Ing. Forghieri Authentication Letter to Mr Glickenhaus.

My email correspondence with Ing. Forghieri regarding Authentication Letter.

Fuller February 2016 Ing. Forghieri Authentication Letter to Mr Glickenhaus.

Why did Mr Glickenhaus conceal Ing. Forghieri's earlier and more comprehensive February 2016 Authentication Letter?

Telephone conversations with both Liz and David Piper.

ALL and ONLY documentation made available to Ing. Forghieri to make February and March 2016 letter determinations to Mr Glickenhaus.

Only cars with 2412 mm wheelbase were the 412 P cars.

Ing. Forghieri thought he recognised oil cooler positioning as from 0846, but on further investigation of pics I sent him, states Glickenhaus P4 = fake.

Ing. Forghieri after seeing pictures of the full chassis and engine on the Glickenhaus P4.

For those that missed the above.

Content of Ing. Mauro Forghieri’s email to me dated 10th May, 2016 in Italian stating Glickenhaus’ P4 is a fake from front to back.

English translation by Gabriele Longoni.

Mr Glickenhaus misquoting Ing. Forghieri.

Some differences between DP0003, 412P and P4 chassis.

Differences in the welds between DP0003 chassis and real P4 0856.

Karl Ludvigsen picture of 0846 at Daytona 1967 proving engine mountings as P4 and not as on DP0003.

P4 0856 engine mountings as P3/4 0846.

Re the text in the following post, the initial engine that DP installed in JG’s chassis was a 4 litre 330 projecting lug engine, not a 3 litre projecting lug 312 2 valve F1 engine as stated.
Mr Glickenhaus' wrong perspective.

Proof engine mountings incorrect for 0846.

Omitted tube at rear proving P4 plans have been used to build P4 replica chassis.

Less than ideal solution to mount the 3 litre 312 F1 engine on DP0003.

P3, 412P and P4 chassis and engine lug differences.

Picture David Piper gave to Nathan Beehl.

Picture proof pictures are of 0846.

P3 diagonal side engine mounting tube not present on 0846.

All P3, P3/412P and 412P cars have the gap between the tubes for the starter as shown in the picture on the RHS , not most of them as I stated in this post.
Differences in tubes on RHS of chassis between P3, 412p and P4 for access to starter motor.

P3, 412P and P4 side and rear side engine mounting differences.

Rear chassis differences.

Proof from real 0846 chassis at Daytona 1967 that rear side mountings not as on DP0003.

Picture proof pictures are of 0846.

More proof pics are of 0846.

Differences between rear side mountings on 0846 and DP0003.

JG's last post on Fchat in July, 2016.

Flaws in above post.

Bulkhead chassis tubes that meet crossbar different on DP0003 to real P4s including 0846.

No room to move a P4 engine forward as Mr Glickenhaus states was done to 0846.

Bulkhead tubes same on DP0003 as other Piper P4 replica chassis but different to real 0846.

DP0003 built to P4 plans modified to fit a 4 litre projecting lug engine.

0846 chassis plate made by JG. I believe the transaxle stamping is real.

DP0003 chassis stated to have been built by Silvano Cantelli and Mario Allegretti.

Drop down bracket engine mounting in bulkhead.

Not so clever modification.

P3/4 0846 rear side engine mountings as P4 0858.

A P4 engine will not fit in DP0003.

Differences in rear side chassis tubes on DP0003 to real cars.

More chassis differences.

3 litre 312 F1 engine with curved rib casting on cylinder block proving not just P4s have the curved rib therefore not an identifying feature of a P4 block.

Proof engine is 3 litre 312 F1, not 4 litre 330 P4 part 1.

Proof engine is 3 litre 312 F1, not 4 litre 330 P4 part 2.

P3/P4 0846 engine chassis bulkhead Le Mans 1967 compared to DP0003.

Compromised engine mountings. Scroll down the page to post 9021 for monocoque engineer Tony Kallil’s reply.

Different welds at intersection of tubes and widths of steering rack mounts between 0846 and DP0003.

Differences in suspension mounting points between DP0003 and real P4s in following links: 1, 2, 3, 4.

DP0003 has square tubing at front. 0846 has round tubing.

If DP0003 really is 0846 it would have rivet holes in front chassis tube.

P3/P4 0846 was left as a P3 at the front for 1967. DP0003 is as a P4 with adjustable bias brakes and supporting tubing, proving built to P4 plans.

Claims made on Facebook.

Bent manipulated bulkhead tube to clear pump due to 3 litre engine.

DP0003 rear clam and supporting tubes stepped up above door sill line when built.

Mr Glickenhaus’ incorrect claims re him researching/discovering and telling the world his Ford GT MK IV was not the 1967 Le Mans winner.

DP0003 P4 style rear side mounts.

No P3 vestigial engine mountings on DP0003. They are P4 in arrangement and style with the geometry to fit a 4 litre projecting lug engine.

Brackets difference in bulkhead.

Major differences in chassis tubes at front.

Windscreen bracket to secure front bodywork different.

Exhaust rubber straps used to affix oil cooler radiator on real 0846.

Incorrect oil cooler on DP0003.

 

Is this evidence for your argument, or is it proof?

I’m going to wager on an X-Ray survey of the chassis to prove that no part of it contains 0846, only then your coffin will be nailed shut.

I personally don’t think it is. But until your evidence is proven,… what I think is irrelevant anyway.

Just my .02 Lira…

 

+1

Besides, I do believe and IIRC, cared enough or had time to deal with this pointless “argument”/“debate”, there seemed to have been more than enough (proverbial) holes defying logic in much of the previously presented “evidence” (from both sides) to sink a battle ship or two, but like often with so many other disagreements, be they about some minor private matters, local/national/international politics or perhaps religion, participants (or their supporters) tend to get way too emotional about their own position (i.e. beliefs) and easily become blinded by those emotions.

And as I’ve said before, as far as I’m concerned, nobody (has) won this “debate” nor do I think anyone ever will, but I and perhaps others on this site ended up loosing because it got pushed too hard by those “emotions”.

 

Thank you Steve!

You certainly had nothing to "prove" ... that burden was on Glickenhaus. But, you went WAY above and beyond ... and, armed with a mountain of evidence, proved the "replica" case anyway!

Given ALL of the above, the ONLY question that matters: Has Glickenhaus PROVED that his chassis is authentic? The burden of proof is his ... and the answer is a resounding NO.

Therefore, the car is a replica. Case closed.

 

Unless any new evidence is forthcoming from either side then simply referring any new posters to Steves very detailed synopsis at post 10477 should at least stop this thread from dragging endlessly on now.

 

I secretly suspect Rob restarts this thread whenever FerrariChat needs more eyeball views.


Sent from my iPhone using FerrariChat.com mobile app

 

As you brought it up yet again, and you have made a number of snide posts with the intent of diminishing the information in my posts, exactly what holes are there that you refer to in the evidence that I have presented? You really should answer this or ST_U.

You have never been able to find a single hole. As you can see in my post in the link here I've now made it very easy for you to find my posts. As you actually say you don't care enough about the subject, why do you bother to keep posting your uninformed drivel in this thread? My posts are not emotional as they are backed up with factual evidence, often photographic.

People like you should not be posting in this thread, as it is very clear that you know nothing whatsoever about the subject. It's clueless people like you, who have contributed nothing to the thread, that have made the thread unnecessarily long.

 

LOL. Care about Ferrari history. Anyone that's followed your posts from the beginning can see the true motivation behind your incessant need is you have an ax to grind.

Jealousy is a twisted mistress and she's got you by the curlies. That's pretty obvious.

 

Why does Steve's "motivation" matter? If the evidence presented is unchallenged and factual, the case is made! Have any of Steve's arguments or evidence been refuted?

Finally ... let's not pretend that Glickenhaus hasn't been on a self-serving crusade to argue the car's authenticity. The "self-serving motivation" argument can work equally well, both ways.

 

It is not factual. It is a one sided opinion. It may be correct, it may not be. Steve is judging most of his "facts" on pictures from 1966, 1967 / BITD versus the car as it sits today. Anything could have happened in that time that would make period correct pictures different than what appears today, making such comparisons moot. Metal is clay. It can be modified in any way the user sees fit. I can take a P4 and melt it down to make toasters. Still the same metal but now in a different shape. Same thing with chassis repair and reconstruction Has Steve ever examined the chassis in person? Has he compared it to the other available chassis in person? Has he done X-ray analysis on the frame? Piper has the original P4 blueprints. Why is it then that his other P4 chassis don't match up to those blueprints? And if that is the case, then why should one expect that a car that was partially re-constructed by Piper or repaired by Piper would match what was correct in period to what has been done since then. It's well knon that Piper built and repaired/modified cars the way he wanted to fit his needs. Has Piper provided any proof of the frames construction from scratch? Pictures? A signed affadavit? Have the actual constructors of the chassis in question done either of that? Steve has done a great job assembling his evidence. A little bit manic and IMO insane, but I wont take that away from him. But it is an amateur internet investigation from afar that has no real hands on or scientific methods available today employed other than comparing pictures.

People can claim anything they want on the internet. But in a cross examination in an actual courtroom, those "facts" may easily be torn to shreds.

Not to mention, I don't believe Steve truly cares about Ferrari race car history as he claims. I don't believe that is why he dug SO deep on this. I think Steve wanted a job selling exotic cars and he did this in pursuit of trying to make a name for himself. I think he did this due to JG didn't approve of some of his idols choices regarding 0858 and he did what he could to take revenge to get in their good graces more than any real care for actual Ferrari history.

Why does that matter? There is no objectivity in that. Truth does not come out of that. It is a one sided narrative that does not explore all the possible options. Just those options you cherry pick to construct your narrative.

 

The narrative is NOT one-sided.

Did Glickenhaus aggressively pursue his claims of authenticity, because he cares about Ferrari history ... or because of his own, self-serving reasons? There's NO "objectivity" in the original claims of authenticity, either!

And again, seems to me that Steve largely used the same "channels" and "types of evidence" that Glickenhaus himself used, in his original claims ... period photos, current photos, and expert testimony. The burden is not on Steve, to imagine or execute "tests" beyond that which have already been done, to "prove" the replica status.

Always comes back to the same, inescapable point: the car is a REPLICA, until PROVEN (by owner) otherwise. And so, the simple question remains: Has Glickenhaus PROVEN his claims of authenticity? If the answer is "no" ... then car is a replica. Period.

 

Nothing personal, Vincent, but post reported.
Your use of the descriptors, 'manic' and 'insane' in regards to Steve's contribution seem like a personal attack.

Happy to be wrong about that but this thread is the last place anyone needs to be pouring gasoline on the discussion.
Also I'm not interested in derailing the thread so if you or anyone else has an issue with it, please PM directly and I'll reply.

I'm not really clear on the resurgence of interest (argument) in the recent posts here.

For the record, I think Steve is right. And by right, I mean he has proposed the most Occam's Razor (Jim's favorite)-like explanation for the subject at hand.

It would have been neat to think that 0846 had survived per Jim's story.
As a craftsman, I personally bristled at an historians dismissal of a mechanic's conclusions (Siebert and Sparling?- don't care enough to check at this point) regarding the car.
I certainly sided with Jim back then in part because of that perceived slight. My own bias.

I don't think Pipes was successful in the work done on 0858 and Steve and I did not see eye to eye on that.

Still, I accept Steve Robertson ('miurasv')'s research and conclusions as the only reasonable explanation for what Jim owns.

If anyone has an affirmative duty to 'prove' anything, it is Jim and only Jim.

I don't think anyone who was part of all bickering we did on this thread back then can see Jim's subsequent silence and departure as anything other than an acknowledgment that his theory was debunked and his car would not be recognized the way he wanted it to be on this website.

Just my 2 cents.

 

Thank you, agree 100%. I've been saying such, all along.

We can, I suppose, imagine what the "execution or demonstration of proof" must look like, now:

- Glickenhaus would have to dismantle, and soundly refute, each & every bit of Steve's evidence.
- Glickenhaus could certainly, then, have any x-ray or other metallurgical analysis performed for proper "dating" or "authentication" of the chassis.

Absent the above, the burden of proof has not been met ... and the replica status stands.

 

Explore all possible options? For what reason? To keep the dream alive Jim’s car is actually 0846 and not exactly what he purchased - a replica? And why would we want or even need to do that? I mean, one possibility is the Easter Bunny, Santa, the Tooth Fairy, and a Leprechaun teamed up to build the car. Not very likely… although I’d argue more plausible than Jim’s storyline. Should we run that down or wait to close the books on the story until we know for sure?

Image Unavailable, Please Login

The fact is it’s exactly this kind of zealotry that keeps the naysayers “dug in”. Jim has provided absolutely zero evidence in terms of documented serial numbers or metallurgy analysis to show his replica is anything other than a copy and we all know he has the means and access to make it so and publish the results if they actually proved his position. To date only number on the car that exists showing 0846 is one he added. Race car or not there isn’t any documentation a single component of DP003 is from the 0846 car aside from what Jim says - and none of that jives with period photos or documentation. In fact the closest Glik came was the Forghieri letter which turned out to be created under false pretenses (at best). But sure, go ahead and attack the messenger with the car sales conjecture and even question if he’s genuinely into Ferraris and their race history rather than looking at the guy who hasn’t proven a thing he’s claimed… then be surprised and claim “axe to grind” when Steve doubles down and posts even more documentation.

 

Well, the problem with your reasoning is that I am not saying JG has proven his claim. I don't feel either has. All we have is speculation. And from his absence here I don't think he really cares to.

I think Jim thought he had the remains of 0846 due to this or that, things change and I don't feel that Jim, with what he has provided thus far, has proved that either.

All we have is speculation or theories with no actual concrete proof from either side. There has been no impartial entity weighing the decision, just people on whatever side believing what they want. No one has been croos examined under the penalty of Perjury. There is nothing but heresay from Piper.

A car that has not been proven to be the real deal is not a replica. It could be either or, as neither side has proven it one way or the other.

There is a decent chance the car is a replica, but in no way has that been proven. And using heresay and non-legally binding testimonials does not prove eithers case. It is nothing but speculation either way.

 

Glickenhaus has to "prove" authenticity; NO ONE has to "prove" replica. It's a replica, until PROVEN otherwise. No two ways around it.

If Glickenhaus has failed to prove authenticity, then the car is a replica. That's the way the system works ... that's the way it has to work. Otherwise, every Tom, Dick and Harry who claims some degree of authenticity must be given some measure of respect and veracity, until a "fake" is "proven". Complete waste of time and resources, for everyone.

Fake, until PROVEN real. Period. No wiggle room. Only ONE side has the "burden of proof" ... and that's the person making the extraordinary claims.

No one needs to "prove" the car is a replica. All claims to authenticity have been refuted, therefore the car stands as a replica.

 

No offense taken. You have to do what you feel is right. I was not using those terms as a personal attack but rather how he went about presenting his case. I feel it was a bit over the top and slightly nuts that he would go that far in his pursuit but in no way am I saying he himself is manic or insane. He may be but I don't know the guy in the real world.

You can accept Steve's opinion all you want and I see where that has creedence, but again, that is only your opinion as well. Not a factual judgement. Nor is it based on actual facts that have been considered under cross examination by an impartial jury with the penalty of perjury. And that applies in either case.

Again, the only person Jim would have to prove the authenticty of this car to would be a buyer as then he is entering a legal agreement. If Jim does not care to engage with MiuraSVU, and I can understand why, as I'm sure others do as well, my guess is Jim is spending his time doing more important things than wasting hours on an internet argument he does not care about.

Jim can call the car whatever he wants and tell anyone that the car is this or that and that does not make it so, as so far he has provided nothing but speculation. The same aaplies to MiuraSVU. I can say my 1983 ATC 70 is a P4, that doesn't make it so and I can do that all I want. Someone can shout at the rooftops all they want that it isn't a ATC 70 and they are welcome to do that as well. Doesn't make it so. It's just what they believe.

I don't know why this thread fired back up, as I am just commenting months after it has. That would be a question for the poster that did get it going again, not me.

 

A forum is not a court of law. There has been no impartial jury or cross examination under penalty of perjury. It's JG's decision if he cares to entertain this or not. He has zero duty to anyone to prove the car is real or not. Seems to me that he doesn't really care what your or anyone else's opinion on this forum is. If he doesn't care to engage it does not make the car a replica. The car is what it is, due to if it was to be the real deal the metal is there whether he proves it or not. That doesn't change as it would be a constant. What you are really discussing is if he cares anymore to prove it to you or the rest of the peanut gallery which clearly he does not. Does not make his claims that the chassis is 0846 true. But to say a factual conclusion has been reached is a fallacy. I do agree that there's a good chance the chassis is not 0846. But that's just based on amateur investigations by both parties and is nothing more than speculation and opinion so far.

Steve can provide all the new evidence he wants. It is one sided as the other party seems uninterested in engaging. It's a one sided argument filled with speculation by non impartial parties deciding what is and what isn't, but none of that is fact, just opinion.

Yes. Steve has had an axe to grind since this started and IMO, he's still grinding it. Maybe if he wasn't so aggressive in grinding that axe and attacking JG, JG would still be around and we could then come to a more informed conclusion. But IMO, Steve turned this into a pissing match early on and if I were JG I wouldn't waste my time with it either. Mostly if I had a good P3/4 replica or not sitting in my garage.

 

JG isn’t responding on Fchat purely because there’s an opportunity for debating what he claims out in the open where inevitable retorts will be presented that he cannot overcome. Instead he peddles his (one sided and biased) story to bloggers, YouTubers, on Facebook and Twitter pages where he can sensor respondents, Wikipedia where he can keep editing contrarian statements made, or anywhere else he doesn’t have to actually substantiate or publicly defend his claim a replica is 0846 without having it openly critiqued. He wouldn’t be shouting his nonsense from every other rooftop aside from here if he didn’t care…

 

LOL. Jim doesn't have to prove squat. It's his car, he can do what he wants with it. If he cares what you think, I'm guessing he would present his case but I think it's obvious he does not care. I don't see JG entering any legal agreement that the car is 0846, just claims that are also speculation and opinion at this point. But the idea that he has a burden of proof owed to you or anyone, is laughable. The only burden of proof he owes you in a non legal environment is if he cares to convince you what he believes it is, again, from his absence here I'd have to guess he does not care. He is not on this page screaming from the rooftops that this is 0846 like Steve is. Maybe he's realized it's not 0846, maybe he just doesn't care to waste his time, I certainly wouldn't if I were him. But either way he owes nothing to anyone as there is no legal reason he has to. You are free to think what you want and so is he, but no one has proven anything either way. True, Steve has put together some valuable theories and pictures, but nothing conclusive that factually states he is correct.

A car is not a replica due to it has not been proven to be or not be. A car is what it is and that does not change. If someone wants to prove it is 0846 then they should do so. But if they don't care to engage, that does not automatically make it a replica. It just makes it a car that has yet to be proven as the real deal. If JG cared enough to do that, it is his decision. But if he doesn't it does not mean that it is not. It just means it has yet to be proven and the chassis cannot be confirmed to be what he claimed it is.

 

Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Maybe. Or maybe he just got tired of dealing with Steve. I think it's pretty obvious that Steve did not address him in a rational manner when he was willing to engage. I have not seen much on Facebook from him regarding 0846 in awhile that I can remember. He's free to do as he pleases IMO. Should he engage? IMO, depends on how fanatical the posters are.

 

Sweet vid. Do you have your junior high school pics tomorrow? Something is what it is due to it was produced as that. It doesn't have to be proven to a bunch of fanboys on the internet to make it so. I have many cars that are what they are, whether or not I prove it to you or any other person does not matter. That does not make it authentic. It is what it is due to it was built that way. Fact. Also saying it's this doesn't prove it is either. The only thing that matters is if it is, proving it is up to the owner if they care to. From what I have seen, JG does not care to do that, at least with this group. And IMO it is this group that made him not want to engage, for whatever reason (he knows it's not, he's tired of wasting his time being badgered by Steve) and frankly I don't blame him. I feel if the conversation were kept respectful, which it was not, he may still be here.

 

LMAO

Glickenhaus SURE seemed eager to convince people that his car was authentic, for hundreds and hundreds of pages in this thread!! He even "lawyered-up" to "prove" his case, as I recall. It's REALLY funny to read about how he "doesn't care" and he "doesn't need to prove squat", now. Surely, even you can see how disingenuous that sounds!

Does he "owe" anything, to anyone? No, of course not. But his claims are unproven, and therefore false. It really is that simple ... even if you refuse to agree.

A car unproven to be authentic IS a replica, period. Not only has Glickenhaus failed HIS burden of proof ... but ALL of his claims have been soundly refuted, by the same "flavor" of evidence used in his original claims (period photos, current photos, expert testimony).

This all points to one inescapable conclusion: there's not even a HINT of surviving evidence, that has withstood scrutiny, that the car is authentic! There is, now, NOTHING to support Glickenhaus' claims.

The Norwood 330 P4 that i can buy tomorrow, has an equally legitimate claim to being 0846. If I make such a claim, is the burden on ME, to prove it ... or YOU (audience at large), to disprove it?