David Piper restores the Talacrest P4

Irrespective, I am sure we will be reading about this car in a magazine feature of some sort in the not too distant future and its going to be interesting to see how the story of the car is told.

As for buying it, well for a long time I hoped one my countryman would buy it and restore it to Gunston colours.

 

Likely because Piper continued racing these cars after the factory and was given the blueprints (and 'ok') to produce a few more on his own.. which is how 0846 ultimately ended up with Jim.

I've always had the feeling most P car enthusiasts have a love/hate relationship with the guy. Personally I think he just operates in a '67-75ish vacuum and for him, consulting on this rebody/massacre is no different than keeping an old race car on the track.

 

I don’t think Ferrari Classiche certify any car as being original do they? My understanding is that they can only certify that a car matches the original specification, as it last left the factory, for full Red Book Attestation. Being original and original specification are two different things.

0858 has the full Red Book Ferrari Classiche Attestation as a Can Am car and contains factory records of its race history including coming second at the 1967 Brands Hatch BOAC 500 with Jackie Stewart and Chris Amon at the wheel, clinching the 1967 +2.0 Manufacturer's World Sports Car Championship.

Reverted back to P4 configuration, Ferrari Classiche would allow for the submission of 0858 to be attested as a Ferrari of Historic Interest. As the criteria for Red Book Certification is that the car’s specification must be as it last left the factory, and that was as the Can Am car, this is the only reason that Classiche will not allow it to be so attested as a P4, and not because Ferrari disapprove of its reversion to P4 configuration. In fact, the Ferrari Factory in September last year asked John Collins if he would arrange with the new owner, if 0844, itself a P3>412P that became a Can Am car and re bodied as a Prototype Berlinetta by John Collins and David Piper in 1998, could be displayed at the factory for an exhibition of the Prototype cars. If Ferrari had frowned upon the reversions they would not have wanted 0844 in its re bodied Prototype Berlinetta configuration in their Prototype Exhibition.

The estimated time for the completion of 0858 to P4 configuration is approximately 6 months from now. It will be sold along with the removed Can Am body.

 

Firstly as The Factory has displayed PURE replicas I'm not sure that what they display proves much.

Secondly the Factory had no problem if someone wanted to pay them (Classiche) to put a replica P4 body on 0858 and chop it's original chassis to fit that Replica P4 body and become a "Ferrari of Historical Interest" rather than a 350 Can Am with a Classiche Red Book. They were quite clear that even if someone paid them to do that they would NOT issue a Classiche P4 Red Book to 0858.

Thirdly I own 0858's Original Spyder body tail that 0858 was wearing on the day/race you mentioned (1967 BOAC) and it's clearly the one that blew off and was damaged at that race not the one that was on the car that finished second. 0858's original spyder tail is currently mounted to 0846.

So far as I know Symbolic removed 330 Can Am 0844's original body and fit it with a Replica 412P body not JC.

Cheers

 

The word "original" has a very wide meaning and can mean many different things. A Classiche Report does confirm whether or not the engine and gearbox are original to the chassis at the time of build/last left the factory by the serial numbers and whether they're numbers matching or not but not whether they or the rest of the parts that make up the car are in original condition or in the case of the rest of the parts necessarily original to the car which is what I meant by original in my post 178 above. When Classiche restore a car for attestation it's restored to "as original specification" which again doesn't necessarily mean the parts that make up the car are original to the car when new or when it last left the factory.

 

Thanks for sharing that one!

Gr. Martin

 

As Pete pointed out, Ferrari would not be the client. Still needs to get to an end user to decide who will profit from the work.

Buying a P car is not a rational decision by any means, if one gets emotional about them, pull out the checkbook.

 

Bill Brown won in this car at Bathurst in 1968. My Dad was there and ever since became one of his favourite cars. I registered on these forums to try and find out what happened to this car and what they are doing does not sit well with me.

I believe it also won other races in Australia and South Africa.

 

Welcome Hingo!

 

not too long ago I had a model commissioned of this gorgeous car.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

More models here: http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/collectables-literature-models/342169-1-18-350-ferrari-can-am.html

 

Must be with all the money he will get from suing journalist Mark Hales (who is going to loose his house and forced into bankruptcy) who he accused of damaging the engine of this 917 replica....Piper is a troll and arsehole of the highest order...

Mark Hales and David Piper court case

 

Thanks for the welcome

I recently purchased this model and it is sitting at the post office for me. It is a gift for my Dad.

Bill Brown's 350 Can Am Bathurst 1968



Someone may know this better than I, is the stripe on the nose supposed to be black? I have seen it with a green stripe at other tracks but most Bathurst photos are in black and white so it is hard to tell if this is correct.

 

McKay's 250LM was considerably more successful, and much loved. McKay was glad to get rid of this car.
Pete

 

Thanks.
I hadn't heard.
Rotten luck.

 

858 is not owned by Piper, restauration is done by Piper for Talacrest.
as stated earlier in this thread

Statements like that are not very nice.. Don´t judge someone on opinions, you probably never met the man. I never met him either, but restrain myself from an opinion on something I can´t judge.

why don´t you first fill in your profile, so we know who is talking!

 

I am in no way attached to the case I however have followed this case closely for personal reasons, being an owner of cars that are used for track events and evaluations in the past. I think that for anyone to be personally and financially ruined in such a way is not very gentlemanly...if that the tone you wish to take ........it however potentially creates a legal minefield for motoring journalists to review classic cars moving forward.

For what it's worth have a look at the below deposition and response from Mark Hales legal team and judge for yourself....my opinion however is mine and I reserve that right...again take a look at the below document it makes very interesting reading very interested in your thoughts:...without prejudice


RESPONSE TO JUDGEMENT PIPER v HALES

The Judgement in this case has been seen by some as complete proof of guilt. Reading that Judgment though imparts no sense of what actually took place. There is a verdict and it will stand but all those who were there in court find it extremely hard to say that Mr Hales had a fair hearing. We must live by the rule of law, but in this case it was categorically not fair.
What the Judgment omits to mention are a number of disturbing factors which arose during the trial but did not make their way into the Judgment. Amongst these are:

 The failure by Mr Piper to keep any maintenance records whatsoever.

 Mr Piper’s reliance on an invoice dated the 30th February, in which the issuer
misspelt his own name.

 Mr Piper’s reliance on cash payments which could not be substantiated.

There was no proof of payment whatsoever for any of the bills.

The crucial detail completely missing from this Judgment however, is any analysis of how Mr Piper gave his evidence. He took an age to answer questions, spoke at the same time as the barrister and on occasions failed to speak at all. On several occasions he answered with "no comment". The judge took no issue with any of this. He did however constantly interrupt and berate Mr Hales' counsel in a most patronising fashion while she made attempts to obtain answers, viz; "cross examination has moved on." "This is no way to conduct a cross examination..."

The judge admits that Mr Piper had difficulty in remembering events and conversations but said he had to make allowance for Mr Piper's age. Mr Hales' memory of events on the other hand was extremely clear and consistent with his witness statement. The judge chose to regard the man who couldn't remember and refused to answer, as a credible and honest witness, while the man who could remember very well, was self-serving, creative and dishonest.

The court heard that the car "had been raced" not long before the Cadwell Park test and exhibited no problems. The court also heard that it was not a race, but a demonstration at a press day where the car was driven up the Goodwood Hill, which is a one-track road. The court heard that the speed of the demonstration would ensure gearshifts were made at much lower revs. The significance of this did not make it to the judgement.

The court heard that the car had been raced subsequent to the Cadwell Park event and exhibited no problems. The court also heard that the car had indeed been raced and that one of its drivers elected to drive no further because of his difficulty with the gearshift. The court heard that the car's new owners had to change the gearbox in order that the car could be raced at the Le Mans Classic. This did not make it to the judgement, but it is an accepted fact that incorrect adjustment of the shift mechanism will eventually damage the synchromesh in the gearbox itself.

The letter which was sent to the insurance company and provided the main plank of the Claimant's case because Mr Hales apparently admitted guilt, in fact did no such thing. The letter stated that there was no fault apparent with the gearbox during the event. In fact the court heard that it was the gearshift mechanism and the extra long throw needed to reach third gear which had been intentionally adjusted out of range towards second gear, which was the problem. This is not the same thing as a mechanical defect within the gearbox.
If a gearlever in a cockpit is connected to a gearbox which lies several feet behind, and you adjust it to favour second, it is obvious that it will move the lever further away from third, which lies directly opposite, giving the symptoms that Mr Hales described. The shift could almost certainly have been adjusted on the day to fix the problem. The court heard that the team declined to make this adjustment and asked Mr Hales to be careful.

The court heard that this selector adjustment is normal practice with Nick Mason's Ferrari which was the other subject in the test and which suffers from exactly similar problems.
The judge, and the counsel, all struggled with any understanding of this, or of synchromesh.
The court heard that Mr Hales had discussed the shift problem with Mr Piper's mechanic, after just one lap. The court also heard that the conversation between Mr Hales and Piper's mechanic was corroborated by Nick Mason's engineer Charles Knill-Jones, but the judge chose to disregard the latter's evidence.

It was this maladjustment that Mr Hales contends caused him to fail to select the gear. This is not the same as describing a gearbox fault (eg a broken synchromesh) and so under guidance from Octane Magazine's publisher, he felt able to approve those words.
The letter said that the car was "running well and all the gauges were within limits". That was true. As the judge himself observed, the statement referred to the engine, not the gearbox.
The additional difficulty with any issue over insurance is that Octane Magazine was the policyholder and Mr Hales was left alone to deal with this. No-one from Octane was present in court to explain their central role - or that of Dennis Publishing. It was suggested that this was also Mr Hales' fault because he had failed to join them into the process. He didn't, because he would have ended up fighting two sets of expensive lawyers, and would be liable for their costs. It is hard to see the fairness in that.

The judge has also mentioned conspiracy to commit insurance fraud. He said that since there was no one there from Octane, nobody could ask them and the court would have to move on. The explanation above, read by someone with mechanical knowledge addresses this point.
The time spent on this letter and the question of insurance was disproportionately greater than that spent on the invoice with the impossible date, or the fact which the Claimant's barrister finally agreed; that there was no-one in Court other than Mr Hales who was anywhere near the car when the incident occurred.

Mr Piper was in the witness box for a little over an hour. Mr Hales was in the witness box for three and a half hours. Our barrister was constantly asked to “move on” when questioning Mr Piper yet there were no such urgings when Mr Hales was in the witness box. Any attempt by Mr Hales to add context has been described as "combative".

There was a great deal more, but an essential topic not discussed in court was why the matter was not settled to avoid the need to be there at all. This was because at first, Octane Magazine - as the policyholder and senior partner - handled all the negotiations with Mr Piper. This included an offer of settlement, which was rejected. When Octane's negotiations had run their course and Mr Hales was left to deal with the matter alone, any goodwill on Mr Piper's part had understandably been exhausted.

A Courtroom is an imperfect venue in which to resolve disputes. Court 17 in the Royal Courts of Justice has proved no exception. The judge made his opinions about Mr Hales very clear in the judgement which included a gratuitous destruction of his character. Anybody who knows him even slightly would not recognise anything contained in that assessment.

This is a true and factual account prepared in association with Mr Hales’ legal team.

Mr Piper was in the witness box for a little over an hour. Mr Hales was in the witness box for three and a half hours. Our barrister was constantly asked to “move on” when questioning Mr Piper yet there were no such urgings when Mr Hales was in the witness box. Any attempt by Mr Hales to add context has been described as "combative".
There was a great deal more, but an essential topic not discussed in court was why the matter was not settled to avoid the need to be there at all. This was because at first, Octane Magazine - as the policyholder and senior partner - handled all the negotiations with Mr Piper. This included an offer of settlement, which was rejected. When Octane's negotiations had run their course and Mr Hales was left to deal with the matter alone, any goodwill on Mr Piper's part had understandably been exhausted.
A Courtroom is an imperfect venue in which to resolve disputes. Court 17 in the Royal Courts of Justice has proved no exception. The judge made his opinions about Mr Hales very clear in the judgement which included a gratuitous destruction of his character. Anybody who knows him even slightly would not recognise anything contained in that assessment.
This is a true and factual account prepared in association with Mr Hales’ legal team.
Mr Piper was in the witness box for a little over an hour. Mr Hales was in the witness box for three and a half hours. Our barrister was constantly asked to “move on” when questioning Mr Piper yet there were no such urgings when Mr Hales was in the witness box. Any attempt by Mr Hales to add context has been described as "combative".
There was a great deal more, but an essential topic not discussed in court was why the matter was not settled to avoid the need to be there at all. This was because at first, Octane Magazine - as the policyholder and senior partner - handled all the negotiations with Mr Piper. This included an offer of settlement, which was rejected. When Octane's negotiations had run their course and Mr Hales was left to deal with the matter alone, any goodwill on Mr Piper's part had understandably been exhausted.
A Courtroom is an imperfect venue in which to resolve disputes. Court 17 in the Royal Courts of Justice has proved no exception. The judge made his opinions about Mr Hales very clear in the judgement which included a gratuitous destruction of his character. Anybody who knows him even slightly would not recognise anything contained in that assessment.
This is a true and factual account prepared in association with Mr Hales’ legal team.

 

It was Ferrari themselves who made the first mistake|: When the original P4 became the 350 Can Am, it should have received a new chassis number.

Now we have identical chassis numbers for a car that no longer exists (P4 0858) and a 350 Can Am that is being modified out of existence. I don't see how two non-identical chassis can have the same number, even if they never existed at the same time. What, if any, was the motivation behind this?

Out of the two we will end up with no Ferrari 0858 and a bitsa/rebody/replica.

Best,

Jack.

 

Wow, 986986,

that is shocking. Certainly seems to confirm the seemingly prevailing view that Mr. Piper is not a warm and kindhearted octagenarian. But the harsh judgement by the judge based on very flimsy 'evidence' and testimony is also noteworthy.


Onno

 

Emphasis on THEIR word "understandably".

It think it is unfair to post such vitriolic opinions based on incomplete information and on characters you do not know.

Both parties are very well respected and have been so long before this sad case materialised.

 

As Kim mentions, there's a thread for that --> Clicky here. Seems to be a case with no winners, though.

Unless I'm mis-understanding, 0858 was (and is?) only ever one chassis and one number? It started as a P4 and then had whatever modifications were required to make it a Can Am.

 

The chassis was modified by Ferrari as part of the conversion to CanAm. Jack's point is that at that point it should have received a new chassis number. My point would be: why would Enzo ever have done that? It was just a race car, museums and F-chat anoraks were still far into the future. These cars were just a means to an end, to be discarded if no longer fit for purpose.


Onno

 

Ah, my mis-understanding. I thought the suggestion might have been that there were two chassis'.

I agree with your latter point.

 

+1

Ferrari was first and foremost very practical about the identity of their cars.

 

+ 2

Their only concern was to pass the scrutineers. Only now have the numbers become important.