The (one and only) '0846' Debate Thread

From what I have read of Jim's PDF,the main focal point identifying his chassis as 0846, centered around the REAR section of the chassis. Mr. F stated that the FRONT of the chassis looks similar to 0846.

He also stated that the rear section of the car is completely wrong, and is somthing Ferrari would never do..yet Jim focuses on the mounts as major proof..yet the man who built the car dismisses it. That is an eye opener.

My question is, did the front ends of the cars change much over the years? Is there anything that would be significantly different in 0846 front end v's anyother P3? If he recognizes a difference, then he should state what those differences are.

 

There are differences in the front, although minor, but differences nonetheless. The changes from P3 to P4 in the front are what Foghiari is referring to in his signed letter stating he recognizes making when converting 0846 from P3 to P4.

Also in the rear the original engine mounting points are of P3 design. The points that were later welded on as well as changes in the bulkhead tubing are to accommodate the P4 engine.

So unless anyone has any factual information they can let me in on, I am of the belief that this chassis was originally built to P3 specs and then later converted to P4.

If anyone feels I am wrong please feel free to correct me.

 

(1)But this is not a court of law, this is the peanut gallery. Are we curious? Sure. Is MF, JG, DP, under any obligation to spend their time and effort to satisfy us? Not in the slightest, especially when courtesy is abandoned and pestering and nagging become the modus operandi. Expecting, nay, demanding, answers OR ELSE conclusions will be made is absolutely ridiculous - it takes a lot of nerve and and a very undeserved sense of self-importance to assume any right of response. Again, this is very far from a court. If it came down to a genuine court, then perhaps JG and MF would bother. For us? Not any more, especially when Steve has gone out of his way to call JG a liar on multiple occasions.

(2)"any trained historian/investigator/attorney"? So Steve is trained now? In which discipline? Who trained him? Who commissioned this investigation? What gives Steve any right to pester these two individuals with question after question? Why is there any obligation for these individuals to continue to answer Steve's questions? Where does Steve get any right to demand or hold out for proof from any of the parties? When Steve held out for MF's affirmation as proof, why does he get to suddenly abandon it and set a new standard of proof, questioning MF's authority?
(3) Essential for who? We are not a court of law, we're the peanut gallery. In the absence of judge or jury, the standard of proof is a whole lot lower. Again, What gives Steve the RIGHT to demand anything? I think it's incredibly aggressive, rude, and insulting for Steve to be demanding anything.

(Substitute "anyone" for "Steve" in the above, of course - Steve just being the most aggressive of those making further demands on MF to justify his statements)

Here in the peanut gallery with the rest of us, how is Steve's role suddenly to be the doubtful sceptic who demands proof before he gets to conclusively state acceptance of evidence or not? Are you now saying, on your own or on behalf of Steve, that MF's declarations are now not sufficient proof? You guys want to cross-examine and challenge MF? When did he become the accused?

Funny, you claim Steve is taking a hard look at every piece of evidence - how about we ask Steve to follow up on a few questions that are a key part of this story, which he has completely glossed over and accepted as fact without a shred of proof?

Here Steve, in your impartial quest for truth backed by absolute proof, these questions are for you to pose:

1) Ask Mr Piper to show proof that Enzo Ferrari authorized DP to make ONE P4 frame copy, with proof that Enzo Ferrari assigned to DP serial number 0900.
2) Ask Mr Piper why he commissioned 3 copies of the P4 frame, when Mr. Ferrari allegedly authorized only ONE
3) Ask Mr Piper why Marcel Massini stated that he saw the frame of 0846, so stamped, in Switzerland en route to a David Piper company? Mr Piper has declined to answer so far the single time you mentioned it, surely there is a paper trail.
4) Ask Mr Piper if he had modified the rear section of 0846 frame to accept a different engine? Ask Mr Piper for the complete paper trail of every movement, modification, change, use, log of the frame alleged to be 0846 while in his possession, since that seems to be the standard being demanded of MF and JG.

Don't accept "I don't want to talk about it" as an excuse again! Go after these questions with the same vigour with which you are pursuing MF and JG if you want the undisputed history and trail of possession and source of modifications on the chassis confirmed by MF to be that formerly known as 0846 according to MF!!!!

If you review, I've done nothing but ask questions of Steve - mostly around his initial acceptance of MF as the ultimate authority, then around his challenging the statements of the authentication provided by MF. It's Steve who has refused to answer very direct questions. Why not ask Steve to answer those questions? Any claim that Steve is the slightest bit impartial in his quest is more than laughable, it's hilarious.

 

Agree..however, the modifications according to Mr. F are not somthing Ferrari would have done, and he did not do them. The engine mounts on Jim's car are the big focal point. Which according to Mr.F are defiantly not correct. It's seems the evidence has switched ends. But is it enough to call Jim's car 0846?

 

I didn't realize how much fun this thread could be.

I had thought that if you had the serial number tag, you could build
an entire car around it with parts from a thousand different places,
and the car would be an authentic car with that serial number.

So now I learn that if you had a piece of a chassis frame, you can
build an entire car around it with parts from a thousand different
places, and this is an authentic car with the serial number that an
expert asserts was once associated with that frame part.

Gee, you learn something every day.

 

So who had the frame in between Ferrari and JG? Hmmm, that would be David Piper.

Steve, here's another question for you to pursue vigorously for absolute proof with Mr. Piper in your quest to establish the story of 0846! Nag him, hound him, demand answers to your questions or else we will be forced to conclude he was up to something funny! Don't forget to demand documentation! Make sure the documents were witnessed by an attorney or justice, so that we know they will stand up in court.

Why has it taken Mr. Piper 12 years to not answer what happened to those engine mounts? Something fishy is definitely going on, just as something fishy must be going on if it took 12 years for JG to contact MF to inspect the frame.

What do you mean, this doesn't work both ways? We're not allowed to demand answers from Mr. Piper? It's not ESSENTIAL that Mr. Piper answer with documented proof?

No, there's no double standard or bias to Steve's "investigations", none at all!

 

Vincent,

Just one more word from me as to the original statement in Italian langage, if I may?
There is an interesting point that I tried to suggest: Mauro Forghieri says in Italian that the "Italian version is the only one that "makes faith"; as said before, the expression "makes faith" exists in italian and french and is, more or less, equivalent to the English "is binding", although not exactly in its effects.

BUT it does confer to his letter at least "some" value as a proof: the expression used ("makes faith") means the one for whom the letter has been written may use it as such.
To me, it means that Mauro Forghieri knew, when he wrote this letter, that its effects may become broader than those of a simple correspondance, but that he understands that. This is precisely why he took the precaution to state that, to these effects, only the Italian version has that strength.

I have a fair grasp of Italian but I would love to read the comments of those who are absolutely fluent in the langage on the vocabulary used by MF.

There is one thing that I am sure of: as said before, he DOES NOT state that the modifications to the rear where NOT made by Ferrari.
He says that: "these were not NORMALLY (or USUALLY) done this way", which is a way to say that you cannot rule out the fact that in ABNORMAL circumstances, they may have been done by Ferrari nevertheless (or by anyone else, for the matter).

Rgds

 

The car is clearly a P3 modified to a P4 whether Piper knows it or not?

IMO Piper would have had to build a P3 first, not a P4. until there is some factual info on him having the means to do this my opinion is it was constructed this way in haste by Ferrari to get the plans finalized to build the other cars in time.

But only Foghiari can elaborate on this theory cause Piper doesn't seem to know the chassis genesis is clearly P3.

Cheers.

 

Oh dear, another personal attack. Why aren’t I surprised?

Not true. Steve did his own research and didn’t need any prompting from me.

Not true.

No

I don’t know.

Are you enough of a gentleman to stop personal attacks that add nothing to the debate?
Nathan

 

Can somebody who is fluent in Italian confirm the translation?

I find it interesting that MF does not just say "The chassis I examined was used by #0846 that had the accident in 1967 at Le Mans". Instead this is said in a convoluted way. Is this a English versus Italian language or culture difference thing?

The ONLY other thing that matters is what identifies the frame as a P3 at the front and what modifications were required to make it a P4?
Pete

 

Pete,

In his letter of February 23rd, which is in Italian and English, and which I have just read again in Italian to be sure, he does not say anything about identifying the frame as P3 from the front.
He says that it is a P3 chassis indeed, that it has been repaired, probably by a third party as the work is not consistent with usual Ferrari practice, this after the le Mans accident that occurred to P4 0846, which was built on a P3 chassis.

He also says that [as the car has officially been crossed from the Ferrari ledgers after the chassis was sent to the scrapyard]
"la tua vettura non puo percio essere designata come #0846": "your car cannot therefore be designated #0846".
Which is a subtle way to say what we know from the beginning: officially the chassis/car has been considered as "destroyed", THEREFORE your car cannot be designated 0846" (leaving a door open: had the number not been crossed from the list, then it could be indeed called 0846?...)

Rgds

 

GordonC - SNIP

(1)It was Vincent who started the discussion about what a court of law would do with MF's letter, not me! I merely pointed out the error that a court would simply accept MF's letter. It would not.

(2) I have no idea if Steve is formally trained or not and do not care. I have worked closely with people who are trained in forensics, and I can tell you that many of the questions he has asked are the kinds of questions they would ask if this "case" were put in front of them.

(3) Essential for anyone being intellectually honest? When you make the claim that an important piece of history that was accepted as lost has been resurrected, you cannot complain when there are skeptics who challenge your conclusions. Your statement about the "burden of proof" being lower is basically a roundabout way of saying that leaps of faith and rose-colored glasses are acceptable ways to judge disputed facts. For fanboys they probably are. For more discerning folks....
.....

While Steve may be a mere "member of the peanut gallery," like I said in an earlier post, someone must play the role he has taken on for himself. I would say others probably have done it as well, just much less publicly....

And yes, I am saying that, based on my background and expectations regarding standards of proof, MF's letter by itself is not sufficient proof of anything. It raises more questions than answers for me, given the circumstances of its creation and what MF apparently did and did not have to work with to reach his conclusions. There is also the matter of translation. What it does provide, and which Steve has pointed out and tried (apparently in vain) to exploit, is an opportunity to learn more from MF about these cars, and possibly this car in particular. Hopefully MF will continue to supply information, with more detail.

If the "peanut gallery" has asked Steve questions and he has the information to respond with, then I agree he should tell what he knows. Get as many pieces of evidence on the table as possible.

I agree with Vincent that it would be preferable to have some sort of "team" or collaborative approach to GATHERING information. However, the adversarial approach has proven to be very effective at discerning the best INTERPRETATION of evidence. So I expect the arguments over what it all means would continue - hopefully to the ultimate benefit of the truth. With what evidence there is left to work with, and with the undisciplined nature of an internet forum free-for-all inquisition being what it is, that may amount to tilting at windmills....

 

1. I feel that you have done the same many times before, but to also answer number 6, Yes I am, I would prefer we look for answers as enthusiasts versus divorce court.

2. I have heard differently from many sources but I will take you on your word.

3. I apologize, I thought the author of this book was you... Ferrari 'P' series: Nathan Beehl: 9780947973025: Amazon.com: Books

4. Fair enough, I thought you had authored a book on the P Series.

5. From what I have gathered and from Foghieri's confirmation of that in the letter I would have to say that it is fact that the car originated as a P3. I don't know how anyone can make any judgements on this chassis till they understand this one piece of research. IMO this is the key fact in why the car could not originate from Piper. As it has been said many times before that he did not have the frame built to P3 spec but rather built it to P4 spec with the plans he purchased from Piper. And as you quoted Piper spoke on this confirming that.

6. Yes, if the person I am dealing with does the same. See above.

 

In that case stop now. But you just had to get another ‘dig’ in, didn’t you?

Well, you’re wrong and so are they.

This is what you said “You have written a book on P4's”, I haven’t.
I wrote a small booklet (not a book), a brief guide if you like, to the Ferrari P Series cars. That is, the sports racing cars from the 250 P to the 312 P. If you read the description on Amazon you will see that it is only 32pgs. Hardly enough to classify me as an expert, which I readily admit I am not.

You asked “Do you feel that this chassis was originally constructed as a P3 or as a P4?” and I answered honestly “I don’t know”.

I don’t remember attacking you personally. So again, I look forward to you applying your own Point 6.
Nathan

 

Piloti

Bygones are bygones as far as I am concerned. Moving on.

I believe it is pretty clear in Foghieri's latest signed letter that he states the chassis in question was once a P3 and that he sees the work done to upgrade it to P4.

Do you think as the brain behind both the P3 and the P4 Foghieri is able to tell the difference in the chassis he designed and state for certain that it was once a P3 and that he also sees the changes made to convert it to a P4? Thus definitively stating that this chassis origin was indeed once a P3?

I am not asking if Foghieri is correct in saying it is 0846, I am merely asking if you believe if Foghieri says this chassis, whether original Ferrari or reproduction, was originally built as a P3? can we agree that he knows what he is talking about and that the chassis was indeed originally built as a P3?

In other words do you believe Mauro F is an expert in correctly identifying a chassis that started out as a P3 and has done just that in his signed letter?

 

*…la versione italiana sia quella che fa fede…*.cheers.clemente

 

Yes you are right, my bad. Basically he is therefore saying that the frame looks like a genuine P3 chassis with non-Ferrari modifications, so it is implied that it must have once held the #0846 chassis tag as all other P3 chassis' are accounted for.

So we are back to: You can't build a P3 chassis from P4 blueprints ... I think we were at this point about 7,000 posts ago

And yes I'm well aware that #0846 has been crossed off the Ferrari ledgers and no chassis can now carry that serial number.
Pete

 

This is in relation to Nerofer's quoted comment in your post about identifying it from the front.

As far as going back to P3 can't be built from P4 plans, I have never left that as I feel it is the main point that shows Piper did not originally build this chassis.

The other question this raises is did someone repair it after LeMans? Due to if it was done properly wouldn't the chassis aft of the firewall be of P4 construction? It is clearly P3 with P4 crudely added on? Are we to believe that the LeMans damage required completely rebuilding the Aft bulkhead chassis? Or is the crude work he is talking about the repaired damaged tubing versus the actual motor mounts? When he speaks of crudely repairing it he may be talking about the fire damaged tubing versus the crude addition of the P4 mounts.

 

All the original P3 complete cars may be accounted for, but have all the P3 chassis? A key question maybe to ask MF is did Ferrari keep bare spare P3 chassis in their inventory during their racing lives.

Most race teams did/still do have a spare chassis or two in case a team car is damaged beyond repair, which many of the components from the damaged car can then be transferred into.

If the answer is no, and that all the chassis were built up into race cars then that narrows the field somewhat down to one unaccounted one.

If the answer is yes, then Jims could even be the original from another P3 that had a chassis swap in period, which has somehow been recycled over time.

All such avenues need to be considered/struck off.

One curious element for me is that Piper clearly recalls his time in the workshops of the artisans during the period the cars were new, but cannot recall who built the chassis of 003? that does not ring true, he appears to be holding back on that element, as well as who carried out the modifications to the chassis to accept both P3 engines originally and later crude modifications to take a P4 engine.

 

Paul.

This has been discussed. I am not saying it is fact but I believe it has been deduced that 0846 is the only unaccounted for chassis of P3 origin. "spare" "partial"(as in only the back half) or otherwise. In those days if there was a spare chassis laying around it was built into a race car. If anyone has any info to the contrary please post.

I will try to find where the discussion took place. I believe it is in this thread somewhere. If I remember correctly I believe it was Macca that that fleshed it out but I could be wrong that it was him?

As much as I would love to grab a Pina Colada or two and go windsurfing in the south of France with Mauro, I don't feel it is right for us to continually bug him with our peanut gallery questions. That being said there are some questions that would be of considerable worth if he were to answer.

I feel in respect for him it is not right to give him daily back and forth etc. I feel if any more questions are to be asked we should create a list and agree on the list before sending and these question should be handled by someone that is fluent in Italian and English.

As far as your workshop comment. I think it is a key element that Piper should easily be able to recall if he is not hiding something? Where were these chassis built and did they have the ability to build a P3? Even though I believe it is clearly know that David only commissioned P4's to be built? And if they did indeed repair the fire damage to the car why was it not done to Ferrari standards if they had the ability to build P4 chassis from scratch? Is there the possibility that if Tom Meade did indeed pull this from the Ferrari scrapyard and it did indeed sit in the back of his shop for years that he is the one that did the crude repair to the fire damaged tube etc?

When Mauro speaks of crudely repaired after LeMans I am inclined to think he means the fire damaged tubing versus the actual engine mounts as from as far as I can tell there was no damage to that area and no need to fix/modify the mounts?

Thoughts?

 

Ferrari 330P4: The Complete Story: Amazon.co.uk: Nathan Beehl, Paul Skett: 9780954694623: Books

?? ;-)

Paul M

 

Oh, he's cool as a cucumber.

Now, back to the marathon game of checkers.

 

Don't forget point 2 of MF's document dated 23.2.16 below:

"2. The P4 chassis were almost identical to the P3s, which were therefore routinely modified to produce P4 chassis."

There were only 3 P4 chassis so if the above is true then all P4 chassis may be modified P3 chassis and all P4 chassis may have been originally P3s. Is MF perhaps referring to the P3/412 P and 412 P cars here and calling them P4s, which definetely were modified P3 chassis, or is he referring to them all? I had previously thought that the P4 chassis were all made from scratch.

 

Never written. Never published. The work of an over-eager publisher. But I think you already knew that. ;-)
Nathan

 

Are you aware of any P3 chassis that aren't accounted for, whether whole or partial, with the possible exception of 0846?

If the P4's, with the exception of P3/4 0846, were built from say "spare" chassis as paul500 suggests could have happened with 0900/0846, I guess it could be a possibility? but I have never heard of them having spare chassis. And if there were spare chassis laying around I would feel they would use those in the customer 412p's that were built from scratch (0850, 0854) versus risking a reworked frame in their factory cars, but that is just my opinion.

In all fairness though, they did take this route with 0846.

If not I feel that logic dictates he is talking about P3's that were made into 412P's.

I also believe that if there were spare chassis laying around or other P3's other than 0846 that were converted into P4's Foghier would have said that it could be one of those versus identifying the car as the Daytona winner AKA 0846. But that is also just my opinion.