The (one and only) '0846' Debate Thread

Joe, dont hold your breath about Bert and Ernie actually having rational/practical suggestions in relation to such questions, they have been asked time and time again the same thing, one usually goes into hiding for a week or so rather than answer and the other heads into another diversional ranting session. They prefer to continue living in the bubble of denial.

The thread in the meantime is at an impasse until any further past photos appear or some more seasoned observers start to chime in, as has been happening in the last month or so.

The tide may also change once Jim publishes his latest information.

 

At an 'impasse' but I have no doubt that you will continue to post anyway regurgitating MuiraSV's posts, insulting anyone that disagrees with you like a petulant teenager.

Others simply don't have the luxury of being unemployed/unemployable and having that time.

 

Art, it is very simple, just answer the chaps questions above and prove to the world what an utter fool I am!

I am a big boy I can take it.

 

I have no need to. Your own posts do that very well indeed.

 

Your continual refusal to provide even the most basic of justifications for your viewpoints to anyone that asks as to why you think Jims car is really 0846 is the gift that just keeps on giving., keep up the good work.

 

Why does this thread not come up on google searching for ferrari 0846?

 

Google knows more than we do...

 

Maybe someone's being evil?

 

Below are pictures showing the differences between the configuration of the tubes surrounding/supporting the rear side engine mounts of a real P3, P3/412P, 412P, P4 and replica DP0003.
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Thanks Steve. Aside from the differences in the current rear engine mounting framework of DP0003/0846 to known genuine P3 etc., is the current rear engine mounting framework of DP0003/0846 the same as 0900 or 0900a, the two other replica frames commissioned by Piper?

The significance is that we know Piper hacked up the engine mounting framework of DP0003/0846 - so differences in that framework are not conclusive as to whether the chassis used to be 0846, was built identically from P4 plans the same as 0900 or 0900a, or was built differently to those other replica chassis.

Apologies if you have covered this already, I suspect you have, but as others have suggested this forum's format for only allowing pictures at the end of a post make it difficult to follow when multiple pictures are attached. The labels you included on some of those latest pictures do help greatly to keep track.

 

The key element to all of this is whether the chassis is of P3 or P4 construction forward of the bulkhead.

 

I think the extent of Piper's "hack job", was simply to add the bolt on adapters. The photos that Steve have posted appear to show that the configuration of the rear tubes is built in P4 style, but constructed to P3 dimensions.

This supports the notion that the chassis could not have been 0846 to begin with.

If Piper would have cut out the original tubes, instead of adding adapter brackets, I could see the validity of the argument that 0846 could have been modified. But if you remove the "hack job adapters", the evidence clearly shows that the chassis differs significantly from the posted period pictures of 0846.

Ironically, Piper's "hack job adapters" were Jims original "smoking gun" vestigial P3 mounts, that led the entire theory of the chassis being the lost 0846. Recently, this theory has been completely debunked, however a new claim that the engine was moved was suggested.

It is clear to a layman that you can not move the engine forward or down by looking at the forward bulkhead. It is also insulting to claim that removing the stressed engine from its cast-in-block mountings, and rehanging it on fabricated brackets that would not carry torsional loads as originally designed, would add strength, or be an ideal solution for the Ferrari factory.

It seems that every time factual evidence is shown to disprove claimed theories, everybody moves to a different section of the chassis to claim that the DNA actually resides in a new location.

Now that it seems we do not like what we see in 0003, we all of a sudden need to see 0900 and 0900a to diffuse the argument. I thought this was simpler than that:

The 0003 chassis does not match the details and design of 0846. The pictures are clear

 

We have some highly placed Google employees as members here....not counting the guy that died on Everest, last year.

 

Well stated post, and done without insulting anyone....

 

getting mellow in your old age

 

Agreed. He did an excellent job.

Also, at what point... if "we" all "agree" that the back is not 0846 and would consider "north" of the bulk head possibly 0846... at what degree to we really have 0846? if over 50% or there abouts has been deemed not original... what are we arguing over? The car just isn't 0846 in its entirety. Its not even 0846 with repair work. Also, the body work is of NOS and not original according to my reading (I stand to be corrected)

Still I doubt the front section to be 0846 as well. But have obviously not seen factual evidence of that... I guess at this point I would be very surprised if it is the front was 0846

 

It seems that would be the "best case scenario" in terms of folks who believe this is 0846 - that some portion of the front of the chassis is actually from 0846; but the body, engine, gearbox, etc are all period parts or reproduction. Would that really make this car 0846?

 

Jaguar XKD505 was rebuilt from a front subframe, approximately 5 - 10% of all of the car was original and the rest newly made in the 1980s. Multiple cars have been rebuilt around an engine and of course in some parts of the US the car is titled by engine number. The car world is a funny thing since I am not sure you could take 5-10% of a Picasso painting and make it the real thing nor could you take 50 mils of Chateau Lafite 1945 and make the bottle full again. You can rebuild a car around any single part from the original and claim to be the owner of the car as Jim has. Doesn't mean that he actually owns the car........ And thats why we are now up to 430 pages of discussion.

Perspective is a deeply personal thing and some people will look at it and say its #0846 as it sits, others would want the car to be at least 50% parts from #0846, yet others 100% original............ There is no right or wrong answer to what % makes a car a car. Legally the standard used to be possession of the chassis although others believe paperwork is enough and yet more simply believe that you have to be the sole claimant to the chassis number. Ed Hubbard bought (sold?) the Bentley old No. 1 that won Le Mans twice in 1929 and 1930 for approximately 10 million GBP in the late 1980s. When it was revealed that despite continuous provenance, maybe two minor parts had survived the years of racing and WW2, the car having a replacement chassis, engine, body and parts. The disgruntled buyer sued and there was a court case that heard expert witness that as a test of originality one has to assess 5 components, body, engine, chassis, front axle and rear axle and if 3 out of 5 were original, the car should be deemed original. Whichever test you believe, originality is all about personal perspective.......

 

There is no proof whatsoever that Jim's car contains any single part from 0846.

 

I think the key takeaway in this, as well as many other similar situations, is that an original car with a known provenance or continuous history can be restored, no matter how much fabrication, replacement, or restoration has to be completed, or how much of the original example is left. As long as ownership is documented, you can argue that the restored example had some continuity with the original, even if only a VIN tag and assorted parts remain.

I would have no issues accepting that a buyer purchased known D type 505 and restored it from a basket case.

I would, however, have serious doubts, if an individual purchased a Lynx D Type replica, and then claimed that it was built using significant portions of a lost factory D Type, with absolutely no verifiable proof, especially when period photos confirm that the original chassis differed from the Lynx chassis in question.

 

My guess is that if the front is proven to be of P3 construction and proven to match that of 0846, that the bulk of the rear chassis, aft of the firewall is also that of 0846 with the exception of whatever mods can be proven to have taken place after Ferraris possession or can be proven to not be in place when Ferrari had possession.

 

Whoa there Steve, I have no skin in this game and I am certainly not making any claims as to what % if any is in Jims car. Simply saying that Jim or anyone else can claim anything he wants. Just look at Donald Trump or people that post making claims like I can prove whatever. And I was just posting a little commentary to make people think about whats original or not.

My personal thoughts would be that the D-Type XKD505 was parted out in the 1950s and ceased to exist much like our #0846 did a decade later. Now in this case the D-Type had a separate monococque chassis and two subframes, front and rear. The only part to survive in total was the front subframe and that was used in the rebuild of another while bits and pieces of XKD505 survived in other cars. I personally do not believe that in a situation like that, unless you had at least both chassis frames and/ or the monococque, it can ever be THE car again, there simply isn't enough of it nor any lineage. What would there be to stop me simply buying a new Lynx built front sub frame, getting a copy machined and stamping it with that number and making the claim. That happens more often than you would think but to be more than a claim you have to prove lineage from the day it left the producer and have more than just some parts of the original. Lacking either history and having only a few parts of the original at best it could be said that XKD505 is a new car built around the original front frame. Original, hell no. Genuine/ real/ proper, thats all perspective.

People much wiser than I have posited that the only time a Ferrari is truly original is when it leaves the gates at Maranello.

 

Mr Glickenhaus states in this thread and others that P4s had a 603, not 603R gearbox. Below is from from the Wikipedia Ferrari P page what "somebody has" contributed as encyclopedic and factual knowledge along with all the other misinformation:

"Over time some 603's were revised to 603R's but the 412P's and P 3/4 0846 were 603 not 603R as proven by their original gearbox stampings."

Are you absolutely sure about that, "somebody"????? 0846's gearbox at Daytona 1967, its first race as a P4, looks very much like it had 603 R number 5 to me.

Yellow arrow points at 603.
Red arrow points at the "R."
Blue arrow points at the number 5.

Pics are a blow up of the last one taken at Daytona 1967 by Karl Ludvigsen.
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Well, even if you could do that, it wouldn't be technically original since the label on the 1945 bottles already states "Lafite-Rotschild", not "Lafite", which I think ceased to be used alone at the end of the XIXth century.

But regarding cars, I agree, you have a point of course.
Regarding Lafite-Rotschild also: 1945 is great, as were 1921, 1982 (and 1986 according to Robert Parker) and 2000 and 2005 next to us. Legendary vintages/bottles that are now unfortunately out of our reach, thanks to the Chinese...

Rgds

 

A slightly more relevant example might be James Dean's Porsche 550 Spyder. Some parts were sold from the wreck including the transaxle (#10046) which was rediscovered years later and is now in the possession of Jack Stiles, a well known Porsche collector in New England. If he bolted it into a Beck chassis and bought other period 550 parts to finish off the car, would that result in the "priceless" Lil' Bastard? If he sold the car to someone as a "replica", would the new owner have a claim with Porsche that he owned the actual car?