The (one and only) '0846' Debate Thread

Interesting post by Marcel in another topic

 

It should be said there are at least 3 cars (0858, 0860, 0846) claiming to be P4's which are discarded in the argument Marcel is making here, which is of extremely little relevance to this thread.

0856 is the only P4 comparable to a car like 06885 as far as provenance and potential for top-end market valuation goes. No one in the 0846 camp is disputing that argument.

 

Which takes us back to the argument you used to use...

Surely there would be record of such accidents or needed modifications which necessitated modifications for DP 0003. Show us when and why these modifications would have been required...

IOW, if those who claimed that one damaged chassis tube does NOT make it 0846...to which you responded something to the effect of: well then where did the damage come from...? I suggest that, based on your previous preponderance of the evidence where the no side had to explain with solid proof...you must explain your current "what if" with solid evidence.

IOW, if one mismatched chassis tube had to be explained...for sure you must explain how and why the whole rear section was changed.

Again...the onus is on the folks claiming that it is something other than what was originally claimed.

 

Vincent,
You need to type less and read more.

I said the REAR of the chassis was P4 not the whole chassis, sigh. No point debating mate if you are not prepared to read what others are saying.

The rear of Jims car, from bulkhead back, is P4 with a few extra engine mounts. Thanks to Steve we can lock that in as fact.
Pete

 

That would be correct.. My engineering background is structural analysis and I've done both chassis and suspension design work, primarily on race cars...

Sure, it's relatively straight forward. If you have a background in structural analysis and mechanics you can "see" (visualize) where the forces go for any kind of load and you can do some basic back of the envelope calculations get in ball park as to where the chassis will fail first.

The Targa incident with hitting a curb on the right side of the car, you would commonly see stretched or bent tubes or broken welds on that side of the car and on the opposite side you'll tend to see bucking damage on the longer tubes that end up reacting the lateral impact loads. It isn't rocket science. If you knew which tube failed which way you can readily figure out where the force to do that damage came from. This is what John Hajduk was seeing when he said the repaired area that he saw in the chassis were consistent with known crashes that 0846 had. He has plenty of experience repairing race cars after such incidents and his observations are likely very reliable in that regard.

 

Mr Glickenhaus's Piper DP0003 and Piper 0900a bulkhead tubes that meet the crossbar splay out. Genuine Ferrari P3/P4 0846, original and unmolested P4 0856 and 0858 all splay inwards. Although the Piper chassis have been built using P4 plans they are not exact copies of those plans. From the way the bulkhead tubes are on both these Piper chassis it suggests to me that they have been made by the same chassis maker.

DP0003 has been built using P4 plans but it's not the same as a P4 at the back. When the original P3 and P4 chassis were built by Ferrari's chassis maker the engine mountings would not be installed until the engine was mounted inside the frame, bolted to the bulkhead. The side engine mount tubes would then be tailor made to fit the engine mountings.

I don't know if Piper got these chassis made with P4 side mountings already built on the frames. Macca's picture of 0900a in the pdf shows the mountings already installed without an engine. Piper may have got the DP0003 chassis the same way, but if he did he must have ripped those P4 side mounting tubes out and then used the P4 plans to fit the P3 type 412P engine with the P4 arrangement of tubes that omits the diagonal tube that P3s have that reaches from the forward side mount to the back upper corner of the engine area. He's used these P4 plans to fit a P3 type engine which has different mounting coordinates to a P4 engine. P3 type engines have protruding engine mount lugs that extend and meet the chassis so DP0003 doesn't have the chassis extensions that a P4 chassis needs to meet its flush engine mounts. Please see my pictures and captions. I have posted this info on a few occasions previously. Whoever made this chassis, which I understand was actually Silvano Cantelli in Modena, may have had the engine at his workshop in Modena, as Piper bought a number of engines direct from Piero Ferrari, and built it like the Ferrari chassis makers did, and fitted the mounting tubes around the P3 type 412P engine.

So, the chassis isn't exactly like a P4 at the back but it has the details of the P4 chassis such as the diagonal tube over the rear side mounts. Piper has said the chassis has been made to P4 plans modified to fit a P3 engine. The chassis and its primary P3 positioning of the P4 arrangement/configuration of tubes that form the engine mountings fit that description but later adapted with less than ideal bolt on brackets and triangular tubes etc to fit a 312 F1 36 valve engine that Mr Glickenhaus says is a P4 engine that we now know isn't.
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

With all due respect, I did read what you were saying. Although you did specify your belief that the rear part of the chassis is 100% P4.

You also then stated, by signifying the chassis number, that "DP003 is 100% P4 chassis"

If I was wrong in assuming that by "DP003 is 100% P4 chassis" did not mean the entire chassis, but just the rear , please accept my apologies.

And Miura can correct me if I am wrong but I don't think he is saying that it is 100% P4 at the back. It seems to me he is saying it is P4-esque with Piper modifications.

 

Great presentation Miura. I do appreciate your efforts.

 

Thank you, Vincent. I appreciate your above post.

 

Thank you for the response. I believe I remembered you writing an explanation back in the day. I will try to find it. I will apologize, I had mentioned Techom3 as a member that had an opposing view with similar qualifications, but I was wrong. The member was actually Tonykali and he has a different perspective..

 

No matter how you see my point of view coming across, I do appreciate your efforts.

I feel it is best to look at the whole picture.

I do hope it is 0846. but that doesn't make it so.

 

It is of your opinion that if David Piper was to modify a chassis to fit an engine or otherwise. Or if he was to repair crash damage, that he would complete these procedures sticking to the P4 plans or using his procedures that he had implemented elsewhere? Such as in the construction of these chassis that may differ from OEM P4

If he modded the chassis to tailor fit the engine being used. Do you feel he would build the cars per his version, or by the P4 plans?

 

I can't really answer that question. Others here would know better than me. I do know that back when he was racing he'd modify cars to make them faster such as lowering the roof on a GTO to make it more aerodynamic. Today I'd guess he'd be more inclined to keep them as they left the factory.

 

I am not an engineer. I have never professed to be one. I have never professed knowledge of anything stating that this tube must be here for torsional support or anything of that nature.

That is because none of that matters. If ferrari built a crappy chassis... they built a crappy chassis. I am not disputing the structual integrity of the chassis i am not saying what they should or should not have done.

I am looking at photos and comparing them. The only thing I am not just blatantly analyizing one photo to the next is the engine mounts/sizes/ etc when determining if the bulkhead would need to be modified.

My back ground is specifically classic cars. I have also been and am a auto parts manufacture as well as am involved in the construction of numerous cars from scratch... modified cars... been around many significant vintage race cars of this period routinely go to the historics and basically spend any of my spare time learning more about my passion of all cars.

I would never be so pompus to call myself an expert or for anyone to completely rely on my opinion of 0846 as a certification etc... I am just weighing in with my opinion. I would say I definetly have enough knowledge (more than many but never enough) to support my opinions as based in fact and reality. I for sure have more than enough experience in this area as well.

And my biggest qualification of all... I have touched the real steering wheel of 0846. (yes this last part is to lighten the mood a bit but it is true... LOL)


Please don't take the above as an attack. You for some reason questioned my back ground and I am just letting you know what my back ground is. No biggie

 

Sorry man. I confused you with another poster as stated above in my reply to solofast.

 

No worries! I saw your follow up post after I had already replied. I try to go chronologically since my last post so I can keep everything straight in this thread. Just trying to keep my head on straight!

I really am enjoying the new "peacefull" replies of the last 2 or so pages... I don't mean to risk all of that... I am kindly and genuinely asking. you mentioned you have some information about the front of the car... It would be awesome if you could post it. Now if your mind has changed on the front or are not too sure of it... Id say leave it off for now as to not add to the confusion of this already 450 page thread lol. But... if you do have something and feel pretty concrete about it... I would love to see it!

 

Where was this written anywhere where Joghn Hajduk was seening ? I only know of Jims pdf file that was mentions Thanks

 

Solofast, you are 100% correct in your explanation of a typical accident, where a chassis is damaged. However, your assessment takes a much more extensive accident into account than the one 0846 suffered at the Targa.

As you correctly describe, a structure that strikes an immovable object will absorb energy throughout the structure. However, the geometry of the accident will completely determine how the chassis absorbs the load.

Lets assume that the chassis damage with the far side aft chassis member deformed (under compression from the chassis flexing), as suggested by the PDF, is present in the chassis. This would mean that a torsional bending force would have to be imparted on the chassis. This would ONLY be accomplished with two factors: Speed and Angle of deflection caused by a rapid change of DIRECTION, not motion.

The car would have to be moving fast enough so that its mass would retain enough kinetic energy to deform ITSELF when its angle of deflection was severely changed by striking an immovable barrier at an angle that correlates to a relationship to the speed. For example, imagine shooting an arrow at a wall at 45 degrees. When the arrow strikes the wall, the front will change directions and proceed forward at the angle of the wall. The rear end of the arrow will not instantly accept this new trajectory, as the rear of the arrow shaft has its own mass to overcome. It will instead bend and cause the type of compression damage on the far side of the impact, and tension forces on the wall side of the impact, until the entire arrow changes to the new direction that the wall has sent it in. This type of force will show extensive damage to the front of the arrow, at the immediate contact point.

In the case of 0846 and the Targa photos, this is impossible for several reasons:

The car would have had to hit a WALL or BARRIER at an angle of 15 degrees or greater, with enough speed to somehow deform the stressed semi-monocoqe rear chassis with a rotational motion. The minor damage to the wheels and suspension suggest that it hit at a very minor angle. Picture the arrow thrown sideways at the wall. It would absorb the impact over its entire length, and it would NOT bend or flex. The wheels show damage, but it looks to be equal at the front and rear.

Additionally, The damage also appears to be very minor, and is 100% inconsistent with a force great enough to compress the left side. If the left side was compressed, then a huge amount of visible damage would be present on the body panels alone in order to cause the structure to twist. We all know that soft aluminum bodies do not fair well with contact, and there is simply not enough damage shown to bend the chassis laterally.

Moreover, There was no object present strong enough to cause the cars own mass to deform the chassis, not simply a curb. As mentioned above, it would have had to contact a wall, or immovable object to cause a chassis bending action. If the car were to have hit a curb at the correct angle and speed necessary to bend and deform a semi-monocoque chassis, it would certainly just hopped over the curb and struck the next object after the curb.

Lastly, The design of the structure aft of the firewall utilized the engine as a stressed member. The engine structure consists of a casting, which is infinitely more stiff than metal tubes, which do have a nominal amount of compliance in them. By stressing the engine into the rear structure, Ferrari created a very robust aft chassis section that was far more stiff than the front of the chassis. In order for the rear outside tube to be deformed under compression, the entire structure would have to shift, which would be catastrophic to the engine and mountings.

The engine casting and mounts would have undergone the following loads:

Bulkhead: Upper and right hand mounts would undergo tension loads from chassis flexing, but cancelled out by tortional loads as the engine attempts to continue on its original path. This would twist the engine mountings at the welds and crack the engine castings. Upper left hand mount is the weakest, as it is supported by a bushing. This engine mount would simply break the welds as it compresses and twists to the right.

Forward engine mounts: Right hand mount would show little damage, as it is closest to the radius of gyration, but it would suffer compression loads and slight torsional bending as the engine tries to continue on its original path. Left side forward mount would suffer the most damage, and it would have suffered tensional stressed coupled with torsional stresses. It would have most probably torn the bolt out of the casting.

Rear Engine Mounts: Right hand engine mount would show the least damage, as once all of the other stressed members failed (hypothetically - but accepted to prove the type of damage as suggested) the chassis tubes would have enough length to absorb enough energy to minimize damage to the mount and casting Left hand mount would mostly exhibit torsional bending as the bolt tries to shear itself off in the casting. Without knowledge of the hardness of the bolts used, it is impossible to guess whether welds would have broken, bolts would shear, or castings would have cracked.

In any case, the damage as explained simply does not add up. As I mentioned, the damage would have been catastrophic to the entire structure in order to bend some tubes "around" the stressed engine casting.

In reality, if the car would have suffered a direct hit into an immovable object at the front corner, it would have more likely crumpled and absorbed the energy forward of the bulkhead. You would more likely see torn rivets, or warped and buckled aluminum sheets, as they would be compromised way before the engine castings would have let go.

I hope this helps a little. If it is confusing, the takeaway should be as I stated before: If you smack the car on the right, then the right side will get banged up. If you smack it hard enough to bend the left side of a stressed semi-monocoque structure, then you throw the entire thing away.

 

Vincent, this thread evolves by the day, my comments back then were based on the evidence at hand at that time. Steve and others have since posted detailed photos which show my summation then is no longer valid now.

No flip flopping by me at all, as you have proven by posting that old comment it is clear that unlike you, I have always had an open mind on the subject.

If you are that keen to discredit me then keep going backwards in time and you will find posts by me way back where I did think the evidence at hand then (since discredited with facts and period photos) showed Jims car was probably 0846.

Nice try champ, but you are going to have to do better than that. Does smack of desperation now on your part. Find some new facts rather than rehashing old info and removing the date stamps to hide when they were actually made.

Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk

 

I do think the front is important. I think keeping an open mind is also important as there are still many questions to be answered of why the chassis was built in this way.

Miura believes it is similar to P4 is the best I gather from his latest posts. Correct me if I am wrong. I believe he also agrees that some of this P4 base includes Piperizations from the original blue print. Point being, how this was built and why that way, at least to >me< is a very important part of believing what this is.

Foghari I believe has contradicted his word on identifying the car from the front. At one point he notices the changes made, and another time he seems to see it as P4. Point being there are differences there and I believe that is an important part of the puzzle.

I think clarification of Forghiari is important to that point.

He mentions changes made to go from P3 to P4 in the front. So, there is a good chance that the two, although almost identical, are indeed different. If Foghiari noticed these changes, they may be specific to this car. Not entirely P3 nor entirely P4. Or maybe this was converted to P4? Who knows. There is no case closer evidence coming your way. Nor do I think there has been from anyone at this point. But more has been learned. And how the entire chassis of this car lines up with the other original cars and Piper versions, at least to me, is an important part of really coming to a truthful answer, versus a forced one.

Is the rear half built to P4 spec? Completely? Are there Piper-izations? I believe there are, and I believe there is still much to be learned about, how a car with questions still in the rear end (which might of had two different constructors) ended up being built with the quirks that it has.

But the case of the front end to me depends on clarification of Foghiari. But the one thing we believe we know, is they were not exaclty the same. So which do we have here? P3, P4, 0846 specific, Piper P4 plan version?

There are still P3 fronts in existence VIA 412's, P4, and Pipers. I think knowing the difference is important. For at one time Forghiari said he noticed the changes he made. To me this implies a difference between either P3 or P4. If built from P4 I don't think he would notice the change. If Built from P3 there would be no change. But he later goes on to apparently contradict this. So a bit confusing still.

 

Very important point Paul500. Keep an open mind. As things evolve.

 

Thanks Tony Kalil for your explanation. I also have to give credit to Nathan (Piloti) as he posted a similar theory years ago in this thread and your excellent explanation backs that up and proves he was right.

 

Steve has done his research now to support his beliefs and backed that up with photos and explanations, so Vincent if you want readers to support your beliefs then you need to be posting up period and current photos of P3 bulkheads and side/front engine and gearbox mountings of said cars and comparing them to Jims car as it currently stands.

Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk

 

In case the car really got a Classiche examination of some kind, the $1MM question is: Was DP interviewed to give his stance on the car?

No matter what the outcome may be or if you believe its got some of the real deal 0846 in it or not, if DP as the person who built it up and owned it for most its life was excluded, then the F statement is not worth the paper its written on.

 

Although I appreciate Tony's comments, once again you are not allowing any rebuttal before claiming it is proven fact.