The (one and only) '0846' Debate Thread

Nice angle.

Beautiful photos. Thanks for sharing.

 

It was. And for everyone else in this picture. Look how disappointed they all are.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

interesting!

Why are you talking about 4 chassis'? and not 3.

IMO there is only one car that should be referred to as anything #0900 and that is David's, the rest are DP00?.
Pete

 

How beautiful she was!!!
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Solofast,

History has a way of being colorful, and colorful figures have a tendency to shed the best light on themselves in any situation. While it may make a great anecdote, I have a hard time believing that Nino was casually waving to somebody he recognized while setting up for the corner at Collesano. In any case, we all know to never let the truth get in the way of a good story, especially if the truth is damaging to the ego...

While looking at the picture again, and taking your comments into consideration, I still maintain that the car glanced into the curb. If he over cooked it, and threw it sideways, as you suggest, certainly he would have opposite lock in the wheel. The relationship of the front wheel suggests that he is driving through the corner, not correcting with opposite lock to maintain the cars position perpendicular to the curb.

Also, the debris trail would be facing the lens, and be more prominent in the picture, as the image was taken from inside the corner. The debris looks to be coming out of the back of the car, which should indicate the approximate trajectory of the car. Look closely and you too will see it. If it was sliding toward the curb, the debris would certainly be facing us, and clearly more visible as such.

Notice the bodywork as well. If we were witnessing an accident at the exact moment of impact, clearly the rear clip might be caught "out of shape", or seen with extended gaps, as the car would have needed to absorb a great deal of energy to buckle the chassis. The tail is held down by leather straps, and is not designed to take any lateral loads. It has an enormous amount of polar inertia, and would "whip" as its mass tried to continue on a trajectory past the curb. While the boxes do offer a function of aligning the clip as it closes, they are soft aluminum and certainly there would be evidence in the image that the car was bent out of shape. I am sure you can calculate the amount of lateral force the rear clip would have absorbed, and the damage it would have done to the aluminum boxes at the rear of the car.

Moreover, if the car was sliding sideways, we would certainly see the skid marks from the tires as he pitched it in the turn, and slid parallel to the curb to hit the curb with a lateral force. If it hit rear wheel first, with the amount of speed and force you suggest to twist and buckle the chassis, certainly there would have also been secondary and tertiary impacts that might have turned the car around in a clockwise direction, while striking the curb repeatedly.

My last point can be illustrated by looking at the front 3/4 image of 0846. If you look at the relationship between the tire and rim, and then approximate the height of the curb, you will see that an accident with enough force to buckle the chassis tube would not have insulated itself from the sills of the car. It would have sustained much more damage than a very minor 1 inch deep dent in the lower front bodywork. As you also correctly noted, the very fragile wheels would have offered little protection for the bodywork that was clearly below the level of the curb, and considerable damage would be evident

Most importantly, if the car hit tail first, as you have suggested, most certainly the rear bodywork would have also contacted the curb, as the amount of deformation in the wheel, tire, and suspension, would have placed the rear overhang into the curb if the car was at an angle that presented the car at a rear 3/4 angle.

In summary:

The apparent lack of rear body damage is strong evidence that the car did not hit the curb at any considerable rear angle.

The minute front dent in the lower bodywork forward of the fender proves that contact with the curb would deform the body. In this case, it is about 1 inch deep, and 8 inches long, with the aluminum fin slightly deformed.

The image of the debris trail also suggests the car was travelling in a vector similar to which it was aimed (although, you can see a slight amount of slide in it).

The steering angle supports that the car is "driving" through the corner, not correcting a sideways slide into the curb.

The lack of skid marks disproves any notion that the car is skidding sideways laterally into the curb.

The wheel damage is supportive of rolling damage, and not a catastrophic side load that would have shattered the entire wheel off at the lugs. If the wheels would have absorbed a great impact on the side, they would have deformed and allowed the car's bodywork to strike the curb as well.


I greatly respect your knowledge of chassis dynamics, however, the accident as presented in the PDF simply does not support the evidence shown in the images.

As has been said before, the truth is in the metal. As I see it, the truth is in the near pristine metal seen in the photographs that ask us to believe that considerable chassis damage was done, with no body damage. You don't bend the frame of your car without showing any evidence in the body, whether it is contact, deformation, gaps, or translation.

With regards
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

What a fantastic picture of the bulkhead etc. No need for drop down brackets on that chassis to make the engine fit. We now see in a very clear picture that the tubes that meet the bulkhead crossbar on the real 0846 splay inwards as they do on the other real P4s, and not as they do on DP0003 which splay out. It's visible here the cylinder block area is larger than on DP0003. There is a welded bracket between 2 of the tubes on the lhs for what looks like some kind of water or oil valve??? Also the spacer is the same size as other P4s at Le Mans 1967, 0846's last race, disproving Mr Glickenhaus's latest info re the engine being moved forward later on in the year after Daytona. There was no room to move it forward anyway.
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

If and when Glickenhaus publishes his "acceptance" from Ferrari, can someone send up a flare or something? I don't have time to check this thread daily, and it must get more daily posts than any other thread on Ferrari Chat or anywhere else for that matter.

 

4 frames

0900
0900a
0900b
0003 (this number matches the motor number)
Piper declares 0003 was a CAR in 1974.......the first outing I could find of A Piper P4 was 1982!
He also declares that after the CAR was finished Pironi first raced it...so that is 0900! (Pironi was f driver in 1981-1982)
So 0003 WAS THE FIRST CAR he finished otherwise his statement to JG is INCORRECT.
Maybe Im wrong but did anyone see the 1974 built P4 (0003) racing in a classic event between 1974 and 1982. Would you keep a ready CAR in your garage for 8 years without showing it?
I believe the first outing of 0003 was.....1982! (there was 0003 AND 0900 in France, Montlhery)

Maybe this is already asked/answered in the last 400 pages...I have not checked sorry

 

Tony, as 5 chassis mounts for the engine have been adapted, consisting of 2 forward and down reaching offset triangular tubes with a drilled hole in the tubes they are bolted to, 1 offset dropdown bracket, 1 dropdown bracket spacer and an offset dropdown drilled weld, please could you let us know how secure is the engine in DP0003 and to what degree will the rigidity of the chassis be affected and therefore affect handling etc? Wouldn't the strength from this chassis be gained from the mountings being positioned at the point of intersection of the tubes? Or wouldn't the maximum strength from the engine block only be properly utilised through the structure by the mountings being at the point of intersection of the multi tubes and not offset with brackets and a weld as they are on this chassis? Thanks very much in advance for your reply.
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

You guys are talking about this car like it is a modern car, not a 1960's race car. Back in those days the body "just" hung on the chassis at a few points and so absolutely the chassis could move around and the body not be damaged. The engine cover, for example, is just attached at the hinges and the side pins, that is all.

Not disputing that the chassis damage analysis though ... but remember the concept of wishbones being weak is a newer idea to protect alloy or carbon monocoques. This didn't exist back then, the chassis suffered and thankfully was easy to fix. I wonder also if the wheels in those days were over weight too, and not the super thin mags you are envisaging?.
Pete

 

Maybe we should revisit the P5 uses #0846's chassis theory
Pete

 

So beautiful indeed.

 

Hi guys and hi Steve,
I believe that fitting you see fixed to the added bracket on RH side of 0846 at LM ’67 is a “T” fitting (with non return valves inside) made by Lucas and used on fuel system.
The same fitting was used on all Ferrari F1 cars with a Lucas system between 1966 and 1969 and on sports cars with the same system between 1967 and 1970.
Not an useful information in the 0846 debate but, well, hope it is useful in some way!
Best,
Gab

 

That's very useful information in learning about these wonderful cars. Thanks, Gab.

 

Steve,

The rear and side motor mounts to the longitunal tubed don't do much to stiffen the chassis. As I mentioned earlier, the engine and transmission form a very rigid beam. there have been numerous photos of how the engine attaches to these members, but the real stiffness comes from how the transmission and bell housing are attached to the hoop that holds the rear suspension and how the engine is attached to the bulkhead. Wile it "helps" to increase the stiffness of the whole thing, the real torsional stiffness comes from the engine trying to "twist" relative to the bulkhead. Most of the bulkhead bolted elements are the same as a the other cars,with the exception of the bracket on the left hand cylinder head. Those mounts are actually not very good in the first place in that they use "standoff" extensions that are not that stiff in bending. So while the bracket isn't good, it really doesn't make any real difference since the real flexibility is in the standoff bracket and the drop down bracket doesn't change that very much at all.

The change from P3 to P4 helps some, but this isn't were the real stiffness comes from in the first place, so it's a second order effect anyway as far as torsional stiffness is concerned.

 

Steve,
Thanks for your efforts to better annotate your photo attachments - the clearly labelled photos are critical to highlight your research into potential differences between the original 0846 and the later DP cars. This series is the most persuasive, highlighting clearly on the photo the differences in the bulkhead crossbar tube angles. Despite any changes to rear mounting tubes or hacked up mounting brackets, I can't see that those bulkhead tubes would have been modified - thus I now agree that they are a clear differentiator between the original 0846 chassis and the JG car's chassis. Congrats, and thanks again.

 

Thank you, Gordon. I appreciate your post.

Kind regards,

Steve.

 

Thank you for your reply, Solofast. The engine is attached to the bulkhead by the cylinder heads. How then is the rigidity brought to the structure by the cylinder block, which was strengthened on the P4 engine? I'd have thought it critical that it be mounted in a correct way, at the central point of the meeting of the tubes, their intersection, at the side of the engine. It just looks to me that the loads are being offset to areas where there isn't strength in these tubes in weak areas. The offset bolt on brackets themselves will be weak too? The chassis draws its strength by the very arrangement of the tubes, not the actual strength of the tubes, which wouldn't be that great in themselves, I'd have thought. There are mounting points at the very back of the engine but these are very high up on the cylinder block. I will of course bow to your greater knowledge of these structures as I have said before, as I am not an engineer, whereas you are.

 

Good to see an open minded response to the latest info, as I mentioned before this thread had evolved enormously in recent weeks, the pendulum has swayed significantly towards the fact that Jims car does not unfortunately appear to utilise the chassis of the original 0846 in vital/key areas.

It will need equally persuasive factual not theoretical evidence to swing it back the other way, be interesting to see what emerges.

 

Hello Steve,

I am sure we will all agree, that the solution shown to adapt the engine on 0003 is less than ideal for racing purposes. Since I do not know the metallurgy of the brackets, nor the hardness of the bolts, I can not quantify the degree of flex that this solution would present, however, I am confident that it would be very noticeable.

The triangular tube bracket would actually be stiff in shear, however, it would offer little resistance to compression and tension loads. This would allow some compliance in side loads applied to the engine.

The same can be said for the brackets that are fabricated with the bushings welded onto the flat stock. Since they are short, they would not suffer badly with sheer loads, however, the tabs, while short, would still offer some compliance to tension and compression.

The drop down spacer/bracket, which I am assuming is the one at the bulkhead, would be nominally weaker, although I do not think the loads on the engine in the original configuration would place enough force on it to matter. However, when the aggregate of these adjustments, plus the others mentioned, is taken into account, we can deduce that the engine will definitely allow flex and tolerance into the chassis.

I am sure Solofast can confirm that the real root issue with the handling characteristics would be the newly introduced harmonic allowed by the slight compliance in the structure originally designed to integrate the engine casting as a structural beam in the chassis. When a race car hits a bump, the energy is absorbed by the tire, which transfers it to the suspension, which in a perfect world, is stored by the spring, and absorbed by the shock which converts the energy to heat. Unfortunately, all of the energy does not get absorbed into the suspension, but rather some transfers to the chassis. If the chassis is extremely stiff, it will transmit the energy through the chassis, which will be felt as the bump in the road. It will oscillate some, but at a very high frequency, which will not allow much energy to be stored, or amplified by a harmonic frequency.

When the chassis is not stiff, or has compliance, this load that passes through the suspension gets absorbed into the chassis, and stored like a spring, which then begins an oscillation. This oscillation is presented in a flexible chassis, that can be felt vibrating, as it twists, and then unloads, and twists back the other way, until the energy ultimately dissipates. This twisting oscillation, where the chassis bends over and over, will pass the energy back into the suspension, which will prevent the wheels from maintaining firm contact with the road. This is why loose chassis will not handle well. The compliance will not allow the wheels to stay firmly on the ground, and for the suspension to do its job correctly.

I am sure the 0003 chassis is still stiffer than a noodle C4 Corvette, however, the added compliance from the engine mount solution as shown in 0003 would certainly compromise its initial design. It is preposterous to think the Ferrari, who brilliantly designed the engine to be stressed into the chassis in its original design, would attempt the solution as shown for the purpose of racing, and especially as an "improvement" to the original design.

I hope this clears it up a little.

 

Hello Pete,

You are correct in your assessment that the (rear) body hung on the chassis. This is specifically why I state that it would have departed or deformed from the chassis, if the chassis absorbed enough energy to buckle it.

The laws of Physics back in the 60's were exactly the same as they exists today.

I also assumed that the wishbone had the greatest ability to transfer energy, however, the relatively high sidewall tire and the very light magnesium wheel would absorb a considerable amount of energy before even transmitting any to the chassis.

My point on the above post, however, was that looking at the crash pictures and the (lack of) visible damage on the car, the image of the wheel position, the image of the debris trail and trajectory of the car, and the aftermath of the contact, it is clearly evident to me that the car did not suffer substantial loads to buckle the chassis.

More importantly, we should look at the fix that you comment on. If the car had to return to the factory to repair the suspension and minor damage exhibited in the photographs, why would Ferrari perform such a terrible repair to the chassis tube? Clearly they would have removed the tube at its ends and replaced the tube instead of hacking it out and repairing it as proposed in the PDF, leaving the scar that is presented today in 0003. If they would have sleeved the tube as the PDF proposes, the chassis tube would be left with a "hinge" point in it, as it would have a major stress riser at the center of the repaired tube. This would ensure that the tube would buckle, rather than distribute loads evenly over its length, if ever loaded in a manner suggested in several of the posts here.

Have we spent enough time asking ourselves if Ferrari would accept this type of inferior repair to their pinnacle P car, if indeed it struck an object with enough force to buckle a chassis tube?


Regards

 

Isn't it likely the "scar" on 0003 was created to relate this replica to an earlier car with known damage? It makes no sense Ferrari would have let that weakened part continue in service on a race car when they had all the skill and materials to properly replace it.

 

wikipedia has some very specific details, not gospel I guess but this thread may not be either, but if I believe wikipedia then James owns 0846.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferrari_P

 

Do you know who you think may have written the James Glickenhaus promotional page, oh, sorry I meant to say the Ferrari P page of Wikipedia? It's full of BS. Click on the "Talk" section on the top left of the page and scroll down.