The (one and only) '0846' Debate Thread

Your argument is a bit ridiculous and all over the map.

You are making this personal. Steve is not. At no point has Steve said the Jim G is a piece of **** and a liar etc.... which is what would happen on any other forum.

Instead he has provided photographic evidence and support for his case all the while leaving the name calling out of it. Hell he has even left Jim bascially out of it and has just examined the metal in front of him.

If providing proof and support for your position is wrong... you are in the wrong forum and are frankly an idiot (yes I resorted to name calling, not you specifically but ANYONE and EVERYONE who thinks this way)

You think people should just go along because a big car guy says so... that is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. We should be ashamed of ourselves because we drove away one of the largest car guys? no... no we didn't. He left himself at least for the moment. He did this to himself. He is not a ****ing victim. If it turned out it was 0846 you would be cheering Steve on and so would Jim.

Steve has spent probably thousands of hours on this... not as a personal vedetta. He has done it for the hobby... for the car... for the history! Why in the world are you making this personal? Its not a personal attack. Sorry your hero may not have the real 0846. Big deal... he still has lots of other great cars and does great things with them. yes this car will be a major blip for me personally on his "personal record" with me but who cares what I think. I am sure he doesn't care much for my opinion on the matter and as such I don't need to shout it from the roof tops either. I can still commend Jim for everything else he has done.




To question why someone would provide support for there argument with pictures and find arrows to help explain why they think that way is ridiculous.

 

fair enough perhaps if I could edit it... a more pleasant way to say it would be "that train of thought is idiotic" ???? is that less personal

 

+6
Nathan

 

I have to say I found this thread many years ago and I was firmly on Jim's side for a very long time. Muira seemed to be beating a dead horse for many years but it seems he was really trying to save that horse and has brought it back to life. The evidence seems pretty clear even to a person like me that is a casual observer in this having never laid eyes on any Ferraris of this calibre. Jim has said that this will never be a "no stories" car and that it didn't matter because he will never sell it. But it does matter, because at some point this car will be on the market or in a museum. It needs to be known exactly what it is. Which at this point, based on the current evidence, is a very well done replica of 0846 but not the actual 0846.

 

Exactly... also its not an attack on the man. Its making sure the recorded history is accurate. Also, a significant car also gets invited to several shows/displays, and often those putting those evens on will pay for transportation etc... to get the car there... If I paid for a real car to show up and a replica showed up in its place... I would be a little upset to say the least. Its not just what he owns and that he wont sell it. Its how the car is percieved as it is shown often. Its not just the sale of the car for x amount of dollars. Its the display of history.

Also, what happens if the real car showed up. I doubt it will happen... but what then?

Vetting the car and keeping it honest is a good thing. We can't just go with the story because we like the owner of the car. It has to be true and deep down Jim knows that. He did exactly that on his GT40.

We are just caretakers of the history for now... but eventually every car is no longer in our possession.

 

According to FERRARI a metallurgists analysis of the car, in this case the chassis, in part or whole, is part of the certification process. When this is done, if it hasn't been done already when the car was there, it won't be difficult to distinguish what type of material/steel was used on the chassis.

That's when both "camps" will get the answer. Different size tube, hole location, letters and conjecture etc., does not prove anything,....it is interesting, but proves not. The metal in the chassis has no bias, and can't lie. If we ever see the Ferrari metallurgical report on the chassis of the car, then you can talk about proof. Until that happens, nothing is "proven".

 

Metallurgy tests will not prove if it is 0846.

It will tell you what metal has been used. Thats it. It is then up to you to form an opinion

it can then be studied for consistency etc... but if the metal was used in the same region likely by the same suppliers in a similar period of history... I am not exactly sure how much this is going to explain. We might be able to figure out this section of the chassis is from the late 60s early 70s and this section of the chassis was likely put in in the 90s.

The test will not come back with... this section ws made on Feb 5th 1964. or really even a specific year unless there is some known anomaly in the steel of that supplier in that particular year. Also, they could have used "old" steel laying around. It may not have been all fresh metal it could have been bought/made 5 years before ever being constructed into a chassis.

The design and engineering of the car as well as careful study of the pictures in period as well as current photographs will prove far more useful. As you say the metal can not lie. The machine in front of you can not lie. Period photographic evidence of the car can not lie.

The metallurgy test would be helpful if this car come out of nowhere with no history and the suspicion was that the car was built say in the late 90s. Then the test will determine what age the metal is compared to the cars back in the day. but since the cars were built within a 7 ish year window in the same region I don't think we are going to get much out of it.

I have had metallurgy tests performed on prewar cars to help determine authenticity.

In my opinion I don't think we are going to get much out of the test other than... "the metal in jims car is consistent with the metal used in period by ferrari" What the published report will leave off is that... the metal is consistent with metal used for a decade in this region by every manufacturing facility in this region and wont prove a damn thing other than... the era is right (which we know) the region is right (which we know)

 

Interesting comment. Thanks!

I'm quite familiar with metallurgical analysis, been there done that.

I suppose it might stand to reason that since the manufacturer of the chassis is " unknown", (according to the builder of the car), knowing where, what era, and if the metal in Jim's chassis was the same as other P3 cars wouldn't have any impact on proving anything??? Except that it was the same metal, or possibly the same metal, at least in part to an original car. Which I suppose is like a photograph, useful, but proves nothing.

Apparently, Ferrari believes metallurgical analysis is useful and important and I suppose that matters.

 

Not sure if I am sensing sarcasim in your post or not.

Let me ask you this. Do you know when roughly when the piper said Jims car was built? Do you know roughly where it was built? Not what day but roughly what era and what region? (and I don't mean this with a snarky tone)

The car was built in the same region and in the same era. So... finding that the metal is the same or similar to a factory ferrari isn't going to prove anything as the chassis was more than likely built from the same type of steel possibly even by the same manufacturer.


I guess what I am trying to paint with a very broad brush in case I am not communicating clearly is... If ALCOA the largest aluminum manufacter in the world, supplies Audi and lamborghini with there aluminum. In 50 years when people find a scrap of mid engined something resembling a chassis and they had them try to find out if it was a lamborghini or an Audi originally through a metalurgy test... they wouldn't be able to tell which it was let along what serial number it was. Yes I know that is a very broad oversimplified example but I am just trying to give you context to understand my point of view.

And I apologize if I misinterpreted your last post. I really can't tell if you are agreeing with me or if you are being sarcastic

 

+1

Those pictures are proper primary source research, rather than just saying 'Piper says'; and that is what this thread needed.

In the early days of this thread and the ones on the pre-crash Fchat, there were some nasty insinuations by a couple of people no longer here, with nothing concrete to back them up; and that is when Jim got a bit heavy.

When Steve first joined this thread he was very polite, but then went through a long period of demanding the impossible and using words like 'lying', 'fake' and 'false' with minimal justification which is why he was vilified, as someone put it. Now, after what must have been an exhausting and expensive time (to find and publish those photos) he has been vindicated.

Before these photos were posted none of us, of either persuasion, had enough firm evidence. Now we do.

But I don't think Jim, from all those years back, has ever been anything but sincere. The car DOES have odd engine mounts and accident damage that nobody (except maybe Piper)can explain even now, so it is not surprising Jim (and I and others) came to certain conclusions.

http://i1137.photobucket.com/albums/n504/paulmacca/P4-0900/Image71_zpse502d9e2.jpg

http://i1137.photobucket.com/albums/n504/paulmacca/P4-0900/Image72_zps72cbfe9d.jpg

http://i1137.photobucket.com/albums/n504/paulmacca/P4-0900/Image73_zpsac423204.jpg

http://i1137.photobucket.com/albums/n504/paulmacca/P4-0900/Image74_zpsef38bba4.jpg

Those links are to an article in a British magazine in 1979 by Doug Nye which was the first mention of 0900 (the first one, not the other three!)


Paul M

 

and in 1974 0003 already was a car (as declared by Piper), five years earlier!

 

I am convinced that you are right on the button this; frankly, I don't see what a "metal analysis" can bring as for certitudes?

The province of Emily Romagna is at the heart of the Italian motor racing industry, of which Modena/Maranello is the hub. There are many subcontractors, for instance chassis builders such as Vacari & Bosi, etc...but in the case of chassis tubes for instance, there is probably a single steel mill manufacturing the chassis tubes, that was actually selling the same tubes to all these chassis manufacturers. Tubes are produced by the meter, diameter and thickness; then bought by the chassis manufacturers, cut and welded.
Some lengths of tubes coming from a single original melting can be staying with all the different chassis manufacturers and racing teams for different periods of time. Some old tubes may have been bought from friends, etc...so you could indeed find tubes manufactured in 1967 in a chassis built in 1974.
I can't see how metal analysis could be any convincing proof, but I have no knowledge whatsoever in the matter...

 

A metallurgical analysis may tell you something, but it may not.

For instance if Ferrari had used a high strength steel tubing such as 4130 (a commonly used material for tube frames) in the P4 series of cars and specified that on the drawing and it was determined that a car in question had a frame made from mild steel then that would be a key difference and might lead to the conclusion that a frame was a replica.

But if the drawing called for 4130 and the car in question had a 4130 frame that doesn't mean that the car is not a replica, it just means that it is indeed made of the correct material and one can't draw a conclusion from such an analysis.

No harm in doing it, it's just that it may or may not be a definitive answer if it is not you have to go on to look at other things.

 

Since "Ferrari" is being tossed around as the one performing the analysis/determination of this car (not just a metallurgical analysis, does anyone have knowledge of this who is performing the analysis?

Jim G. has been quite public in the past about his disregard for Classiche so it would be a major U-turn for him if he is using them.

 

Absolutely correct. No Harm in doing it at all.

In this particular case it will only tell you what it is not.

As previously mentioned I fear that that the test if performed and if "guided" will be reported as "our finding shows that the metal found in Jims car is consistent with the other cars in other P3s or P4s etc..." Which is just telling a very small convenient part of the story to fit a particular narrative.

I do realize I am speculating here but... I guess I want to go on record that way if it does come out exactly that way... I dont get called a "birther" on 0846 LOL

 

I'd be somewhat surprised if the metallurgical analysis indicated this car was from a different period or run of material. Not because I believe DP0003 is actually '0846', but because the chassis was built in the correct region less than a decade after the actual P3/P4 cars. It's not unreasonable to believe the chassis builder used the same supplier that was used for original cars and the megal would be the same or very similar. Heck, he could have even had remaining stock (proper size) to assemble a few extra chassis. It's al

 

Yes

 

It’s romantic – not to say childish - to believe that some metallurgical tests can prove that DP 0003 contains any remains of 0846. Of course there will be no ‘difference’ compared to other P-car frames, because in period the same suppliers and tubes were used from all builders in Emilia and still today there are ‘NOS-tubes’ available in all sizes from that very period and steal.

 

Really? Kindly show me where they are.

 

I don't have the answer you are after but unlike the road or earlier cars with a platform chassis, these prototypes were just made out of readily available steel tube. No oval tubes or anything like that.

The chassis designers and builders would have had a steel catalog and simply selected the size they needed for strength, etc.
Pete

 

I get your point. Finding period steel tubes is a bit far fetched.

But would you agree that it is extremely likely that the metal ferrari used for 0846 and what jims car is made of is the same?

 

Believe it or not but such stock still exist in Emily ...

 

No,....I wouldn't make that assumption. It is interesting to discuss, but I wouldn't assume it.

As I understand, this "debate" has been guided by the Steve's quest for "proof".

The only way to prove that Jim's car is or isn't what it may be is by ACTUAL PHYSICAL INSPECTION of the car and the other surviving P3 cars. Including dissection/X-ray, and analysis of the weld signatures on the chassis, not only the metallurgical analysis of the properties of the steel tubes of the chassis, but MTR's as well,...they may survive, so that is something to look at as well. This is something Jim could probably could do, but he doesn't have to. Steve has to,...apparently needs to...but he cannot.

So we are shown photographs, which are interesting but don't absolutely prove anything.

Photos are interesting to look at,...I like photographs, they are helpful.. but they alone don't prove the car is or isn't in part or whole what it may be.

I think the car is fantastic. It may be a Piper creation, it may not be. It may have a majority of parts of 0846 in the chassis, it may not.

We likely will never know,.....regardless,....Jim's car is driven on the street,...and THAT really is something.

 

I completely disagree and I guess it would be safe to say that virtually no evidence is going to convince you that Jims car is not 0846.

Its really not even worth debating it with you since you don't really seem to have an open mind to the situation

This is clearly evidence by you have put the burden of proof on steve to prove that its not 0846... It is Jims burden of proof to prove that it is 0846.

He purchased the car as a replica and is trying to convince people that is a real car. The burden of proof is on jim not steve. I dont how you get that steve has to do the testing. Steve has done everything he can to prove that its not. Jim has not done everything he can to prove that the replica he contractually agreed to is the real 0846