The (one and only) '0846' Debate Thread

+ 1
Nathan

 

Humm,...okay.

 

Wow. I'm stunned.

We have period photos and current photos that clearly show the chassis is NOT the same and apparently they don't prove anything. Wow.

Why would looking at exactly the same thing physically be any better? The chassis is SO different that we are not talking about checking welding styles or something minor and technical like that.

- We NOW know that the rear of the chassis was built to P4 plans that somebody has hacked to fit a F1 blocked engine. Yes #0846 when last raced also had the rear of the chassis modified to P4 plans.

- We NOW know the rear bulkhead in DP003 is not the same as #0846 when it last raced. Yes it could have been changed when the F1 blocked engine was installed ...

- We NOW know that the front suspension pick up points on DP003 are not the same as #0846 when it last raced. It makes no sense for these to have been changed.

- We NOW know that the brake pedal system on DP003 is as per a P4 and yet #0846's pedal system was never modified to P4 specs. It makes no sense for these to have been changed.

- But IMO the clincher is a horizontal tube in this brake pedal area in DP003 does not have rivet holes but we NOW know from period photos that on #0846 this tube had a piece of aluminium riveted on it. Yes this tube could have been replaced ...

But 3500 GT come on, for DP003 to have been made on #0846 the front half, the area of the chassis that had never been damaged in its racing life (yes we had to go by period racing history for this information) would sure have been retained.

If you go back to the early posts in this thread I was very strongly on Jim's side and debated in my usual passionate, single minded way that Steve and others had not provided enough to proof that Jim's theory was not impossible. I now believe that Steve has, via these great period photos, done exactly that.

Not only do we have very convincing proof that the chassis is extremely unlikely to contain any parts of #0846 in it, we also have convincing proof that the engine block is F1 just as the ad said when DP003 was previously advertised for sale. Yes Jim has managed to fit a 4 litre crankshaft in it, but the block is still F1 and a true P4 block had a higher deck height and different clutch bellhousing bolting.

Unfortunately IMO Jim's car is a wonderful, very accurate in most areas, P4 replica. IMO to improve the car the duplicate engine mounting hack should be removed and the engine mounted correctly as per a P4. I guess a P4 block might help this.

I presently own an Alfa Romeo 1750GTV and a 156v6. Of course I can but imagine how cool DP003 is and what it is like to drive. I am of no doubt it is simply awesome and takes car nutters, like us, breath away but that does not sadly make it #0846.
Pete
ps: I and I'm sure others are waiting with great interest to see what Ferrari say. IMO there is a lot on the plate here and I don't see this car as being like the 250LM that they restored where there is some debate as to the origins of the current chassis, but as Ferrari restored it, it is now what they say it is.

This situation is very different!

 

Good points. I've physically inspected cars to authenticate them. That's important to do when authenticating a car. That has to be done to "prove" the car is or isn't. So until that happens, nothing is "proven" to me.

That's just my opinion,..but I find it a reasonable one.

 

Yes thats good. However, you and no one can inspect 0846. No one can inspect a car in period except through photographs.

Whats really funny to is actual eye witnesses are less relied on than physical evidence. Also, how familiar is the person doing the inspection? Are you familiar with all of the P3s and 4s? Steve has sifted through mountains of photos, interviewed people, researched and researched physical evidence and now you are saying because no one has actually touched the dead body we don't know if that is a real dead body, if they are dead at all... Boy that would change a lot of murder cases

The extremely funny (actually frustrating) is that photographic evidence with arrows pointing to every difference isn't enough for you. How could you possibly write that off? It makes no sense to me.

So if you were to inspect jims car you would bless it as the real deal 100%? Or lets say for example... If you were lent say... 15 million dollars to buy jims car and he would sell it for 15 million dollars would you spend that money on it? Or would you want a little more clarification? (the 15 million is an arbitrary number as we would assume the real car is worth more than 15 million and if it is just a replica then it is worth a tiny fraction of that) So would you bet your own money you were accountable for that the car was real based on your own personal certification of the car?

Otherwise... if you are happy with the lack of evidence that it is 0846 and the pile of evidence suggesting that it isn't and still calling it 0846 in your head... thats fine you are entitled to it. I used to believe santa claus is real and I tell my daughter that he is too...

 

I must say that Steve has done his 'due diligence' as it were. And I am of two minds regarding the authenticity of 0846. I offer apologies to him as I was quite in the camp of those that believed that Jim's was THE car. It may well could be, but in the grand scheme of things, it matters to me, at this point in my life, not so much. Steve has offered a very persuasive argument, well documented and I do admire his efforts. Yet at the end of the day, all I can say is that my father witnessed 0846 in all its glory at Daytona 1967 and as a 12 year old, receiving a phone call from him saying that there were two people who would like to say hi to me made quite an impression, the two were Amon and Bandini. That's my father hands on hips observing 'things'.........
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

What an awesome story and picture!!!!!!!!!

How very cool! Thank you for sharing!

 

I'm like that when I buy things too, but IMO in this case you will not learn anything by seeing it in person. The reason I say this is Jim has done a very fine restoration, as with all his vehicles, and I am sure everything will look and feel (period) correct. So you will be won over by the awesomeness of the car.

We need to isolate ourselves from that and remain clinical and look at period photos versus DP003 (in the flesh or current photos) and ask ourselves could DP003 really be made from chassis remains of #0846?

It is the differences that matter, not a physical inspection. If there were no differences to period photos then yes a physical inspection would be vital.
Pete

 

As an aside to all the photographic comparisons and discussions, has anyone ever seen photos indicating a "fire damaged chassis"? I recall reading that was one of the things Jim came across in the restoration that made him believe DP0003 was actually 0846. Something about different sized tubes and welds? But, I never saw photos of the naked chassis that documented that damage. I cannot believe Jim wouldn't have documented that along with all the other restoration photos he took and posted... but for the life of me I don't remember seeing any such photos.

 

Yes understanding the repairs to DP003s chassis would be great.

These repairs and the reason for them are the last part of jigsaw puzzle, and yes apparently different welds, etc.
Pete

 

See: http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/142614282-post2730.html
Pete

 

well this place sure did die. LOL

 

as it should until something truly new arises.

 

Anxiously awaiting that solid confirmation from the Ferrari factory since their August shut down should be over by now.

 

Looking forward to seeing the docs!

 

well? what can we expect?

 

Money talks.

 

Hi Dennis, this is not a direct quote to you I am just tryint to quote what you quoted of napolis... So please don't take this as an insult towards you.

I am going to go out on a wild limb here and say... I have reread and reread that posting by Napolis.

I am going to guess... that the findings on the car is that somehow they found evidence of something to say the car was built in 1966 some sort of tube or something had a date stamp or even a metalurgist confirmation of time frame. He said 0846 was the only car built in 1966 of the P cars.

I can't imagine what would be so concrete as to prove that all from a date of manufacturer of steel... but I guess we will wait and find out. I don't know how any company could certify something on what I can only imagine as circumstantial evidence at best. The upside would have to outweigh the downside or risk. It seem unfathomable to me but... what do I know. I am just an idiot behind a key board

 

I read it more in line with the info Steve later relayed and is simply an update of the ferrari owners website, using info Jim supplied to the web editor.

If Ferrari has actually inspected the chassis they would have also questioned all the elements Steve has shown in the period and current photographs no doubt.

But we shall see.......maybe

 

I know this is conspiratorial... but... I am not so certain...

Also, if they looked at all of those components I don't know how they would conclude that the car is 0846.

Also... why the mention of 1966 and the only year of P3/4 production being 0846 in 1966. Maybe im making a mountain out of a molehill here... but i feel like he mentioned it as a reason for conclusion.

 

Again, everybody has their price, even Ferrari. Money talks.

 

as evidence by Ferrari toilet seats...

 

You're kidding, I hope.

 

sadly i am not... I can't confirm if they were officially licensed product...but... or should I say... butt...

 

so... still...

umm.... no ferrari paperwork?