The (one and only) '0846' Debate Thread

Quality posts Steven, bravo

 

There never was any doubt in the sequence of events in Chris Amon's mind at least. He told these time and again, notably in "Forza Amon", and never varied in the story.
He had a puncture of a rear wheel during the night of LeMans 24h race, and pulled over on the side of the track to change the wheel, as these cars at the time had to carry a spare. The car had also a tool roll, but the tools had not been checked; he needed the portable light as it was dark, but there were no batteries, so the light was useless. He then decided to try to change the Wheel nevertheless with the help of whatever light produced by the headlights of the cars passing by; but when he tried to unlock the butterfly nut with the hammer from the tool roll, the head of the hammer flew off the wooden handle somewhere into the night...
The only option left was to bring the car to the grandstands by driving as slow as possible on the deflated tire, but the rubber thread ruptured and some piece of rubber exploded the petrol tank, and the car burst into flame. He stopped it and it burned until the firemen arrived. He was not injured.

Rgds

 

To the quoted gentlemen above, you are misinformed. By the time Mr Glickenhaus bought Ford GT MK IV J6 in 1990 it was already a well established fact that this car, given to AJ Foyt by Ford in 1972 for winning Le Mans in 1967 was actually the yellow number 2 car that came 4th at LM '67 driven by Bruce McLaren and Mark Donohue and not the winning car.

Soon after the 1967 Le Mans race both J6 and J7 were painted red and white to look like the '67 LM winner, J5. AJ Foyt sold the car to Les Lindley in 1976 and he had the Dan Gurney roof bulge for extra headroom fitted to it to further make it look like the winning J5 car. However, it was only for show and the bulge was only on the outside of the car and internally unmodified so didn't actually offer any more headroom at all like J5 did. J5 also had a lowered floor to give Gurney more headroom.

In 1971 Ford Motor Company donated J5 to the Henry Ford Museum in Dearborn and is the only car to have the lowered floor which identifies it as the '67 LM winner. There has never been any doubt that the car at the Dearborn Museum is the winning car. However, there has been confusion as to which chassis number should be applied to each of these cars as the factory records are unclear and J6 shows signs of having both J5 and J6 numbers stamped into its plate.

After inspecting these cars and noting all their physical differences, in 1986 keen investigator Ronnie Spain published his well know Ford GT40 book, where it is clearly stated that the car at the Dearborn Museum was the winner and also that the car that was owned by AJ Foyt and Les Lindley (next to Peter Livanos and then Mr Glickenhaus) was the Number 2, 4th place car at '67 LM. He did get the chassis numbers the wrong way around in the book due to the previous stated reasons but by 1986 there was absolutely no car confusion and the positions they finished at Le Mans 1967.

For Mr Glickenhaus to claim that he made it known to the world that his Ford GT MK IV car was the 4th place '67 LM car and not the winner, as well as stating that this information was due to his research is untrue. It was already known years before. Fact.

See the relevant pages from Ronnie Spain's 1986 GT40 book below which prove this.
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

This is beginning to look like a witch hunt, again. The above post has nothing to do with 0846.

 

Not at all. Steve has consistently posted factual evidence to the benefit of all that have followed this thread.

To be sure, it has become a bit of a crusade for him but I applaud the diligence of his research which has enlightened us all.

Read it all and reach your own conclusion about the provenance of this car.

 

While I am not going to go back and parse every post, the FB post that Jim did is not inconsistent with what he has said all along. He may have added a few details that weren't mentioned before, but it is not inconsistent.

Guess that makes me a Glickophant.

Two things . . . first, what is wrong with inherited money? When my dad died, I got $10,000 from an insurance policy and a Lord Elgin watch and nothing else. So I didn't inherit money but I am not angry at those who do.

Second, Jim had a pretty lucrative career in Hollywood on his own and made money there. You may have forgotten that. He didn't inherit money until long after he had a very nice car collection. His dad was quite old when he died.

I agree but we Glickophants are not afraid of water.

 

Fair point, I guess, but it would be better if he stated directly he is going after Glickenhaus' reputation, which seems obvious by now. Innuendo and indirect accusations are lowly tactics IMO. They aren't exclusive to miurasv - and chosing not to respond when things don't go your way is also infantile, IMO, but Napolis' absence has made it so that the irrelevant personal issues in this thread are coming from the same side time and again.

I prefer the posts with pictures and more evidence. They provide more of a benefit to those of us following this overextended soap opera. Personal issues are resolved more quickly between both parties involved.

 

Its not a witch hunt whatsoever. You are sensationalizing something that doesn't need to be. No one is calling Jim any names whatsoever. Facts are being presented... which is the EXACT OPPOSITE of a witch hunt! There were no facts in witch hunts. meerly using lose false positives to advance the narrative.

The poster supplied PROOF/EVIDENCE and even gave the source and a direct copy. This is EXACTLY what should be in this thread.

Did it have to do with 0846? Not dirrectly... but it was in response to someone using hi GT40 as evidence that Jim isn't motivated by money.

The poster provided EVIDENCE to the contrary. That it was WELL ESTABLISHED PRIOR to his purchase what the car was and wasnt.

He didn't get into the argument that Jim is doing now what it looks like what he did then which is tell part of the story to lead to a desired outcome. Which is what I would have done.

I was not aware that it was known that his GT40 was not the winner. i always put that nice little tid bit in the "+1 for Jim" category. Infact... I gave him a serious amount of weight and struggled as to why someone would say on one car it wasn't the real thing and then on the next car say it was. It gave him an incredible amount weight in the truth department.

To now discover that it was well known that his GT40 wasn't the winner... and then he went on with the show/dog and pony show or whatever you want to call it ( I don't mean this maliciously) to effectively look like some sort of crusader of the truth... is honestly shocking.

In MY PERSONAL opinion... this was kind of the last thread that was holding me to any part of Jims side. In otherwords... i always held the GT40 story in high regard because it seemed so remarkable... but now... it seems as if that was all a farce of some sort. Perhaps it was a missunderstanding... but its hard to debate it when it is literealy in black and white.

This isn't a witch hunt. Its an investigation/debate... and in the last 2 pages there is a good amount of physical/photographic evidence proving that the car is not 0846 and as far as establishing jims "good character" in this particular matter (again I don't mean this as malicious, that he is a bad person... more of giving someone the benefit of doubt based on previous experiences with that person or a complete lack of experience or more weight on a specific subject based on that persons previous accomplishments/studies/experience/profession etc...) this posting about the GT40 for me... sinks sort of the personal side of the equation.

I want to believe that the car is 0846. I want Jim to be right. The evidence and research just doesn't make it look that way at all.

 

Mr. G as stated above had some successful movies he produced at a very young age.

He turned THAT money over to his father for management.
As his father has only passed away recently, this "inherited" accusation, has no merit.

His car collection was built well before his father's passing.

 

If he could have posted his position without all of the accusations, he would be far more agreeable, IMO, in "style".....

He tosses out some pretty strong words, in describing Jim....

 

I think to those who are interested in the facts of the car

where how and why he has his money has nothing to do with the debate of 0846.

So I agree, but will just add... that those interested in the truth of the car instead of slander of the owner... and how he made his money very little to do with 0846.

 

I don't know where the story on the J6 came from, but Jim has never said--at least to me or in any forum I have seen--that his J6 won LeMans. If I recall, he said it was 4th overall and it was driven by Bruce McLaren and Mark Donahue. I do recall him saying it went over 220 MPH on the Mulsanne Straight, and that the aero was so bad (front end lift) that McLaren had to "land" the front wheels before braking.

 

I was actually responding to freestone's quoted post but did not want to spend the time looking for it.

I agree..

But it shows how the discussion of the car quickly changes to his motives.

 

I agree with your last sentence but I think the first is worth contemplation, while a witch hunt is a fairly strong term, the quest against the car can and likely should be a witch hunt for that will turn up evidence that proves the cars provenance, one way or the other. It should not be a witch hunt about any individual involved however, be it Steve, David Piper or Jim Glickenhaus, personality politics shouldn't even be part of it since the discussion is about a car, not any of the parties involved. What I do think is easy to do, hell we are all guilty of it, is going down the rabbit hole where you follow one part of the sorry saga to its logical conclusion but end up in a very different place or back playing personality politics. Here in NZ we have a rugby term "Play the ball, not the man" the same could be said for this debate, keep it about the car.......

 

correct he has not claimed for it to win... (maybe he did when he first bought it but that doesn't matter)

What matters is the story of him owning J6 and purchasing it under the pretense of it winning Lemans and him proving that it not did not is what MANY people (myself included) have used as support of his character. It was basically "why would he lie about 0846 and not keep his mouth shut about J6"

People (myself included) gave him extra merit/kudos because we were under the impression that Jim "corrected" the record to his detriment. When it appears under this new finding that... well... it was corrected and the story of J6 known well before he purchased it.

The problem is with the potential "artistic liberty" that he created a positive story of the truth teller when the truth was already known.

Sort of the same as a guy claiming to have discovered say... i dont know... lets say... the pyramids... then later finding out the guy never left his home town of Boston. For several years you listened to about his knowledge of Egypt etc... and everything he told you is now sort of in question... it could be right... but before you thought he walked on water.

I dont know maybe thats a bad example

 

Well, I think it was AJ Foyt who originally said that Jim's car won LeMans. Foyt is a pretty good source, and should know. And Jim corrected it.

For my money, Jim is not a dishonest person and I cannot imagine he would come on any public forum and intentionally tell a falsehood. All of my interactions with him suggest he is a person of the finest character and a gentleman. And it pains me when a fine person is dragged through the mud.

 

I think I want Jim's car more then ever. It's such a beautiful machine regardless.

 

LOL. It is beautiful, regardless of the haters.

 

I don't think a single person posting has been a "hater" of the car itself. Maybe the stories of it being 0846, the hubris of the personalities, etc... but certainly not the car. Its marvelous for what it is and I think we all agree on that fact.

 

I am talking about 'hatin'' on Napolis.

And a lot of people are calling it a fake, so I don't think people like fakes.

 

Hatin and Haters are quite juvenile terms to use on an adult thread, as was the use of Troll, which was directly used in relation to Steve on many forums for many years.

At that time Steve had expressed doubts relating to the vast numbers of claims made by Jim in relation to his car, but evidence was somewhat scarce to support Steves beliefs.

He has since carried out extensive research and published his findings along with detailed period photographs as evidence to support those doubts.

The name calling stopped from that point on, as did the vitriol against him, I suggest you take Steves example and support your beliefs with facts, and hard evidence, not just claims if you seek to enter the debate.

Start with publishing the facts supporting the latest claim that the original 0846 was not scrapped after being destroyed at Le Mans, was extensively altered by Ferrari instead (but no where near the engineering level expected of MF who had it built and revised originally) then destroyed again in testing and only then finally scrapped.

I await your finding and detailed evidence in support, as Jims recent facebook post was the first time this has ever been suggested by anyone, anywhere, ever.

 

What he wrote in that Facebook post is radically different, starting with now stating the chassis continued to be used and modified by Ferrari after the LeMans accident.

It strongly appears that he can't deny the evidence that Steve has produced and is now modifying the story to fit the actual visual evidence.

Unfortunately, there is NO BASIS provided for that new version of facts, which he alludes to that Ferrari agrees with despite what Ferrari has actually stated.

 

This ^^

 

Those new claims are desperate and beyond ridiculous. Why would Ferrari repair and rebuilt the burned wreck of 0846 to do further tests?

- they had the 3 intact P4s...why make the effort to repair the badly damaged 4th car when you have 3 others ready to go??!!

- the P4s were obsolete anyway after the 67 season and were mod'ed into CanAm spec and/or sold off...so whats the point of further tests at the end of the season.?!

It makes no sense. This needs some good explanation from JGs side.

Also kudos to miura for setting the Ford thing straight. Another nail in the coffin unfortunately.