There is a CLEAR answer to this story, and more than one person knows the answer. It will come out eventually. After 0846 caught fire and retired at LeMans in 1967, it was obviously returned to the competition department at Ferrari. There HAD to have been people there who know exactly, for a fact, what happened to the "remains" of that car. There MUST be factory records of its fate. It was either scrapped in total, broken up for parts for the other P4's, rebuilt (not likely), or sold in part or in whole. It didn't just disappear. Jim is no dummy. I don't believe for a minute that he would attempt to "fool" all of the experts or get a good chuckle out of putting one over on the Ferrari community. I'm perfectly happy to believe that his car is whatever he says it is, if and when he is ready to tell us about it. I still think the poll is nonsense, and I'm looking forward to seeing the next installment in the restoration.
This reminds me of a story that I read concerning a guy that was prowling the salvage yards somewhere near Detroit. On day while he was scrounging the yard, a wrecker drives up and off loads a very strange Pontiac convertible. The car was NOT a normal production model. He quickly learned that what he was looking at was some sort of GM prototype that was destined for destruction. Obviously the salvage yard was the last destination for cars that GM wanted to dispose of. So as far as GM was concerned, the car was destroyed. But within an hour of the wrecker off loading the convertible, another guy comes along and loads it up, taking it away to its new life SOMEWHERE. GM records would surely list this car as officially destroyed, but we all know that some things slip through the cracks. Just because a piece of official looking paperwork exists does not mean that it actually speaks the truth. Police departments routinely destroy firearms that were used in crimes. They usually take them to a local scrap metal yard and load the guns onto a conveyor belt headed to the smelter. But a guy told me that "sometimes" that old conveyor belt bounces around so much that some of the guns fall COMPLETELY off the belt. Gee, I wonder where they fell?
I'm actually enjoying this debate/discussion . In the end there are people who know the real answers, they are: 1. The person who made the 3 Piper chassis'. This person definitely needs to be contacted. 2. Ferrari Spa. as they may know what they did to the remains of 0846. I personally think Piper will not add much to the discussion as he commissioned 3 new chassis' and it appears that he was ripped off as one of the chassis' is not 100% new ... The answers will come out, and they are. We have already sorted out P4Racers (Paul's) engine and gearbox aspersions, and from strong evidence from Macca we now know that Jim's engine and gearbox are of the correct types. In the end even if Jim is allowed officially to call it 0846, just like the XKSS I was talking to Horsefly about, it will be a much modified/storied car and thus have reduced value (to some) over other P3's or P4's like 0856. Others though will pass out because it won Daytona ... well atleast some of the car did Restoration takes on many forms and I for one do not follow the American trend that likes to leave cars exactly as they were found. If the car is in sound workable condition, then yes this is great, but if the car needs maintenance to once again to be used as a car, then it makes no sense to me to leave it in the delapidated (sp?) conditions consigned to being a art piece only. Thus if I managed to find say a 212 Ferrari in poor condition, I would have no hesitation in a full ground up restoration and if that meant I had to cast a new block and made a new crankshaft to make her once again a driver ... no problems for me. Yep I would keep the old parts ... If I also had to replace 25% of the chassis due to rust of accident damage ... you would hear the grinder start straight away. To me the ability to drive a fully working and operational 212 Ferrari as it was supposed to be driven is what restoration should be about. Yes we should restore cars maintaining as much of the original car as possible, but that should not overtake the fact that a car is a car, and if it cannot be used like a car ... then it is worthless IMO. Pete
My opinion concerning the whole matter is consistant with other cars that I've read about. I remember reading about a "restored" 1963 Corvette several years ago. This Corvette was one of the rare Z06 optioned cars that came from the factory with fuel injection, heavy duty brakes, large fuel tank, etc. From the photos, it looked like a nice restoration. But buried down in the article were the details. The frame had been badly bent in a previous mishap and much of the frame had been replaced. After years of racing, the body was so badly damaged that it too had been replaced. Of course, like everybody seems eager to do, the fact that the engine was also non-original was quickly glossed over because it was an ex-racer and RACERS aren't expected to still have their original engine. So here was this car that had most of its frame replaced, its body replaced, and its engine replaced. So what remained of the original rare car? Nothing really. The article didn't mention whether the original serial number tag was still intact. If it was, it was only because it was removed from the original ragged body and reinstalled on the new body. Amazing that in Ferrari circles, when a car's original body is trashed and swapped out, it is called a "re-body" with barely a stutter or a stammer like that's just another phase of its life. If the same car in question were a Chevy or a Ford, it would be called a hack job and most people with common sense would run away!!! Ahhh the double standards of the wine and cheese world of Ferraris.
Was the frame and body replaced at the same time? ... sounds like it was. But what was the restorer supposed to do?, give up and scrap the car. You know what happened to that car, so you know what it is worth, and how unoriginal it is. Comparing to Ferraris, I think what happens here is that Ferraris were commonly rebodied, in fact some cars were never bodied by Ferrari in the first place but by some coach builder. This did not happen with many Fords and Chev's. Thus an old Ferrari chassis receiving a different body is not as bigger deal as that was the norm back when they were new. Also when we are talking about P3's and P4's we are talking about 4 cars ... you cannot simply walk in to a wrecker and buy another front guard. Thus again you either use the car and risk the panel damage or don't ... Pete
But from what I have learned, there are any number of Italian coach builders who will build anything that you want or need. So it's not like the absence of any particular body part would mean the loss of the car. But that's the main question in the debate. What percentage of a car makes it "THE CAR"? In my opinion, the equation would look like this. Original car = 50% or more of original frame plus 50% or more of original body The above equation is assuming the total loss of the engine, which still goes against the grain of my own logic, but just for the sake of argument, we won't worry about the engine for now. But once you drop below 50% of either commodity, what do you have left? Of course this all ASSUMES that the remaining frame and body parts have the original serial numbers intact and that their heritage can be proven.
So, in your opinion it is possible to have two cars with the same claim. Say each has 50% which one is real?
There actually is a 250LM that has turned in to 2 ... Hmmm, I do not personally think there is an equation that can fit this. For example, say a Le Mans Bentley was racing in 1928 and crashed heavily, and received a new chassis (by the works). They decided to keep the same chassis number for taxation, etc. reasons ... Then this car had another crash and in the process of fixing it they decided to rebody the car with a different style and lighter body ... ie. the car will be faster. Thus now we have a car with a NEW chassis and NEW body, but it is still the same CAR ... again I return to continuous history. A car is more than just the sum of its parts ... , er, that sounds weird! To return to Jim's car, I believe he has more than 50% of the original chassis (but do not know the actual numbers), possibly the original doors (what is that about 25% of the original body?), possibly the original engine and gearbox ... looking pretty good to me, based on your formula. Pete
Unfortunately, the only person who really, REALLY knows is probably some random track steward who most likely wouldn't remember if you asked him. As long as JG is happy, that's all that's important. Let anyone who challenges it come up with something better, or get a life. Rack this debate with abortion, politics and religion. DL
I read a Bugatti is allowed to be called "original" (among Bugatteers) if 3 out of 5 is original: Chassis, front axle, rear axle, gearbox or engine crankcase. No mention of the body.
It is not possible to have two cars with the same claim. Read further down in my posting where I said, "Of course this all ASSUMES that the remaining frame and body parts have the original serial numbers intact and that their heritage can be proven." In your scenario, two cars could CLAIM to be the original, but only ONE car would actually have intact serial numbers. Now watch some wise guy ask what would happen if the serial number tag was sawed in half straight down the middle and posted on two cars.
No, it is not the same car. Once again, if both the body and the chassis have been replaced, neither one of them will have the original serial number intact anywhere on them, therefore the car can not legally be the same car. It is a reproduction. Of course somebody could take the old tag off the wrecked hulk and re-rivet it onto the new creation, but that just amounts to VIN swapping, which is pretty much illegal in every state in America. As I stated before, if one tried to pull these type of shenannigans on a used car lot, the police would come knocking at your door if they found out. It happens all the time when chop shops start swapping VIN numbers or more commonly, rebuilders take several wrecked cars and weld them together to make one good car, then put a VIN tag onto the creation from another car. This sort of stuff would get you arrested in any state in America. How can the hoity-toity Ferrari world tolerate such nonsense?
I just read an excellent article in the current issue of sports car market on this subject. Can someone post the article here, it might help the discussion. Regards, Art S.
I just noticed this thread, and have a comment or two: It doesn't make a lot of difference: Jim has been totally honest about what the car is or isn't. It's value will be whatever the purchaser (if indeed there is one) decides its worth to him. Jim will probably just be glad he's got it done, and very, very proud of the work involved. An example of this type of lunacy is the Ducati that Hailwood rode to victory at the Isle of Man in the 70s: The "original" bike was build by Steve Wynne (who I had the good fortune of having build some of my racers) and like most bikes there were various modifications and repairs while the bike was earning its living. One of the items replaced was the engine cases, and I think the clutch. Well, the bike was subsequently sold to a very well to do gentlemen on the East Coast. The replaced parts were purchased by a restorer from New Jersey (maybe New York, I'm unsure), who then attempted to market the bike as the Hailwood replica. Both bikes are virtually identical. There was a very noisey nasty dispute. Both bikes had substantial parts which belonged to the bike that actually won the Isle of Man. Which was the more original? Bottom line: Destroy the old, replaced parts if you don't want multiple vehicles. Art-
Yes I agree with your points here, but is a car really just a collection of serial numbers? For example: PSk owns an Alfa Romeo 1750 GTV, chassis number X. Lets say the chassis is so rusty that the easiest solution is to swap bodies with one froma wrecker. EVERYTHING else is swapped over and the restoration completed. PSk as far as he is concerned has restored THE 1750 GTV that he started with. The LAW probably would require that the chassis number gets updated on the registration papers, but it is still the same car as far as the registration department are concerned, ie same number plate number, same registration documents ... just a major component has been changed. With the 250LM I mentioned they both did I believe claim to be the same car. Not sure what has happened since. The way you look at a car is too much just serial numbers IMO. Thus somebody take a grinder to 0856 (again ), removes the serial number and takes it home without the current owner knowing. This guy builds a replica and welds the 'genuine' serial number on his Noble replica. Your direction now has that a Noble replica is the one and only genuine 0856 ... which has to be BS. Thus IMO cars are more than simply serial numbers, and it is way more complicated than your simplistic view, ie. that the numbers are the car. Pete
No it is not. As with my original formula, the replica in your above example will indeed have the serial number 0856 on it, but neither the body or the frame is 50% or more original. Therefore, it is still a replica. Gotcha again.
But isn't that what this whole debate is about? How much of the original car must be kept in tact? An upright? A chasis plate? A rim? A sliver of the chasis? There is no question Jim's car is beautiful but let's face it...it was sold as a Kit Car, so then one must ask: what seperates a Piper car from a Noble car if both cars have "Ferrari" engines and original P3/4 pieces on them?
LOL Tom! I'm not trying to start trouble but this is what it is all about. What is the standard that Ferrari will look at to determine authenticity?
Jim's car is NOT a KIT car. Lets do a history leason. Piper owned a genuine P4 Ferrari. He was mates with the Ferrari factory and asked for the ORIGINAL drawings for a P4 and because of this relationship he was given the drawings. He told Ferrari he was going to make 1 P4 but Pipe being Piper he made 3. One was actually given a chassis number by Ferrari of 0900, the other lets say 0900a is owned by Max Wakefield and Jim has the other. These cars were not made by Ferrari but hardly replicas (although technically they are replicas because they were not made by Ferrari) and used many genuine parts. Why did they use genuine parts, because when a team races a car they have to make X more parts to keep the car going. Racing wears cars really fast. Piper had over the years collected many original parts from Ferrari and I bet this was what gave him the idea of making another car. Noble sells kits, as do other companies and these cars do not have an exact made of the original drawings chassis using completely original designed components throughout the car. Infact they probably use Vauxhall and Ford components for uprights, etc. That is a Kit car. Jim bought a 100% complete car from Piper, not a 'assemble following the dotted lines' kit car ... BTW: There is NO kit car that has a genuine P4 or P3 engine in them (unless the authenticating Gods decided Jim's is a copy). One has a Daytona engine, another 1 or 2 have 365GT/4 engines and 1 I know of has a 348 engine. A genuine Ferrari engine is NOT a genuine P3 or P4 engine unless it is a P3 or P4 engine as Jim's is. P4Replica's lovely kit car has NO genuine P3 or P4 parts on it. He has pointed out that he has the exactly the same type of rear lights but they were actually made for another Ferrari model and thus not P3 or P4 specific. I believe Pauls car is a Noble based kit, and one I would be proud of. That is a completely different deal to the cars that Piper made. Pipers cars are the closest thing you can get to a Ferrari made P3 or P4 ... a kit is just a look-a-like copy like most replicas, i.e. replication does not go deeper than the skin. Pete PS: Thus if Jim's car turns out not to be 0846 then it is a replica, as is Max Wakefields. Not sure about 0900 as Ferrari authorised the build ... and gave it a chassis number. To me this is a real P4, built outside the Ferrari factory. Kit cars are not IMO replicas just copies. A replica is supposed to 100% replicate the original.
... forgot about this formula. Glad to see we have moved away from a car is just its serial number. Pete
What are the standards that they have used in the past? Surely these same sort of questions have come up before. And who are "they" that will decide? What makes "them" right, and any other group "wrong"? As I asked before, who is the secret tribunal of mysterious Ferrari experts? (regular popcorn, lightly buttered, no caramel or weird seasonings.)
