The (one and only) '0846' Debate Thread

The people who run these various events and races decide who gets invited.
Some owners are more than willing to share all information that they are aware of, others less so.

There are several International organizations that deal with these issues. One that I feel does a very good job is FIVA. Before FIVA issues a "Vehicle Identify Card" they conduct a through investigation and physical inspection and if they decide to issue a "Identify Card" it clearly lists exactly what parts of a car are found to be original and what parts are not. You can download an application for a "FIVA Identify Card" from their site which will give you more specific information.

http://www.fiva.org/eng/fiva_general.htm

 

Jim, are you going that route with 0846?

 

Yup.

 

Yes, but you did buy new hammer parts and constructed a new hammer from them. There is NOTHING original about your hammer. In the case of Jim's car, there are certainly some parts that are original. To me, the whole discussion is if there are ENOUGH original parts to call the car 846. Personally, I beleive there are.

 

Stuart, we are in agreement. My point is that some standard seems to be needed to clarify what determines originality. Not an easy task Im sure. As I said I dont know. From all I have read here ,Jim seems to be a stand up guy. He obviously is not trying to fool anyone. He actually seems to be a bit of a victim in that he has tried his best to document the car and has faith in his evidence. If others do not agree there is little he can do. The FIVA deal seems to be the way to go to put this to rest . Just wonder if all will accept the findings . One of the two camps will be unhappy."Cant we all just get along"

 

That's why there are several cases of multiple cars claiming the same indentity. One person has the original engine and built a car around it, one has a part of the chassis and one has the papers.

What would you call "ENOUGH original parts"? Size? Weight? Number? And which parts are more important?

You see, there is no consensus about that question and that's one reason why there's so much discussion about these cars and about 0846.

Some time ago I mentioned the continuous (known) history. It may well be that there are Ferraris out there with less than 50% original parts but that have a continous history. So there are no arguments about the identity of these cars. Less original, okay. Fakes, no.

0846 doesn't have a continous history. Therefore as long as it stays this way there'll always be people who don't consider it the real 0846. And frankly even if the pieces are put together and the history of 0846 IS made continous there still will be people who don't believe it's the real deal. But that's life.

Ciao, Peter

 

There will still be people not accepting 0846 for real, no matter how many bodies like the FIVA/FIA or even Ferrari give it their blessing. Because those at these bodies don't have more information than you and I and Jim have (as far as I know, Jim correct me if I'm wrong).

I know of a replica once that got FIA papers. So I'm sure it won't put an end to this discussion. If it would then the road registration of Jim's car would have ended it right away.

Ciao, Peter

 

I understand provenance, but its not an end to itself. Look at 18759, I've got no history of the car from 1976 until 1984 when it was in Europe. Nothing, zip, nada, zilch. I've asked for history on it, made phone calls, talked to the owners that I have been able to find, but there is still that 8 year hole.

In that time, it might have been scrapped and unscrapped, written off and rebuilt around its tach needle, I guess we'll never know. But there is a car sitting in my warehouse with that number on it that is both very much a real car and very much a real Ferrari. Several experts have looked at it and have said that they believe that it is 18759, but can we really ever be sure?

 

Yes this matter isn't cut and dried. But the difference between 0846 and 18759 is that before the hole in history 0846 was considered written off and I assume 18759 was not. That's an extra handicap Jim has in getting his car accepted as 0846.

Ciao, Peter

 

Peter

The continuous history is there.
Joanne Marshall from the legal Department of Ferrari S.p.A. stated:
"We confirm that as far as our factory records are concerned, the chassis in question (0846) was totally written off in 1967 after the Le Mans incident."
(Pages 108-109)

When courts need to understand EXACTLY what "Written off" means they look here: (As Good Old Dave has pointed out)

Main Entry: write-off
Pronunciation: 'rIt-"of
Function: noun
1 : an elimination of an item from the books of account
2 : a reduction in book value of an item (as by way of depreciation)

http://webster.com/cgi-bin/dictiona...e+off&x=19&y=17

Pages 21, 58,59,63-79,114 continue the history but the one thing that speaks for it's self is the chassis as it exists today.

Short of, as Doug Nye put it,"some pretty serious wilful falsification", there is NO CREDIBLE EXPLANATION for the configuration of the chassis that's in my car today except that it is over 80+% of the remains of 0846.
(Pages 63-79)

There are holes in 0846's continuous history that likely will never be answered but the chassis that's there today EXISTS. It is physical evidence. It is exactly what it is.

Best

 

small correction :-

in court , you can't just use a dictionary to define a term or phrase which
is in dispute. If that were the case , whenever lawyers/clients did not
agree on the interpretation of a word/phrase , all they need to do is whip
out the webster. Not.

what a word or phrase means "in court" (your words) , is what the Judge
rules that it means. How a Judge rules depends on a myraid of factors ,
which include , inter alia , its plain meaning , its industry meaning ,its
constructive meaning , or some special character within a given sector
of industry/practise.

so for you to say that "written off" means what Webster says that it does
is plain wrong.

why don't you ask an Insurance Adjuster what he means when he says
that a car is 'written off' ? It sure as hell doesn't mean what webster says
it does and it sure as hell will not accord with what an accountant will
think that it means.

so , go easy with the dictionary.

 

True as to what they or anyone else for that matter consider the surviving remains to be assuming they do exist, but in absence of incontrovertible evidence that after Ferrari S.p.A. wrote chassis 0846 off, they melted/chopped/shredded the chassis remains of 0846 into oblivion, not true (Definition of "Written off") as to whether or not the remains exist which is ALL this debate is about.
There is no disagreement as to the fact that Ferrari S.p.A. considers chassis 0846 "Written off" nor has there ever been as I stated quite clearly years ago in the second paragraph of page 63.

 

hi.

sorry , but please don't misunderstand me.

I am not even thinking of getting into the whole 'debate' thing here.

I just wanted to point out something relevant about the 'webster'
issue and how courts go about interpreting words/phrases.


BTW , you have some seriously awesome cars there. congrats.

 

According to a former director of the Sedgwick syndicate (part of Lloyds of London)

The terms "write off" and "written off" in relation to a damaged motor car means that the car in the opinion of the insurers is beyond economic repair, and the value of the remains of the car is regarded as its scrap value only (from the accounting practice of “writing down” the value of an item).

Just because a chassis that was "written off" Ferraris books in the 1960's as economically unviable to repair as a racing car, doesn’t mean that the remains were not viable for a chassis builder to use it as part of a "new" chassis

 

As I understand it, "written off" for insurance purposes can mean a whole bunch of different things depending on about a million variables.

My Honda got wrecked about three weeks ago. It is 'worth" according to the experts $7000. It had $5400 in damage. Not totaled. under 80% damage.

It's getting fixed with car parts from a totaled Honda. The whole front clip. That car was written off by the insurance company as totaled, but it was kept alive to be used as spare parts.

A total loss, written off, tossed aside, BUT, NOT THROWN IN A SMELTER, and it didn't become paper clips. It lives on in my car.

0846, Jim is proposing, more or less suffered the same fate. Wrecked in a race, burned beyond use, it was tossed aside to be used as needed, if needed, later. It got forgotten, misplaced, who knows, and turned up, some years later, in it's pre-repair condition. That's where Jim took over.

So written off, even today, doesn't necessarily mean melted down for scrap, just like the 60's.

DM

 

Written off, in terms of car insurance simply means that it will cost more to fix the car is worth after the reapirs are completed. There is no reson to spend $2000 on a 1990 Kia when the fixed car is worth $500.

In terms of corporate books, write off simply means the item has no commercial value, and NOT that it no longer exits.

Many times metal objects are thown onto a big scap pile, and then sold simply for recycling value. Who is to say that this didn't happen with 846 and later it was found amongst piles of scrap. This happened MANY times with remnants of old Bugattis and such, which were sold by the scrap yards to private individuals.

I can't even count the times people I know have found things like restorable engine blocks in scrap piles and bought them for $5.

 

let me t-y-p-e slowly for the intellectually impaired.

I am not commenting on this 'debate'.

I am commenting on the used (or abuse) of 'dictionary' meanings to
words/phrases and the equating of that to an interpretation which will
be accepted in court.

by way of an example , if Ferrari gave evidence that in all its history
of making cars , when the word "written off" is used in its records,
it means that the thing is put into a press and turned into a ashtray,
THAT will be the definition that will be accepted in court.

similary , if Ferrari gave evidence that 'written off' means that the
thing is thrown into the garbage site of the town of Modena , THAT
will the definition which will be accepted in court.

have I , t-y-p-e-d , that slow enough ?

cheers.

 

Well, um, gee, thanks, but it looks to me like you are commenting on the "debate".

Your comments, l-e-t m-e b-e c-l-e-a-r, are certainly adding to, or commenting on, the "debate".

Oh and there already is "evidence" that Ferrari on many occasions did exactly that, tossed stuff in a pile out behind the factory for later use.


Thanks,

DM

 

good ol dave,

You deliberately , failed to quote me in toto. The portion which you failed
to quote was what I was talking about.

this 'debate' is all yours.

 

you suggested somebody ask an insurance adjuster - I did (a former director of one of the largest insurance underwiters on the planet!)

May I suggest that if you don't want to hear the answers or be a part of this debate, DONT POST QUESTIONS OR SUGESTIONS FOR QUESTIONS,

Your comments about people being intellectually impaired are against the spirit of this debate (no name calling or personal attacks, it’s only a debate about the history of an old car) and as such you should be ashamed of yourself......

From a legal standpoint....as the management of Ferrari in the 60's are in the most part no longer with us and Ferrari SPA didn’t exist then, a court would more than likely take advice from the testimony of expert and eye witness's and not the current management of Ferrari SPA who have little first hand knowledge of what happened to the remains of 0846

 

Whoa... everybody's got their panties in a knot over nothing in the last 10 posts or so.

Dave - Go back and read what pistole posted - To me, it appears that he is simply clarifying that courts do not necessarily use webster's dictionary to decide what a word means.

What is necessary to establish what Ferrari SpA meant by their statement that 0846 was "written off", is to find out what "written off" means to Ferrari SpA.

Whether that means that written off cars were turned into sewing needles, or placed in hermetically sealed bags awaiting possible re-animation, is really something only Ferrari SpA can tell us.

 

Yo FD.

BUTT OUT!!!

 

But this is precisely what courts do all the time, it's the absolute first step toward determining the "actual" meaning of whatever word that's in dispute. Courts (including the Supreme Court) quote webster's every day.

I would take it easy here, because the opposite is certainly more true in actual practice. In a contractual dispute, if you want to argue a different meaning than webster's, YOU have to raise the issue and support it, because the presumption is certainly AGAINST you. . .

In any event, I think we can certainly agree that in this case, the webster's definition of "written off" is only one small piece of this particular puzzle.

Webster's (and common sense) certainly supports the notion, however, that being "written off" is clearly different than being "cut up into little bits and smelted down into cookery". . .

cheers

 

Supreme Court uses dictionary

For example:

Documents Cited in the Supreme Court Ruling - 25
Webster's Third New International Dictionary

Webster's Third New International Dictionary
(1971)

[page 1961]
rit-u-al (rich'oo-el), n. 1. an established or prescribed procedure for a religious or other rite. 2. a system or collection of religious or other rites. 3. observance of set forms in public worship. 4. a book of rites or ceremonies. 5. a book containing the offices to be used by priests in administering the sacraments and for visitation of the sick, burial of the dead, etc. 6. a prescribed or established rite, ceremony, proceeding, or service: the ritual of the dead. 7. prescribed, established, or ceremonial acts or features collectively, as in religious services. 8. any practice or pattern of behavior regularly performed in a set manner. 9. a prescribed code of behavior regulating social conduct, as that exemplified by the raising of one's hat or the shaking of hands in greeting. 10. Psychiatry. a specific act, as hand-washing, performed repetitively to a pathological degree, occurring as a common symptom of obsessive-compulsive neurosis. óadj. 11. of the nature of or practiced as a rite or ritual: a ritual dance. 12. of or pertaining to rites or ritual: ritual laws. [1560-70, < L ritualis equiv. to ritu-, s. of ritus RITE + -alis ?AL l ] órit'u-al-ly, adv.
-Syn. 1. See ceremony. 11. ceremonial, formal, sacramental.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[page 1996]
sac'ri-fice (sak' re-fis), n., v., -ficed, -fic-ing n. 1. the offering of animal, plant, or human life or of some material possession to a deity, as in propitiation or homage. 2. the person, animal, or thing so offered. 3. the surrender or destruction of something prized or desirable for the sake of something considered as having a higher or more pressing claim. 4. the thing so surrendered or devoted. 5. a loss incurred in selling something below its value. 6. Also called sac'-ri-fice burnt, sac' ri-fice hit. Baseball. a bunt made when there are fewer than two players out, not resulting in a double play, that advances the base runner nearest home without an error being committed if there is an attempt to put the runner out, and that results in either the batter's being put out at first base, reaching first on an error made in the attempt for the put-out, or being safe because of an attempt to put out another runner. -v.t. 7. to make a sacrifice or offering of. 8. to surrender or give up, or permit injury or disadvantage to, for the sake of something else. 9. to dispose of (goods, property, etc.) regardless of profit. 10. Baseball. to cause the advance of (a base runner) by a sacrifice. -v.i. 11. Baseball. to make a sacrifice: He sacrificed with two on and none out. 12. to offer or make a sacrifice. [1225-75; (n.) ME < 0F < L sacrificium, equiv. to sacri- (comb. form of sacer holy) + -fic-, comb. form of facere to make, DO' + -ium -IUM; (v.) ME sacrifisen, deriv. of the n.] -sac'ri-fice-able, adj. -sac'ri-fi-cer, n.
-Syn. 8. relinquish, forgo, renounce.
__

Shall I define that which is in bold, red text for you?

 

I am new to ferrarichat and get the feeling there are two armed camps fighting it out in this thread. What follows is the impressions of a newcomer.

If the point of this thread is to make an educated guess as to how much of this car ever ran at LeMans, I think we need a good, clear history of the parts involved. To wit: Page 14 (marked 12 on actual page) of Mr. Glickenhaus' pdf history document is, to me at least, very confusing. It says his car was staged next to 0900, The Red Car, when the photo shows his car next to a GREEN P4. It then goes on to say Ferrari give David Piper permission to build 0900, which David referred to as 0003. Huh? Did this car have a number plate on the chassis? If so, what number was on it, 0900 or 0003? Is this the same chassis that was later found to have a number plate showing P3 0846, or was that the one hanging that was hanging from David's ceiling? Either way, how could David have failed to notice that number plate?

I agree with the above posts that the fact that chassis 0846 was "written off" means nothing whatsoever in terms of whether it continued to exist, and I am therefore perfectly willing to believe that Mr. Glickenhaus' chassis circulated at LeMans. But the history currently provided is just too confusing to make any judgment.

Jim Oddie
246GT