The (one and only) '0846' Debate Thread

You keep forgetting Jim's car contains a P3-chassis modified to P4 specifications. Happened only one time in history. Yes indeed, on 0846. This is not *just* about a few bent pieces of tubing.

If you don't think Jim is correct in what he is stating, then you have to accept that somewhere along the line, some one deliberatly made a P3-chassis (without having the blueprints), modified it to P4-specifications, and added the traces of damage of the accidents 0846 has suffered.

Who was it and what did David Piper know or not know about this particular chassis prior to delivering it to Jim? We know for a fact that this chassis isn't built per P4-blueprints, as would've been the case if Piper had it indeed built.

Undeniably confirmed? Probably never. Far beyond reasonable doubt? Yes, why not?

 

But that isn't really what Jim is claiming, is it?

 

The engine and transmission are both of the correct type, and I'm sure they got switched around from car to car and race to race, as repairs were needed, just as is the case with EVERY race car..

 

And it was banged up and dinged just like every race car, which I don't have a problem with. I think it's great that the car was "sand blasted" running around in the Targa trying to drive around Fiats...

 

C'one my friend I'll drive them until I'm no longer able too and my children will drive them long after that...
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

.
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Jim, I have said it before and I'll probably say it again...

You're my hero.

Like the man sang...

Play on brother...

 

Arlie, I'm all in favor of entertaining the thought of some conspiracies or outright con jobs but no matter how you look at it, the only person to profit from the 'fake' 0846 chassis is the guy who repaired it and sold it to Piper long ago. Jim's not selling (ever) and Piper sold it to him as a replica.. so who gains anything (in your equation) by trying to pass the car off as 0846?

No one. There is no money trail here- unlike the chair, the sword and the copy of the constitution. You may view the 0846 documentation as a sales brochure (which, shockingly, you have only first laid eyes upon on a few weeks ago) but for the rest of us it's an amazing read on the history of a very unique car.

IMO the chassis counts far more than nearly anything else on an automobile.. take it away and it's merely a pile of parts, a body without a skeleton.

-Chris

 

Hi Chris
who says it has to be a conspiracy or outright con job? What we have is a nearly 40 year old racing car chassis, with evidence of nearly 40 years racing abuse.
One person has his THEORY (if you think Wayne Sparling is proof then see my next post) as to how this damage occurred, because that fits in with the result that he wants.
Other don't buy it. Over nearly 40 years the damage could have occurred in any number of ways and incidents. Keep an open mind.
Nathan

 

Glickophants - please note the following FACTS! (FACTS – not theory or speculation)

Jim
Your continued quoting of Wayne Sparling smacks of desperation.

1. Wayne Sparling wasn’t at the Targa Florio in 1967 – this is a verifiable FACT!
2. As you know, Wayne has since denied that he made the statement about your car. He was either misunderstood, misquoted or misheard.
Therefore Mr Sparling could not have made any repairs to your chassis.

The honest and decent thing to do would be to
1. Stop quoting Mr Sparling
2. Delete his comments from your document

The continued quoting of someone who has since denied what he said does one no favours at all. In fact it puts a person’s total credibility in doubt.
Nathan

 

Jim,
You’ve really shot yourself in the foot this time.
“Transmit force to the right rear wheel sufficient to break the right rear lower A Arm”.
So this is what happens;
A load is transmitted to the right rear wheel which is damaged, absorbing some of the load
This load/pressure transmitted through the rear wheel/tyre is sufficient to break the right rear lower A arm.
Now the FACT – once the right rear lower A arm is broken it is no longer able to transmit ANY load or pressure to any other part of the chassis.
THIS is basic physics – an object will always break at its weakest point. It will not break twice.

NOT if that lower A arm is broken – it won’t.
THIS is basic physics – an object will always break at its weakest point. It will not break twice.
Nathan

Glick fans – before you go rushing into print and making fools of yourselves go and look up the laws of physics. Or try an experiment. Take a length of rod (wood or metal) and hold one end, then press the other end, or bend it from one point, and it will fracture or break in one place only – the weakest point. That’s physics!

 

I had the opportunity to visit David recently. Despite what has been posted here recently David does NOT just sit and watch whilst others get their hands dirty. And yes, he does do his own repairs. He showed me the workshop with lathes, milling machines and many parts that he has made. He also sat and talked to me whilst his 2 mechanics fettled his 917, but seeing as I had made an appointment to meet him it's no less than I would've expected. But there's no doubt in my mind that he knows exactly what is what.

Don’t just take my word for it. This is a comment from a senior member of the Ferrari Owners Club;
“Pipes - and the little guy with the Jenks type beard - get their hands
dirty and know all the cars intimately. I have seen David at the test
days spannering for himself and it is an insult to suggest that he
doesn't know which way is up.”

I find it incredible that people accept without question the word of someone who has taken apart one P4, over the word of David Piper who TOTALLY rebuilt 0854 back in 1969, built 0900, 0900a, 003 and has maintained and repaired P3 & P4s for nearly 40 years.
Nathan

 

I recently visited David Piper, and there is no doubt in my mind that David knows exactly what he had and it WASN'T 0846. David explained the double engine mounting points. It’s simple.

According to an email (from one of the more open-minded Glick supporters)
“So Piper got three identical chassis frames made, all with the rear engine bay configured to take the P4 engine, which has horizontal cross-bolted engine mountings in the block. But then to fit a P3 engine, which has projecting lugs on the side, he would have needed the side tubes in the engine bay to be lower, as the lugs go over the tubes.”

The chassis was built to P4 plans but modified by David Piper to fit a P3 engine. (See photo which shows 003 fitted with a P3 engine, which it had for years.)
Not the other way round as Glick claims. Ferrari's Technical Data Sheet states that the chassis was modified, but it DOESN'T explain how!!. Therefore HOW it was modified is JG's interpretation.
The mods on this chassis were done by Piper. Don’t forget that David was making his living racing these cars. So he modified 003 (a replica P4 chassis) to take the P3 engine – go racing, and earn some money.
It’s just coincidence that 003 finished up modified in this way – a way that COULD be interpreted as fitting the P3 to P4 scenario, but in fact doesn’t.
Nathan
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

One way to put an end to all this debate/discussion would be to get 003 authorised by Ferrari. Although the car is in Italy it has gone, not to Ferrari but to Pininfarina, who had nothing to do with the P4s at all. I wonder why?
Nathan

PS and it’s not because Pininfarina is nearer either.
Sicily to Ferrari = 823 miles
Sicily to Pininfarina = 985 miles

 

This isn't the greatest photo, but it seems that there are more than one mounting points for the right rear suspension to me, not just the lower A arm.

But then again, what do I know about engineering...
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Oh dear!
the whole structure still breaks at the weakest point. Once it has broken it can't transmit any more stress.

 

You called it a lower A arm right? Doesn't that indicate that there might, just might, also be upper component too?

Ever get a passing grade in statics and dynamics?

How about suspension design?

 

Hypothetical situation based on the understanding of dynamics that has been presented.

Suppose two chaps (#1 and #2) are sitting in a bar having a few drinks. #1 says something stupid about 0846. #2 not in the mood to argue says enough, turns and hits #1 in the face, breaking #1’s jaw in the process. #1 says ouch, but then rambles on that a broken component can’t transfer force to other components. #2 hits him again.

Question: Does the force of the second hit transfer into the empty skull (we won’t get into whether or not it makes a ringing noise, that’s in the next lesson) even though the jaw bone is broken, yet still attached to the skull?

 

I agree that this is a possability, although I think rather remote.

 

Wo says the entire structure BROKE all at once? It could have just been cracked or dmaged, and still able to transmit forces to other places on the cahssis.

 

Hence my hypothetical question...

 

Another point.

Moments (milliseconds if you prefer) before the A arm broke, it was transmitting forces that were extremely high. Those forces were being transfered to other areas of the chasis and can cause tubes to bend.

Nathan unless you have a degree in mechanical engineering and a good diagram of the frame, I submit you don't have a sound basis for your position.

I do have a BSME (I lack the frame diagram tho.) To counter that, I have designed, built, driven and crashed tube framed dune buggies.
I have seen with my own eyes tubes bent that were far away from the point of impact.

Jim's theory is not impossible, it is quite credible. (re how an impact on the right can cause the need for repair on the left.)

Erich
BSME San Diego State University 1981

 

Spicy, whose two degrees are in international business and interior design (and also had a drink or two), just walked into our home office and stated "doesn't a car with fncking leaf springs have more than one mounting point to the chassis"?

 

I have a PhD in mechanical engineering, and I still can't explain why the results of some crashes turn out exactly as they do, other than it has to do with the car's design and structure.

About 25 years ago, I was racing a 1 liter Mini Cooper. I was entering a right hand turn of about 60 degrees. A larger displacemnt sports racer thought the had enough room to go inside of me, and he lifted my right rear with his left front, and caused me to roll. There was only slight visable damage on my right rear, some dents on the roof, but the car landed hard enough on the LEFT front to totally collapse the left front suspension. I can't explain exactly how and why, but sometimes crash forces are transmitted through the car in odd ways and cause results that appear to be very odd.

 

Isn't that the funny thing about PhDs? The more you know, the less you know?

Regards,
Erik

PhD in chemical engineering