The (one and only) '0846' Debate Thread

If you downloaded the document - look on pg. 104 of 128 (though it states 102 on the page itself)

"Christian Philipsen also said that he had personal knowledge of chassis plates on several Ferrari Race Cars car’s being removed and switched as a normal part of racing operations to facilitate the car’s movements through customs using pre existing custom carnets."

 

Pete you got it.

As for #3, Nathan's photo and other photo's David gave me of the car when he owned it prove beyond the shadow of any doubt that 0003/0846 has a P3 chassis not one: "Built to P4 Plans". 0003/0846's chassis still speaks for itself in detailed photos, as it still exists today welcoming inspection, and in detailed comparison with photo's of 0844 an undisputed P3 Chassis (Once again pages 63 through 79) . 0003/0846 remains a P3 Chassis.

Doug Nye realized this long ago and so publicly stated:

"I met Mr G. - didn't get to see his car (due purely to my misunderstanding of where it was located) -we had an interesting conversation - and by the way the car pictured above at Pebble Beach was indeed Laurence Stroll's ex-Bernie E., ex-Albert Obrist, ex-David Clark macchina - not the Glickenhaus-Piper Spl.

Regarding the latter entity I remain personally intensely suspicious about the owner's current claims for it, perhaps 5% from simple prejudice (because anybody who parades as a badge his preference for running such cars on the public road - like a wild bird in a cage - twangs my personal "what a tosser" chord, as I made clear) - but I spare a couple of per cent for the possibility (and I put it no stronger than that) that Jim Glickenhaus's declared beliefs and conclusions are based upon sustainable evidence....unless he, or someone working on the car, has indulged in some pretty serious wilful falsification (which I also made clear).

Some protestations - such as "it will never be sold" - are familiar old songs, which I have heard sung time after time by many such people and which seldom survive the honeymoon period before cupidity takes over and the dollar speaks."

The part of Doug Nye's statement repeated below speaks directly to #3:

"- but I spare a couple of per cent for the possibility (and I put it no stronger than that) that Jim Glickenhaus's declared beliefs and conclusions are based upon sustainable evidence....unless he, or someone working on the car, has indulged in some pretty serious wilful falsification (which I also made clear)."

Thankfully Nathan's photo and the photos David gave me when he owned the car, which will be included in the next edition of the 0846 papers speak to that. Nathan's photo is particularly important as it's evidence presented by someone who clearly does not think I own 80+% of the remains of P3/P4 0846's chassis even though the photo he posted proves that it's much more likely that I do.

CMY

0854's chassis was made at the same time as 0846's chassis and I invite any qualified metallurgist to examine both 0846 and 0854's chassis.


Wayne
Pininfarina and others for the second time.

Jeff
The only "Stampings" on 0854's chassis are a small piece of metal that is slightly welded to one of the chassis tubes. The reason I believe these "chassis plates" were affixed in this manor can be found in Christian Philipsen's comments on page 102.

The tube where 0846's chassis plate would have been affixed was damaged in the Le Mans fire of 1967.

 

Pete's post #465 is what it comes down to PERIOD. These are the only possibilities.

At least Four times over 18 years David has told the exact same story about the chassis I now own. He has declared and warranted it to be true in notarized statements, The Bill of Sale and The COO, to Doug Nye who wrote the auction description, to Max Wakefield and recently to Nathan: "The chassis was built to P4 plans."

#1 is dead and buried by David himself.
#3 is disprovable by Nathan's Photo among many other photo's and facts.
#2 remains more likely than ever

 

I want to make a quick correction, the “Think Positive” email address that I posted earlier did not come from Paul. I made a mistake for rushing to that conclusion and I want to apologize to both parties for that mistake. I’m not a fan of anonymous postings or emails because it is used from time to time as a cover for random crackpot theories and I feel that I’m not having a discussion if I don’t know who I’m talking to.

While the argument may get heated from time to time, I think discussion is great. This is probably one of the most discussed Ferraris out there and the fact that there is so much scrutiny over the car is refreshing in a hobby that can seem like there are a lot of back door discussions and “provenance for a price” offers.

After all, a pile of sh|t usually dries up and blows away when it is exposed to lots of direct sunlight.

The sun is out and 0846 is still there…

 

"Nathan. . .Thanks again for confirming that David has once again stated: "The chassis was built to P4 plans but modified by David Piper to fit a P3 engine." along with a photo that conclusively proves he's wrong about the chassis being built to P4 plans. . . ."

____________________

"Ignoring the engine part of #003/0846 and water pipe modification are there other differences to the cars chassis that 100% conclude that it was never a P4 chassis?
Yes. Many. Look at pages 8, 16, 20, 63-79. The differences between a P3 chassis and a P4 chassis are subtle but substantial. The triangulation is different. The bulkheads are different. Shock mounts are different. The wheelbase is different. A P3 Chassis is longer."

____________________

"After Le Mans 1967, Ferrari 330 P 3/4 0846 was returned to the Ferrari factory where it was deconstructed, investigated and scrapped. Years later, James Glickenhaus acquired remains of 0846, including remains of the original chassis and with help from Ferrari S.p.A. who recast suspension uprights, commissioned Sal Barone, Alberto Pedretti, Bob Wallace, and John Hajduk, Jr.to restore 0846 to original specifications. . . ."

_____________________

"The chassis was built to P4 plans but modified by David Piper to fit a P3 engine. . . He wasn't lying on the Bill of Sale. He wasn't lying on the COO. His statements as to what the chassis he eventually sold me is have been consistent for 18 years. They've remained exactly the same. Nathan has confirmed this and proven my point. . . . Once again: DAVID HAS ALWAYS SAID THE CHASSIS HE SOLD ME WAS BUILT TO P4 PLANS. It's not. It's built to P3 plans. That is indisputable fact."

_____________________

"It seems pretty clear to me that Piper built his P4's around 1968, which includes 003/0846.. It was hidden underneath the car."

 

Arlie has contradicted himself so often in consecutive posts, or sometimes even the same one, that you've got to laugh!


Anyway; so P4Replica knows what he did wrong and accepts it - so who is the mysterious 'Veritas' whose style is so familiar?

And since P4R is in contact with Nathan and Arlie, why haven't either of them posted this 'evidence' on his behalf? He is also on the Atlas Nostalgia Forum, as are Jim, Doug Nye, and myself; yet hasn't posted it there either. He has started a P4 Replica forum, which is open by invitation only, and apparently shared his special information there - yeah, right.

Jim has been SO open with everything he has, including scepticism from Doug Nye and photos from Piper and everyone else who has any ; what more can any man do?

Someone asked whether the car put in the auction by Piper was sold - no, it was only put in as a favour by Piper to the organisers to boost the catalogue, and had a very high reserve.


Paul M

 

Arguing with Arlie!

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

"Nathan. . .Thanks again for confirming that David has once again stated: "The chassis was built to P4 plans but modified by David Piper to fit a P3 engine." along with a photo that conclusively proves he's wrong about the chassis being built to P4 plans. . . ."


Quote:
Originally Posted by Horsefly
From what I hear, it was sold to a guy in New York about 5 years ago and Piper knew exactly what he was selling.


____________________

"Ignoring the engine part of #003/0846 and water pipe modification are there other differences to the cars chassis that 100% conclude that it was never a P4 chassis?
Yes. Many. Look at pages 8, 16, 20, 63-79. The differences between a P3 chassis and a P4 chassis are subtle but substantial. The triangulation is different. The bulkheads are different. Shock mounts are different. The wheelbase is different. A P3 Chassis is longer."


Quote:
Originally Posted by Horsefly
Show us the proof that the car survived the junkyard. . .Until that is done, we're just wrapping an outlandish theory in a layer of "fools gold" that won't stand the "acid test".


____________________

"After Le Mans 1967, Ferrari 330 P 3/4 0846 was returned to the Ferrari factory where it was deconstructed, investigated and scrapped. Years later, James Glickenhaus acquired remains of 0846, including remains of the original chassis and with help from Ferrari S.p.A. who recast suspension uprights, commissioned Sal Barone, Alberto Pedretti, Bob Wallace, and John Hajduk, Jr.to restore 0846 to original specifications. . . ."


Quote:
Originally Posted by Horsefly
A guy named Patterson took an 8MM COLOR film of Bigfoot back in 1967.


_____________________

"The chassis was built to P4 plans but modified by David Piper to fit a P3 engine. . . He wasn't lying on the Bill of Sale. He wasn't lying on the COO. His statements as to what the chassis he eventually sold me is have been consistent for 18 years. They've remained exactly the same. Nathan has confirmed this and proven my point. . . . Once again: DAVID HAS ALWAYS SAID THE CHASSIS HE SOLD ME WAS BUILT TO P4 PLANS. It's not. It's built to P3 plans. That is indisputable fact."


Quote:
Originally Posted by Horsefly
But scientific minds refuse to acknowledge Bigfoot's existance based on those 270 photographs.


_____________________

"It seems pretty clear to me that Piper built his P4's around 1968, which includes 003/0846.. It was hidden underneath the car."


Quote:
Originally Posted by Horsefly
If I post a theory on a bulletin board discussing a pet parakeet that you owned 25 years ago . . .

 

Missing 30yrs ?
I remember when a Caravaggio was discovered in the Dublin National Art Museum,it had been on show for over 70yrs and no one twigged,the discovery was'nt made until they decided to clean it(sound familiar?)

Sometimes things can be right under your nose all along...

 

And, except for the fact that no one has ever put Bigfoot on a lift to examine him (her, it?) you'd have a somewhat interesting point.

Bigfoot isn't sitting in Italy right now open to inspection by anyone and everyone who has an interest. Big foot has not invited its creator to come take a peek under the hood to see if it's real.

Produce Bigfoot, (or what's left of it) and we'll examine it to see if it is human, or what.

Otherwise.........

It's just an apples and oranges comparison, Arlie.

DM

 

Thanks!

The Engineering of all of this is really pretty simple. A P3 motor fits a P3 Chassis without modification. The distance between the motor's motor mounts and the chassis motor mounts are exactly the same. The distance between the motor mounts on a P4 engine is longer than the distance between a P3 engine's motor mounts (Pages 66 and 67) thus the need for the unboltable triangle that reaches forward to the point of a P4 engine's front motor mount enabling a P4 engine to be put into a P3 Chassis.

This is also true of a P4 chassis or a chassis "Built to P4 Plans" such as David's 0900 and Max's 0900a, which were built to the P4 Blueprints that David acquired from Enzo Ferrari. A P4 engine will fit a P4 Chassis without modification. The distance between the motor's motor mounts and the chassis motor mounts are exactly the same. THE P4 ENGINE AND CHASSIS MOTOR MOUNTS ARE FUTHER APART THAN THOSE ON A P3 ENGINE AND CHASSIS AND THAT IS BUT ONE OF MANY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN A P3 AND A P4 CHASSIS. THAT'S WHY DAVID WAS, AND IS WRONG. 0003/0846 IS NOT BUILT TO "P4 PLANS".

 

LOL, that's exactly the case with me. He obviously doesn't understand or hasn't read much of the inquiry, so when one refers back to it he has no idea what you're talking about. He then attacks the person on debate technique or something other than the point they were trying to make. Arlie, PLEASE take the time to read all the material, and then this thread, before re-entering the discussion.

PSK really condensed the whole question rather well. There's not a lot more to be said until new facts arise, which it seems they will.

Ken

 

Wayne's suggestion of metallurgical testing is a good one and now that I own 0854 this is something that could happen. If anyone knows anything about metallurgical testing and a respected independent lab that could perform these tests please let me know.

 

These guys might be able to help.

http://www.ntrc.gov/partner.shtml

I did some research (through their NTRC user program) with them back in 1998-1999 timeframe, can't get any better than a national lab?

Well, unless it is a French lab testing a certain Texan's blood...

 

True, but the comparison with Caravaggio limps somewhat: 70 years out of about 500 is not quite the same as 30 years out of 40. Provenance does matter, in the art world and in unique cars like 0846. Besides: The qualitative aspect is just as important as the quantitative one. E.g. a masterpiece with some dubious Nazi element in its otherwise perfect provenance would not be welcome in a museum anymore. But I'm getting off the subject here, sorry.

PS: Any news on your P4 sim? Love to get some new version.

 

More like 500 out of 500,iirc it was thought to be the work of an apprentice up until then

 

Andreas
If I'm correct 0846's provenance isn't missing 30 years at all.
After being deconstructed, investigated, and scrapped by Ferrari the remains of 0846's chassis passed through Tom Meade's hands, into a Modena junk yard, and were used by the chassis maker who made what David called 0003. David built up 0003/0846 in the early 70ies. I believe 0846 was hiding in plain sight for those 30 years.

 

.hmmmm, Judge,

It reads "caffeine, several different antihistamines, some Booker's, .......and a bunch of strange heavy metal trace elements, from Galveston Bay....."

Oh wait, that's MINE! LOL!

Do you mean that guy from over in Austin?

Well, the air is way different over in the Hill Country, and no telling what hanging backstage with Sheryl Crow adds in there........

*hammering roof shingles*

 

Before undertaking metallurgical testing, most of which would be invasive/destructive, I would think it be sensible to accurately measure the chassis of both vehicles, even to the extent of making 3D models. Then compare these to see if they are the same, or at least close enough to be within the margin of error for the construction method used.

I’m not sure if 3D laser scanning would be suitable for such a task, but if not then, given the nature of the chassis, it would be a relatively simple task of measuring the OD of the tubes, determining the location of the end points in 3D space, and plotting these in a CAD program. Such measurements could be done with a laser measuring system or using the old fashioned methods of a surface plate and height gauges.

Granted there will be differences, due to accidents/repairs, but where they are the same with respect to tube locations and size, then those areas are the ones that should be tested further.

If the 3D models don’t match then, while it doesn’t prove that 0846/003 wasn’t made at the same time, would at least suggest that there is the possibility that 0846/003 may not have started life as a P3. Of course if the do match, then that should lay to rest the possibility that it was, as David Piper claims, “built to P4 blueprints”.

 

This train of thought occurs each time I watch one of those FBI/Cold Case shows. However...

Odds are very, very high the metals came from altogether different batches.
Even if ore is smelted in the very next batch, it won't match exactly.

Doesn't matter if it's a hammer, shotgun pellets or chassis.

Were the other P3s and/or P3/4 chassis availiable for such testing, your odds would be greatly increased.

This is the fun part, though: Treading upon rarified vehicles such as these is not like borrowing a cup of sugar. One must be absolutely sure the test samples from both vehicles were not replaced sometime in their respective storied histories to have proof positive the metallurgical DNA is the same.

P3 - 66
P3/4 - 66 (December) [interim between P3 & P4]
P4 - 67

Unless I'm terribly mistaken, you're already getting 0846 Cat-Scanned. How many cars have been cat-scanned?

 

My(not too clear I'll admit) point exactly

..Andreas,the project is going through a rebirth atm,hopefully resulting in higher fidelity

 

Help me out here. Why would P4Replica's additions to this discussion be EXTREMELY interesting and those from Jim, the owner of the car being discussed, being discarded as a lot of BS from someone who desperatly wants his car to be a genuine P3/P4, namely 0846? Why?

Furthermore, as has been stated many times before, you obviously fail to read the thread. You keep attacking Jim for suggesting Piper didn't know what he had. Well, mr Piper has stated (apparently recently again to Nathan/Piloti) that the car sold to Jim has a chassis, built per P4-plans, modified to accept a P3-engine. It is a FACT that Jim's chassis is not built per P4-plans, but per P3-plans. So obviously mr Piper's claims about the chassis in the car he sold to Jim are factualy wrong.

Doesn't that at least justify the mere acceptance of the possibility that mr Piper was under the false impression that he sold a car with a P4-chassis to Jim, since.... HE DIDN'T!!!!!!? Come on...

No one is demanding an explanation from mr Piper. I agree with you, why would he want to enter a debate like this? The deal with Jim is done and as far as mr Pipers papers are concerned he sold and delivered a Piper P4 to Jim. Mr Piper has nothing to gain from this debate. Only to loose. I would remain silent if I were him, as well. Consequence of this silence, is that people have no alternative then to add things up and that leaves us with no other conclusion than that mr Piper is wrong in his statements about the car he sold and delivered to Jim.

Your theory as to why Ferrari would always deny 0846 to have resurfaced, goes beyond me. There would be absolutely no legal consequences. What if the car would be involved in an accident? How would that involve the factory that made the car some forty years ago?

 

Sounds just like the chair in the Ford Museum. Heralded by everyone for years, it turned out to be a fake.

But once again, you are ASSUMING that Ferrari created the car in question. You have no proof of that at all. As I've said all along, without a serial number stamping, a serial number tag, or a known history of provenance, you are STILL at square one with nothing but a hope and a theory.

You make very much about "P4 PLANS" over and over again. Just because something is drawn a certain way does not "indelibly write in stone" how it could be made. Does a recipe printed in a book mean THAT is the only way to cook a certain dish? Does a carpenter's blueprint for a house mean with ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY that THAT PARTICULAR WAY of nailing the boards together is the ONLY WAY that it could EVER BE DONE??? ABSOLUTELY not. Take WWII Jeeps for example. They're all the same, right? Absolutely not. There are many small nuances that differentiate between various models and productions. OH YES, I KNOW that someone will immediately say that Jeeps were mass produced and that P4 Ferraris were only made by the handfull. How true, and how true that BEING hand made, there is therefore an EVEN GREATER POSSIBILITY that any particular chassis maker would take liberties in following the chassis blueprints just as a chef would modifiy his recipe or a carpenter would change his way of building a chair that he was only building 2 or 3 copies of.
I am somewhat familiar with aircraft terminology and I know that MANY aircraft parts are machined to 1/10,000th of an inch tolerance . Were any Ferraris built to tolerances that were THAT CLOSE to their original blueprints? Hardly. We've seen many pictures of their EXTREMELY CRUDE construction techniques. Now JG would suddenly have us believe that because some chassis construction did not EXACTLY follow a set of blueprints, then that fact is undeniable confirmation that his chassis belongs to the 0846 LeMans racer.
Once again, double standard logic that avoids scientific thinking and is only skewing the analysis toward a predetermined desired conclusion.

Does NOT the above contain ABSOLUTELY UNSUBSTANTIATED ASSUMPTIONS WITH NO PROOF WHATSOEVER TO BACK UP THOSE ASSUMPTIONS???

Where is ANY scrap of evidence to support a theory that some mysterious chassis maker removed the chassis from a scrapyard and then built it up for Piper?

GTE, not my fault that you can't follow simple legal theory. Once something is OFFICIALLY written off, no company is going to come back and OFFICIALLY acknowledge it's existance, especially if the car is not under Ferrari's control.

Why on earth do you think that they destroy all those Ferraris that they use in crash tests, some of which are not anywhere near being totally destroyed. When do you expect Ferrari to start selling those cars on E-Bay? It will never happen. Too much potential legal liability.

Yet you can't understand why they wouldn't OFFICIALLY acknowledge a RACE CAR that they WROTE OFF over 35 years ago? Amazing.

 

What are you saying? That some craftsman set out to built a P4-chassis, yet didn't take much notice of the instructions in the designplan and ended up with something that actually is a P3-chassis according to it's measurments?

I happen to know a little bit about legal mumbo jumbo, and I still can't follow your theory. If a factory would want to make sure that a chassis which they have officially written off, they would've destroyed the chassis in a way which would make it objectively impossible to use that exact chassis again in any way. Yet Ferrari just tossed it out on the scrapeyard where it is not only thinkable, but possible and plausible that someone, in need of a chassis to built a P4 racingcar, picked up to make his job a little easier. What is so inbelievable about that?

I also can't see why Ferrari couldn't acknowledge that the chassis in Jim's car is #0846 (there really is no liability whatsoever), but if this is what you believe, you also have to accept the consequence that Ferrari will never acknowledge it, even if the facts are straight, since Ferrari has a apperantly a legal interest in keeping quiet. So Ferrari keeping quiet doesn't say anything whatsoever about the identity of JIm's car. Lets wait and see what Pininfarina has to say. Or dares to say if I keep following your theory.

 

Macca, some people on THIS board ARE interested in P4R's forum, otherwise, why would they try to log onto his site when they don't have a password?
Gee, I wonder who would want to read what he has to say, if he is full of hot air as many seem to think while on THIS board. (But in the mean time, they secretly try to log onto his board to see all the goodies!!! )

 

Good point apart from the fact that the sole surviving AAC 815, you know the one the factory has used in promotions and displayed at the factory several times, AAC815/021 was officialy scraped on the 26th of febuary 1951

Arlie we've discussed this before, so I think its time you dropped the "Ferrari wont aknowledge a write off" argument as incorrect, Unless you've got other current evidence from the factory...........which I doubt