The (one and only) '0846' Debate Thread

Didn't take long to go from a discussion of the car to a flame war on who is the least brilliant among the bunch of light bulbs in the pack, did it?

Guys, didn't you all sort of promise to stay on target, use facts, etc. if Brian would just re-open the thread?

Any chance that will happen?

 

Dear Horsefly,

I think there are two issues at hand:
1. Are the parts in question (chassis, engine, trans) from P4 0846?
2. If these parts are from 0846, do they constitute enough of the original car to be considered the reincarnation of 0846?

It is clear that, in your opinion at this time, the answer to both issues is no.

My observations are as follows:
Re 1: There is some evidence showing that parts in question may be 0846 but evidence shared publicly thus far is not conclusive proof. Thus many of us are waiting for further evidence.

Re 2: Using your analogy of the Spirit of St. Louis: Lindberg's plane was quite badly damaged by the crowd that rushed it after he landed on the outskirts of Paris. Much of the fabric covering was shredded and taken away as souvenirs. Other parts of the plane were also stolen or damaged. The plane was re-covered, restored and continued flying on promotional tours with further maintenance and parts replacement. Re-covering an airplane is the equivalent of re-bodying a car (in my opinion). If further research was done, I wonder if they could establish how much of the plane in the Smithsonian crossed the Atlantic with Lindberg. By the way, if you look into the original 1903 Wright Flier, you will find it has more stories than Mr. Glickenhaus' P4. Both of these machines are considered to be the undisputed originals. Regarding restored B-17's that are currently airworthy, or better yet P-51s, you are not too far off the mark. My point here, is that issue 2 is very subjective and without set guidelines.

Just thought I'd add my two cents.

Art S.

PS. my 1965 car still has much of its original paint (which probably means its long overdue for a paintjob).

 

I think you'll find that it was myself who inferred that an 'old-fashioned artisan' could probably still be found, who was still capabable of fabricating a set. So ?

And as of course did the two 350 Can-Am's #0858 and #0860. They had them on their 4.2 Litre version of the P4 engines - and #0858 still being in 350 Can-Am configuration, still has them to this day.
By the way, Paul (and I WOULD much prefer us to be civil), which Dean Batchelor book is that you are referring to ? Is it one of the set of 4 landscape format paperbacks - 'Ferrari - The Later Competition Berlinettas and Prototypes (or something like that). Reason I ask, is that I have the first 3 in the set, but was under the impression that the 4th one in the series was never published.

 

After the 1962 season Phil Hill left the Ferrari team in less than pleasant circumstances. 1962 did not repeat the success Ferrari enjoyed in 1961. Eight years later he went back to visit Mr. Ferrari. There had always been talk about a big store room at Ferrari that contained a lot of engines that he didn't want sold to the public. When Phil Hill asked about the store room "Ferrari said, 'L'ho butato via tutto.' - "I threw it all away." It is obvious that what did escape; left in a less than official manner. Little value was put on tired old cars and their parts... Even those who had the ear of Ferrari often went away empty handed. While others got old cars for free. Who got what certainly tests logical thinking.

 

Not quite for free, maybe, but the figure, that I've heard quoted, that David Piper used to pay for old race-cars (though, no doubt, someone will correct me on this) was 6000 Pounds Sterling - each. Bargain, eh ?
(Mind you, that was in the days when a 'Quid' was worth $2.50 !)

 

I think the Frenchman got his Ferrari for "free". I don't remember much negative comment when he changed the body style on one Ferrari either...

 

No problem, Wayne. It was always my intent to re-open the thread... I figured it might be 4-6 hours before someone sent me a PM saying they had some constructive bit to add. I figured that might be just long enough of a cooling off period that people would have time to collect some facts regarding the scanned email rather than having a lot of speculation and innuendo posted in the meantime... which would likely lead to a lot of ugly sniping back and forth.

I never dreamt that in more than a day, nobody would be willing to stand up and say they had something constructive or concrete to add.

 

Thanks, Tom...


So, Paul, this thread is back open... By Wayne, no less...


So when are we gonna hear more about this email...?

 

With that said, personally, I think this thread would benefit greatly by being split into several separate threads that are far more focused. As it is now, there are too many different topics here... as a result, most everybody is talking past each other... and no progress is being made.

I would suggest something like:

Thread A = Someone work with Jim G (or his many existing posts) to compile/summarize Jim's current understanding about his car. Which parts are original 0846, which parts are likely 0846, which parts are Ferrari P3 or P4 parts but of unknown S/N, which parts are likely original Ferrari P3/P4 parts, which parts are accurate replicas of P3/P4 parts, which parts are as accurate replicas as we can figure out, which parts are just functional equivalents but not accurate replicas, etc. Pull together pics of the different original parts. And perhaps close this thread to keep the next set of threads out of it. As Jim's opinion evolves (as he discovers more), he can update this summary thread to keep everyone on the same page. (Horsefly took a stab at this (thanks); but I'd love to take that to the next level of detail and get Napolis sign-off on it... and add annotations of the supporting info and the questionable info, to the best of JimG's knowledge.)

Thread A.1-N = One thread for each of the above parts that people feel they have supporting or contrary information or would like to offer their "expert" (or not) analyses of the information. By focusing on the info around one part, I think these threads should stay on the FACTS much more effectively... and people would not argue around this discussion with the issues in Thread B (below). Yes, I know we have a few of these threads... but they never really start with JimG's statement... they start with some fuzzy point that is as much disputed as the additional information... making for lots of fuzzy conversation.

Thread B = Given Ferrari was constantly evolving, mutating, and transforming its racecars, what does it mean to say "this car is NNN, which is the car that raced in XXX as a P3/250/whatever and also raced in YYY as a P4/275/whatever-else"?? With such a car, what does it mean to restore it? To which state do you restore it?

Thread B.1 = What is the known history of 0846 starting from birth through any races through use as a parts bin? The questions of Thread B can be addressed and opinions rendered specifically around 0846.

Thread B.2-N = Same historical summary of any other interesting cars that have been heavily evolved over the years. Hopefully, with a history that leads clearly right up to its present day condition. Thread B questions/opinions can be applied specifically then to each S/N car.


Okay, I admit it, I'm an organization freak. But while the underlying questions of this thread greatly interest me, the content of this thread is extremely low density... more friction than results... and seemingly very low likelihood of making progress on the many fronts its trying to cover.

JMHO. Maybe I'm just not as smart as the rest of you guys... maybe this whole highly parallel fuzzy discussion (to me) is perfectly clear and linear to you all. If so, just ignore me.

 

I thought that what Horsefly said was very articulate and summed up the very thing we are all asking. There hasn't been any flaming here that I can see.

 

If nobody posting here objects, I can separate out the posts that logically belong in the temporarily closed thread and merge them back in. They will fall naturally in proper date order.

I, too, get annoyed when single logical threads end up running over numerous physical threads. (Of course, I think that other thread is actually a dozen logical threads welded into one physical one... which is almost as bad.)

Pete, Paul, et al... let me know if you'd like me to merge the relevant posts across as my "penance" for closing the thread for a bit too long.

 

Brian, I think you are spot on. 2 issues: 1. What parts belong to 0846. 2. How many parts needed to be 0846.
My opinion is that nobody on this board is qualified to say much about either issue, but, so be it

 

Thanks, Brian.
I did ask specifically (earlier on) that nobody make any #0846 and P4-specific posts in this thread, and just use it to lobby for the re-opening of the '#0846 Poll' thread. Then Paul (Macca) did a few - which of course I HAD to reply to, and now he (in return) deserves the opportunity to reply.
I, personally would rather NOT see threads and posts 'merged', because replies may appear out of order. I guess Macca and myself are as guilty of causing that as any, because we've also got the "Gearbox issues" thread on the go, and we've 'cross-threaded' a few times .... could you combine ALL 3 ?
See what Macca (and the other contributors) say first.
By the way, while you're at it, could you edit out all those little 'snipes' by NNO and others ? I'm joking - Honestly !!!

 

When merged, they will appear in date order... thus, they won't be "out of order", but they may get more separated by intervening posts. And if the posters weren't keeping up with the "other" thread at the same time, then that can lead to a post looking silly after being merged.

Not an issue in this case, because the posts were made while the other thread was closed for the most part.

Yes, I easily *can*. However, in this case I'd be more wary because the threads were both active at the same time... but if all the participants were the same in the two, then it should merge and sort out just fine. But I wouldn't want to do that without every participant agreeing that it would be preferable... and that's a much bigger set of people than the small exchange going here. The biggest danger is that the context changes and that may make some of the posts (that weren't entirely explicit, relying on context) may suddenly take on different meaning. Thus, I'd advise against it without some careful consideration of the resulting context.

FWIW (I know you were joking), I'll never delete posts; I may delete some really foul adjectives; but, fortunately, there's been none of that in these threads.

 

JGrande - What you mean "we," white man?

Brian - for the love of Enzo, keep the tangents in this thread. If somebody gets lost along the way, it will give them something to chew on. Besides, folks win when they refresh their reading comprehension skills. Since 'Napolis was generous to all with information as it was before we were so rudely interrupted by P4Replica and his merry band of pranksters, why should 'Napolis have to open a redundant department of redundancy thread in order to once again "answer to" vinegar-swilling pessimists?

Patience is a virtue. Impatience is a fault.

 

I don't think we will.

Maybe what I meant ot say was, where are there any "new facts" here? SO far, we've rehashed posts, and argued, again, what constitutes "original" and how much of 0846 has to be in Jim's car or it not to be an aiplane, or something. There's nothing new here to discuss.

Well, I'm, gonna crawl back in my hole now and shut up about this. Wonder if there's anyway to put an entire thread on ignore. I seem to get drawn to this thing like a moth to a flame.

 

This thread nows contains violations of privacy as well as some serious accusations of very well known person's integrity.

Like a lot of chat threads, people have shot their mouth off in pursuit of self promotion. Leave it as it is. Please go on. It's like watching a train wreck.

Maybe Peter Gozinya has some info on the subject. Get Fredericksburg on the phone. Allan Lambo knows a lot, just ask him.

I notice that even when Max or Old Guy has joined in with observations, no one gives them credence, a nay sayer follows with the next post. Old Guy commented just a one of the threads was locked down.

I'm at the end of the popcorn, see ya' 'round!

I had the pic of the original number plate being attached to the frame by Enzo, but ran out of membership money to subscribe, to be allowed to post it.

Speedy"Hard times, in the land of plenty"308

 

I'm gonna go crank up Glacier Girl. It doesn't meet Horsefly's criteria of original, either.

But a lot of people spent their lives and money to make it fly again.


There it goes!!!!!!!

 

.....and the Lindberg baby is still....dead.

 

P4Replica said
"Tomorrow, hopefully (assuming this thread hasn't been shut down for some reason) .....
I will bring you photos of THIS car's engine and gearbox laid bare." (post #17)

he was going to post a picture or pictures of the 1966/67 36-valve side-exhaust F1 Ferrari's engine & gearbox, which I'd still like to see. I've been looking through my collection of photos taken at Goodwood & Silverstone of the 1967, 1968 & 1969 F1 gearboxes very carefully.

I've also been looking at Cavallino #100, which has an article by Mauro Forghieri about the genesis of the P4, and the official factory press photo of the P4 engine (and also a good picture of a line-up of drivers at Modena including Piper).

I haven't found anything different between that engine photo and the pictures of Jim's engine.

I would welcome it if someone could find and post a picture from during the 1966 season (not at the pre-season launch) of a P3 with the engine cover open so we can see the gearbox, if such a picture exists. While all the reference books say the P3s in 1966 and 412Ps in early 1967 used a ZF 'box, I think that should be provable, or not, as the case may be.

P4R also said:
"and by 'home-built' are you referring to home as:

Rosedene House, Windlesham, Nr. Camberley, Surrey, England ..... by any chance ?"

I'll have to check my address book, but I think you'll find it's just 'Rosedene'; do you want the postcode?


Paul M

 

Quote:
"Originally Posted by Napolis

Anyone who has eyes as Macca has pointed out knows that neither my engine or gearbox are F1 … "

quote by P4Replica:
"Then, may I respectfully suggest, that Macca goes and has his eyes tested, Jim."

That's a slur.

To quote you (check your own posts to see if it's accurate and in context), you said about injection trumpets (straight v curved) and distributor drives (upright v horizontal):
"...Were ‘someone’ capable of copying a pair of a P4’s engines right–angled distributor base castings, and machining a couple of sets of bevel gears to go inside, this part of the conversion could be relatively easy. The other major visible difference are the intake trumpets. Obviously there are plenty of the traditional old metal-working artisans still around, who could hammer out a set of 12 curved P4 intake trumpets to replace the F1 engine’s straight ones. Move a few ancilliaries around, and ‘Hey Presto’ you’ve got a ‘genuine’ (though possibly short-stroke) P4 engine. "

Conjecture, and suggestion of wrongdoing - not acceptable.


Using the words "almost" and "probably" and "quite conceivable" (in other posts) doesn't excuse inaccuracy - solid provable historically accurate facts are what this forum deserves, and owes its members. You are very quick, P4Replica, to pounce on anyone else, but you've got to take it as well as dish it out.

And I posted the full title of the Batchelor book on the gearbox thread - please go back and read what I wrote, as you are so fond of saying.

I have nothing more to add at the moment in information about Ferrari P3s and P4s, and if there is a response to this post which consists of the usual mixture of sarcasm and flattery, I'll keep anything else I find to myself - sorry, guys.

Paul M

 

Speedy, I'm laughing as I type. I can't believe that you mentioned Glacier Girl. I was thinking about that P-38 last night in reference to this ongoing debate. It does meet my criteria for originality. I remember seeing the documentary on Glacier Girl on PBS. They were interviewing the project manager for the entire restoration. He specifically mentioned that even though the plane was intact, the entire structure was so badly damaged that something like 90 per cent of the plane had to be replaced. But I think that Glacier Girl has the basic original structure of the plane. Probably original main spars and landing gear mechanisms. And the engines are probably also the originals. And since it was basically new when it made a forced landing, all the original serial number plates and data tags are still completely intact. So it has plenty of it's original main frame, original engines, and serial number plates sufficiently intact to be considered original. Now if we can determine exactly what parts of 0846 are verifibly original with the same certainty as Glacier Girl, then it's authenticity can "fly" as well.

 

The engines were why they froze their a$$ off! I've followed the recovery since first mentioned in Smithsonian Air & Space, but the PBS special furnished the finale. The guns, of course, also offer great entertainment potential!

Glad you liked the analogy!

It seems Piper's Barn WAS NOT as gentle a resting place as a Greenland ice cap! More's the pity.

 

..and don't forget! That was a whole flight! Six P38s and a B17, IIRC.

Anyway, hate to hijack this thread, but feel all criticism of Jim's project is misplaced and premature, at this point. And I've never met the man, in person.

 

I am doing a little thread hopping on this one. It's a reply to Macca's posting on Thread number 2, but since it is specific, I'm putting it back over here where it belongs.

With the above statement in mind, and as I have asked a dozen times, will somebody please tells us what "solid provable historically accurate facts" prove that Jim's car IS P4 Ferrari serial number 0846?

Hmmmmm?????

Everybody is quick to jump on P4Replica and myself for not supplying any facts that counter it's authenticity, but can anybody provide any solid facts that undeniably PROVE ITs AUTHENTICITY?

In my book, a little healthy skeptcism is more important than blind faith without any proof. I've never met Jim either. And I'm not criticizing his project. I think his car is great. I would be honored to have such a beast. But that's not the point. The point is: Is it really 0846? I see nothing improper in debating the issue. As I said before, Jim has never really said that his car IS 0846. But many others are bristling at the fact that I/P4Replica/others do not blindly accept the fact that it IS 0846? Even though I never voted in the pole, for what it's worth, I do not believe that the car is 0846. I believe that it is an excellent replica made from vintage parts of that era.