The (one and only) '0846' Debate Thread

The latest addition from "somebody" in the 0846 section of the Ferrari P page of wikipedia:

"An earlier document by Ing. Mauro Forghieri dated 23rd February, 2016 also confirms that the chaissis that is in the car today is the original chassis that was in the car that won the 1967 24 Hours of Daytona. The chassis that was in the car that won The 1967 24 Hours of Daytona was chassis n. 0846. Forghieri is not a lawyer and his option on the cars legal status is opinion and as of 2002 wrong. The fact remains that this car's legal identity was clearly established by a legal proceeding, outlined above, involving Ferrari in 2002, as 1967 Ferrari 330 P3/P4 chassis 0846 and that legal identity can never be challenged by Ferrari or anyone." http://postimg.org/image/jp8zy1t2x/

You are wrong. The earlier document does not confirm that the chassis that is in the car today is the original chassis that won the 1967 24 Hours of Daytona.

What it states in point 4, which is quite different:

"It is my opinion that original parts of that chassis (as modified by some outfit: See above (point 3)) are currently mounted on the P4 vehicle you own."

You have reduced MF's statement that the number 0846 has ceased to exist as opinion and as of 2002 wrong so let me remind you that his statement in point 4 regarding your chassis in the earlier document is actually stated as his opinion.

You are also not a lawyer and neither am I. However, no proof has ever been provided that Ferrari were served with papers that they acquiesced and are now estopped since 2002 from challenging your claim that your chassis is number 0846. Ferrari, in the letter dated 29th September, 2004 that you published, clearly stated that the chassis no. 0846 has been written off. Ferrari and Mauro Forghieri clearly have not been estopped and take no notice of your claim if ever there was a claim.

 

"If it please The Court, I'd like to introduce the murder weapon as Exhibit A."

'Objection!'

"Wut?"

'My Client filed off the numbers, dissembled and threw it away. Therefore, it no longer exists.'

"It's right here. Sure, it's got a few screws loose, but - "

'No it isn't.'

etc., ad nauseum.


via Tapatalk

 

It may well be the 1967 Daytona winner but MF has only seen pictures of the chassis, pictures of which he has not shown were made available to him of the front end, and also what it is that he recognises in those pictures on the front end to identify it as the one that he modified slightly in December, 1966. What is it in the pictures of the front end that identifies it as the 1967 Daytona winner?

When MF identified that the engine mountings on Glickenhaus's chassis were not done by him or his Racing Department we could all see the pictures and what it was in those pictures that he established this fact from. There was a Judgement/Ratio Decidendi. All I am asking is for the same here which is perfectly reasonable.

 

"No proof has ever been provided" to who? Are you suggesting that because YOU haven't seen it that it doesn't exist? How is there any obligation to show you anything, and how does your having seen or not seen anything change it's existence?

Once again, YOU are questioning MF's credibility. What makes you the expert that gets to adjudicate on what MF saw? How are you qualified to overrule MF's judgement? Who in the Ferrari world cares whether your opinion of the front end pictures matches MF's declaration? How is there any obligation to show YOU anything? How does the lack of your opinion make any difference on MF's validation of this chassis?

Perfectly reasonable? Not in the slightest, your demand is perfectly ridiculous. There is zero obligation to put this to a public vote by Ferrari aficianados who have zero inside knowledge or involvement.

How about YOU answer the question as to whether you accept MF's judgement and declaration that JG's car is built on the chassis that won Daytona 1967 that was formerly numbered as 0846? Yes or No?

MF's position is clear, and neither he or anybody else has any obligation to answer your questions.

 

italian language skills needed to understand MF document dated February 2016. discard the english version. have fun with point 3 and point 4. no critics. just help. cheers. clemente

 

Would you be able to help us out with understanding points 3 and 4? If the English translation provided with the Italian version at the time is not correct or accurate, please provide your interpretation?

 

Mr Glickenhaus has now posted the following invite from the Automobile Club of Palermo for the TF event in May stating that this invite confirms a legal identity to his car.

Question 1. How does an invite to an event confirm the legal identity to a car?

Question 2. Will Mr Glickenhaus decline the invitation and give the reason that the invite is for a car that does not exist?
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

How about you answer the question as to whether you accept Mauro's judgement and declaration that James car is built on the chassis remains that won 24H Daytona 1967 that was formerly numbered as 0846? Yes or No?

 

The amusing thing is that MF has clearly stated no Ferrari was ever called a P3/4 including the original 0846, so why is that made up title even being used still?

The cars were either a P3 or a P4, 0846 started out as a P3 and ended its days as a P4.

 

Argument could perhaps be made that since it was both, hence the 3/4 designation? Not official Ferrari perhaps but logical.

Perry

 

Ferrari never made a 'breadvan' either but even their museum recognizes that title and uses it.

 

Christian Huet (whom certain parties quote as Gospel) inked something about a P3/412P.
http://www.amazon.com/ferrari-p3-412-Christian-Huet/dp/3905268086


via Tapatalk

 

Oh the nerve of him... Doesn't he know the insatiable miurasv is still actively disputing the continued existence of P3/4 #0846?

At this point it is safe to assume that Enzo Ferrari himself could rise from the grave and give his blessing to the car and you'd be on about how ghosts have fuzzy memories or some other nonsensical technicality.

>8^)
ER

 

Steve is not the only one. The list of doubters is highly distinguished even if they do not post here.

One could just as easily argue that the fan boy bleachers have maintained a standard that there can be any and every absurd reason, logic be damned, why this car just has to be what their hero wants to profess.

 

We in the bleachers have no vested interest in 0846. Me, I've never met JG, never seen any of his cars, and certainly don't call him a hero, although I admire his collection. Steve, however, seems to have a massive hate on for JG, to the point where he will cast aspersions on Ing. Forghieri for the sake of discrediting the P4 that won Daytona 1967 and was formerly numbered 0846.

Despite holding out Ing Forghieri as the ultimate authority on the question, despite 2 separate documents provided by Forghieri that state that JG's car is built on the chassis that won Daytona 67 and was formerly numbered 0846, he can't bring himself to admit that JG does in fact own the Daytona-winning car formerly numbered 0846, to the point where he is throwing Ing Forghieri under the bus to avoid having to admit he's wrong.

It's disgusting and despicable, by his own words, the way he is now trying to discredit Ing Forghieri. It's also hilarious to see him squirm and avoid having to acknowledge the confirmation by MF.

Jeff, you yourself have posted about how little you think of JG - does that also influence your opinion of MF's statements of validity? How do you explain away the two documents from MF confirming JG's car as the Daytona winning P4 formerly numbered 0846?

 

I have made no secret of the fact that I have the highest regard for Mauro Forghieri. Please do not ever twist it that I disrespect him or that I am trying to discredit him. The complete opposite is true. I have said it before: as far as I am concerned he is the highest form of human being it is possible to be. A genius who has made an unequalled and massive contribution to Ferrari history. Ferrari would not be where they are today without him. I am not questioning him. Absolutely not. I am questioning what evidence he has been presented with. He is the highest authority on the car he designed and I am most certainly not questioning that fact. That I have asked him questions or the fact that I still have questions does not mean that I doubt him.

And another thing: contrary to what you and others may think, I do not have a massive hate on for Mr Glickenhaus.

 

Some historians have even described/designated 0846 as a "P3/P4."

 

*chuckles*

Oh, if you only knew how you chased a squirrel down the rabbit hole, only to find crow.

 

It was actually Mr Glickenhaus that quoted as gospel facts from Christian Huet's book, and without giving him credit. They were the nucleus of his claim that his chassis was 0846. They were facts he got completely wrong, misunderstood and misquoted. Even now, nearly a year after CH as well as MF has said that he was wrong about the engine mountings and P3 2412mm wheelbase he still quotes Christian's TECHNICAL DATA SHEETS in his 0846 pdf.

 

Like I've said a hundred times before, for those that are actually interested in the history of the frame versus an incessant need to win an argument, what needs to be looked into is how the frame was built/used and ended up in its current configuration. Mostly the Piper years. Those are key IMO to this cars history whether it is 0846 or to flesh out and define the history of 0003.

If Piper wife isn't being biased towards her life partner and Mauro is mistaken and this frame was indeed built by Piper from scratch, then how was it done and where is the proof?

You would think an enthusiast would want to uncover the actual history of the frame versus arguing about how letters are written etc???

If Piper knew every inch of this frame as some suggest, then please explain how he lost interest when it came time to discuss how the engine mounts were done? Seems pretty simple to me? If it was built from scratch by him per P4 plans as stated he had to add the mounts later.... For a man that knows every inch, it is pretty weak that he can't go into one minute of detail on how this was done? But even that doesn't make sense as I believe it is pretty clear that it was built as a P3 first. It being welded together from two chassis doesn't make sense either as I believe Marcel saw it as a whole in Switzerland. Question is, wouldn't Marcel notice the odd mounts? and even if it was done by Piper instead of Ferrari doing it on the quick, it does not negate that the rest of the chassis aft of the firewall shows some pretty tell tale signs of historic crash damage.

People may want to right this off as a Bitsa but I look at it as a the best case attempt to save a historic piece of Ferrari History. IMO, if the frame is indeed the remains of 0846, it is not anymore of a BITSA then many of the cars gracing the lawn that have been patched together over the years and given the holy blessing just because Classiche got paid. Are re-manufactured Ferrari parts filled with more provenance then ones actually used in history? Not in my opinion. At least those parts existed in the 60's when parts were wildly swapped from car to car to keep racing instead of being made in the present.

There are two hypothetical paths to travel down if one really wants to know the answer...

1. The chassis contains at least some of the remains of 0846.

2. The chassis was built completely from scratch by Piper.

But I think we all know that the actual history of the frame is not the real motivation here.

It is disgusting that the motive here is to discredit the car versus actually investigate what it is. That is not a lover of Ferrari's in my book.

And for those of you trying to get Miura to give a yes or no on it being 0846 that will never happen. He never answers any questions that don't fit his narrative.

 

Good to hear! So, then you should have no trouble with this, although you seem to have missed the question the last 14 times it was put to you:

Do you acknowledge and accept that JG/s P4 is built on the chassis of the Daytona 1967 winning car that was numbered 0846, as confirmed by Ing Forghieri? Yes or no?

 

Odd, you hold him in such high regard, yet when he says he recognizes changes HE made on the front of JG's car, that confirm it is 0846, you ask what proof. If MF saw it, it matters not what it is. He confirms it.

Perry

 

But he must know what "it" is so that he can pick that apart as well. That's how his game works - and on and on it goes.

>8^)
ER

 

Dude,
We all put our pants on, one leg at a time.
Human beings have only ONE form.....ten fingers.....ten toes.

Eng. Forghieri showed up to work every day, put up with Enzo's mind games, and built (more accurately "managed the day to day operations of"...)fast cars.

F1 design in 1967 was a committee, communal effort, then as now.

The rest of your post is the same "Piper Fan Boy" bull*&^*&^&& that you accuse every one else of having.

Rob Lay you win, as soon as I stop bleeding from the Ducati crash, I will send you the cold beer!

Rossi fell off, too.....

 

I always find these debates so bizzare. We have a car that for all intents and purposes is a 330.

Now we have arcane debates as to whether some of the metal in that 330 relates to a car that won a race in the 1960s, and whether enough of that metal is present to confer title on this car as being that car. Is that correct?

Somewhere along the way, "collectable" and "$value" got way too mixed up in what the machine is and what it was for. In my book the sooner we move to authosirsed and accepted recreations the better off we will all be in terms of actualy enjoyign the vehicles as cars.

It all reminds me of the 2 Dtypes both claiming title to the same car.

If Jim ever wants to sell, the market will decide, meanwhile he has done a great job of conferring legitimacy on his car, there will be doubters, as one would expect given the history of the bits, its not ano stories car and that may affect some ultimate potential value as questions always do. But this car has a legitimacy to it, beyond being a mere recreation.

The arguements here strike me as arcane and purely rooted in $.

the degree of acuracy to which this car was restored/rebuilt makes it one awesome machine.