The (one and only) '0846' Debate Thread

Great to hear from you!

 

The info in this thread about the real Ferrari 330 P3/P4 0846 has mostly been used to prove the differences between the real car and the Piper P4 replica DP0003 with 3 litre 312 F1 engine.

 

I'm happy to be corrected, and I'm probably less qualified to opine than many in this thread, but my opinion is that the term "replica" is far too harsh a word for the DP cars. Replica, as a standalone term, implies something that blindly rips off a design.

I can't remember now from all the prior discussions whether the DP cars were ever explicitly endorsed by Ferrari, but they were certainly implicitly endorsed by the factory since the factory didn't do anything to shut it down and presumably provided parts as needed (feel free to correct as needed). A term like "privateer continuation" is a far more accurate term. The use of "David Piper" as an adjective in "David Piper replica" does not erase the connotations of "replica" -- even if you know the DP history, and certainly even less so if you don't.

I've never felt there was anything to ashamed of in being a DP car -- it's somewhere between a factory car (fairly far distance from that) and very, very far differentiated from 99% of the other Ferrari replicas that are built by chopping up and rebodying other Ferrari models.

 

Some time after David Piper stated on video in the post here that all the details of his P4 had been found in the Old Man's Office, I asked the Ferrari Factory directly about this particular P4 and they did a thorough investigation of all Ferrari Classiche technical archives, which contains information about every chassis manufactured and sold by Ferrari. On the basis of the search of the vehicle depicted in the photographs I sent i.e chassis number 0900 of a Ferrari 330 P4 they confirmed it has never been manufactured or sold. They stated that it was built without authorisation by Ferrari using parts obtained by various means that were assembled outside the official network and has never taken part in any Ferrari Racing activities.

Ferrari confirmed that on the 12th September, 1997 David Piper sent a fax to then Chairman and CEO Luca di Montizemolo requesting the recognition of a Ferrari 330 P4 type vehicle bearing chassis number 0900, a request that had already been submitted to SAT by Angelo Amadesi in order to register the vehicle for the Historic Challenge in April of 1997. The request was denied.

On the basis of the authenticity requirements adopted by Ferrari they confirmed that the aforementioned Chassis 0900 is not original and is ineligible for Ferrari Classiche Certification.

 

I agree with all of that, but the gulf between "replica" and "not eligible for Classiche" is a million miles wide. Piper's cars are not official Ferrari's -- there is no question about that. But calling it a "replica" as a standalone term is hugely inaccurate, misleading, and inappropriately derogatory. It's somewhere between those two extremes.

You can't say that, because t's not the most extreme "correct" categorization (Classiche certified/recognized), it must be the most extreme "incorrect" categorization (replica). Well, you can, technically, but there isn't any basis in logic to do that. The car fits somewhere between those two extreme ends of the spectrum.

 

Wonderful cars though they are, the Piper P4s are simply not products of Ferrari as Ferrari have stated in writing, so replicas are what they are. Replica is not a derogatory term. They cannot be more than they are and there can not be an in-between determination. Cars like Norwood and Foreman are homage cars. They do have Ferrari parts, many in the case of DP0002, but these parts have been united by chassis that have nothing whatsoever to do with Ferrari, and the chassis is generally considered to determine the identity and origin of the car, so they are really Cantelli/Pipers. Neither car is to the same specification as the original and real Ferrari 330 P4s.

 

Once again, I have been instructed that I know nothing, so following those lines and staying in command of my opinion(s), wasn't David Piper a 'decently famous' Ferrari gentleman racer ?

So, potentially no one to be sneered at. I have always admired Piper, as I applaud the following:

"One of the most successful sportscar racing privateers and a right proper Chap. Who, during the course of filming Le Mans, the movie, became intimately involved in a caramboulage of a level of magnitude that,
when the dust had settled, left him with an approximate, and permanent, 50% deficiency in the overall length of one of his original allocation of legs."

Bollocks galore....David Piper.

Quote by : www.historicracing.com, as a much better commentary, than this "unknowledgeable" and illiterate fan of his. A delightful man, and a true sportsman, no matter the shenanigans.
Have you chatted with him? I had the luck. A fascinating man. As an aside, the site above, is a delightful compilation of some of the best.

By the way it is not "Montizemolo", it is "Montezemolo".

Regards, Alberto

PS. No disclosure this time, as said it enough, and still stands.

 

Alberto,

This about semantics. Can a certain replica have a level of provenance? When is a replica a recreation? Should there be recognized levels of replicas? Does rebuilt/restored from the number plate up a real car just because it has the number plate?

Is it black and white or are there shades of gray?

 

This discussion is not about semantics. Unless made by Ferrari, even if identical, they are replicas, but clearly replicas are built with varying accuracy and to varying standards. The Pipers are in a different and greater league to Norwoods and Foremans which are better than most other replicas so there is a hierarchy amongst replicas.

The Piper cars vary too with DP0002 being better than DP0003 using many more actual P4 parts rather than F1 parts. Both the Piper cars have been raced too. These cars do have a history and they are interesting that they were built by Piper who has an association with Ferrari having raced them but that association does not make the Piper P4s Ferraris.

I believe that the green P4 that Piper currently still owns may well have the engine and transaxle from 0846, but even if it does, that does not in any way make the car a Ferrari, a product of Ferrari or 0846, as that car ceased to exist as an entity when it was scrapped and written off, as confirmed by Mother Ferrari and Ing. Mauro Forghieri.

 

Steve,

I agree that if a car was not built by Ferrari it is not and cannot be considered a true Ferrari. That applies even if it is an assemblage of real Ferrari parts but never knew each other as a whole car built by Ferrari. There are some asterisks on that statement as replacement parts for original parts.

The semantics are about the range of recreations and replicas. Yes, some are better and deserve more nods to being faithful than others. It doesn't change that it is not a real Ferrari though.

But there are some rabbit holes when looking at possible situations (that do not apply to DP00002). Is the Sunoco 512 less of a Ferrari because Penske created a different (better) tub? It is a one-for-one replacement so it would qualify on that point but it was not built by Ferrari nor was it to the exact Ferrari design. When Chris Cord rebuilt and restored the 121 LM that killed McAffee he could not of reused the mangled chassis (at least I do not expect he did). How does that rate?

 

As you know, I admire your research and get annoyed and defend you on the occasions your research is attacked without valid basis.

That said, the way you express your conclusions can sometimes be inappropriate.

Using the word "replica", without a ton of explanation, is ridiculous and demeaning (by omission of hugely important facts). The term "replica" is ridiculously broad, covering poor implementations, recreations, and genuine Ferraris that have been chopped up and turned into something then never were. Some people even use that term describe rebodied Fieros -- it's a ridiculously broad term. Most of those are done for profit or vanity or whatever causes one to do that -- and genuine cars are often destroyed or have parts looted to create them.

Piper fits none of that -- he built his cars to continue racing because they were no longer available from the factory. The factory endorsed that, or they would have had him pull the Ferrari badges at an absolute minimum. They aren't Ferrari's, but they are as close as you can get and his intent was pure (simply to continue racing a car NLA from the factory). To lump that in with all replicas is a huge disservice and unfair. There is nothing to be ashamed of being a DP car -- it's not an official Ferrari -- but it has its own history and pedigree totally independent from replicas. Ferrari recognizes David's place in its history (https://www.ferrari.com/en-EN/magazine/articles/the-man-who-raced-in-green).

If there is going to be a shorthand term for these cars, I'd say the best term would be "privateer continuation", or something along those lines, since that is exactly what they were. "Replica" is not the right term, or anywhere close to the right term, and it is derogatory without question because it leaves out so many important facts that are important and unique to David's cars and history.

 

Denis Jenkinson's classic 1987 quoted at the link below split originality into 12 categories and covers most of the bases but doesn't really allow for the differences between physical condition and mechanical composition. Legality was spelled out in the London High Court case of Middlebridge Engineering v Ed Hubbard which saw Justice Otton eventually rule that an item need only to have either A - continuous provenance from its build date or B - three of five of chassis, front axle, rear axle, engine, bodywork from the original, to be accepted as that item. And still the grey areas between what is real and fake remain. Bernie Ecclestones collection recently sold included Thinwall Special #3 and most experts agree it was stripped of all parts in '51 or '52 and the bare chassis stored at Vandervell Engineering for 20+ years before sold to Tom Wheatcroft and restored by British experts. That car is both incredibly important, lucky to survive and ultra desirable and a fake, depending on your perspective.

https://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/threads/classification-by-denis-jenkinson-of-what-a-cars-condition-is.434650/

 

Rather than replica or recreation, what about reconstruction?

 

“Reconstruction” implies there’s something involved that was originally constructed to start with. That’s not the case here. Even “replica” is a misnomer since it’s defined as an exact copy of an original. Again, that’s not the case here. “Fake” actually seems to be the best definition since its dictionary meaning is not genuine; counterfeit.

 

Different people have different ideas about each of these words, what they mean, and how they apply. Those ideas are often part of an agenda...and, are often not consistent.

There are participants in this discussion who are very vocal. Their views espoused here vary significantly from their postings and ideas/opinions in other threads.

 

??????????????????????????????

 

for example the word "restoration": some mean they have then a brand new car with all parts refurbished or new. but it was only done a few things. so different meanings all over

 

Hello Jeff,

Thank you for considering me into this great conversation. It will be a ramble, but you asked...for what it is worth...

Race cars, are a great example as they blew up motors all the time. Internal numbers? That was only for record keeping. Period.
In this esteemed circle, where cars are known by chassis numbers, oh! 00584, or 00465, or 007, a poor 'pedestrian' as I, does not have a clue what car they are talking about. I find it silly, and elitist.
Yet, I even know Mr. Glickenhaus chassis number, silly me!

Why not call it by, say, HRH the Duke of Horsemanure, or the King of Poopooland, Queen of Daisy 250 whatever? Frightfully confusing, and elitist. If you don't know, don't ask, or better yet, stay out of this delightful section.

I am fortunate enough to own, as I own my clothes, (and not 'the custodian') a factory race car, and the engine block, now has no serial number, nor did it ever after the first 'blown' one. And, the factory sold them without numbers.
Why? In this specific car, and many others, it was vastly easier to quote: "no number for the engine" as the chassis number is what mattered. The birth certificate. Originality.
Ever watch F1 in the 60's or 70's? Blown engines were the fare of the day, so how many are "ORIGINAL"? I mean BORN with THAT motor.
I was always a Ferrari Tifoso to the core, but they all had engine failures on (lots of) occasion.

Ciao Giovanni, go to the foundry and get me another block, number? Whatever was convenient, most likely the same one. Original, not really, yet numerically stamped, yes.
Oh, the 'dreary' customs man ( a God, clearly) with powers to be reckoned with.

In my extreme lack of knowledge, if a motor is 100% exactly as the previous one, but the numbers are, there / missing / not there, who cares? If it is the one and only "Scavallini GT" in the world, maybe. Mefistofele, quite.
Fangio's MM Merc, definitely. Unquestionably, the crème de la crème. Did he ever blow an engine?
The Monna Lisa, not Lisas.

So all the 250's 'road cars' that were junked to extract the engine, are all impostors in a "Ferrari Factory Built and Correct" car. But so valuable, that I'll keep the original
in the 'stable' and the poor 250 GTE that surrendered its engine is trouncing all at Goodwood. So, what is this car? Clearly a fake.

A car is either the real McCoy or it is not. But what does that mean? To what level is 'originality' of 100%, and are there leeways, escape routes, caveats, codicils, Papal Bulls, etc.?

I thank Tim for posting a (my) link to Jenks' definition of this melee, that will endure forever in life by all aficionados of anything that is worth preserving. Everybody is right and wrong at the same time.
It is mostly, acceptable perspectives. When Jenks wrote his list, being a most peculiar type of journo as not many others, and with bragging rights that were enviable, it was a different era,
a touch less anal, but what do I know, as I jump with both feet in, because I am 'deficient' in the area. Perfection?
Certainly.

Oh, but the "how dare you"? Is omnipresent in most disrespectful and impolite ripostes, due to ignorance. To be 'Banned' due to lack of common courtesy really shows the man.
Not because of poking fun.
Is 'Molly, the sheep' a replica, or a recreation? Genetically she is /was, a 100 genetically fabricated what..... pray tell.

In life, there are always shades of gray, even black and white are not the same, as both have a myriad of different shades.
Clearly, under that perspective, my Dino were restored in the metal using 100% sheet metal of unknown origins, that no longer was there or simply disappeared into crumbling rust. Re-creations, replicas, what?
Mechanically they are 100% correct, the upholstery is no longer 'original' all numbers match, yet not, what?
Do current (old) GTO have Borgo, Asso, etc. pistons, or con-rods? Doubt it, but considered original? FRAM oil filters? Oh my.

For what it is worth to yrs. truly, this discussion will, and can go on another 20 years, if we all are still alive. I seriously doubt "semantics" will disappear.
I still like the Jenks list. To me, the buck stops there. You asked, this is all....folks!

Regards,
Alberto

 

AFAIK the Sunoco 512 M 1040 still had its tubular chassis but the strengthening aluminium in the firewall, floor and roof were replaced, the suspension and pickups were modified plus a more lightweight GF body was made for it. Although the car was further heavily modified, it was still essentially the same car that retained its identity.

I believe 121 LM 0546 LM still has its original chassis. Ferrari Classiche in recent years have straightened and corrected the chassis and added a new Ferrari chassis number stamping that was lost when it was repaired after the McAfee crash. The car is fantastic and has had much work done to it by Ferrari Classiche, in house in this particular case and not farmed out, as is usually thought here to happen.

 

It's important to be as diligent about what the car is, as it is to be diligent about what the car is not.

I stand by my opinion that the best term for the "car itself" is "privateer continuation", or something along those lines.

That said, my oversight in that opinion was that I was (unintentionally) not thinking about the fact that the current livery probably does not match what the car is, based upon the best available information.

Given my oversight, I'm not sure what the right label is, though I remain certain it isn't replica (which generally more about the car than the livery).

 

All true but therein lies the problem: each replica does actually require an explanation and is a story car. Think how long the story is on Piper DP0003 and imagine trying to truthfully explain that to someone who casually asked what it is who knows nothing about it. Another example is Piper DP0002. The engine is 350 Can Am spec, which was a bored out 330 P4 engine; the suspension, although very close to P4 spec, is actually to 350 Can Am spec too; it has a conventional water radiator engine cooling system and does not have the serpente radiators designed by Ing. Mauro Forghieri that the genuine cars have; the chassis was certainly not built by Ferrari as David Piper has claimed a number of times; the body comprising the front and rear sections plus the doors are the discarded P4 body of 0860, so could it also be correctly termed a bitsa? The term replica is a broad term used to described the good and the bad examples. The continuation Aston Martins and Jaguars are actually replicas too, but these are genuine authentic replicas of the original cars made by the original manufacturer, as is the 125S at the Ferrari Museum.

The races that the Piper P4s have taken part in, I would guess, have been mainly tribute races, and certainly not of the high calibre as the authentic cars such as Le Mans, Nurburgring 1000 KM, Targa Florio and Spa Francorchamps etc. The Ferrari factory has not endorsed these cars. I do not know for certain, but they may turn a blind eye to his non authorised replica activities because of his previous history with the company. Yes, Ferrari does recognise David Piper's place in their History. That said there are a number of inaccuracies on the Ferrari part of the site you linked, which is not run by Classiche. No P3s exist but note they do not state that he has a P4.

I think to call cars continuation in any way they have to be licensed by the original manufacturer but the Piper cars are not licensed.

All the above is just my opinion.

 

David Piper, Fabrizio Violati, Anthony Bamford and Albert Obrist all had different motivations for visiting the great factories in the late 1960s, early 1970s and buying anything on offer. Ferrari were then passing into the Fiat era and Enzo had little nostalgia for last years car, let alone outlawed Group 5 and Group 6 sportscars, Maserati and Porsche also happy to sell anything in their stores for much needed foreign cash. But it took a buyer who had the vision to want to buy cars and parts that had little use in the post 1971 world although classic racing series in the UK and Steve Earls Monterey races at Laguna Seca both began in roughly 1973/4 and provided a outlet for a few pioneers.

Bamford amassed enough parts to commission Graypaul Motors to build two new 246F1s in the 1970s, Obrists stash was sold at Goodwood in 1996 and could have built multiple new Ferraris and Porsche 917s. Piper bought enough bits and parted out enough cars to build his DP series of cars, restore a couple more P cars and recreate/ restore several 917s and Lola T70s. By the 1980s each of these factories could see the value of their classic cars explode and suddenly the remaining items in the treasure trove (stores) were the family jewels and the sell offs were well and truly over. Many of the cars built in the UK during this time were implicitly accepted by the factories at the time without any official paperwork BUT would never get through any form of Classiche program today and are loosely in the replica to recreation area of Jenks famous classification

 

It is a "story" car, but it's a damn good story. The "story" is a plus. It went through those iterations because it was raced and it had to comply with frequently changing rules where it was raced. If he started with a Ferrari serial-numbered car, the car would likely be in the exact same state because of: a) changing requirements for racing in different series; b) Ferrari wouldn't have supplied chassis/body or other parts anyway because they had discontinued support for them (and racing always consumes parts and body/chassis components). He had to find parts wherever he could because Ferrari wasn't selling them -- just like all of us with vintage cars have been doing for decades (though our parts needs are 0.01% as frequent as David's because requirements changed often, and things break often -- as a direct byproduct of racing).

His activities, at a minimum, were tacitly supported by the factory, or they would have had him debadge it. I doubt they "tolerated" it -- they were probably happy to see Ferrari have a presence in those races without the any factory expense or effort -- because, why wouldn't they be? If there was a negative vibe about David, they wouldn't feature him on their website -- they had no need to do that, but they chose to.

Agreed that is the requirement for a "continuation" car -- that's why I suggested "privateer continuation", which is exactly what it was.