The (one and only) '0846' Debate Thread

Napolis removed his signature for online purposes so as not to foster identity theft.

 

This thread could use a few pictures.

One picture is from Amelia in 2014 and the others are from Daytona 2011 when
the car took a few laps around the legendary track with Jim G. behind the wheel.

Raise your hand if you've had the thrill of watching this car go by at full song
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

So JG removed his own signature so as to not foster his own identity theft but quite happy to publish MF's signature and place MF under risk of identity theft. And why did he sign it in the first place???

 

Actually, it's quite possible that if Ferrari themselves had restored the car, they would have had no problems blessing it as "0846." They've built some cars up from less, or so I've been told.

However, it's way too late for that now.

Incidentally, would Ferrari's blessing change the debate here in any material way?

 

To some people, nothing would.

 

I'm sorry, I thought you had accepted MF's written word that JG's car is built on the remains of the 0846 chassis, is the chassis that won Daytona 1967 when the chassis was numbered 0846? Yes or No?

If yes, then why are you still blathering on about a stupid signature present or missing on a letter? Maybe you still don't accept that some letter writers had a broader education than you and use a slightly different page format to list the address of the recipient?

(As has been pointed out many times in just this thread already, In many business circles it is standard practice for the recipient to sign, and/or date, a letter to formally acknowledge and record receipt. That probably wasn't taught at your school either, so I suppose the practice will continue to be ignored by you?)

 

That's quite a harsh post. Jim's car is beautiful but it's not without controversy. Yes it does indeed appear to have reminates of 0846. But in many others eyes, the rear section of the current car is quite different.

My personal question being...how much of a chassis is required to be considered original? 50%, 40% etc. I myself (and I'm a nobody) would say at least 80% of a chassis must be present for original consideration. Does 0846 have this?

 

Well seen.

 

Dans moins d'un an, ce sera le cinquantenaire des 24h de Daytona, je suppose que Jim aura à coeur de faire une grosse démonstration, au volant de "(0) 0846"
Il est aller voir Forghieri pour qu'il lui donne l'absolution.
Mais l'absolution, seul l'Usine Ferrari peut la donner.

In less than a year, this will be the fiftieth anniversary of the 24h of Daytona, I guess Jim will be keen to make a big demonstration, driving "(0) 0846"
It is going to Forghieri into giving him absolution.
But absolution, only the Ferrari factory can give it.

 

What Jim G needs to do is to put David Piper behind the wheel with Jim G in the passenger seat to see how this car should be driven. tonga's crew

 

The chassis fwd of the firewall and including the modifications on the firewall to change it from a P3 to a P4 (the mounts on the cylinder heads are different as are the water connections) are all consistent with 0846. Aft of the firewall the tubes on the left side have evidence they were straightened after the Targa incident and the mounts are bolt on so that they are consistent with both P3 and P4 IIRC. The RR corner of the chassis where the rear engine mount is different as is the hoop around the transmission (according to Steve). To my mind at least it meets your 80% so yes I think we can say that most of the chassis is that of 0846 as it was salvaged after the fire at Le Mans.

 

A few years before Jim brought his car to Daytona I got to watch David Piper take a few laps in his Porsche 917 and
I have to tell you that he didn't drive any faster in his own car than Jim G. did in his.
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

My personal opinion is that this doesn't matter as long as everything was documented. From what you started with to the final result.

I can't see using percentage of original chassis as something that could ever be agreed upon.

By dimension? By weight? What if it was 100% intact upon discovery but 80% needed rust repair. Is this better or worse than a chassis missing its front clip and suspension but zero rust?

Seems to me people want black and white definitions for everything when all you can really have is a car and it's story, it can't be simplified or numerically categorized.

Whatever this vehicles history it is exceptional and I'm glad it exists today

 

Good grief. Trolling gone wild again.

See my last post regarding who typed the letter in English, with witnesses (plural).


via Tapatalk

 

Where in your last post does it say who TYPED the letter in English then?

"He absolutely did in front of witnesses, read it out loud to Minardi the technical director of ACI in Italian loudly stating "Vero" and again read it out loud in English to me which was videoed."

I see Jim has the March 14th letter on the FRONT and the BACK of his 0846 pdf. Absolutely no mention whatsoever of the binding February 23rd document. Why hasn't Jim posted this anywhere then, Wax? Why don't you answer this very important question?????

Jim's 0846 pdf, after nearly one year of it being proved untrue by the author of the Technical Data Sheets, Christian Huet, still states on page 64 how the chassis was transformed from P3 to P4. We also have Ing. Forghieri stating numerous times how this is not the case yet the misinformation is still in the 0846 pdf along with the BS about the 2412mm wheelbase.

 

Actually, Wax let us all see the video. Please post it. I'm sure everyone here would love to see the spirit of the event captured!!!!

 

When the note from James "bored-to-tears-with-being-trolled" Glickenhaus (*Whose sentiments or lack thereof I understand) was posted on his behalf; What part of "for the last time" did you not understand? (Please, I "beg" of you, don't answer, question, theorize, speculate, fictionalize, brainfart, levy accusations, quibble, waste my time or that of others, etc..)

*Can't blame him one bit for shutting what was an open book. There's nothing to hide. There's just nothing for you to see. Life is too short.

 

I'm sure we might all enjoy seeing the video, but your increasing levels of desperation here are difficult to watch.

>8^)
ER

 

It's becoming quite hilarious how you refuse to actually acknowledge Ing Forghieri's validation of Jim's P4 being actually constructed on the actual frame formerly known as 0846. You just can't bring yourself to say it? Even though it was you who posted the confirming letter? The HATE is that strong in you?

So instead of just acknowledging that you were wrong, and that 0846 is the basis for Jim's P4 after all (and it is a P4, according to MF in your letter), you are now focusing on the formatting of a letter, obsessed with why someone would possibly sign a letter they received even after it's been explained to you that it is a common business practice, ignoring the confirmations of letter formats that weren't taught at your school but are commonly used elsewhere in the world, insinuating that some devious dark purpose is behind a signature, and NOW, your big concern about the legitimacy of this car is who TYPED the letter????!!!!!!!!!!!!! Seriously?

And instead of just acknowledging the truth as confirmed by MF, you now want to deflect even further by attacking an old document that is now known to be incorrect. Big deal, it doesn't matter any more - Ing Forghieri's letters, formatted and signed as they are, have confirmed and established that JG's car is the Daytona winning P4 formerly known as 0846.

Deal with it, instead of continuing to weasel out of an acknowledgement with increasingly ridiculous distractions.

 

The tone being used by a number of people in recent days on this thread is quite condescending and full of vitriol, some need to realise this is simply a debate, it was started by Jim to discuss the matter, so be prepared to read things you don't agree with, without hurling insults to justify your cause.

Putting to one aside who actually compiled the March letter, as the question it seems is now being avoided as to who penned it, why does it even exist?

The Feb letter provides all the significant detail that outlines MFs view, it covers all angles, not just one side of the debate, none of the content of the Feb letter is retracted in the March version. No new information has been added in the March letter.

The March letter was revealed by Jim on facebook for public consumption, it makes no mention of the Feb letter. It was shown as a stand alone document.

The March letter suits the requirements for Jims car to be included in historic events, and as a stand alone document it potentially provides that, and has now been included in his pdf.

However the March letter is simply an abridged version of the Feb one, both are signed by MF so the contents of each have validity.

MF made the Feb letter public only after the March one was revealed, so he still reinforces all its content.

Read on its own then the abridged version opens doors, however with MF revealing the Feb one I guess those doors could be closing again.

The organisers of those events are the decision makers, not the members of this forum or any other forum, or even the owners of the cars that compete.

Inclusion in those events in the future will be the final stamp of approval as to whether Jims car in acknowledged as the rightful heir to the title of 0846.

 

"Authenticity

Trying to authenticate what is original and what is not is, in many cases, virtually impossible. One has to admit that such is the technology and skill available today - coupled in rare cases with the unscrupulous determination of an owner - that anyone who wishes to create a faked item can probably do so, confounding the scrutiny of even the most astute expert or ex-works mechanic.
With ex-works Minis the problem of checking authenticity has been made more difficult, and sometimes impossible, by the various dubious practices that went on within the Competitions Department. These included re-shelling cars, swapping bodies from one car to another, and changing registration numbers (@FERRARI: S/Ns) - all done at the time to make the optimum of resources.
................"

For Mini fill in: Ferrari, Ford etc

Wherever I read: history by expert/historian Mr. X I often laugh and think of the above.
The best experts are the coach-builders, chassis-builders from Ferrari, NART, Ecurie etc.
(the people who welded or repaired a chassis like 0846) will know many details.

To me the 0003 Piper P4 contains the main parts of the 0846 chassis. The car is what it is (a very nice "P4" and will never carry the #0846 chassis tag unless the factory tells otherwise.

Unless Piper/Chassis builder will clarify this will be a never ending story/discussion.

 

Tom
What do you want Piper to say?
He has already spoken, as recorded by JG himself in his pdf - pg.12 – “David had told me … that the chassis had been built by the "original chassis maker from original 1967 P4 chassis blueprints that were given to him by Enzo Ferrari along with permission to build 0900"”
Nathan