The (one and only) '0846' Debate Thread

I agree I don't like to see anyone dragged through the mud. I always took him at his word and especially the story about J6.

To address the first part... so you (like myself) were under the impression or of belief that Jim corrected the record. That he bought it as a lemans winning car and then proved it wasn't

It now appears that you and I (probably along with other people) are now quite possibly wrong.

The recent Fchat user posted a book that had shown that it was well known that that story no longer holds water and that it was known that J6 did not win and was painted as a replica but clearly wasn't the car because the winning car had a functional gurney bubble and lowered floor J6 apparently didn't have either.

Now I have not researched this and am just summarizing a previous post. It is possible that it is incorrect... but the evidence is pretty damning. It is straight out of a published book... so unless this book was recently published... the narrative that Jim corrected the record is simply false. It was known that that car never won and it was meerly painted to look that way. It was lacking serious modifications of the winning car.

 

Im quite surprised no Ford vintage expert has called him out on that one? Are they too scared to say anything? Why is this revealed on a Ferrari board?

It seems logical that Ford would retain the actual winning car and that one apparently has some features that are unique, so a mix up seems not really possible. Ok so maybe the numbers have been switched but the actual winner car has always been with Ford, so it doesnt seem too complicated at all...

 

Ill go out on a limb here and say that there is no ford website like this. The GT40 owners don't really have an online voice.

The other contributing factory is there are so few of those cars and they have little exposure and most are locked up.

The biggest contributing factor is...well... no one really cares when you "no this isn't the lemans winner" vs "yes this is the lemans winner" The conversation stops when you say its not the winner. Few will jump into the why and when the car was deemed not the winner. They just know its not the winner. Sort of checks the box and move on sort of a thing.

I never looked for that reason. Why? Who cares... if he says it isn't then it isn't... Now the perpetuation of the false story FOR ME is now casting a POSSIBLE shadow over Jims character/actions/stories regarding the Jims cars. It just moved me to more of a trust... but verify sort of stance.

I will look into it further before really settling on it.

 

Wow... I just dove into this subject and its kind of shocking... also looked at the Ronnie Spain GT40 book...

This is a bit of an eye opener.

It was well known which car won. it was never have thought to have won. It was always clear which car won easily referenced as well by which car ford kept... and is in completely original condition...

So what caused the confusion it SEEMS to ME is a typo and then the typo being relied on as factual.

There was never any confusion as to which one won. One was retained and had a lower floor and a real bubble. The other didn't... also it seems that not only did jims car suffer race damage but it was wrecked as well...

So Jim corrected a typo...

he never potentially lost millions by telling the truth that his car didn't win. It was known it didn't win. Doesn't mean the car and the owner isn't amazing... especially with the 40k miles!

It just seems like a fishing story... the legend is greater than the truth... and the witness has remained silent to not correct this topic it would seem.

 

Do we see a pattern?

Mr Glickenhaus also claims he has the engine from the winning Ford GT MK IV from Le Mans 1967. However, Mose Nowland, actual Engine Engineer of the Ford Racing Team at Le Mans 1967 would disagree. See the video here from 2.39: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoC6320mKis
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Mose Nowland makes a very strong point about the engine being original in this interview.

Interesting tone Mr Nowland is using about the subject.

 

Point taken, but this is still very weird. The genuine winner car is before everyone's eyes and there has been a book published with the relevant info (albeit with a S/N typo). Those are extremely brazen claims by J, I cant believed the first time hes been called out on this is 20 years later on a Ferrari message board?!

 

Nathan Beehl actually questioned the claims in this very thread in 2005. See his response to Wax's post below.

 

Good find! Can of worms now opened I guess lol!

 

The original GT40 Le Mans winner is hardly rotting away, based on that video and its been with Ford ever since the win. a bit like saying the same regarding the Mona Lisa simply because the Louvre have not given it a fresh coat of paint!

It would appear all that Jim did with his is correct the colours, back to those the car wore when it came 4th? which everyone in the Ford world knew were incorrect anyway.

 

On a tangent...

I believe the 1966 winning GT40 is historically more important, especially winning against the Ferrari works team then.

Technically chassis P/1046 won, though it was the staged 1-2-3 finish. Restored by Rare Drive, who are incredible.

 

Since everyone is going way off topic, Classic & Sportscar magazine and Andrew Ferguson (leading Lotus author/ former team manager) both discussed some 10 - 20 years ago how the Lotus Ford that won Indy, becoming the first rear engined car to do so, was at that point rotting away, since the Ford museum had long had the intention to let their pinnacle cars rest as they last turned a wheel. In the last decade they seemed to have changed that strategy and are now conserving these cars but back then that is what they did and there was a certain positive because at least it meant these exhibits didn't get a well meaning but corrupting restoration as so many cars did in the 70s. https://www.thehenryford.org/explore/stories-of-innovation/what-if/lotus-ford/

 

I agree that by simply storing them away rather than having a flashy cosmetic resto they are now in a much better state to conserve correctly, but rotting away implies they have been dumped out back in a leaky tin shed for years on end which was hardly the case.

 

Like all implications, it is a question of personal opinion or perspective, and back when Andrew Ferguson raised the plight of the Lotus, many jumped to attack him and many to defend his stance. Tertiary collections such as Mercedes-Benz, Porsche, Revs Collection and the Simeone foundation have shown that there are multiple methods of retaining originality while allowing certain types of use but the entire subject is still polarizing. Its good to see Ford (and donors) spending money bigly on the collection and the museum does look pretty cool, they have the bus that Rosa Parks famously rode on and so much else.

 

Disagree.

 

And I dsgree with you!

 

One possible explanation for Mr. Glickenhaus' statements re the GT40 is that he bought J6 under the mistaken impression that it was the Le Mans winner, based on the superficial paint job and Gurney bump. Whether it was presented to him as such, or he assumed it was the winner, would only be known by him. Perhaps after finding out that his wasn't the winning car, he made the noble statements to avoid a bit of embarrassment.

Misrepresentation, or confusion, about some cars isn't unheard of. I visited the Chaparral Museum in Midland, Texas (a wing of the Permian Basin Petroleum Museum) back in 2009, and the curator of the Chaparral collection pointed to the 1980 2K IndyCar on the wall and said "that's the 1980 Indy 500 winning car. The Indianapolis Museum thinks they have the winning car, but they have a different car - Jim Hall kept the winning car, this is it"

Pictures of the Chaparral 2K in the Indy museum; and the 1980 winning 2K in the Chaparral museum in Midland:
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

As I have said, by the time Mr Glickenhaus bought his Ford GT MK IV there was no doubt whatsoever which car was which, and his car was the #2 4th place car at Le Mans 1967. Obviously things were a little more difficult to find out in 1990 but with due diligence it would have been quite easy to find out the history of the car. If he didn't exercise due diligence then that's his fault.

He even had Ronnie Spain's GT40 book, first published in 1986, that contains the information and has recommended it to other people. See post above from 2003. Mr Glickenhaus has a history of misinterpreting and misquoting information, just as he did when he misquoted the Scheda Technica, Technical Data Sheets in another book in his possession, Christian Huet's Ferrari 330 P3/412P, when he said the Scheda Technica stated the P3 wheelbase as 2412mm whereas it states it as 2400mm.

Mr Glickenhaus was not the first person to find out his car was the 4th place car and not the winner. It was already very well known.

 

What next? His P4/5 not an original Ferrari either?

 

Actually, wasn't there a battle for a while as Ferrari didn't want the logo on the hood, and Ferrari later relented? I am glad they did. It is cool that he exercised his artistic vision.

 

Not true. As best I can remember, Napolis knew it was not a winning car from the beginning and bought it anyway. It came out later that Foyt had suggested that Napolis' car won and Napolis corrected the record. He always identified the drivers of his car--McLaren and Donahue and it is easy to verify that they did not win LeMans in that car.

Jim was never confused, but others were by Foyt's statements.

And for some others to come on here and suggest otherwise, and attribute a malevolent motive to Napolis in the J6 is showing their true colors. Is it not enough for that poster who I have on ignore (but can read his comments when others quote him) . . . is it not enough that he go after the P3/4? Does he now have to go after the J6? Napolis has never misrepresented that car. But to suggest otherwise is just a sign of anger and jealousy. Next, we will be treated to period pictures which suggest that Napolis' car, the J6, is nothing more than a kit car. And 200 posts from now, everyone will be re-writing history.

 

It's not an admonition of J6, it's his way of building a character case against Glickenhaus, which is why I call it a witch hunt. Even character assassinations, however, require direct 'shots'.

Anyway, the case can be made that a correct reference in a highly specialized publication hardly makes the fact "well known" - particularly if the car is publically represented as something else. Jim's openness about it in very public forums - before the widespread use of the internet, by the way - does make a big difference, including in matters of value. Anoraks may scream out that they already knew J6 wasn't the Le Mans winner, but an owner openly admitting it and happily promoting it as the 4th place car has significant merit in the widespread public's knowledge of that fact. Again, those who have been awarded the opportunity to experience these cars up close probably have a greater amount of appreciation and even respect for what Jim stands for. It admittedly also allows us to give him a greater benefit of doubt.

We should stick to the pertinent discussion of '0846' in this thread. It is, in itself, enough cannon fodder.

 

The only aspect I find distasteful and poorly reflecting on Jim's character is his personal assault on Steve as "The Troll."

Now it appears that his approach seems to not be an open minded discussion of whether it is possible it is legitimate but appears to be close minded.

In my most charitable construct, I don't think it started out that way - that he was probably really excited by the possibility it was the missing frame, but his position has hardened and become much harder to defend it appears. If one believes the evidence has proved its not real, is Jim blinded by the allure of having the real thing so he can't acknowledge the possibility of it not being so, or is he perpetuating a lie? i personally think that he became so wedded to the possibility that it is real that he has tunnel vision on the topic.

One's analysis of the motivation is what influences one's view of Jim as a person; different people can reasonably come to different conclusions.

Clearly too some of this became too personal which no doubt both proponents and opponents regret.

 

I appreciate your response... however I will have to either say we are missing eachother as far as points and what we are referrencing or you are not as familiar with the J6 story and statements..

I wont go as far as to say Jim created the myth of J6 just to shoot it down to gain undeserved credit... however... he has most certainly perpetuated it.

He is on record on the GT40 boards stating it as such and his car has been covered by many many many different media outlets whether it be articles, interviews, coverage in general that the car was purchased as a lemans winner and he set the record straight.

The truth is the record was straight from the day he bought it. Those suggesting that he may have missed it... no way... Jims not dumb... and no one spends that kind of coin without researching it. He knew what he was buying when he bought J6.

 

The people I quoted in my post in the link below thought it had everything to do with "0846" to big up Mr Glickenhaus's honesty and credibility in authenticating 0003 as 0846. You forget that they brought the subject up, NOT ME. Also, some of the quotes were addressed to me.

See post here: http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/145222191-post9903.html

Now it has been revealed that it was well known, not just in Ronnie Spain's 1986 GT40 book, but in the GT40 community as a whole, that the Ford GT MK IV owned by AJ Foyt, Les Lindley and Peter Livanos was the 4th place car at 1967 LM and not the winner, at the time and WELL BEFORE Mr Glickenhaus bought the car it has nothing to do with 0846 and you say: "We should stick to the pertinent discussion of '0846' in this thread." Yes, ok!!!