News

The (one and only) '0846' Debate Thread

Discussion in 'Vintage (thru 365 GTC4)' started by El Wayne, Nov 1, 2003.

  1. miurasv

    miurasv F1 Veteran

    Nov 19, 2008
    8,050
    Cardiff, UK
    Full Name:
    Steven Robertson
    #8226 miurasv, Jun 22, 2016
    Last edited: Jun 22, 2016
    I'm afraid it's you who is wrong about the structure of your DP003 chassis.

    The engine mount of 0846 is in exactly the correct place for a P4 and is actually more in line with port 2, NOT 3 and 4 as you say. It's exactly the same as in the picture of P4 0856 which I posted. Your "perspective" (photography term) is wrong in more ways than one.

    There is absolutely no P3 engine mount in Karl's photograph. The engine mount that can be seen is totally P4, not P3. Besides, the forward side engine mount at the intersection of the multitubes, which is what can be seen in the picture, looks nothing like on your chassis. Your chassis has been built to meet a projecting engine mount lug from a 2 valve 312 F1 engine, which was similar to 412P cars and P3s, BUT (and it's a big one) the tube arrangement, which misses out the diagonal tube that extends from the mount to the back, on your chassis is like a P4, with the intersection of those tubes and mounting point in the position to meet the engine mount of the 2 valve 312 F1 engine, not the P4 mount position. P4s, as 0846 has in the picture, have a chassis tube extension with wing like strengtheners/stabilisers that extend and meet the engine block. The mounting points on a P4 engine do not protrude out like they do on P3s and 412Ps.

    What you say Mauro said at the time above proved he and his Racing Department, who built the real 0846, did not build your chassis. He has recently said after seeing the pictures of your chassis, which he hadn't seen when he wrote the February and March letters to you: "The rear portion of Glickenhaus’ fake P4 is completely new and these details couldn’t have been missed by coachbuilders that built real P4s. I believe that the biggest differences from a real one are in the front section."

    Karl's picture actually proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that your chassis is NOT 0846.
     
  2. To remove this ad click here.

  3. miurasv

    miurasv F1 Veteran

    Nov 19, 2008
    8,050
    Cardiff, UK
    Full Name:
    Steven Robertson
    #8227 miurasv, Jun 24, 2016
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 7, 2017
    First picture is of the chassis of Mr Glickenhaus's Piper DP0003 where you can clearly see the forward side right hand side engine mounting tubes and the small bolt hole at the point of intersection of the tubes.

    Second picture is of the same area of P4 0856. (Pic by Shiltech Engineering).

    Third picture is of the same area of the real 0846 converted from P3 to P4 at Daytona 67.

    On the Glickenhaus chassis those tubes intersect further towards the back of the chassis and a bolted on forward reaching triangle, not seen in the picture, is used used to mount the P4 (actually 312 F1) engine. There are other differences in this area too. Look at the small size of the bolt hole on Mr Glickenhaus's chassis compared to 0856 and the real 0846. Clearly Mr Glickenhaus's chassis is not 0846.
    Image Unavailable, Please Login
    Image Unavailable, Please Login
    Image Unavailable, Please Login
     
  4. miurasv

    miurasv F1 Veteran

    Nov 19, 2008
    8,050
    Cardiff, UK
    Full Name:
    Steven Robertson
    #8228 miurasv, Jun 26, 2016
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 7, 2017
    I have studied the differences between P3, 412P and P4 chassis and Mr Glickenhaus is wrong that his Piper DP0003 replica chassis was originally a P3 chassis. You must bear in mind that P3, 412P and P4 chassis are very similar and differ in detail only.

    Piper DP0003 has been built using P4 plans down to using the same P4 arrangement of the omnidirectional multitubes that form the forward side engine mountings with the difference being that the intersection of the tubes that form the mountings is slightly further towards the back in the chassis to correctly fit a 412P or 2 valve 312 F1 engine, both with similar mounting points to a P3, that this replica car/chassis originally had installed, with protruding lugs that meet the chassis.

    P4s had chassis protrusions that met the engine. This arrangement of multitubes is slightly different on a P3, with the biggest difference being the omission of the P3 diagonal tube that extends from the intersection of the tubes to the back corner of the engine area and of course where they all meet in the chassis to accept the different position of the engine mounting. There is the small bolt hole on the Glickenhaus DP0003 chassis which is clear to see compared to the much larger bolt hole of the chassis of the real 0846 and other P4s which I have referred to in my previous post.

    P4s have an added tube that forms a triangle above the rear side engine mounts which P3s and 412Ps did NOT/do not have. See pictures. Mr Glickenhaus's chassis DP0003 has this P4 tube.

    The two tubes in the bulkhead that meet the upper crossbar on DP0003 are in P4 style but not the same as a P4. These bulkhead tubes are exactly the same as on Piper P4 replica chassis 0900a, the ex Max Wakefield chassis.

    Most P3/412Ps have a slightly different tube arrangement at the right side of the engine to a P4. Mr Glickenhaus's DP0003 has the tubes in a P4 style arrangement.

    If DP received the chassis from the chassis maker with a P4 arrangement of tubes to fit a P4 engine then he must have removed the necessary tubes to replace as above, STILL USING P4 PLANS, to fit the protruding lug 412P and 312 F1 2 valve engines correctly and properly as can be seen was done. It's when the 3 valve 312F1 engine, that Mr Glickenhaus wrongly says is a P4 engine, was lastly fitted, and the engine he bought the car with, that DP must have added the bolt on adaptors to fit it.

    If the real 0846 chassis was as Mr Glickenhaus says, it would have a P3 arrangement of tubes for the forward side engine mounting with a smaller bolt hole. Mr Glickenhaus often refers to these as the "vestigial P3 mountings." However, it clearly does not. What Mr Glickenhaus's chassis has is a P4 arrangement of tubes with a small bolt hole that matches the projecting lug engines, in the P3 position in the chassis that then uses a forward reaching bolt on triangle to meet the mount of the 312 F1 3 valve engine which Mr Glickenhaus wrongly says is a P4 engine. What the real P4 0846 did have, as is shown in the picture I posted a few days ago, was a P4 arrangement of tubes meeting/intersecting to form the engine mount in the correct P4 position with a large bolt hole to mount the P4 engine.

    So, it is as David Piper says, built to P4 plans.
    Image Unavailable, Please Login
    Image Unavailable, Please Login
    Image Unavailable, Please Login
    Image Unavailable, Please Login
    Image Unavailable, Please Login
    Image Unavailable, Please Login
    Image Unavailable, Please Login
    Image Unavailable, Please Login
     
  5. technom3

    technom3 F1 Veteran
    Rossa Subscribed

    Mar 29, 2007
    7,035
    Phoenix AZ
    Full Name:
    Justin

    well said!

    I applaud your candor in your post and of course for your research.

    There has been plenty of mud slinging involved in this thread and its really nice to have someone explain there side so well and, with what seems to be, without bias.

    It is also very nice to see someone supporting there position with very good photos representing their argument.

    This is interesting
     
  6. miurasv

    miurasv F1 Veteran

    Nov 19, 2008
    8,050
    Cardiff, UK
    Full Name:
    Steven Robertson
    #8230 miurasv, Jun 27, 2016
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 7, 2017
    Oh, really, Jim?????


    The picture that Nathan posted 11 years ago after he had met David Piper, who told him the chassis was built to P4 plans, but modified to fit a P3 engine actually proves that to be the case and not as Mr Glickenhaus has revelled in stating for this whole 11 year period that this picture proves it was built to P3 plans.

    Now this is quite a grainy picture, but what it clearly shows is that the chassis does NOT have the P3 diagonal forward side engine mounting tube that starts from the intersection of the multitubes that forms the engine mounting and reaches back to the rear corner of the engine area. This tube was present on ALL P3 chassis and is present on ALL P3/412P and 412P chassis. None of the P4 chassis have this tube. Please see the 3rd and 4th pictures of 0854 which has a P3 chassis which clearly shows the presence of this tube which I have arrowed in red.

    If this was a genuine P3 chassis that had been built to P3 plans as Mr Glickenhaus states, it would absolutely have this tube, especially when fitted with a P3 engine. Mr Glickenhaus at the time and since has attached "big" significance to this picture in his case to prove his chassis is a P3 chassis modified to fit a P4 engine and therefore 0846. However what it does is actually prove his chassis is NOT P3 in type and is much more likely to have been built to P4 plans as no P4s had this tube as this replica built to P4 plans does not. Please see the last 2 pictures of P4 0856 which as a P4 does not have the relevant P3 diagonal tube, with the last one having the area marked in red where the tube would be in a P3 chassis.

    The Glickenhaus DP0003 chassis has clearly been built to P4 plans but was CORRECTLY modified to mount a protruding lug P3, 412P or 312 F1 2 valve engine, either when it was built, or when it had its first engine installed. Although this P4 style chassis was correctly modified to fit a P3 engine it has later been adapted with bolt ons in a manner not as sound to fit a 312 3 valve F1 engine which was similar to a P4.
    Image Unavailable, Please Login
    Image Unavailable, Please Login
    Image Unavailable, Please Login
    Image Unavailable, Please Login
    Image Unavailable, Please Login
    Image Unavailable, Please Login
     
  7. To remove this ad click here.

  8. PAUL500

    PAUL500 Formula 3

    Jun 23, 2013
    2,269
    This thread has suddenly gone very quiet!

    Has it now reached its natural conclusion?
     
  9. nerofer

    nerofer F1 World Champ

    Mar 26, 2011
    10,800
    FRANCE
    Perhaps simply because we are no longer discussing who is, or is not, the expert, or an expert; who is allowed to be right and who must be wrong, or whatever...
    But because we have a set of arguments and facts, helped by pictures. No extrapolation, no speculation, no hypothesis...

    Rgds
     
  10. rob lay

    rob lay Administrator
    Staff Member Admin Social Subscribed Miami 2018 Owner

    Dec 1, 2000
    52,359
    Southlake, TX
    Full Name:
    Rob Lay
    I admit I don't have the history, technical skills, or analytical ability to be an expert judge & jury. Maybe I'm just spinning my wheels in all the "data", but IMHO I don't see a dominant position from either sides "evidence". I get uncomfortable in this thread when either side proclaims a factual conclusion. This is up there with politics and religion, I don't think we'll ever have a meet in middle factual conclusion there either.
     
  11. Igor Ound

    Igor Ound F1 Veteran

    Sep 30, 2012
    8,065
    The Horn
    Full Name:
    Igor Ound
    Poll! :)
     
  12. To remove this ad click here.

  13. nerofer

    nerofer F1 World Champ

    Mar 26, 2011
    10,800
    FRANCE
    Rob,

    Perhaps I should have been more explicit:
    a) the pictures are here, showing the main points of attention; to me, these are the "facts". Steve has underlined the differences he has noted between cars in the chassis tubes, etc...from this, anyone can - or not - build his conviction.
    We are not discussing who is the most qualified, who has the right to conclude, why some people are to be believed and others not, etc...
    b) as I have said a few times, I still think that, as the provenance of this chassis is not entirely clear - who built it, from which parts, etc...we will never have a definitive answer, one that closes all debates. Anyone have to build his own opinion from what can be showed from the car.
    I'm very happy that Mr G. is posting again. I positively love his car. Would love to see it inthe flesh one day. I take my hat to his openess.
    From what I see, I think (this is only my own opinion, what I believe, not what I state, not a claimed truth) that his car is a later-built chassis, that includes some parts of 0846. I would love to be convinced it is 0846, but something prevents me to take that leap of faith.

    Rgds
     
  14. solofast

    solofast Formula 3

    Oct 8, 2007
    1,773
    Indianapolis
    At one point we had Steve making the argument that this couldn't be 0846 because it's not a P4 chassis and that Ferrari had "completely" modified all of 0846 in period to conform to P4 specifications..

    Now he seems to be saying that this can't be 0846 because there are no remnants of P3 parts in the chassis??

    I realize that he's trying to refute Jim's contention that this is a P3 chassis that was modified to P4 specification, but if Ferrari had modified the back end of the car to P4 configuration (as he earlier had said was the case), then the car would reflect this modification and wouldn't have the tubes he is saying it doesn't have...

    His rationale seems to shift to suit whatever argument he wants to make at any one time.

    Without a 412, a P4 and Jim's car side by side and a tape measure as well as the P4 chassis blueprints you aren't going to be able to sort this out.

    And finally the chassis of 0846 may well have been extensively modified after the fire damage or by Piper to fit the other engine, and since there was no effort what so ever to document any of this, all of that has been lost in the sands of time that have washed over the car in the ensuing 40 years.

    I realize Jim has noted damage on this car that is consistent with damage done to 0846 in period, but there's been 40 years gone by and there's plenty of opportunity to make changes to things since 0846 was last photographed. I think at this point we're trying to pick fly specs out of pepper.
     
  15. piloti

    piloti Formula 3
    Honorary

    Jul 11, 2004
    1,612
    England
    Full Name:
    Nathan Beehl
    As has been stated before; how can the damage on this car be consistent with damage on 0846?
    No one knows what damage was actually done to 0846. There are no photos of the chassis tube damage in any of 0846's crashes. The actual crash damage is only speculation.
    No one has photos of the chassis damage, and no one on this forum was there at the time.
    Nathan
     
  16. piloti

    piloti Formula 3
    Honorary

    Jul 11, 2004
    1,612
    England
    Full Name:
    Nathan Beehl
    Everyone else seems to understand that Miurasv's rationale has changed thanks to his research, and increased knowledge of the subject.
    Whatever he said in the past the photos that he has posted give you the information.
    Nathan
     
  17. rob lay

    rob lay Administrator
    Staff Member Admin Social Subscribed Miami 2018 Owner

    Dec 1, 2000
    52,359
    Southlake, TX
    Full Name:
    Rob Lay
    wow, one of the top Ferrari historians in the world with the balls to post, I commend you Nathan!
     
  18. nerofer

    nerofer F1 World Champ

    Mar 26, 2011
    10,800
    FRANCE
    My point exactly, if I may...
    I admit to have criticised Steve's method rather strongly, not his position, but the way he expressed it, and criticised his logic, rationale and preference.
    His lasts posts are really to be commended.

    Rgds
     
  19. miurasv

    miurasv F1 Veteran

    Nov 19, 2008
    8,050
    Cardiff, UK
    Full Name:
    Steven Robertson
    #8241 miurasv, Jun 28, 2016
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 7, 2017
  20. miurasv

    miurasv F1 Veteran

    Nov 19, 2008
    8,050
    Cardiff, UK
    Full Name:
    Steven Robertson
    #8242 miurasv, Jun 28, 2016
    Last edited: Jun 28, 2016
    My rationale has not shifted at all. The picture of the real 0846 at Daytona 1967 proves it was modified and had the same correct P4 mount as the other P4s to correctly fit the P4 engine.

    Can't you see that Jim's chassis has a P4 arrangement of tubes that form the forward side engine mounting but it should have a P3 type arrangement of tubes with the omitted diagonal P3 tube that reaches to the back if his story about the real 0846 retaining its vestigial P3 mount is to be believed? Jim's chassis does not have the vestigial P3 engine mounts anyway. That this mount has a P4 arrangement of tubes proves that as well.

    Jim's chassis was as David Piper says: built to P4 plans modified to fit a P3 engine. It's got the mount in the correct place to fit a P3 engine using the P4 arrangement of omnidirectional tubes from the P4 plans meeting and intersecting to form the mount with the smaller hole to mate with the projecting lug of the P3 type, 412P and 312 F1 2 valve engines.
     
  21. rob lay

    rob lay Administrator
    Staff Member Admin Social Subscribed Miami 2018 Owner

    Dec 1, 2000
    52,359
    Southlake, TX
    Full Name:
    Rob Lay
    Did Piper get a premium from Jim on DP0003 by putting any thoughts in his head and wink?
     
  22. Timmmmmmmmmmy

    Timmmmmmmmmmy Formula 3

    Apr 5, 2010
    2,135
    NZ
    Full Name:
    Timothy Russell
    I will likely get slammed for this or told its immaterial but since the forum is now leaning towards it being a replica chassis, isn't it just a little sus that the person that commissioned the chassis build can't remember who built it for him? If we are going for an evidence based conclusion then it must all either start or end with that question being answered....... Or am I missing something here?
     
  23. piloti

    piloti Formula 3
    Honorary

    Jul 11, 2004
    1,612
    England
    Full Name:
    Nathan Beehl
    Don't you think it's more likely that he doesn't want to disclose who built the chassis (for his own reasons), rather than he has actually forgotten?
    Nathan
     
  24. Timmmmmmmmmmy

    Timmmmmmmmmmy Formula 3

    Apr 5, 2010
    2,135
    NZ
    Full Name:
    Timothy Russell
    Ok but that still takes us back to he said, she said territory, Ferrarichat is neither a laboratory nor a court but the culture of the last few days is that MiuraSV is using evidence to prove a point and respect to him for doing so because it proves something but a lot can be destroyed with a comment "for his own reasons". If you are in court no judge is going to accept "for my own reasons". Not to get all Matlock/ The Bill but that is the smoking gun imo. Whichever chassis builder will likely have records or at least staff that could be interviewed who will say we built x number of chassis for Piper and then there will be no question it was built by them.
     
  25. GordonC

    GordonC F1 Rookie
    Rossa Subscribed Owner

    Aug 28, 2005
    3,869
    Calgary, AB, Canada
    Full Name:
    Gordon
    #8247 GordonC, Jun 28, 2016
    Last edited: Jun 28, 2016
    Well, despite your protestations that David Piper has nothing to contribute to this thread, Steve has now posted twice emphatically stating that the DP003/0846 chassis WAS modified by David Piper to accomodate different engines. Once again, the mystery revolves around what happened to that chassis while it was in the possession of David Piper, how it came to be different from the other two (was it different before DP modified it, or were the differences due to the DP modifications?). The statements by Marcel Massini regarding his seeing a P3 or P4 chassis with 0846 stampings in Switzerland, en route to David Piper, remain unexplained as well.

    As before, I believe many questions are outstanding that can only be clarified and answered by David Piper. Steve, give him another call!

    Maybe Steve can revisit Ing. Forghieri's statements from a couple of months ago where MF stated that Ferrari would likely not have performed the chassis modifications for the different engine mountings in the way they exist on DP003/0846 - to paraphrase, MF indicated that the modifications were a hack job that nobody at Ferrari would have done or accepted. How does that statement fit with Steve's new interpretation of the engine mount changes he suggests were performed by David Piper?
     
  26. El Wayne

    El Wayne F1 World Champ
    Lifetime Rossa Owner

    Aug 1, 2002
    17,972
    San Marino, CA
    Full Name:
    L. Wayne Ausbrooks
    Let's be careful, because this is how disinformation gets started. Marcel said nothing about stampings, nor did he state the chassis was en route to David Piper.

    So back in 1977, Marcel saw a P3 or P4 chassis in Switzerland. Accompanying the chassis, was a customs carnet suggesting the chassis had been imported under the name of CERVAN Corporation, and using the chassis number 0846. We don't want to make up stuff to add to this.
     
  27. Texas Forever

    Texas Forever Four Time F1 World Champ
    Rossa Subscribed

    Apr 28, 2003
    47,463
    Texas!
    I'm sure someone will correct me if I have this wrong, but didn't Ferrari write a letter saying #0846 doesn't exist? From what I recall, Ferrari said they threw the damn thing away and that was the end of that.

    Given this, wouldn't it stand to reason that whatever this car is (and I still think it is a cool car), it will always be a replica? Let's say David Piper swears under oath, "Yes, yes, that chassis is #0846. I brought the bloody thing from Mr. X who pinched it out of Ferrari's refuse bin in the middle of the night." Does anybody think this would change Ferrari's mind? No matter what evidence might come to light, if Ferrari says it ain't so, doesn't that make it so?
     
  28. rob lay

    rob lay Administrator
    Staff Member Admin Social Subscribed Miami 2018 Owner

    Dec 1, 2000
    52,359
    Southlake, TX
    Full Name:
    Rob Lay
    I think most top historians agree what Ferrari says about vintage Ferraris isn't necessarily so, as weird as that sounds.

    I think most of us would give the car respect as a bitsa and not a replica if we knew it to be the recovered 0846 chassis.
     

Share This Page