The (one and only) '0846' Debate Thread

...and Steve does exactly the same, as he interprets emails with MF to suit, without ever posting them.

His latest 'what John Hajduk Jr told me' posts are very much the same thing. There is more spin here than at a fairground.

Funny how you have failed to spot that.

 

Steve does tease a bit just to get reactions just like yours, then typically provides the direct from source info to prove the doubters wrong all along.

I am guessing he will be doing the same anytime soon with his latest info

I have yet to see Jim do that ever, apart from the one brief signed letter in english by MF which appears to have been carefully drafted in english by another party.

 

Your lack of consistency is hilarious.

 

The so called important find was not discovered until the car was stripped and the chassis was being restored. Until that point it was just a replica so no need for chassis as bought photos.

Anyway you guys going around in circles. I've long ago lost interest in what it is as I have a life.

I've asked a few times for somebody to identify the differences between a P3 and P4 chassis. By the lack of answers, I have to assume nobody knows. If indeed Jims chassis is exactly the same as #0900 and #0900b (#002?) ... then this thread is over, but as usual no conclusive proof, just more almost but not quite confusion ...

It is also interesting that if #003 has previous accident history that John discovered (other than #0846 accidents), why is there not proof of that?, ie. X driver crashed #003 at Brands Hatch during historic meeting in 1990 as surely somebody would remember a P3/4 replica crashing. Heck anytime a car crashes at a classic meeting nowadays the photos rip through the car sites real fast.

Anyway keep plugging away ... it took 12 years to get to er, no where
Pete

 

So if you had discovered the damage and it was linked to a really important find (0846) wouldn't you have taken photos?

So why do you keep posting?

You obviously haven't looked at the photos posted in the last few days. It's all there.
Nathan

 

Question: Is there any hint Glickenhaus had Piper sign a nondisclosure agreement when he brought whatever this is?

 

It's unlikely, as there are documents signed by Piper disclosed on p.14 & 15 of the JG PDF.
Nathan

 

Thanks, just curious.

 

Sorry, but there are dozens of questions that only Piper can answer - and there have been no direct from source clarifications or answers coming from Piper. I certainly hope Steve will be providing answers to those questions soon!

- Are all the Piper replica chassis identical? If not, why is 003 different?
- Did Piper make the pathetic engine mount modifications (Steve's words) in 003 to accomodate a different engine? Do the other replicas have the same pathetic engine mount modifications?
- Why was there repaired crash damage on 003 identified by John Hadjuk? Was 003 ever crashed?

There's just a few that came up in the last 2 days, there were many more. You will claim that Piper doesn't need to answer because it's a replica and there's no chance it was ever anything more - but that isn't necessarily true, and gives an undeserved pass to the only person who can answer definitively and clarify much of this controversy.

 

Gordon, I wasn't referring to the engine mountings when I used the word "pathetic" which admittedly are less than ideal, but the personal attacking poster I was responding to.

 

If you are trying to prove your point, and will bother someone like MF with emails, why won't you also contact and post contacts from DP and now, John? When it comes to these people, that arguably would have the most direct hands on experience with this chassis, you take a marked laissez-faire attitude about it. The questions about the modifications are valid, and so far, unanswered. If you really want to prove your point, you should show all information, from all sources, and the omission of the two experts is glaring.

Perry

 

You miss the point. What is the answer to these three very valid questions?

Perry

 

as is your blinkered attitude.....

 

Below the first two pictures are of the real 0846 at Daytona 1967. What you can see here is that the chassis did not have the diagonal engine mounting tube that reaches from the forward side engine mounting to the back corner of the chassis. If it did you would be able to see it within the circle I have drawn in the direction of the line inside it in the second picture. The 3rd and 4th pictures are of P3/412P 0844 when in 330 Can Am configuration which does have the diagonal engine mounting tube in the corresponding left hand side of the chassis that I have arrowed in red.

Now Mr Glickenhaus's chassis does not have this diagonal tube either, but he contends that the real 0846 when converted to P3/P4 for 1967 still retained its P3 engine mountings, or the "P3 vestigial engine mountings" as he likes to call them. If this was the case and the real 0846 did retain its P3 engine mountings it would still have had this diagonal tube that is part of the P3 forward side engine mountings that it did have when the chassis was built in 1966 as a P3 which ALL P3s had and ALL P3/412Ps and 412Ps have and P4s do NOT have.

This is more proof that the real 0846 chassis was properly converted to mount the P4 engine in the same manner as the other P4s, it did not retain its P3 mountings and did not use the bolt on add ons that his chassis has to mount the P4 engine (312 F1 3valve engine on his chassis).
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Yes, there is a lot there... One thing that Steve hasn't addressed is the inspection of the car by Wayne Sparling and his observation that there was a specific tube that he repaired on 0846 following the Targa crash when Nino was driving. Wayne verified that this is the tube he repaired and described how he did the repair. He said he recognized his work on that very tube... This is described in page 99 and 100 of the pdf..

So we have a verification by someone who worked on the car in period that specific damage that HE repaired on 0846 is evident on this car...

Heck, the rear tubes on the right side of the frame may have all been replaced/reworked or jury rigged by Piper or his mechanics or the folks building Piper's frames after the fire at Le Mans. Steve keeps pointing to that area and saying it isn't right. OK, fine, that area may well have been redone because of the Le Mans damage, or maybe Piper redid it to fit the other engine (more likely), but who cares. We can all concede that some of these tubes aren't original, they were noted as being different when John first noticed the other damage. So when they were replaced now is immaterial.

Steve needs to look more forward on the chassis and figure out what differences this car and a P4 have in the forward areas if he wants to make his case.

 

I thought Jim did? Confused? See the PDF.

Insanity and automotive boredom . I'll leave it alone for a while now

I did but unfortunately it was done in a way that I could not work out what was a P4, P412 or P3 conclusively.

Needs to have each picture labelled. This can be done in an application as simple as MS Paint BEFORE the photo is posted. Having a huge paragraph referring to 6 photos below is too hard to follow.
Pete

 

Oh dear. Here we go again
The Wayne Sparling statement has been totally disproved. Go back through this thread
1 Sparling was talking about work on a P4 at Daytona, and his words were misunderstood
2 Sparling never went to the Targa Florio
You can't believe everything you read in the PDF.
Nathan

 

Maybe this diagonal tube was simply cut out when converted to P3/P4? It appears it needs to be to clear the starter, I think?

BTW Your recent chassis and period photos have been very relevant, and useful, but could you please label them while you add the arrows, etc. Also that would be when I would write the reason for the photos. Having to scroll up and down to your very long text and then back to the photos causes the point to be lost ... on me anyway. You can do this easily in MS Paint.

Second BTW: I suggest you concentrate on proving #0846/003's chassis is the same as #0900 and #0900a (b, #002 or whatever it is referred to as). If it is, other than engine mounting details then surely it is indeed part of the same build run ?? I read somewhere in this thread that you believed the rear bulkheads were the same and unique to these 3 chassis' ... heck that is pretty convincing ...
Pete

 

LOL
Nathan

 

Jim's car unfortunately is surrounded by way too much controversy at this point to considered 0846. For now it should be considered a reproduction and the thread moved to the appropriate area on this forum. Until such time it's proven to be 0846, that is where it should remain.

 

2004
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Mr Glickehnaus's DP0003, the real 0846 when converted to P4 and P4s do NOT have the diagonal engine mounting tube that reaches from the forward side mount to the back corner of the engine area. Only P3s and 412Ps had/have the tube. That's the thing. This proves that the real 0846 did not retain its P3 engine mountings, was properly converted to mount the P4 engine with no need for the less than ideal added bolt ons that DP0003 has. The picture in my post 8212 proves the real 0846 had a P4 engine mounting arrangement of tubes with the large bolt hole in the P4 position. DP0003 has a P4 mounting arrangement of tubes but with the small bolt hole for the projecting lug P3 type 412P and 312 F1 2 valve engines but in the P3 position to fit these projecting lug engines. You need to read my posts from 8212 onwards for an explanation of this as the differences are quite confusing.

Most P3s and 412Ps had a space between the lower tubes that MAY have been to access the starter motor. This space MAY not have been needed on P4s because there was no diagonal tube above so the starter could have been accessed from above instead of from the side. Another factor in this is that the cylinder heads on P3s and 412Ps seem to project out to the side further than on P4s further blocking access from above so that may have necessitated access to the starter from the side instead of from above as may have been possible on P4s. Picture is of 412P 0854.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Compare with #0844
2006
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Laughing Out Loud.