Forghieri speaks on the Glickenhaus car
Discussion
dinkel said:
John Hindhaugh knows his stuff. Maybe ask him?
Mauro Forghieri is the highest authority on the Ferrari P cars. He designed and oversaw the build of all of them including P3/4 0846. There is no need to ask anyone else. The case should now be closed and the Glickenhaus car relegated to the Recreation & Non Period Rebodies section of FerrariChat forthwith.Elex said:
The Glickenhaus car that he claims is the original 0846 is the one in the link below.
How he has the gall to go up in front of the crowd at Daytona with this car and tell them it's the original 0846 that won the 24 Hours race there in 1967 beggars belief.
Note how he says that he had owned the car for 15 years yet he didn't buy the replica from David Piper until the year 2000 and this video was made at least 3 years ago. Also the original 0846 never raced at Spa and was never raced by Jackie Stewart.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tb99JKo08JU
That is a bit naughty, sounds like an art collector that's lost the plot. How he has the gall to go up in front of the crowd at Daytona with this car and tell them it's the original 0846 that won the 24 Hours race there in 1967 beggars belief.
Note how he says that he had owned the car for 15 years yet he didn't buy the replica from David Piper until the year 2000 and this video was made at least 3 years ago. Also the original 0846 never raced at Spa and was never raced by Jackie Stewart.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tb99JKo08JU
Nice seeing some of you in Monterey. In response to MF I had a nice
exchange with him and in writing he confirmed "To be perfectly clear"
that his department sent damaged no longer needed chassis' to the scrap yard
and did NOT physically destroy them. This dovetails exactly with Tom Meade's clear statement that he bought the original chassis of 0846 from Enzo Ferrari from Ferrari's scrap yard as per the PDF. After being shown THE entire PDF MF also stated in writing that the P 3/4 chassis modifications currently on my car today could "Of course" been done by Ferrari.
Cross is a wonderful thing.
Those wishing to gauge the veracity of the Troll who started this thread with the title that is clearly not true, and should be changed by the PH moderator, based on MF's uniquivacable "Of Course" written statement cited above, after being banned from Ferrari Chat should read his post here as to why he claims he was banned from Ferrari Chat and compare it to the clear post in Ferrari Chat from the moderator who banned him and the reasons he was banned.
For those who may be in the area 0846 has been invited and will be at The Road and Track Concourse Sunday In The Park(Lime Rock) with cars from RL and at Manhasset in October.
I'm glad that KB recently reported in Cavallino that 0846 owned by me
appeared at Amelia. Perhaps John was away from the office that day.
Things with me are good. We sold our first customer car and will be a two
possibly Three car team (another sale pending) at the 24 Hours of Nurburgring
next May and with these sales have started down the road to Le Mans.
Best
exchange with him and in writing he confirmed "To be perfectly clear"
that his department sent damaged no longer needed chassis' to the scrap yard
and did NOT physically destroy them. This dovetails exactly with Tom Meade's clear statement that he bought the original chassis of 0846 from Enzo Ferrari from Ferrari's scrap yard as per the PDF. After being shown THE entire PDF MF also stated in writing that the P 3/4 chassis modifications currently on my car today could "Of course" been done by Ferrari.
Cross is a wonderful thing.
Those wishing to gauge the veracity of the Troll who started this thread with the title that is clearly not true, and should be changed by the PH moderator, based on MF's uniquivacable "Of Course" written statement cited above, after being banned from Ferrari Chat should read his post here as to why he claims he was banned from Ferrari Chat and compare it to the clear post in Ferrari Chat from the moderator who banned him and the reasons he was banned.
For those who may be in the area 0846 has been invited and will be at The Road and Track Concourse Sunday In The Park(Lime Rock) with cars from RL and at Manhasset in October.
I'm glad that KB recently reported in Cavallino that 0846 owned by me
appeared at Amelia. Perhaps John was away from the office that day.
Things with me are good. We sold our first customer car and will be a two
possibly Three car team (another sale pending) at the 24 Hours of Nurburgring
next May and with these sales have started down the road to Le Mans.
Best
Napolis said:
Nice seeing some of you in Monterey. In response to MF I had a nice
exchange with him and in writing he confirmed "To be perfectly clear"
that his department sent damaged no longer needed chassis' to the scrap yard
and did NOT physically destroy them. This dovetails exactly with Tom Meade's clear statement that he bought the original chassis of 0846 from Enzo Ferrari from Ferrari's scrap yard as per the PDF. After being shown THE entire PDF MF also stated in writing that the P 3/4 chassis modifications currently on my car today could "Of course" been done by Ferrari.
Cross is a wonderful thing.
In his email to me, posted in its entirety in the first post of this thread, which has been verified as being authentic by one of your biggest supporters, Peter Skudder (PSk on FerrariChat), Mauro Forghieri said:exchange with him and in writing he confirmed "To be perfectly clear"
that his department sent damaged no longer needed chassis' to the scrap yard
and did NOT physically destroy them. This dovetails exactly with Tom Meade's clear statement that he bought the original chassis of 0846 from Enzo Ferrari from Ferrari's scrap yard as per the PDF. After being shown THE entire PDF MF also stated in writing that the P 3/4 chassis modifications currently on my car today could "Of course" been done by Ferrari.
Cross is a wonderful thing.
"Never the factory could accept the schowed solutions to bolt the chassis to the engine. At the factory was easier to modify in correct way the triangled-tube necessary to have a perfect engine mount."
So please post the FULL written statement/exchange in its entirety with no omissions from Mauro Forghieri to yourself. Thank you.
Edited by Elex on Friday 22 August 22:28
This thread is a fantastic demonstration of madness.
I'm pretty sure Ferrari are extremely aggressive with maintaining the authenticity of it's cars and frequently scrap those which are proven as fake. I recall a very vivid story of two 250LMs claiming the same chassis number. I believe the analysis required the iron content of the steal within the chassis to be measured to confirm which was made from italian steel, it was that close a fake. The car which was not italian steel was destroyed, with only the engine being returned to the owner.
So, if this thread was in any way of any importance to anybody, I'm pretty sure that 'anybody' would be Ferrari. Therefore, Ferrari would take it upon themselves to resolve, or if I was in the market to buy this car, or any car at this bracket, I would ask Ferrari to give assurance before spending my multi-million pound nest egg.
A screen print with a typo of a googlemail account doesn't do anything for me. They are usually from a Nigerian banker asking me to aid his transfer of funds to the UK.
I'm pretty sure Ferrari are extremely aggressive with maintaining the authenticity of it's cars and frequently scrap those which are proven as fake. I recall a very vivid story of two 250LMs claiming the same chassis number. I believe the analysis required the iron content of the steal within the chassis to be measured to confirm which was made from italian steel, it was that close a fake. The car which was not italian steel was destroyed, with only the engine being returned to the owner.
So, if this thread was in any way of any importance to anybody, I'm pretty sure that 'anybody' would be Ferrari. Therefore, Ferrari would take it upon themselves to resolve, or if I was in the market to buy this car, or any car at this bracket, I would ask Ferrari to give assurance before spending my multi-million pound nest egg.
A screen print with a typo of a googlemail account doesn't do anything for me. They are usually from a Nigerian banker asking me to aid his transfer of funds to the UK.
NEFOC said:
This thread is a fantastic demonstration of madness.
I'm pretty sure Ferrari are extremely aggressive with maintaining the authenticity of it's cars and frequently scrap those which are proven as fake. I recall a very vivid story of two 250LMs claiming the same chassis number. I believe the analysis required the iron content of the steal within the chassis to be measured to confirm which was made from italian steel, it was that close a fake. The car which was not italian steel was destroyed, with only the engine being returned to the owner.
So, if this thread was in any way of any importance to anybody, I'm pretty sure that 'anybody' would be Ferrari. Therefore, Ferrari would take it upon themselves to resolve, or if I was in the market to buy this car, or any car at this bracket, I would ask Ferrari to give assurance before spending my multi-million pound nest egg.
A screen print with a typo of a googlemail account doesn't do anything for me. They are usually from a Nigerian banker asking me to aid his transfer of funds to the UK.
I was about to write the same. Where did David Piper buy his chassis tubing from? Unless it was the same mill as Ferrari them some simple analysis (simple to someone a lot cleverer than me) would surely go a long way to resolve this.I'm pretty sure Ferrari are extremely aggressive with maintaining the authenticity of it's cars and frequently scrap those which are proven as fake. I recall a very vivid story of two 250LMs claiming the same chassis number. I believe the analysis required the iron content of the steal within the chassis to be measured to confirm which was made from italian steel, it was that close a fake. The car which was not italian steel was destroyed, with only the engine being returned to the owner.
So, if this thread was in any way of any importance to anybody, I'm pretty sure that 'anybody' would be Ferrari. Therefore, Ferrari would take it upon themselves to resolve, or if I was in the market to buy this car, or any car at this bracket, I would ask Ferrari to give assurance before spending my multi-million pound nest egg.
A screen print with a typo of a googlemail account doesn't do anything for me. They are usually from a Nigerian banker asking me to aid his transfer of funds to the UK.
NEFOC said:
I'm pretty sure Ferrari are extremely aggressive with maintaining the authenticity of it's cars
I don't know much about this subject at all and the evidence either way, and frankly it doesn't really bother me either way - however I can totally see how it would really bug someone who was really into the subject. But it does strike me that if Ferrari (or their agents/specialists) hypothetically were involved in the restoration or authentication of the car (don't know if they were mind) and publicly touted it as the real deal, if evidence did come to light that it wasn't what they claimed and there had been a mistake, there might be good reason for them to keep quiet and ignore the criticism as it would be rather an embarrassing u-turn to have to make and I guess might potentially make them the subject of legal action i.e. "I paid x million for something you said was real, it's not, you owe me" etc."According to Mauro Forghieri, chassis 0846 was destroyed after Le Mans '67."
Steve Robertson
>Dear Mr Glickenhaus
I will try to clarify my statement regarding the subiect matter.
It appears that the greatest point of misunderstanding lies in the use of
the words
'scrapped' and 'destroied'.Because I did not,at the time of my answering
Mr Robertson inquiry, have a clear picture of the contention,I failed to
differentiate
between the two words,and may have used them as synoinoms.
Now let me clearly state that,when pieces (or even a whole chassis)where
discarded from our dpt, we did not engage in any activity intended to
phisically destroy it:we merely sent it to the scrap yard,and were no
longer concerned to what happened to it.
Because we are talking of long time ago,when Ferrari memorabilia trading
was not
as developed as it is to day,nobody had much interest in the eventual
destination of wrecks.
Mauro Forghieri
"Mauro Forghieri did not engineer the engine mount modifications seen on the Glickenhaus chassis.
According to Mauro Forghieri, Ferrari never would have accepted such modifications."
Steve Robertson
I cannot of course rule out
that thos
modifications have been carried out elsewhere,perhaps even by another
Ferrari departement.
In the hope to have been of some helps
Have my best
Mauro Forghieri
Steve Robertson
>Dear Mr Glickenhaus
I will try to clarify my statement regarding the subiect matter.
It appears that the greatest point of misunderstanding lies in the use of
the words
'scrapped' and 'destroied'.Because I did not,at the time of my answering
Mr Robertson inquiry, have a clear picture of the contention,I failed to
differentiate
between the two words,and may have used them as synoinoms.
Now let me clearly state that,when pieces (or even a whole chassis)where
discarded from our dpt, we did not engage in any activity intended to
phisically destroy it:we merely sent it to the scrap yard,and were no
longer concerned to what happened to it.
Because we are talking of long time ago,when Ferrari memorabilia trading
was not
as developed as it is to day,nobody had much interest in the eventual
destination of wrecks.
Mauro Forghieri
"Mauro Forghieri did not engineer the engine mount modifications seen on the Glickenhaus chassis.
According to Mauro Forghieri, Ferrari never would have accepted such modifications."
Steve Robertson
I cannot of course rule out
that thos
modifications have been carried out elsewhere,perhaps even by another
Ferrari departement.
In the hope to have been of some helps
Have my best
Mauro Forghieri
Napolis said:
"According to Mauro Forghieri, chassis 0846 was destroyed after Le Mans '67."
Steve Robertson
>Dear Mr Glickenhaus
I will try to clarify my statement regarding the subiect matter.
It appears that the greatest point of misunderstanding lies in the use of
the words
'scrapped' and 'destroied'.Because I did not,at the time of my answering
Mr Robertson inquiry, have a clear picture of the contention,I failed to
differentiate
between the two words,and may have used them as synoinoms.
Now let me clearly state that,when pieces (or even a whole chassis)where
discarded from our dpt, we did not engage in any activity intended to
phisically destroy it:we merely sent it to the scrap yard,and were no
longer concerned to what happened to it.
Because we are talking of long time ago,when Ferrari memorabilia trading
was not
as developed as it is to day,nobody had much interest in the eventual
destination of wrecks.
Mauro Forghieri
"Mauro Forghieri did not engineer the engine mount modifications seen on the Glickenhaus chassis.
According to Mauro Forghieri, Ferrari never would have accepted such modifications."
Steve Robertson
I cannot of course rule out
that thos
modifications have been carried out elsewhere,perhaps even by another
Ferrari departement.
In the hope to have been of some helps
Have my best
Mauro Forghieri
And there comes the smackdown to one of the most tragic vendettas i've ever seen! Steve Robertson
>Dear Mr Glickenhaus
I will try to clarify my statement regarding the subiect matter.
It appears that the greatest point of misunderstanding lies in the use of
the words
'scrapped' and 'destroied'.Because I did not,at the time of my answering
Mr Robertson inquiry, have a clear picture of the contention,I failed to
differentiate
between the two words,and may have used them as synoinoms.
Now let me clearly state that,when pieces (or even a whole chassis)where
discarded from our dpt, we did not engage in any activity intended to
phisically destroy it:we merely sent it to the scrap yard,and were no
longer concerned to what happened to it.
Because we are talking of long time ago,when Ferrari memorabilia trading
was not
as developed as it is to day,nobody had much interest in the eventual
destination of wrecks.
Mauro Forghieri
"Mauro Forghieri did not engineer the engine mount modifications seen on the Glickenhaus chassis.
According to Mauro Forghieri, Ferrari never would have accepted such modifications."
Steve Robertson
I cannot of course rule out
that thos
modifications have been carried out elsewhere,perhaps even by another
Ferrari departement.
In the hope to have been of some helps
Have my best
Mauro Forghieri
In the interest of full disclosure to eliminate the risk of misinterpretation, statements being misunderstood and taken out of context, below is the entire content of my email with no omissions that that Ing. Forghieri responded to:
"FAO: Ing. Mauro Forghieri.
From: Steven Robertson.
Dear Ing. Forghieri,
Re: Ferrari 330 P3/4 #0846.
I hope you don’t mind me contacting you. I am a huge fan of your work and hold you in the highest possible esteem. The Ferrari Prototypes you designed are pure works of art and the most beautiful cars ever made. I would be extremely grateful if you would be kind enough to answer a question regarding Ferrari 330 P3/4 #0846.
When it was transformed from P3 specification to P4 specification for the 1967 racing season, were the P3 tipo 216B engine mounting chassis tubes removed and replaced with new chassis tubes to match the new positioning of the P4 tipo 237 engine mountings leaving only one set of engine mountings for the P4 or were additional engine mountings added to the existing P3 chassis tubes so that the frame had 2 sets of mountings for P3 and P4 engines?
Please see the attached pictures of the engine mountings of a chassis that claims to be P3/4 #0846. The way the P4 engine mountings have been added does not look like your work as the engine mountings are not in the optimum position for maximum rigidity of the chassis. I may be totally wrong as I am not an engineer so maybe the way the mountings are placed is actually satisfactory.
Would you please be kind enough to let me know if the chassis in the pictures is that of Ferrari 330 P3/4 0846? I would be extremely grateful for your assistance, Ing. Forghieri. I thank you very much for your kind attention and hope very much that you will be able to assist and look forward very much to your reply.
Thank you again.
With kind regards,
Yours sincerely,
Steven Robertson.
3 Attached Images"
Below is Ing. Forghieri's response:
"Dear Mr.Robertson
I will say what I remember of so old days.In 1966 we design the 330 P3-0846. This car take part at the 12 h of Sebring number 27 drivers Parkes Bondurant. I like to make clear that P3 and P4 are from aerodinamic point of view very close.The draft was done by the technical bureau of Ferrari racing DPT. MR Drogo had nothing to do with the cars of Ferrari racing departement. The 330 P3 spyder was modified at the end of 1966 in a new P4 with the new 3 valve engine,curved intakes with injection,new Ferrari gearbox, minor modifications to the chassis with 2400 wheelbase.The modest wheelbase was thanks to the good aereodinamic stability developed at the aereodinamic wind tunnel in Stutgart.
This prototipe was the test car for private test(first in Ferrari History) in Daytona December 1966. The 0846.P4 spyder was used in the following races 1967:
Daytona 24 h winner Amon-Bandini n.23
Targa Florio Vaccarella -Scarfiotti
Le Mans 67 Amon-Vaccarella
Amon was hit by a flying wheel and the car caught fire and was badly damaged. The car was discarted by Ferrari and the chassis was destroyed. The pictures,sended to me,show some solutions to accept the 330 P4 engine. The solutions tell me that probably another P3 chassis was used to have a new 0846 P4. Never the factory could accept the schowed solutions to bolt the chassis to the engine. At the factory was easier to modify in correct way the triangled-tube necessary to have a perfect engine mount. Your chassis is a P3 arranged by some body to accept the P4 engine and the correct wheelbase 2400.
I hope to have been of some help.
Kind regards
Mauro Forghieri"
Also in the interest of full disclosure to eliminate the risk of misinterpretation, statements being misunderstood and taken out of context, please would Mr Glickenhaus post the full content of the exchanges of messages with no omissions between himself and Ing. Forghieri. Thank you in advance.
"FAO: Ing. Mauro Forghieri.
From: Steven Robertson.
Dear Ing. Forghieri,
Re: Ferrari 330 P3/4 #0846.
I hope you don’t mind me contacting you. I am a huge fan of your work and hold you in the highest possible esteem. The Ferrari Prototypes you designed are pure works of art and the most beautiful cars ever made. I would be extremely grateful if you would be kind enough to answer a question regarding Ferrari 330 P3/4 #0846.
When it was transformed from P3 specification to P4 specification for the 1967 racing season, were the P3 tipo 216B engine mounting chassis tubes removed and replaced with new chassis tubes to match the new positioning of the P4 tipo 237 engine mountings leaving only one set of engine mountings for the P4 or were additional engine mountings added to the existing P3 chassis tubes so that the frame had 2 sets of mountings for P3 and P4 engines?
Please see the attached pictures of the engine mountings of a chassis that claims to be P3/4 #0846. The way the P4 engine mountings have been added does not look like your work as the engine mountings are not in the optimum position for maximum rigidity of the chassis. I may be totally wrong as I am not an engineer so maybe the way the mountings are placed is actually satisfactory.
Would you please be kind enough to let me know if the chassis in the pictures is that of Ferrari 330 P3/4 0846? I would be extremely grateful for your assistance, Ing. Forghieri. I thank you very much for your kind attention and hope very much that you will be able to assist and look forward very much to your reply.
Thank you again.
With kind regards,
Yours sincerely,
Steven Robertson.
3 Attached Images"
Below is Ing. Forghieri's response:
"Dear Mr.Robertson
I will say what I remember of so old days.In 1966 we design the 330 P3-0846. This car take part at the 12 h of Sebring number 27 drivers Parkes Bondurant. I like to make clear that P3 and P4 are from aerodinamic point of view very close.The draft was done by the technical bureau of Ferrari racing DPT. MR Drogo had nothing to do with the cars of Ferrari racing departement. The 330 P3 spyder was modified at the end of 1966 in a new P4 with the new 3 valve engine,curved intakes with injection,new Ferrari gearbox, minor modifications to the chassis with 2400 wheelbase.The modest wheelbase was thanks to the good aereodinamic stability developed at the aereodinamic wind tunnel in Stutgart.
This prototipe was the test car for private test(first in Ferrari History) in Daytona December 1966. The 0846.P4 spyder was used in the following races 1967:
Daytona 24 h winner Amon-Bandini n.23
Targa Florio Vaccarella -Scarfiotti
Le Mans 67 Amon-Vaccarella
Amon was hit by a flying wheel and the car caught fire and was badly damaged. The car was discarted by Ferrari and the chassis was destroyed. The pictures,sended to me,show some solutions to accept the 330 P4 engine. The solutions tell me that probably another P3 chassis was used to have a new 0846 P4. Never the factory could accept the schowed solutions to bolt the chassis to the engine. At the factory was easier to modify in correct way the triangled-tube necessary to have a perfect engine mount. Your chassis is a P3 arranged by some body to accept the P4 engine and the correct wheelbase 2400.
I hope to have been of some help.
Kind regards
Mauro Forghieri"
Also in the interest of full disclosure to eliminate the risk of misinterpretation, statements being misunderstood and taken out of context, please would Mr Glickenhaus post the full content of the exchanges of messages with no omissions between himself and Ing. Forghieri. Thank you in advance.
Edited by Elex on Sunday 24th August 23:51
This isn't a court of law and i honest think that in jim replying to you his giving this more weight than it actually has, there will always be people who think something is wrong and some of the time you will never be able to please them so it's far better for all involved to move on.
This thread started interestingly, but it does seem like more of a personal attack/vendetta against Mr Glickenhaus than anything else.
I think if we see the car more like a piece of art, let's say the Mona Lisa it makes more sense - without doubt one of the most famous painting in the world 'may' have been painted within a certain 15 year time period, has gone through several restorations over the years, is without doubt visually different from when first painted and to finish it all off has even been stolen at points - but no-one has ever said (with much credibility) what's in the Louvre isn't the DaVinci Mona Lisa. I'd imagine similar changes have occurred to this car, however hard someone has tried to keep it authentic. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mona_Lisa
Finally I don't doubt for a second Ferrari wouldn't take a very dim view of someone going round the world with a 'fake' - the Italians are even more sensitive than the Germans... And we know what they did to the 300SL replicas. Ferraris ongoing relationship with Mr Glickenhaus speaks volumes.
I think if we see the car more like a piece of art, let's say the Mona Lisa it makes more sense - without doubt one of the most famous painting in the world 'may' have been painted within a certain 15 year time period, has gone through several restorations over the years, is without doubt visually different from when first painted and to finish it all off has even been stolen at points - but no-one has ever said (with much credibility) what's in the Louvre isn't the DaVinci Mona Lisa. I'd imagine similar changes have occurred to this car, however hard someone has tried to keep it authentic. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mona_Lisa
Finally I don't doubt for a second Ferrari wouldn't take a very dim view of someone going round the world with a 'fake' - the Italians are even more sensitive than the Germans... And we know what they did to the 300SL replicas. Ferraris ongoing relationship with Mr Glickenhaus speaks volumes.
Edited by Petrus1983 on Monday 25th August 05:56
Edited by Petrus1983 on Monday 25th August 07:02
It's not my argument, (seems a pointless one anyway, unless it's seller to buyer which it clearly isn't). However, I will say this - I used to race at a decent level, and it was made clear to me early on, by a smart (Italian) engineer, that the car was a tool, nothing more. It was there for a purpose, which was to win races. A work of art has no purpose other than as art itself, so as soon as you confuse the two there's a problem.
With that in mind, I can tell you that race teams had no thought to changing things, fabricating parts on the hoof, discarding parts etc. The engineers would normally be involved, but a decent chief mechanic would also come up with options. I have been in races where I had to literally hold the bodywork down with one hand while changing gear with the other, and I've also ripped out expensive electronic equipment and thrown it away mid-race as it was causing a misfire. Records were not kept for everything, other than timesheets!
I know for a fact that there are some 'exotic' road cars (not Ferraris) out there, with the wrong chassis plates as I saw them swapped on the orders of one well-known team owner before sale. I also still have a chassis. ID plate from the first (non-valuable) race-car I wrote off...pity it's not worth resurrecting!
The point is that things happened, changes were made, pieces were discarded and then came back to life somewhere else. The idea that race cars will all have perfect provenance and that everyone who came into contemporary contact with them (at whatever level), will have perfect knowledge or memory of what happened is ridiculous.
(More recently, I've worked in Italy and i can tell you that you can get three or four conflicting opinions on a matter of fact from the same lawyer, never mind anyone else! Piles of records are kept fastidiously, but few relate to reality! It's not a bad thing when you get used to it, but it only compounds the problem here)
Colin Chapman had the right idea - if it makes it to the finishing line and then falls apart, that's fine! (Although his designs didn't always get that far). Race cars evolved, and were seen as disposable items towards the goal of winning. Go back years later for a different reason, and you won't get all the answers.
With that in mind, I can tell you that race teams had no thought to changing things, fabricating parts on the hoof, discarding parts etc. The engineers would normally be involved, but a decent chief mechanic would also come up with options. I have been in races where I had to literally hold the bodywork down with one hand while changing gear with the other, and I've also ripped out expensive electronic equipment and thrown it away mid-race as it was causing a misfire. Records were not kept for everything, other than timesheets!
I know for a fact that there are some 'exotic' road cars (not Ferraris) out there, with the wrong chassis plates as I saw them swapped on the orders of one well-known team owner before sale. I also still have a chassis. ID plate from the first (non-valuable) race-car I wrote off...pity it's not worth resurrecting!
The point is that things happened, changes were made, pieces were discarded and then came back to life somewhere else. The idea that race cars will all have perfect provenance and that everyone who came into contemporary contact with them (at whatever level), will have perfect knowledge or memory of what happened is ridiculous.
(More recently, I've worked in Italy and i can tell you that you can get three or four conflicting opinions on a matter of fact from the same lawyer, never mind anyone else! Piles of records are kept fastidiously, but few relate to reality! It's not a bad thing when you get used to it, but it only compounds the problem here)
Colin Chapman had the right idea - if it makes it to the finishing line and then falls apart, that's fine! (Although his designs didn't always get that far). Race cars evolved, and were seen as disposable items towards the goal of winning. Go back years later for a different reason, and you won't get all the answers.
Edited by footsoldier on Monday 25th August 15:54
footsoldier said:
With that in mind, I can tell you that race teams had no thought to changing things, fabricating parts on the hoof, discarding parts etc. The engineers would normally be involved, but a decent chief mechanic would also come up with options.
Totally agree. I have modified both my ferrari racecars to fit with my needs and would not hesitate in agreeing to a change at the track if it gets me out into the race when needed.These engine mounts may not have been performed by the factory, but by the owner/team at a time when the exiting mounts failed without giving thought about it.
Edited by NEFOC on Monday 25th August 20:50
On the points raised by footsolider you're spot on - even in my limited amount of racing the reality is that mid season you can't get many spares for love nor money - but the quality of newly fabricated parts is amazing. If I'd become a famous racing driver and my old Formula Ford became very valuable I could see people saying "but this, but that" - however it was always done for a reason - to keep the car racing through the season.
Gassing Station | Ferrari Classics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff