Talk:Ferrari 250 GT Coupé

Fine Sports Cars website as source for GTO prototype info

Great work on this article so far. I want to call attention to the use of this site: http://www.finesportscars.com/ferrari_cars/250gto_prototype.html as a source for discussion of the 250 GTO prototype. As this site was created by a dealer/constructor advertising their own 250 GTO prototype replica (in partnership with Bizzarini), they may not be an impartial source and have a financial interest in putting forward a particular narrative about the identity of this chassis. Note that they advertise on this same page replicas built on a "period correct 250 GT donor car." As to the actual identity of the chassis used in the "Papero/Monstro/Anteater" prototype, as far as I can tell there doesn't seem to be any agreement among historians. I've spent a lot of time compiling sources about this prototype in writing Ferrari 250 GTO#Prototypes, please refer to these for further information. Although I occasionally use text from dealers/auction houses as sources on wikipedia, I feel like it's important to have a healthy skepticism of such sources in cases like this where there is no clear consensus among sources. Prova MO (talk) 17:56, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It supposedly is an interview with Bizzarrini, so on that basis it is reliable to me. If they are selling a replica, they can do it on any 508-copied chassis (539 for swb of course), as both coupe and berlinetta used it. If they are able to replicate a tubular frame of the coupe, they are able to replicate the tubular frame of the berlinetta swb just as likely. And even the berlinetta as the basis, which they could claim if wanted to manipulate, would yield them more financial gain. YBSOne (talk) 18:20, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bizzarrini talks about the car smoking oil due to it having a wet sump. If the used a berlinetta swb as a basis it would have a 168 engine and a dry sump. YBSOne (talk) 18:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My main goal is to have the wiki article(s) reflect the fact that there is disagreement about the identity of this chassis. The official Ferrari website has even directly and specifically contradicted Bizzarrini's account on this point (see https://web.archive.org/web/20121116014343/https://www.ferrari.com/english/gt_sport%20cars/classiche/all_models/Pages/articles_250_gto.aspx). In accordance with WP:OR I'm really not interested in performing a new analysis to determine which account of the chassis' identity is most plausible. There are multiple reliable sources that indicated different possible identities for this chassis and the article should reflect that. Prova MO (talk) 18:43, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bizzarrini left them so maybe they are a bit defamatory towards him. And if their official documents were in order there would be no Ferrari historians:). I'm absolutly fine with leaving the article in a state of disagreement and multiple possibilities. Comes with territory of trying to figure those Italians out. Take care. Thank You for all the additions, I really appreciate them. YBSOne (talk) 18:48, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, definitely such things are possible with Ferrari's attitude towards Bizzarrini. The official Ferrari history is definitely fallible. There are a lot of details to this era of car that are pretty much impossible to conclusively determine from available sources. Thanks for the kind words, I appreciate your work as well. Prova MO (talk) 00:12, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]