01C or 02C The first ?

Hi

Please take a very close look at her chassis and stampings. Photo's would be great.

Best

 

I hope that this thread will be updated with the detail photos and the discussions by the ranking experts. I further hope that the people involved with the car will allow sufficient detailed inspections to be performed by "the experts" so that we are not left with one person's version of the truth. As Jim has shown with his 0846 a very open discussion about the details and allowing the contradicting view to be explored, IMHO, proved to be a very informative and transparent process.

These very old Ferraris are from a murky period where Ferrari was trying to establish itself and be able to stay in business. Future provenance wasn't part of the consideration but I'll bet making the weekly payroll was.

Jeff

 

Here are some of the details of what I saw on the car yesterday. I'm not an expert so I can't distinguish exact features but here are a few points. The car has the frame rails that arc over the rear axle. It looks like there is a large mechanism (possibly for a cross member) up near the top but it is hard to see between the bodywork and wheel. It has a fuel tank in back. The X brace in the center of the car by the driver has two tubes that arc together then apart >< with flat sheet used as a web bracing. I'm sure Tom will have a chance to examine the car and can comment on it. I can get some pictures up when I get home tomorrow.

 

Were there any stampings?

Thanks!

 

I am anxiously awaiting reports, discussions and photos on this!

Jeff

 

Yes, we are all waiting for pictures. The location of the rear cross bar and its distance forward of the rear axle as well as the designe of the central X member between the main frame rails is important. How the X member is joined at the middle/center will tell us a lot. The up sweep of the frame rails over the rear axle is correct. Napolis is correct, good photos of the stamping is very important, particularly to try to establish if they are original or not. Stampings on the steering box are also very important as well as numbers on the engine, gearbox and rear axle.It is most likely that some or all of these units are not original but can help in establishing the provenance of this car. Then good pics of the dashboard please. No two dashboards on the early cars were the same. Does the shift lever have an orange colored bakeolite(plastic} nob with the shift pattern on it?The shape may be slightly triangular.A picture of the emergency brake handle would be nice. It should have a squeeze lever handle on the end used to engage and release the hand brake. I am suire Napolis can give you more to look for. There are real doubts about the claims made about this car and it will fun to see what the pictures tell us.. tongascrew

 

Alright well it doesn't sound like it is 01C. I'll let Tom explain when he has a chance. However, it is an interesting early car that is unrestored if not exactly original.

 

By reading this I have already serious doubts...
Do you mean something like this?
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

I just got back from the Palm Springs. Great event and the owner of the car was a total Gentleman. Its super late and I am totally beat but here are a few observations. I spent a couple of hours with Ed Williman going over the car in detail. He helped me measure everything and we went over it to great extent. The chassis is what I refer to as a 2nd revision of the client chassis from 1948. Similar to the later client 166 Spyder Corsas but much closer to the production 166MM/Inter of 1949 which with only a few revisions was around until about 1951 with few other changes. There were no provisions for the 125/159/166 (1947-1948) type hydraulic shocks, nor was there any provision for any rear sway bar through the frame or any of the other classic 1C/2C/3C features found on the first cars. The other feature I have yet only seen on Willbank's car and none of the other cars was the provision in both the front frame cross-member and radiator for the hand crank. Willbank's car as confirmed by Ferrari during their restoration of the car also shows the versions to the first frame drawings from Gilco that match up to the 1946-1947 drawings. Some of these are also present on 020I which is most like 02C recycled.

The chassis is stamped "10S" in the correct position for a 166 Sport / Inter. The engine is a late 166 Inter and the gearbox a mid 166 Sport type. The body is pure 002C from mid to late 1950 in its entirety. It has several minor revisions to fit the later 166Sport / Inter type chassis but is otherwise exactly an totally as completed in 1950 and even has provisions for 002C's rear facing distributor/magnetos etc... It also has 002C original type wheels (three alloy / one steel!) and the steering wheel. It was an incredible car but it has little to do with the first three Ferrari's. More info and photos later!

Cheers, Bill Noon

 

Perhaps you could post a photo proving this is true:

"Willbank's car as confirmed by Ferrari during their restoration of the car also shows the versions to the first frame drawings from Gilco that match up to the 1946-1947 drawings."

Cheers

 

Here are some photos of the Palm Springs Ferrari. I am neither a historian expert nor a photographer so please view accordingly.
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Continued:
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

"The other feature I have yet only seen on Willbank's car and none of the other cars was the provision in both the front frame cross-member and radiator for the hand crank."

Bill

002C has the same hole in both the chassis and the radiator and as an aside it's not for a "hand crank". It's for a start cart.
I would very strongly recommend against trying to hand crank one of these motors...

Cheers

 

Easy. 004C. chassis/body/engine

Seems like 001S is around, but we have to wait for it to surface.

 

Ok here are the relevant photos I took that turned out some-what. Cross brace is the first one and then one of the tank. I couldn't get a picture of the rear suspension.

http://www.flickr.com/gp/24302083@N05/Rus72V

Bill Noon,

It was great to meet you and I really liked your A6 1500 GT. It is great you drive it so often. Hope you made it back over the pass ok.

- 2nd Maserati class judge.

Also do you think the car was in the movie Cronaca di un Amore/ Story of a Love Affair 1950? I haven't seen the movie (yet) but it is available. http://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_57861-Maserati-A6-1500-1948.html

 

YOUR PHOTOGRAPH OF THE CROSS MEMBER IS VERY IMPORTANT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

See Post 255 here:

http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/showthread.php?t=116277&highlight=01C+010I&page=13

I think against all odds this is 01C's original chassis used by Ferrari at a later date and modified to make a new car which they stamped 10S. THIS CHASSIS CROSS MEMBER EXACTLY MATCHES THE ORIGINAL DRAWING WHICH IS POSTED IN 255. The Wilbanks car's chassis and 002C's are also posted in 255. They both match each other but NOT the original drawing. That the chassis was modified to remove the items Bill spoke of makes sense as 10S was made later from the chassis remains of 01C.
There is NO other way to explain the exact match of this chassis' cross member and cross brace to the original drawings which the Wilbanks car does not.

Coupled with the unrefuted statements that Tom S. spoke of regarding the forging of the Wilbanks chassis stampings in the 70ies, I think this is very powerful evidence that this car is built on the original chassis of 01C.

Michael M and Bill Please explain if you can why I am wrong.

 

Just to be clear, that transverse member (going from port to starboard) in the cross brace is a flat piece of metal and not a tube. The slideshow has a bigger version.

 

Exactly. Note how the tubes are "fishmouthed" and welded into the flat stock you spoke of. EXACTLY AS IN COLUMBO"S ORIGINAL CHASSIS DRAWING THAT WAS USED TO MAKE 01C.

002C and the Wilbank chassis' are different. Before your photo some said the design was modified from the original drawing to make it stronger and lighter but your photograph proves beyond any doubt that a chassis was make to the original drawings as drawn.

What a fiasco! (IMHO)

 

Your photo of 10S which I now believe was built on the modified restamped chassis remains of 01C
Wilbanks Chassis
002C's chassis
Original 1946 Typo 125 Colombo Chassis Drawings

The Metal Speaks for itself as it always does.
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

I want to see a picture of the rear cross brace. Specifically if it is the same cross section as the center cross brace as they are the same in the drawing.

 

Napolis, your insights and observations are indeed astute regarding the matter of 01C authenticity. As I am unable to contact you privately, would you kindly make contact with me through e-mail at [email protected]? I look forward to our conversation as it will be highly relevant to the discussion at hand. Thanks.

 

Not sure if anyone remembers but a couple years back i posted photos of this car while it was at Limerock sometime in the 1960s. One of my grandfather's dear friends owned the car along with a myriad of other Ferrari's. Now i just have to find the pictures again.

 

Nice!

 

The photo in the middle afaik does not show the Wilbanks car, but the replica made by Ferrari for their museum. And if I remember correctly they used the wrong drawings. Somewhere in this thread - or another one here - this information is hidden, I don't have the time to check it out now.

I don't see any similarity between the drawing and 031S. The cross section on the drawing is fishmouthwelded, wheras at 031S it is bended, just in the way 002's frame is. The difference is the cross center brace, which the Spyder Corsas do not have. It is open whether this was in place from the beginning or added at a later date, e.g. to stiffen the frame due to new (heavier) bodywork. No other car I know has this frame layout, the center section is either bended without cross brace, or fishmouthwelded with brace. One exception is 010I, where the cross section is fishmouthwelded without center brace.

Unclear for me is still the layout of the rear section. "johnei" writes "The car has the frame rails that arc over the rear axle", but "billnoon" says "but much closer to the production 166MM/Inter of 1949", which would mean underslung frame.

I'm also missing info about the wheelbase, and comments that a serial "10S" does not fit in ANY Ferrari typology of the period.

 

For good order's sake I put "johnei"'s photo online here.
Image Unavailable, Please Login