It's really more the shape of the fuel tank. Note the shape in post 184. Note the shape of the fuel tank in 002C. Without moving that transverse you hit the curved tank. Or? Best and Thanks as always for your insight!
Unknown to me actually. Maybe this drawing from the GILCO website shows the tank more clearly: Image Unavailable, Please Login
Fuel Tank and various chassis. You already have a shot of 002C's chassis stamping. Compare the stampings on 001I with that photo. Best Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
Jim, I quickly searched some of the old threads, here are a few of your pics of the 002C's fuel tank and frame. I hope this helps. Regards, Art S. 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
While I was looking for fuel tank pictures, I came across this picture from Aardy. It looks different than others posted here, probobly it's just the lighting. Regards, Art S. Image Unavailable, Please Login
Michael: THANK YOU for the additional photos. I agree that it could be nothing more than the camera angle, but the bulges certainly APPEAR to be larger in photos 3 and 4 than in 1, 2 and 5. I realize that I might be being somewhat anal, but as a scientist, I would want more proof...especially bare chassis photos of ALL the cars involved, both when first built, and when modified or "converted" into a "new" car with a different chassis number, as APPEARS to be the case with 01C becoming 0010I (or 010I). I'm still not 100% convinced on much about the very early cars and their history...especially as it is well know Ferrari changed things from car to car and commited fraud when selling some cars by producing fake paperwork; even as far back as the time when he was working with Alfa Romeo
I agree that THESE photos are of 010I (or are we naow calling it 00101I?) and of 006I, but I am still not 100% convinced on photos 3 and 4.
Art: THATS the photo I was trying to find! THANKS!!!!! Some of the numbers in the S/N on the above photo are stamped, and some appear to be etched in, or made with solder or welding rod. I do NOT think it is just the lighting!!!!
Art Yes exactly. Compare these two. Note how on 125 drawing transverse is much further back than on 002C (159/166) Locate by position of diff. Best Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
Stu, Look at post 171, 158 and 155 then at the one I posted. To me they look the same except that someone 'enhanced' the numbers on the one in my posting. Regards, Art S.
Jim, You live with the car and can easily see it in your minds eye. I must take your word on it as from the angle the picture was taken, I cannot tell how much foreshortening is occuring (difficult to tell the relative position of the crossbar to the diff in the photo). Regards, Art S. PS. How confident are you regarding the accuracy of the drawing?
Stu, Here are Waynes, Aardy's and T308's (Forza's) together: Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
In the same orientation: Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
All true. I do believe that the drawing is accruate as to the 125's having square fuel tanks and the 159/166 tanks being shaped like mine and I do beleive that a photo of 010I's transverse would be helpfull and I'm not sure why some hasn't posted one. I also believe that comparing my chassis with 010I's chassis and exactly measuring both would be instructive. I have no doubt that Ferrari reused/restamped chassis from scrapped cars as Dr. Stu has pointed out and it's certinally possible this is the first case of it but without that photo and a measured comparsion to 002C I'm not SURE. Best
I agree 1000%; we need a lot more CHASSIS photos. The photos of the cars with the coachwork on them do little to prove anything, IMO.... Stu
IMO that 01C can only be read upside down from 010I and that all of the stampings are quite different than the stampings on 002C which Marcel posted somewhere on the site is interesting as well. I do realize that stranger things have happened.
True, especially in view of the fact that Ferrari has been known to have created fraudulent papers going back to the 1930s, when he was running the Alfa Racing Team. We also do not know if the "plug" over the number 01C that came off the car when restored at Symbolic, or even when it was restored in the 1970s, is the original plug when the car changed serial numbers circa 1948. There appears to be little or no period documentation with 01C/010I that shows chassis differences or alterations.
Art Stu is quite correct about these stampings. His mentioning of the restoration that took place in the 70ies is apropos. There is a well know FChatter who has been a Ferrari Judge at Pebble who has, and this is based on a very reliable source, stated that a person involved in that restoration made those stamps at that time and they are not original. I was also told that this FChatter has given this information to the current owner of the car. As with all of this this may or may not be true but not mentioning it is silly. I still firmly believe that exposing everything to the light of day and using Scientific process and Forensic investigation is the only way to find out as Bob said: "What's really real". If the person who relayed this information to me feels I've mischaracterized it, or if the person who stated it to that person feels I've misunderstood it, please correct my post or let me know privately and I'll gladly post any refutation of the above, but I was absolutely told this and IMHO this needs to be cleaned up one way or the other.
Again, I agree 1000%, but I don't know if it is even close to possible to find out what the real truth is. The supposed "change" of chassis number happened circa 1948, and I don't know if there is anyone still around from back then that was actually involved...and even if there is, he might have an agenda about the car. I just what to see as much documentation as possible on this car...I can then make a reasonable, scientific judement....which STILL might not be correct! 15 years ago, (when I first said that I thought 01C became 010I or 00101I) a LOT the information available now, (much of which I have never personally seen) simply wasn't available...
