125 and 159

As it's not a Ferrari I reallly don't see how.

 

Jim, I sort of see the point but it is "technically" ferrari (the 815's - without Ferrari badges).
Does "technically" count?

 

Two AAC 815s were built. S/N 020 was scrapped many many years ago already. See also Franco Varisco's excellent book titled "L'Anteprima Ferrari" and the Italian ACI PRA registration documents. The second car, S/N 021, is owned since several decades by Mario Righini in Italy.
Marcel Massini

 

It is an Auto Avio Costruzione, hence AAC, tipo 815, not a Ferrari.
Marcel Massini

 

I don't think it can be considered a Ferrari for a number of reasons (alfa contract, name etc) however the main consideration has to be that both the Chassis and running gear were derived from production Fiat items......yes the engine castings are original, however they are based on two siamised Fiat items

 

On page 110 of the Ferrari Tipo 166 book byTito Anselmi there is a picture by Corrado Millanta, probably taken at Gilco's in Milan, from December 1947 showing a 166 SC chassis. It shows the same chassis as is shown on the Gilco website as chassis of the 125.
This is a cutaway showing details of a 166SC.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

No – but you seem to have a problem understanding that Ferrari did not use 01C to make a 166I – I’ll repeat it……..
FERRARI DID NOT USE 01C TO MAKE A 166I

You refer to this website which comments on 010I -

Which DOES NOT say that 01C was used to make a 166I. You are going in 180degrees the wrong direction. Even your source says “47 - rebuilt from 01C, as Spyder Corsa, engine upgraded to 166 specs” - no mention of a 166I.

You seem to have a problem understanding that comparing the 01C chassis to a 166I chassis is a waste of time – it is both wrong and absurd!

I had the opportunity to examine 01C (010I) when it was in England for many years, and below are 2 photos that I took about 30 yrs ago. The interesting thing is that 30 years ago the wheelbase was the same as 01C was in 1947.

Nathan
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

The chassis photo of the 125 chassis on the Gilco site is that of a 125GP car. I believe that the chassis of the 125GP car and the 125 sports car are totally different from each other. As to an actual period photo of a 125 sports car chassis, I have none, only drawings in books.

I would ASSUME that the 125 sportscar replica has a chassis recreated based on period blueprints, and although I saw the car at the Beverly Hills Rodeo Road show, I didn't crawl under it. I have a few pictures of the outside of the car; similar to the ones Marcel posted, but nowhere near as good, as they were taken with one of those "throw away" cameras.

I still believe that 01C later became 010I, but as I said earlier, I have no real PROOF. I also have come to believe that 01C was built in 1946 and not 1947, but again, no real PROOF.

From the documentation I have on the Auto Avio 815, I see NO real relationship to any other "Ferrari" chassis, and believe it was built by Nardi, and NOT Gilco; circa 1939-1940.

I will defer to Marcel on this one...

 

As it is stamped "I" I assume Ferrari considered it "I". Look at page 18 and 19 of Fitzgerald and Merrit which clearly show a 125 sports car chassis and a 166 Spyder Corsa chassis exactly the same as the chassis shown on the site you referenced. As I've said they are completely different. The photo on page 19 is definitely a 125 sports car chassis not a GP 125 chassis. The photo Boudewijn posted is similar to the one on page 18 which chassis is clearly 166 not 125.

 

Thanks Stu - you and many others believe that 01C became 010I. As you pointed out this is not new - it's been accepted for many years.

And you're quite right - most of it was built in 1946. It was in July 1945 that Gioachino Colombo made the trip to Modena to visit Enzo Ferrari. He then went home to Milan to design the 125. Colombo finished all the designs for the 125 in Nov 1945. Work started on the car almost inmmediately and most of it was built in 1946. The unclad rolling chassis debuted on 12 Mar 1947. The body appeared by its race debut at Piacenza on 11th May 1947.
Nathan

 

Look at pages 18 and 19 again. The proof is in the rear squared off chassis of the 125 and the rounded off chassis of the 166. You can't mount a curved 166 Spyder Corsa Body on a 125 squared off chassis without major modification.

 

You're flying on your own with this one!
This photo proves how Ferrari mounted a 166SC body on a square chassis.
Nathan
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Squared off shock mount transverse forming a box on same plane as frame rails which rise up at that point on a 125 chassis vs 166 which don't rise up at that point but stay parallel to the ground with shock mount supports mounted perpendicularly to frame rails allowing curved 166 vs square tail 125 ( In Section NOT in Plan)

The bottom line remains is 010I's chassis 166, or the repaired, modified,
and re stamped 125 chassis remains of 01C?

Do you have any photos of 010I with body work removed showing the chassis at the point of the shock mounts, or other photo's of it's chassis that would answer the question one way or another?

A photo of the Gas tank would also help a lot as in your photo the shock mount lines up with the fuel filler which as in the 166 rises to the top of the curved (Section) body work and I don't see how a boxed 125 transverse could also run through at that point.

 

Very observant, and good points. Unfortunately I don't have any complete chassis photos ABSOLUTELY identified as 01C and period chassis photos ABSOLUTELY identified as 0101I. That is why I have always said I have no ABSOLUTE proof of my theory.


Also, are we CERTAIN that 01C wasn't modified and was a 125, 159 AND 166?
I have NO photos of any chassis ABSOLUTELY identified as Tipo 159. The one's I have seen suggest that the 125s and 159s AREN'T exactly the sdame!


This is all funny in an odd way to me, as my beliefs about EVERYTHING are based on science and not faith, so I do not BELIEVE in a theistic God....but I have never said that "he" doesn't exist.

The bottom line for me is that is rather insane to have "wars" over things based on OPINIONS, like what is happening in the middle east.

Over to Marcel for a more educated opinion than mine

 

Agree totally with all points. One thing I also believe is that when a 20 year old receives a heart transplant from a 25 year old donor the 20 year old remains 20 years old and doesn't somehow magically become 25 years old and I therefore still believe that a car manufactured after another was manufactured and still exists, a new car with a new chassis number, even if it is built from parts from an older car that no longer exists it begins to age from the date of it's manufacturing and stamping not the dates it's parts or even it's chassis was manufactured.

0854's chassis is a P3 chassis manufactured in 1966. 0854 was manufactured and it's chassis stamped in 1967. 0854 has been in existence since 1967 not 1966.

010I was manufactured and stamped after 002C was manufactured and stamped. 010I is therefore not older than 002C even if parts of it are as the car that donated those parts, 01C, ceased to exist before 002C was manufactured and stamped.

 

I agree; a CAR is the sum total of it's parts, even though the chassis and motor are the most impotant ones! A FIAT based "etceterini" put together in 1956 with a pre-war FIAT chassis or motor does NOT (IMO) make it a pre war car...BUT an actress who's body is 75% silicone still dates back to her first incarnation

When it comes to 125, 159 and 166 chassis pictures, I have none, other than those in books, and I am not certain all are identified correctly, especially when it comes to chassis numbers. I also do not have as large a Ferrari book collection as some others; my "speciality" is really "etceterinis" and NOT Ferrari.

Waiting for Marcel to chime in.....as far as I am concerned he is the one I consider THE Ferrari expert...he's actually had his hands on more early Ferraris than I have, and possibly even more than anyone else still living...

 

Simply 01C restamped - why would Ferrari want to change the chassis? All Ferrari wanted to do was sell 01C as a new car. Hence a new chassis number. Simple enough - nothing complicated - no need to go cutting and shutting.

Even in my photo in post #67 it is obvious that the shock mount DOES NOT line up with the fuel filler. Just follow the line of the tank cover. And to disperse any doubt see photo below.

Please note that I am not the only one who believes that the early chassis were renumbered.

If this chassis had disappeared for 30 years and then miraculously been resurrected from a junk yard I could understand your having a problem with it. But as 01C has a traceable direct lineage back to 1947 I’m not sure what your problem with it is.
Nathan
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

010i Mille Miglia 1948 driver Nuvolari/

 

"why would Ferrari want to change the chassis?"

Look at Bruno's photos of 010I. Look at historical photos of 01C. Do you seriously think 010I's 166I body would slip right on to 01C's chassis, which had been heavily crashed, without repair or modification?

"010I IS NOT A 166I!"

Once again why did Ferrari stamp it "I"?

The guy who ordered 010I ordered a 166I " I want one like the one that won last sunday." 002C 1 oa. Turin Grand Prix which is an "I" if the bill of sale Enzo signed is to be believed. (Stu early sports car races were called "Grand Prix") You think the Count wouldn't notice that the car wasn't built to "I" specs? You think Nuvolari wouldn't even when racing side by side with 166I's?

I've never said that other's haven't said that 010I was built on the repaired, modified, and re stamped chassis remains of 01C. Like Dr. Stu I don't believe this has been proven and as I've also said the only way to begin proving it is by comparing the chassis that is in 010I with the 125 chassis on the web site Stu referenced.

" 01C has a traceable direct lineage back to 1947"

For at least 26 years the top Ferrari experts of the time didn't think so.
In 1973 Fitzgerald and Merritt's book clearly stated that 002C was the first Ferrari and was built on a 125 chassis and 004C was the second Ferrari and was also built on a 125 chassis which is clearly wrong. 26 years of missing providence enough for you?

The way to prove something right or wrong is by Scientific Process something interestingly Dr. Stu feels has been accomplished in the case of 0846 but not yet in the case of 010I.

I wonder if 010I is for sale. Assuming it is possible to scientifically prove that it is built on the chassis remains of 01C it might be fun to buy it and have Sal and Ferrari restore it to it's original 125 state. I would enjoy driving it up Mt Etna down to the sea following my daughter in 002C at the Giro do Sicilia.
Something to think about...

 

Maybe you misunderstood. Although many sports car races were called GPs, there was a 125 single seater GP car, which has a different chassis than the 125 sports cars.

This is the 125 GP chassis:

http://www.gilcodesign.com/doc/des/Ferrari125GPC.htm

This is the 125 sports car chassis:

http://www.gilcodesign.com/doc/des/Ferrari125.htm

and this is the 166 chassis (all according to the Gilco site). All 3 are different.

http://www.gilcodesign.com/doc/des/Ferrari166.htm

The site does not show a 159 chassis.


Based on the limited amount of photographic information I have (books and websites), my thoughts go like this:

2 different types of 125 chassis; GP and sports, as clearly shown on the Gilco site

All 159 chassis are "modified" 125 sports chassis

At least 2 different design Tipo 166 chassis. I don't have enough information or chassis photos to say that one or both tipos are modified 125/159 chassis, or all 166 chassis are of a new design. I also do not have anywhere near enough information and photos to say for sure which photo shows which specific chassis.

There are lots of photos of 125s, 159s and 166s, but very few actually show the chassis. Also, Gilco tubing was very expensive relative to the time, being ovoid in section and tapered in length. If Ferrari had a damaged car from which they could take a 5 foot long section and cut it down to 3 feet, I wouldn't doubt a tube would be reused, rather than a new one bought. I would also think tht any modifications would be done at Ferrari, rather than sending a damaged chassis back to Milan for Gilco to modify or rebuild it. Of course all of this is speculation. IMO, we simply do not have anywhere near enough information to know for certain.

As to 846, again, there is nowhere near enough proof to say ABSOLUTELY that what Jim owns is 846, but the differnces in P3, P3/4 and P4 chassis lends me to BELIEVE that what Jim has is enough of the reamains of the crash to call his car 846.

What we need is a LOT more photos. The guy in Canada that is involved with the Maser 250F GP cars has over 10,000, and he doesn't claim to know anything with ABSOLUTE certainty. How can we claim to actually KNOW anyting with just a handful of 125, 159 and 166 chassis photos??