You are correct, we need more evidence. My point that even what sounds like a silly theory is possible with what we have so far....but then again, the 01C stamp that was found under the 0010I/010I "plug" looks to be authentic in photos I have seen. I have never actually seen it in person, and only really have the photos from Bill Noon/Symbolic to rely upon... Stu
The problem with that stamp is that there's a unrebutted statement that that stamp is not original and was made in the 70ies and the original cross member had no readable stamp. EVEN TODAY THE CHASSIS DOES NOT HAVE a vaccari stamp at the right front corner of the cross member that would indicate the chassis is built to 125 blueprints and the engine is stamped 010I and the date codes confirm that it was built after 002 and 004C's engine. IF anyone has proof that what I stating is incorrect please let me know. It is based upon what I believe to be very reliable information.
It seems that at least one example of the chassis existed as per the drawings; ie: with the crossbar, based on the statement made by Starkey (I do NOT know this to be fact). It also appears, based on the statement above, that the chassis with the crossbar had different size ovoid tube mainrails than the later version without the crossbar. How about measuring the size of the mainrails on 01C/010I as it exists today, and comparing them with the drawings? It might be of some help....
The drawing at the top of the page that looks kind of like a photo shows no crossbar. The blueprint style drawings lower down on the page show the crossbar, and the possibility of a de Dion rear being used! BOTH are labeled Tipo 125, and on the page it appears to claim that the one WITHOUT the crossbar came first, which is certainly not true if Colombo is to be believed ! Also, with Busso going back and forth from Alfa to Ferrari, is it possible that Busso actually designed, in conjunction with Gilco, the frame without the crossbar? http://www.gilcodesign.com/doc/des/Ferrari125.htm
Stu, Your post 278 isn't photographic evidence but it does point in the direction that 010I and 01C had a similar chassis design. Still waiting for the photos though . Regards, Art S.
Similar is not the same. Unless the chassis on 01C and 010I are the same exact chassis, than IMO, 01C and 010I are not the same car. We don't even know for certain that the car called 010I that exists now is the same car as 010I that existed in 1948! It is possible that 01C had the chassis type with the crossbar. It appears that one example was actually built, as per Starkey's statements. We do not know if it was ever used, however. Look again at the Gilco documents on the 125, and you will see that the "photo" on the page is not as same as the "blueprints"! On the same page on Gilco's website (and in the Gilco book), the upper photo type drawing is NOT the same as the lower 2 blueprint type drawings! The upper drawing does NOT have the crossbar, and the lower 2 do! As to photos, quite frankly, I don't think they exist, but we should all keep looking... Best, Stu
And I thought 18759 has stories... I'm sitting this one out, going to watch from the sidelines eating popcorn.
It seems to be useless to write here anymore, because nobody is willing to recognize my posts. Jim is continiously asking for a certificate of origin for #01C, although I made clear that such document can not exist because #01C never was road registered and always property - as #01C - of Ferrari. I also pointed out various times that there is no guarantee that #01C has been manufactured exactly as per the 1946 drawing. Erich made the point: "The 125 blueprint is more labor intensive than 002C cross piece. There is a lot of cutting and fishmouthing and lots of welding in that design. The two bent tubes to make the X is much faster and easier to make, assuming you have a tubing bender." Various sources report that GILCO made some changes to the original Ferrari design, as they had more experience in frame design and manufacturing. This is confirmed by their photo of the 147 tipo 125 frame (shown below) which did not show the version with the crossbar in the middle of the X as per the drawing, but the X with bended tubes as shown at #002 and also at #01C/010I (posting #255). I have a larger copy of the drawing as posted in #255, and the distance between center of rear axle and center of transverse is clearly given as 150 mm. I also have the statement that this distance at an existing 166 Inter SC LWB is 6 inch which corresponds to this figure. I have a photo from underneath #01C/010I which shows that the transverse is positioned only slightly in front of the frame arch's top which could well be 150 mm. This photo also shows part of the X, but unfortunately not the center of it. I don't have the permission to post this photo, and I also don't have the permission to identify the car with the 6 inch distance, sorry...! The information that this distance at #002 is "at least one feet" therefore looks strange, although of course I don't doubt this. I now will remove this thread from my subscription list, but possibly I will have a look from time to time. Image Unavailable, Please Login
Michael In 1985 Colombo again mentioned the cross brace and it's clearly on the blueprint. "Could have been changed" true, but if it was why did Colombo again mention it in 1985? The photo you posted could be the later modified Chassis that Starkey referred to not 01C's original chassis. Look at the photo clearly showing 002C's diff. and rear transverse. The distance between them is more than 150mm. (I'll measure it exactly in a week or so) The paper work I'm referring to is the paper work Bill said Ferrari RECENTLY gave the owner of 01C/010I/0010I which Tom pointed out does NOT include paper work for 01C. If there is no paper work CD'O for 01C WHY DOES THE CD'O FOR 002C READ: "CERTIFICATO D'ORIGINE N. 003" ???? 002C was the third Ferrari built and the first Ferrari sold. 01C the first built and 02C the second. What cars do you think received "CERTIFICATO D'ORIGINE" "N.001" and "N.002"??? Most importantly there is a unrebutted statement that the stamping on 01C/010I are not original and were made in the 70ies. Best
Note distance between top of dif. and rear transverse. Clearly more that 150mm. "at least one foot" or even MORE! Image Unavailable, Please Login
Jim, the Colombo books contains more than one remarkable error, which I consider as normal nearly 40 years after things happened. "For the chassis I devised a trapezoidal form, made up of spars with central cross bar, and ovoidal sections. I used the experience of a firm which specialised in the making of tubes in a special steel, GILCO autotelai, belonging to Gilberto Colombo, my namesake (to whom I was not, however, in any way related)." What are the facts? Fact is that Colombo made some drawings which show the central cross bar in the period August to October 1945. Fact is that Colombo in November 1945 took up again his employment with Alfa Romeo. Fact is that the engineering drawings for the tipo 125 are dated 5.6.46 and therefore are issued without Colombo, but under supervision of Giuseppe Busso. Fact is that end of June the frame drawing went to GILCO together with the purchase order, and that GILCO made some changes. Fact is that Colombo returned to Ferrari officially on 1 Jan 1948, although it is obvious that he already from September 1947 onwards worked inofficially for Ferrari despite his Alfa contract which ended 31 Dec 1947. Fact is that Colombo writes he devised, not that the car has been built in fact with the central cross bar. So the extract from these facts is that Colombo had nothing to do with GILCO, Eng. Cantafora during development and construction of the first 2 cars. As a historian I divide sources in primary, secondary, and tertiary ones. Primary sources are exclusively period ones, rememberings are only secondary sources. Also Starkeys article is full of mistakes, I wrote him a long letter about all these points years ago. Contemporary articles I always consider as tertiary sources maximum. About #002 and the distance between rear axle and transverse, of course I believe this, no doubt. But I know for sure another 166 Inter SC LWB having 150 mm distance. A Certificate of Origin is needed for the cars title, it is only issued when a car is sold by the manufacturer. So there was never any need to issue one for #01C. The fact that the c/o for #002 bears number 003 does not automatically mean that #001 and #002 had been issued for 01C resp. 02C. There are some signs that #001S has been delivered to Troubetskoy/Sterzi as early as November 1947, maybe one of our Italian friends can find out when the registration 111176MI was issued. We also do not know whether #001 and #002 had been used for the 2 tipo 815, or possibly they had been issued and cancelled due to typing errors or Idontknowwhat. And finally, yes, I know some fragmental details about the stampings done in the 70s when the car was sold by Bamford to the USA in order to make custom officials happy ! But even if so, that would mean that 01C was on the car until this restamping ..
All good points but I'm not talking about drawings I'm talking about blueprints. The source that I referred to stated that there were NO readable stampings on the chassis in the 70ies and He made both stampings that exist today, 01C and the over stamped 010I. If 002 (C) was the third chassis built it's curious that that distance would not match 01C/010I/0010I's but that 01C/010I/0010I would match "166 Inter SC LWB having 150 mm distance" which I assume was built after 002 (C)? I fully agree that it's possible but I really do feel these issues can not be ignored. Best Image Unavailable, Please Login
I have all four Italian ACI PRA documents for #001 S and the registrations: Milan plate "MI 111176" was issued 10 February 1948, for Count Bruno Sterzi in Milan (1st owner) Palermo plate "PA 17370" was issued 23 May 1950, for Count Stefano La Motta in Palermo (2nd owner) Palermo plate "PA 19181" was issued 29 March 1951, for Mrs Matilde Grasso of Palermo (3rd owner) Catania plate "CT 54577" was issued 9 May 1954, for Gaetano Cantarella of Catania (6th owner) The certificate of origin was issued 4 February 1948 The 4th owner was Silvio Cammarata of Palermo, he did not re-register the car. The 5th owner was Salvatore De Cordova of Palermo, he did not re-register the car. 6th owner Cantarella financed the purchase with a credit loaned by De Cordova. 17 June 1959 Cantarella had paid back the entire credit to De Cordova, according to the PRA document. Marcel Massini
Me too, exact the one you posted, but larger. As English is not my mother language I expected drawings and blueprints are the same. I only heard that some stampings had been done, not which ones. Why should somebody in the 70s stamp a chassis first 01C and then overstamp it 010I resp. 0010I? But I agree, this has to be sorted out. It is curious, I agree. However, Im not authorized to post details. Possibly somebody has the chance to inspect #016I in the Collier collection .? Okay, than that questions is answered. There is a photo showing Troubetskoy in a French garage on his way back from Switzerland to Paris in #001S where he had some troubles with the car. The photo is dated December 1947, but as the car carries the Milano plates this is impossible.
insist that one chassis with the crossbar was actually built, although it may never have been used? I would also tend to agree it was Busso and not Colombo that colaborated with Gilco to build the chassis with no crossbar, as on Jim's car.
Stu, Think about it - Mr. Ferrari knew what he wanted and when that first chassis showed up, it wasn't what Mr. Ferrari wanted. It probobly went something like this: His first engineer comes over to help out Mr. Ferrari in his new vernture, sketches up a car design (including a V-12 that Mr. Ferrari wants) then leaves. As the parts of this car get made, Mr. Ferrari inspects the stuff to see if it is what he wants - as he sees it in his mind's eye. The chassis that was sketched shows up and it's better suited for a tank. Mr. Ferrari says 'fix it' (leaving out all of the colorful Italian that surrounds this) and sends it back. His new engineer and the supplier tinker a little and send back a revised version. This is just a possible explanation as to why the Colombo chassis design may not have been used as originally drawn. However, until some concrete evidence shows up, we are just speculating. Regards, Art S. PS. Michael M. & Marcel M., thank you for the detailed historical information.
All true, but why would Starkey that one version of the chassis with the cross tube was built, without some evidence to that as fact? I would certainly like to see the evidence!
Stu, I'm not dismissing Starkey. I'm suggesting that a logical explanation is that the chassis was built by Gilco but not accepted by Ferrari. Therefore, it was never used in a Ferrari automobile in the form described in the blueprints shown. I am suggesting this only based on what was presented in this thread, what I've read about Mr. Ferrari and my experience with small companies, but no other solid evidence. Regards, Art S.
Certainly a possability, but I would sure as hell like to know what happened to that chassis if it was never used... Maybe there is some Fiat based "etceterini" that used it; maybe it was scrapped....but I think that if indeed it was built, than there was too much work to modify it into the chassis without the crossbar...
After substatial re-reading of the Colombo and Busso books, along with other documentation in various books, I have come to the conclusion that 010I is not an evolution of 01C. The are many "exagerations" in Colombo's book, and he and Busso have distinctly different opions; although Busso never wanted to talk about his period with Ferrari in our conversations, nor does he in his book. One of the first things said by Colombo is how much of his work is cretited to Jano, and how he turned the Alfa 12c37 into a competitive car after Jano left. The 12C37 was never a competitive car. Colombo also gives himself most of the credit for the Alfa 158 "Alfetta", and it is true that the pre-war version was his design, but he hardly mentions Busso's post-war changes, which made the 158s and 159s the most successful GP cars ever. IT may be true that Colombo did most of the basic design of the 125, but he had returned to Alfa and was also involved in the Alca Volpe "mini-car" during the period of turning the 125 concept into the 125 car. It was Busso who was at Ferrari during the period of the 125, 159 and 166. Colombo also "blames" Busso for the 125 and 159 for not being more sucessful (as the 1100cc Stanguellini was very much it's equal). Colombo did not return until very late 1947 or early 1948, about the same time as Busso returned to Alfa. The 125 may have been a Colombo concept, but it did not become real until he left. I believe most of the actual blueprints a real design and construction were done under Busso's command, with assistance from Speluzzi and Cantafora of Gilco. It seems possible that 01C and 02C were built with the crossbar design chassis, and Jims car 002C was the first car built without the crossbar. I can find no proof of a car numbered 001C, and I believe 001S was built after Colmobo's return and Busso's departure.
This is from page 89 of the Colombo book. http://us.a2.yahoofs.com/users/rFTZGI0XJVu3/__tn_/da17.jpg?phQVHfFBIyNZckTk
The thing having re-read this thread that gets me is the supposition that anything Ferrari might say at this point regarding these cars would have to be taken with a pinch of salt, A BIG ONE. I mean if you were in a small company you were making a couple of cars would you keep records, what about necessary alterations, would you document them, of course you wouldnt, they would have chopped and changed them. And now of course with the benefit of hindsight and lots of money, we ascribe history to them. As to wether they had a bar of not might be a good point, but what does that prove. I would think that it couldnt be beyond the realms that 01C could have been converted into any of the following cars and conversely 02C could be something different, I mean we can only follow lines of enquiry, make assumptions, and come to conclusions. But hey it is a GREAT thread to read, and I think it will be fascinating to watch it all play out. Keep up the good work Art, Jim and Dretceterini.
