I am becoming a little obsessed by the true history of the early cars, as in the Colombo book, the photo says it is of a later 166I, and it has the crossbar??!!
Dr.Stu I can't get that link to work. Someone who has inspected 010I has told me it's chassis is the same as 002C's which he says he's also inspected. Once again where are photo's of 010I's chassis as it exist today??? How about putting 002C and 010I sided by side???? One the the films I Executive Produced contained a song I wrote and performed "Pandora's Box". When John Kennedy was shot Malcolm X said: "The Chickens have come home to roost." Pandora's Box has been opened and the chickens are coming home to roost. It will be very interesting to see the results of the court case involving 0808. Remember what the good book said: "Cry Havoc and Let Slip The Dogs of War"...
Link works for me, but you can just look at the photo on page 89 of the Colombo book, which I would assume you have. The more information I find, the more confused I get
Stu, I don't have the book; could you scan it and post it? Regards, Art S. PS. Happy holidays to all in this thread!
This link should work. I saved to yahoo photos: http://new.photos.yahoo.com/etceterinidoctor/photo/294928803913542678/0
Compare these items. IMHO it's time for 010I chassis as it is today to be looked at. Does it look like 002C's? Does it look like this?? Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
It might also be helpful to see what the chassis of 02C/020I looks like. My current thinking is: Colombo designed the chassis, but the 125s and 159s were actually built during the period Colombo was gone, and Busso was in charge. The 125 and 159s do not have the crossbar. When Colombo returned in late 1947 or early 1948, the crossbar was added.
For sale: http://cgi.ebay.it/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=140060985128&indexURL=1&photoDisplayType=2#ebayphotohosting
Just going back through old threads to try and find something.....IMO, the Auto-Avio 815 should really be considered a Nardi....as the two joined 4 cylinder motors, making a straight 8, was his idea..
Was looking for something else and found this. It's from Starkey, Renwick & Olczyk's "Ferrari: Fifty Years on the Track", page 10. It's titled "Bare chassis of 01C under restoration". It does not credit the photo. T308 Image Unavailable, Please Login
Thanks for that photo! If that is indeed the chassis of 01C/0101I it would tend to prove 010I had a new chassis, as that is a 166 style chassis and not a 125 style chassis, based on the photos and drawings we have available...either that, or the chassis pictured is a modern creation.
Okay, I now throw this one in and wait what happens..... PS: Yes, has been posted already before, but nobody really reacted. Image Unavailable, Please Login
I THINK both the pictures you posted are of 125 chassis, but I am not certain. If they are of 159 or 166 chassis, it just confuses the matter even more!
The major mistake which runs through this whole thread are the "125, 159 and 166 type chassis". We all know that these figures are only related to engine capacity.
Not really. 002C was a 159 and then a 166 and it's chassis is different from this one as is 004C's. 313 was posted already is from Columbo's book and is I believe is of a 50ies car. 314 is of what date? 002C's and 004C's chassis are from 47 and are quite different than those. 004C's chassis is the same is the same as 002C's. Manny's desert find 166 has an X chassis also and is from the 50ies. What do you think of that Michael? The person who said the chassis of 002C and "01C/010I" were the same was wrong. "01C/010I's" chassis is the same as 50ies era cars and not 47 era cars. Post # 314 which is from what era ??
Of course it's different, but this has nothing to do with the engine displacement resp. the type designation. The different chassis designs have to do something with (a) the period, and (b) the nature of cars. For the tipo 166 there are at least 3 different chassis, not counted that of the 166 F2 monoposto. Excluding the monoposti we have basically 6 different groups of cars in 1947/48 (The shown months are approx. only): (1) The prototypes (01C and 02C) (1st half 1947) (2) The 159/166 SC LWB (002C, 004C, 006C, 012I and 016I) (002C = Aug 1947, 004C + 006C = Feb 1948, 012I + 016I = Apr 1948) (3) The first 2 road cars (001S and 003S) (Jan-Mar 1948) (4) The 166 SC SWB (008I and 014I) (Apr 1948) (5) The 166 MM (Aug 1948) (6) The 166 Inter road cars (Aug 1948) But I'm still in the process of putting together the last bits and pieces, and therefore not able or ready to post my conclusions. However, 2 things are clear already now, based on photos: - All LWB Spyder Corsas have the same X-section with bended profiles welded together in the center as 002C. - All cars with the chassis arched over the rear axle (everything built from 1947 to April 1948 except the 2 SWB SCs) have this intensively discussed transverse located at 150 mm in front of the rear axle, or in other words exactly at the place where it is shown on the blueprint dated 5.6.46. Except 002C, where Jim says it is placed more forward ("at least one foot").
Very interesting. Could 002C's transverse location due to longer wheelbase? As an aside if it will help you you are most welcome to inspect 002C. Best
No, as it has the same wheelbase as ALL the other cars. Exception are the SWB SCs 008I and 014I, but they are COMPLETELY different as they have the frame not arched over the rear axle, but underslung. Jim, it's not a question of believing you, sure I do! Although I would be very happy to have the typical fisherman's measurement of "at least one foot" more specified in mm or inches (from center rear axle to center transverse). By the way, I sent you a PM same days ago asking for your eMail address, but no reply.
Hi Sorry did not receive pm but have pm'd you my email. I will measure exactly next time we have body off. I didn't think you didn't beleive me just wanted you to know you're welcome any time. Best
Thant makes a lot of sense. It would also make Jim's 002C the oldest car left. As far as 01C becoming 010I, I now tend to believe that there is little to nothing of 01C left, and the car now being called 01C/010I is substantially a recreation.
Michael: First of all, I think the 125, 159 and 166s should be called by their chassis types, and not by which motor they have, as some cars had 2, and maybe even all 3 types of motors in them. As to why I think 01C/010I is substantially a recreation is that 01C (a 125) and Jim's 002C (159/166) should have different, rather than almost identical chassis. I do not believe that the chassis showing the photo from the Olczyk book has any relationship 01C. It MAY be from 010I, but that would negate any relationship between 01C and 010I as the car exists today. In other words, based on the drawings and blueprints we have, I believe that the chassis of 01C and 02C should be different from all the others (your group 1). The photo from Olczyk's book of what is being called 01C/010I and those of Jim's 002C should not look almost identical, and they do... Just one man's opinion....
