Chassis 1C/10S Updated Information

I believe that is the case. I would certainly love to see the documentation behind their certification of 01C/010I. Personally, I have seen what I would call some evidence to lead an objective person to certain conclusions....but that is totally different than using the scientific method and having actual empirical evidence to turn a theory or opinion into absolute fact...

I have seen nothing which I would consider empirical evidence, but that does not mean Ferrari has none...

 

an early Ferrari went from "somewhere" in Georgia, to New York, and was abandoned on the street?

how the heck does that happen?

 

About the bulkhead.
The Motto body needed a new bulkhead anyway, because the original SC one was much more narrow. I'm not sure about the originality of 002's bulkhead, as the whole Spyder Corsa body went to Clemente Biondetti for his Jaguar-engined special - most probably WITH the bulkhead.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Where the 166's still equipped with (horizontal) magnetos at the time the Motta body was constructed? Did Motta have the complete 002 (including engine) at their facility when it was built, or was the body built separately and shipped? Could it be that the body was constructed with a later spec engine in mind, thus creating the necessity to cut holes for the magnetos when the body was fitted to 002?

 

As the Bulkhead has an original stamping I doubt you're right.

More importantly at one time you stated that this car's chassis was 031S which clearly it isn't. Putting aside the 1C stampings for a moment what do you make of the 10S stampings?

What about the Brakes? Do you think they are 125?

What about the wheels? Do you think they are 125?

The statement that 01C/010I's stampings were made in the sixties that Nathan researched remains unrefuted.

It will be interesting to see what if any stampings are on 1C/10S in the place 002 has her's...

 

The Motto body was constructed for 002 which had and still has horizontal magnetos.

 

Frankly spoken - I have no idea. The number fits in absolutely no known scheme.

The same - no idea.

 

The Brakes have Typo 125 CAST into them. That speaks for it's self.

The 10S stamp is on the chassis and unlike 01C/010I's stampings there is no one claiming to have made them in the 60ies.

I'm off to the shop and will measure the distance from 002's rear chassis cross brace to her axle.

Best

 

I said "no idea" because
- my knowledge about brakes layout of these early cars is very limited,
- I do not know whether the "125" is indeed referring to any Ferrari tipo, those parts had been externally purchased, so I cannot exclude that this - by accident - is a brake manufacturer's marking,
- brakes can be exchanged rather easily, there is no guarantee that these brakes had been fitted to the chassis when new.

 

For good reasons probably....

About the stampings on 01C/010I - I doubt that there had been no chassis stampings at all. When brought to England in 1949 by John Wyer and Dudley Folland the car was not officially imported, but only temporarely on Carnet procedure. The chassis number was a vital part of this temporarely import and export, it was surveyed and documented by the customs officer very carefully, because they had to guarantee that exactly the same car left the country as had been brought in before. Therefore it is very unlikely that there was no chassis stamping.

 

Distance from rear chassis cross brace to rear axle 18 inches.

Distance from second rear chassis cross brace to the rear axle 6 inches.

The statement that Nathan confirmed as having been made and still stood by, that 01C/010I's stampings were made in the 60ies remains unrefuted by anyone. Other's may not be troubled by that but I am.

 

I am troubled by it too, and am wondering on what empirical evidence Classiche made their pronouncement and certified the car.

Another thing that bothers me is that we know that when the two 125s were first built, one car had barchetta bodywork and the other had cycle fendered bodywork. Some reports in regard to the early races imply that the coachwork was switched up and back between the two chassis. I find this highly unlikely, due to the amount of work that would be needed to do so.

 

The 125s and 159s had horizontal magnetos, as did some of the very early 166 motors; circa late 1948. The Motto body wasn't bult until circa 1953.

 

Didn't see one there.

 

This was point of our discussion in the other thread, as well as in our eMails, where you estimated this distance at "1 foot", whereas my estimate was 150 mm as all the other Spyder Corsas. 6 inch = 152 mm...

 

Nope I said it was more than 1 foot and it is. It's 18 inches. From the rear cross member to the axle. The measurement you're talking about is 6 inches but that's from the axle to the SECOND (from the rear) rear cross member not from the rear cross member.

The distance from the rear cross member to the seecond rear cross member is 2 feet. The rear axle is 18 inches forward of one and 6 inches behind the other.

 

This was what I meant. So obviously a misunderstanding.

 

We were talking about different cross members.

 

Gentlemen, at what point is a chassis stamped?

by this i mean the following:

in a prototyping operation, would you for sure stamp 001 or whatever into the first "evaluation" chasis?

when would a chasis be stamped, and by whom?

seems Gilco would have cared less about numbers ie " 001 or 01 or 01A ".

was Enzo Ferrari a big client at this point, or was he just another customer ?

i imagine it took time for Mr Ferrari to build a name, factory, and have employees ready to do his bidding.

so when would the chassis be stamped, and would the maker stamp it with ???? or would the customer determine the numbers?

Does Italian law from this period have any bearing on what would have been put on a new cars chassis, even a " race / street car ".


fascinating thread.


thank you.

 

It would be the car manufacturer who stamps the chassis, depending where it slots in in the production.

Did Gilco not stamp anything into their products to identify them or tie them to a certain specific design?

Coming back to the firewall: If 002 has its' original one, then the Motta body didn't have a firewall when supplied/fitted. If the holes for the magneto's look like a later mod, the firewall now fitted to 01/10S must be of a later date and have nothing to do with either chassis nor the Motta body?

I'm still curious about codes or stampings on the Borrani disc wheels. Where any other cars of the period fitted with such wheels, or were they manufactured for Ferrari? If the latter, assuming that the wheels are original to the axles, there should be some clues there.

 

The Motto bulkhead was fitted over/affixed to 002's original bulkhead. It's magnetio holes look that way because they were wrapped through 002's original bulkhead cut outs.

The 125 wheels fitted to the 125 brakes makes sense but as Michael points out they could have been fitted to the chassis at a later point.

Ferrari stamped the chassis. When we know exactly what the stamping on the chassis, at the place where 002 is stamped on 002, the mystery will end.

 

Is it possible that this car have something to do with the Troubetzkoy car ?
Supposed to be 166S 001S
Spyder Ermete ? Blue ?
registred 111176 MI
11/47 Break down at Salins (during the travel from Modena to Paris) ?
4/4/48 Giro di Sicilia/Targa Florio #36 Biondetti / Troubetzkoy
2/5/48 Mille Miglia #178 Sterzi / Righetti

 

The stamping will tell us what this car is and what it's not.