Chassis 1C/10S Updated Information

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.[/QUOTE]

Napolis,

I respectfully disagree to a limited degree. As I see it this car has several points of discovery. Yes, the chassis is the final issue of overall "production" sequence but the other parts like the brakes and steering box are significant in their own right even if they came from the parts bin.

I believe, and suspect that others may agree, that there is some real murkiness in these first days of Ferrari.

Jeff

 

"Napolis,

I respectfully disagree to a limited degree. As I see it this car has several points of discovery. Yes, the chassis is the final issue of overall "production" sequence but the other parts like the brakes and steering box are significant in their own right even if they came from the parts bin.

I believe, and suspect that others may agree, that there is some real murkiness in these first days of Ferrari.

Jeff"

Ferrari has issued a Classiche Certificate to 01C/010I. Unless this chassis is stamped 01C in the proper place it will remain an interesting "Bitsa". If this chassis is stamped 01C in the proper place taking into account Nathan's posting on 01C/010I's stampings I think there will be real question as to which of these cars is built on the scrapped/restamped chassis of the First Ferrari.

Was 01C's original chassis restamped and used at a later time to build 010I or 10S or neither? That is the only real question.

What this chassis really is and what 01C/010I's chassis really is, is all that matters.

Early Ferrari records are clear. 002's Certificate of Origine and Bill of Sale for example clearly state the chassis stamping on 002. If Ferrari's records show that the First Car was 01C, the second 02C and the third 002 then that is the bottom line.

If this car is stamped 1C in the proper place then the mystery will continue but I doubt it is. I bet it is either stamped 01C or 10S.

 

Gilco was a subcontractor, and as such, any numbers stamped into their chassis were almost always stamped by the car maker. There are, however, some Gilco chassis that DO have numbers stamped into them. The numbers seem to relate to the date of manufacture.

 

Jeff's car is stamped 1C. The other car is stamped 01C. Certainly the zero must have some importance.

 

Still no thoughts from anyone out there as to what the 10S might mean? Very curious that there would be NO known record of this # anywhere in the Ferrari history.

Currently, the location where Jim's car is stamped 002 is covered with 40+ years of paint/dirt/grease and the only way to access the front crossmember location is to remove the hood & radiator. We think it prudent to document the whole "unveiling" process by video and formal witness attestation. This being said, it will probably be a few weeks before the findings are reported. We just wanted to manage everyone's expectations.

Just a quick note of gratitude to all who have contributed their time/talent to this thread. Regardless of what comes of it, my father and I have certainly had a thrilling ride thus far...

 

So have I! thank you so much for sharing, I will be patient!

 

No talent here, but I'm certainly biding my time and eagerly awaiting the results. Thank you (and your father!) for bringing this to light regardless of the outcome.

In the end you've got a great automobile that has some key components to Ferrari history. That is enough IMHO.

 

Ditto.

Exciting stuff, and whatever the outcome may be, your car is always unique and significant.

I've learnt a great deal about a piece of Ferrari history that I had not looked into too deep previously.

The wait begins!

 

Hi so where does 001 fit into the history books or did it never really exist??? just one man's opinion. tongascrew

 

Yes there is a thought about 10S. It was stamped on there by the original builder of 1C/10S when he built this chassis from parts taken from the Ferrari "scrap heap" to confuse later historians and drive every crazy!!! just one man's opinion tongascrew

 

I PMed John for more information on 1C/10S; specifically on the chassis. He replied that the wheelbase is 2420mm and the main chassis tubes are size 92 x 55mm. John has given me permission to post my reply.

This gets more intriguing. Are we going to have to re-write early Ferrari history? Who knows?
Nathan

 

It sure does. Could this be 001S????????

 

Jim,
Do you happen to have the chassis tube dimensions of 002 in your records anywhere?

 

Nathan,
Thank you for sharing your insightful research with the group.
--John

 

No.

Is this correct on 001S? (Targa Florio Winner)
Was chassis destroyed or just scrapped?

http://www.barchetta.cc/english/All.Ferraris/Detail/001S.159C.Spyder.htm

This link describes 001S as a Spyder Corsa. Why? It identifies it as 159. Why?

 

John
You are welcome. I have always been a fan of the early cars and I find the research fascinating.
Have you had any luck finding previous owners of your car?
If I find any more information I'll let you know
Best regards
Nathan

 

Supposedly, the first 2 cars, both Tipo 125s, were 1C and 2C.....but has anyone ever actually SEEN a car stamped 2C or 02C (NOT 002C; Jim's car)??

 

http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=767169&stc=1&d=1216145654

My firm believe is that the car in the foreground of this photo as posted in #126 is 003S. We can be pretty sure that 001S had the same chassis/frame layout. 001S and 003S had the same wheelbase as 01C and 02C and also the LWB Spyder Corsas - 2420 mm. Is there any similarity between this frame and that of 10S?

 

1C and 2C - as well as 3C - had been speculations of good old Stanley, at a time where no information was available on these early cars despite rumours.

 

The irony here is that Jim's car is frequently referred to as "002C"; however, his car is actually stamped "002" and, AFAIK, the original sales docs had it as 002 as well. It appears that it is through oral tradition that the car took on the "002C" nomenclature.

 

I agree. Even I for myself continue with "002C". Possibly because the sister car was 004C.

 

Good Thoughts. I think 002's WB is 10mm less. Is that what SWB SC's are or is that a measuring error. That measurement is from 002C's FIA Papers.

Best

 

Can you divulge yet who the "witnesses" are going to be?

 

Candidly, we are still working that part through.

 

Believe measuring error. 014I afaik has a wheelbase of 2250 mm, so most probably 008I had the same. This is 170 mm or 6.7 inch shorter than the LBW cars, which can also clearly be seen when comparing period photos.