Chassis 1C/10S Updated Information

sheesh, so it would be I , O0I01, AND 002C ?

 

i wonder if a new guy grabbed the stamps, and did not see the slight difference between a "O" and a "0" versus the "1" and "I". hence "01 versus "OI".

fascinating thread!

if two cars were made side by side, would there not be records at Ferrari showing the changes Mr Ferrari ordered on one versus the other? by side by side i mean made within weeks of each other, from frame to running and driving car. they seemed to like driving the naked chassis around a bit with the drivetrain installed.

 

Does that mean that the car was bought without installed engine, but with both engines separately as "extras"?

 

ALL I'm saying is this: The only very early car that seems to have consistant stampings is Jim's 002, which I believe to have been the 3rd Ferrari built, as a Tipo 159. I have posted my thoughts and opinions any number of times on all 3 of the cars concerned. Until I see some actual evidence; such as the documents on which Classiche "confirmed" what is being called 01C/010I, or something new turns up, all I have is an opinion; NOT facts.

 

Hi Art, and others
After further research it's time for me to eat humble pie. I also now think this car has nothing to do with 031S. Sources that I thought could be relied on let me down. Apologies for the misinformation.
Nathan

 

Nathan, do I understand you correctly that already in 1966 it was speculated that 031S was built upon an older chassis?

 

True, as far as I am aware, but 004 hasn't really been a part of the discussion...

 

Hi Michael
Not that I know of - I wrote "Recently, questions were asked as to whether 031S was built on an older chassis" Note - recently.
Although JAWSALFA stated "To be clear, Stan had seen the car and knew it for YEARS prior to this article being printed (not months)(NB Note:The article was printed in 1978) Stan sold the body to Desormeau and Desormeau fitted the motto body to this chassis (circa 1970). Stan knew of the car soon after it had been purchased."
Nathan

 

i understand, thank you.

 

That's no elephant its just a shadow. Actually I am waiting for more learned than I to weigh in.

Jeff

 

I'll comment on it.

At least there was something there. How frustrating would it have been if it were simply blank? And what better number to find than "1"?

In all seriousness, while it may not exactly jive with any of the chassis records and info that the knowledgeable fellows here are so familiar with, it comes nowhere near resolving this matter so this great thread will continue on. Possibly to the frustration of some, but certainly to the enjoyment of many others I hope.

>8^)
ER

 

What I am trying to figure out is where the idea that this is 31S came from, as there seems to be nothing on the car that indicates this. As to the 1, it could certainly indicate this was the first car, but I, for one, am not willing to commit to anything until I see a LOT more documents and photos.

 

Nathan, of course I saw that "recently", but I stumbled on this:

"But back in 1966 - which is the year the quote came from - this car was known as 031S."

Which car and which quote??

 

I too am amazed how the thread carried on after you posted the ''1'' stamping with barely a comment on this. It does look like GIANT PINK ELEPHANT syndrome.

It all points in one direction for me. This one will go on and on......

 

Hi John
AS far as I know 031S has never been associated with an older chassis.

As for the '1' - I guess we are none the wiser.
Nathan

 

Hi Michael
Just to clarify. For many years the Williman car (which we are now calling 1C/10S) was known as 031S. I don't know how this came about, but when I checked with some well-known Ferrari historians this is what came back -
"> The best I can do is that the Motto body was installed on s/n 031 S
> sometime after 1974. The car was found abandoned in N.Y. in 1974 and sold to
> Ed Williman, Briarcliff Manor, N.Y. He installed a 212 engine (s/n ?) and
> the Motto body from 002 C"
I now believe that somehow these two cars histories became entangled and that this incorrect history has been perpetuated by others.
Nathan

 

Could be anything; hardly nothing to do with the identity of that chassis. Could be a work order number for a particular day at the chassis manufacturer, could be an inventory stamping made at the same place. Could be somebody trying out a die. Could be a work number for coachbuilder matching the body number "1" to this chassis. If it was a small garage and they had only room for handful of projects at one time, they could have built all their production using just body numbers "1" and "2". When one was completed, the next one took over the same number. This was normal practise in many industries since mid 19th century. All early chassis frames could carry a stamping like that and we would not know much of it. FWIW, every piece in the grille of my GT/E is stamped as "1". Best wishes, Kare

 

A few of quick comments and a request:

Do we know how Mr. Ferrari came up with his numbering system and when? Is it possible that the various components that made up 01C were not originally marked as such? We already know that 002C was not marked as such but rather 002.

Are we certain that 01C's cross tubes were fishmouthed rather than bent?

What became of the original - rejected/heavy - Gilco chassis? Do we know its configuration?

I find the serial numbers of this car's steering box and 002's interesting. Was the early steering box outsourced or designed/built in-house?

Do we know what Ferrari 125 brakes looked like and, thus are certain that these are 125 brakes or are basing our assessment purely on the stampings?


Jawsalfa, could you put together, to the best of your ability, the known history of your car - in a manner similar to what Barchetta does? It may be helpful.

Regards,

Art S.

 

It was not one frame but 2, and they had not been rejected, only complained.

 

Art
002 has always been 002.
Her chassis stamping and Ferrari paper work
have always matched.
002C has been an Historians mistake
never a discrepancy.

 

Napolis,

You are the one I expected to have a comment on that pink elephant since you have the best physical comparision of anyone here.

Jeff

 

Jeff et al

I really have no idea. The "1" makes no sense in light of Ferrari's records showing the first chassis to be "01C". I believe that to be true as if it weren't why would they "Classiche" "01C/010I"? I think it's FAR from proven that "01C/010I" is what it claims to be especially in light of Nathan's Posts about the stampings having been done in the 60ies. (STILL NOT REFUTED) At this point I think the only answers can be found by stripping the car completely down, and forensically examining the chassis. Is the cross brace original?? I don't believe the flat stock cross brace is. Sadly because Ferrari has "Classiched" "01C/010I" this is a mystery that may not be solved. I doubt Ferrari is going to become involved without shipping this car to them for forensic investigation and even then IMO the odds of them reversing "01C/010I" are slim. If the stamping had been 01C then this would be an entirely different matter...

Once again: I have seen Ferrari records naming 002, 002. Has ANYONE seen Ferrari Records showing 01C to be 01C the first Ferrari??? (002's Certificate of Origin is #3 which makes sense as 002 is the third Ferrari built)