Chassis 1C/10S Updated Information

Which one are you talking about...?

 

??

 

Not quite sure what you are implying but I don't drink the stuff. Got a better idea about !c/10S??? just one man's opinion. tongascrew

 

This comment by Marcel in another thread speaks to the problems. IMO, to say what Ferrari did some 60 years ago is virtually impossible. I would still like to know on what basis Classiche "certified" 01C/010I

"I cannot speak for the Ferrari Classic Department and am not connected in any way with the factory. Apart from the ciphers, fonts and layout that must be correct it is also extremely important to be able to prove a continuous history with NO gaps and stories. Besides that an analysis of the material (steel frame) is also highly recommended. Plux x-rays if possible. In the early 1950s stampings (punching) were not that important as they are today. Today, where values are so high (again, after 1989) all this matters much more. After all, you wouldn't want to spend 10 or 15 Million $ for an old and superrare painting that has a brand new frame."

Marcel Massini

 

Any new news? Has there been any more investigation work on the chassis or components? Any private communications that have been shedding light on this mystery?

Jeff

 

As with the other threads on the very early Ferraris, Marcel doesn't seem to want to say anything. I'm not sure exactly why, but that really doesn't matter. Unless he decides to post an opinion, or someone can find out on what basis Classiche certified 01C/010I, I think this thread is at a dead end, as are the similar, earlier threads.

 

I think this one may well revive if & when the owner strips it down further.

 

The thread won't die: the price difference between a 'bitsa' and an historically significant car is too big. I suspect that there is plenty activity behind the scenes, and the outcome will be made public as soon as there is a conclusion and/or the car has changed hands.

 

Hopefully John and his father have not changed their intention on this car. All along John has emphatically stated there there is no interest in parting with the car just trying to learn what the truth is.

I am curious if there is some serious activity going on in the background. Since the Pebble Beach and Historics weekend just passed this subject could have been a topic for some of the serious collectors and historians that normally attend.

John, anything to report?

Jeff

 

JAWS and the experts- thank you for a very interesting thread.
I have one comment to offer regarding the '125 stamping' of the brakes of 1C/10S;

I assisted in the reassembly of one of the 312PB's when I was in college. I was quite surprised to note that hanging gear (suspension and brake parts) were not only stamped S and D but that they were stamped with four digit c/n's. Furthermore, the parts contained c/n's from no fewer than 5 cars. In other words, e.g.-Car A bore SF parts from Car(s) A,B,C,D, & E.

IMO the presence of the stampings on ancillary parts ("125" on the brakes) may prove to have very real significance. I'm less inclined to subscribe to the parts bin theory and more inclined to believe that the what appears to be unity among parts (and between parts and chassis) will ultimately have some bearing on the experts' sleuthing.

Of course, Jim is correct- the only thing that really matters is the ID of the chassis. That's the car. But as to the rest, we'll see.

 

I for one am very interested so please keep us posted. thanks tongascrew

 

I still have faith in the "parts bin theory" If you look at some of the pictures of the early "out back junk pile" behind the factory large sections of cars were there including what looks like fairly complete chassis's. just one man's opinion. tongascrew

 

The factory certainly scrapped an astonishing amount of product. Whole cars, parts, you name it. I've seen pictures from the mid to late 50's but not earlier so I don't know what the practice was for the period in question. The point that occurred to me after reading the posts and thinking back to the experience I cited was this- what are the odds that 1C/10S is equipped with what seem to be 'complete sets' of early parts. I had seen how easy it was for parts to get interchanged among cars during a racing season. I'm putting my chips down on the 'the parts are trying to tell us something' side of the table. We'll see. It certainly is fascinating to sit on the edge of the discussion of something this early in Ferrari's history.

 

I fully agree and I hope this investigation continues Anyone with pictures of the famous scrap should take a good look and post them. just one man's opinion tongascrew

 

jawsalfa,

Any updates on the car? Are you or your father going to be at the Desert Concours again this year?

 

In November Jess Pouret was emphatic that the factory scrapped nothing in the early years.

Jeff

 

Any news??

 

Jim,

PM sent.

Jeff

 

I've heard/read that Anthony Bamford was a frequent buyer from the "Ferrari scrap pile", including the Lancia D50 drivetrains, a 246 F1 drivetrain, etc. Perhaps he could shed some light on this topic?

 

Jess' point was that in the first couple of year for the factory there wasn't a scrap pile because everything possible was used; original issue or by recycling.

Jeff

 

I closely inspected this car for more than three hours in the presence of the owner along with many other interested parties amongst who was Tom Shaughnessy.

The car had a period Gilco Frame. Possibly of Ferrari origin but even so it had none of the 1947-1948 style (version 1 through 3) features found on the earliest cars. The 10S stamp was period and done in the same manner as the earliest Ferrari 125-159-166 vehicles. The "1" stamp... lets just say not quite so legit and in an obviously wrong and inappropriate location.

The frame was heavily modified and had obviously been worked over and modified by rather less experienced fabricators than those at Gilco. Who knows when some of the modifications where done. I have my ideas but only Nowak's details and correspondences on the car tell the real story. (They are not mine to print or post, so do not ask.)

The only really early components on the car were those from the Spyder Corsa. The engine and all other bits and pieces all early 1950s components and none cast or assembled prior to 1950.

Nowak was involved with this car prior to its sale and long after as he communicated frequently with the owner. Those who want the real truth need to focus there research here on what he and the owner did and stop guessing what might have happened before their involvement with the car.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is ignoring the facts of how this car came to be.

If the current custodian wishes to keep perpetuating a different story then let him.

He is entitled to do as he wishes.

Just my thoughts... I could be wrong!

Bill Noon

PS: On a separate note, I spoke at great length with both Rogliatti and the original owner of 10I (01C/010I) Those who say Ferrari did not have a junk pile in the early days are correct. Ferrari did not throw anything away. He did however recycle old into new repeatedly until things finally started to become a bit more profitable. From the beginning however, bad ideas and mistakes were quickly and quietly sold on to unsuspecting clients. The original owner of 10I was repeatedly warned not to drive or practice with his car before the Targa Florio as the engine was estimated to be good for only 4 to 25 hours running time before needing a full overhaul!

The advent of thin-wall plain bearings vastly improved Columbo's original design and except for the problematic 5-speed gearbox and early hydraulic shocks, few major problems were seen with the advent of the client 166S, 166I and 166MM cars.

 

Bill

Putting 1C aside for the moment, is there any record anywhere of a Ferrari chassis 10S that you know of? Does anyone know of or have any information on Ferrari chassis 10S?

Cheers

 

Bill,

I take it that you have seen and read the Stan Nowak notes; correct? I further take it that you know who has possession of these notes; correct? Has this person been asked if they will give authorization to release the information?

Jess Pourret was emphatic in a conversation I had with him that, as you stated, the factory reused everything possible in the earliest days.

I am a bit weak on the specifics but is it correct that even in the earliest days Ferrari had the Client Service operation. Would that operaton have made updates for the clients and would such updates, if thy ever occurred, have been reflected back into the factory build sheets?

Jeff