Chassis 1C/10S Updated Information

Classiche have NEVER said that 10S was originally 001C.
Let's get this straight now - Classiche have said that 01C became 010I.
No one had heard of 10S until this car came along.
Two seperate issues here.
IMHO the only way to get the answers to these questions about this car is to contact Ferrari, and possibly take the car to the Classiche department and see what their tests show.
Nathan

 

IMHO this is unlikely. It seems that Ferrari was very careful in the early days as there wasn't a lot of cash to splash about, so cars were recycled, re-numbered, re-engined etc but discarded? Not very likely.
01C and 02C were both allegedly re-cycled, so if this is an early Ferrari chassis it seems unlikely that it was thrown away.
Nathan

 

Can they really be trusted?

 

About what?
Nathan

 

0818.

 

Isn't it that 001S was SUPPOSEDLY a 166 Allemano spider originally...and NOT 010S?

 

I agree with you on that one.

 

You guys are truly experts on this matter which I am not; My earliest car was a 1963. However there is reliance on Ferrari records which, on much later cars, proved in many cases to be inaccurate or nonexistant.

 

As long as they believe in good old Stanley's "3C" I have sincere doubts....!

 

I don't think this was Stanley's "3C" - This number originated with Ferrari and Ferrari have told more than one historian/writer that the first three cars were called 1C, 2C, 3C. But, who knows?
Nathan

 

Nathan
Can you identify which writer/historian(s) claim to have been told this by Ferrari, and in what book/article they have said this?
Thanks
Will

 

Hi Will
1st was the much maligned Stan Nowak. In Cavallino #1 he wrote "In 1964 the factory ... and advised that these cars were numbered 1C, 2C and 3C."
In the 1985 book "The Complete Ferrari" Godfrey Eaton also quotes the first three chassis as 1C,2C,3C.
And in 2009 Ferrari again stated in an email to a well-known Ferrari writer that the first three cars were numbered 1C,2C,3C.
Make of this what you will but it seems to me that Ferrari have been consistent in statements since 1964 at least.
Nathan

 

002 is now in Modena for her final restoration and Ferrari Classiche has been very helpful and will Classiche her. Her "Certificate of Origin" is clearly #3.

Cheers

 

Jim,

Do you mean by this that 002 is now being considered as the 3rd build? Is there some other significance to #3 for the certification?

Jeff

 

When 002 was sold it was sold with a bill of sale and a Certificate of Origin. The Certificate of origin stated that it was Certificate of Origin #3.

Enzo clearly referred to 002 as the First Ferrari he sold.

Both the COA/Bill of Sale/and Chassis stamp are 002. (Not 002C)

I believe it was 01C, 02C, 002, 004C.

Other's?

 

I thought the chassis of 3C was used to build the chassis off 002? 1C became 010I and 2C was too badly damaged. Rogliatti said 2C was scrapped and not rebuilt or perhaps I have it the other way around with 2C becoming 002 and 3C the chassis that was too badly damaged to be used over again. In any case, 002 and 004 were the first two Ferrari's sold to private clients and invoiced as such.

Cheers,

Bill

 

Fascinating thread - so, I decided to bump it so it doesnt get forgotten....


PDG

 

"3C" - We all know that good old Stanley came up with this as early as 1964. It is obvious that Nowak needed this identity to make all his different sales stories about "the oldest Ferrari" fit together at least partly.

It is also common knowledge that in the 60's NOBODY at Maranello gave a damn on the own history, so even IF Nowak's information was factory based I doubt its seriosity. Especially as later historians WITH access to the Ferrari archive had been unable to verify "3C". Surely it's easier to copy Stanley, which in fact happens even today.

For me it is fact that 002/002C was the 3rd Ferrari built. So to defend a "3C" it's all very easy - 3C was converted to 002, and it's "peace in the valley". But everybody who researched the 1947 Ferrari race history thoroughly must confirm that there is no place for a 3rd car until the appearance of 002/002C. Except such car was used exclusively as showroom exhibit (couldn't find the irony tags).

The Ferrari archive is no "chamber of treasure" which had been locked by 7 keys over decades, it was always open to serious historians, authors, and writers with the correct connections, so I sincerely doubt that "Ferrari Classiche", a team of young enthusiastic but unexperienced people, will be able to dig out any hidden secrets. Not because they are not able to, but because there are none left.

Everybody who seriously starts to dive into the very early Ferrari history more or less automatically comes across Stan Nowaks heritage. And starts with 1C, 2C, and 3C. I did the same 10 years ago. So let's wait whether Ferrari Classiche in 10 years still sticks to this miraculous 3C...
In the meantime - any photo showing 3C in 1947 is highly welcome and will receive a place of honour in my archive.

I can not resist to mention an example of historical competence, in this case even presented by a much more experienced heritage department - that of Daimler / Mercedes-Benz of Untertürkheim. The birth of the silver arrows, Eifelrennen Nürburgring 1934, the first year of the 750 kg Grand Prix formula which allowed a maximum dry weight of 750 kgs. The Mercedes W25 race cars, nicely finished in white, the then German race colour, had been weighed by the technical marshals with 751 kgs - and therefore were not allowed to start. But as usual race director Neubauer came up with a splendid idea - during the night they removed the white paint down to the bare silver alloy body, repeated the technical inspection with 749 kgs, and won the race.

Nice story, repeated not only by their PR department over and over again, but also by numerous respectable writers and authors over decades. But as serious historians they should dive into their enormous archive and look for the original "Ausschreibung" (Regulations) - they will find out that the Eifelrennen on 3 May 1934 was NOT held under the 750 kg formula, it was "formula libre" with absolutely no weight limit at all.....!

 

Hi Michael
Interesting post as usual - especially this part

I think that at that time - the early 1960s - Stan Nowak had the "correct connections". I believe that he received the 1C,2C,3C information from Ferrari. Just as it was repeated to a well-known writer earlier this year. Therefore your conclusion

must be correct.

It's interesting that Jim says

I think that the original factory nos. were 1C,2C,3C but they were re-numbered when Ferrari came to sell them?
Just thinking aloud. Otherwise we have to say that Nowak/Ferrari 1964 and Ferrari 2009 are just talking rubbish.
Nathan

 

Very interesting about the "Silver Arrows" !!

Best

As you know 002/002C is in Modena. You're welcome to visit her anytime. We're making a big effort to get her as right as possible. (Turin GP).

 

Within the last couple of weeks I have had conversations with at least 2 noted Ferrari historians that both say the earliest years need revisitation as there are too many "stories" that have been repeated so many time that they have become accepted as fact. We must also accept that in the early days it was sometimes beneficial to Ferrari itself to be creative with the truth.

As for the comment about Classiche being all young people; know for a fact that a well published unimpeachable Ferrari historian is part of the certification team.

I do wonder if the Corsa Clienti department records from the early days became part of the records that Classiche has access to. This might give a clue to some of the running updates made to the cars as they returned for service.

Jeff

 

And even if so, I doubt that in that period anybody at Maranello was able to give competent and correct answers about the company’s “stone age”. Today this is glorious history, but in the 60’s for the Old Man it was the time which best should be forgotten. It was ordered company policy only to look forward, not back.

Certificates of origin had only been issued when cars had been sold or road registered. Jim’s document is dated 30 Dec 1947, and states that the car has left the factory new on this date to Gabriele Besana. We know it was not new, because it was factory raced since September 1947.

Jim for sure can confirm that the frame of 002 is NOT renumbered. Of course I cannot exclude that 002 was originally PLANNED as 3C.

Historical research is not taking over what others are saying or writing. It must be based on categorie I sources, which means documents and/or photos. Did anybody ask Ferrari for their sources for “3C”? No, this is absolutely no arrogance, but logical thinking.

By the way, Mercedes-Benz has NO cat I sources for the paint stripping tale, only a chapter in Neubauer’s memoirs which had been written 25 years later. But I have a copy of the official Regulations issued by the organizers of the Eifelrennen confirming it was Formula Libre. Do we have to believe something only because it comes from a basically competent source?

I’m not talking about the COCER but the standard administration people in charge for archive and documentation including the head of department. Which I don’t want to miscredit, I only see the facts. It was surely no good PR to build the first 125S replica on an incorrect frame…

 

Hi, Tell us more about the "Corsa Clienti" department. I may have come across references to this but have no recolection[ I am over 70 so give me a break}.Anyway it sounds like a long hidden chamber of secrets. It's nice to hear from Michael Muller again.I have had discussions with him in the past and he seems to have an unrivaled archive of the very early Ferrari cars. Maybe he can add to the "Corsa Clienti" discussion. just one man's opinion Tongascrew

 

Hi Michael
Great to hear from you again. Your comments are always interesting.
In this instance I have to wonder why Ferrari have kept to the same story since 1964 - for 45 years - if it's not correct.

I doubt very much if the 1947 frames were even stamped. They only competed in local races with no need for carnets, chassis numbers until they were sold. Maybe then they were stamped.

Maybe Jim can ask these questions, especially as 3C probably refers to 002C. Maybe he can also ask about 1C,2C,3C - where the numbers came from, and what they refer to? Maybe he can also ask if the original chassis were actually stamped until they were sold?
Nathan

 

The word "since" imho is wrong, it should read "in 1964" and "today". In between I never heard of any factory statement concerning "3C", also not from historians close to them.
Couldn't it be the very easy way? Nowak wrote in 1964 "the factory says", so why counterchecking something which the collegues back then confirmed? As I said, everybody starting Ferrari research will start with Stan Nowak, so why not the Classiche people? Frankly spoken, I cannot accept that everything which comes from Maranello is taken in a similar way as these famous 2 stone slates Moses brought back from Mount Sinai.

Good idea!