Chassis 1C/10S Updated Information

Very true.

I don't know the legal requirements of chassis numbers in the day, but it would logically have to be the 10th chassis built by someone other than Ferrari, and that is production, which should be tracable.

Can we get to any result by a process of comparison and elimination? This may not confirm the provenance of the chassis, but could lead to a logical conslusion.

 

Doesn't that theory seem unlikely given the other early Ferrari components on this car?

Or would it be perceived to be a 'bitsa' with parts scavenged from many different sources giving the impression of an early connection to Ferrari? Certainly if that were the case, it wouldn't have been done intentionally (aka: for profit) given the length of time that has passed.

>8^)
ER

 

Nope. As Bill said a lot of components were shared on specials built in the day.

The bottom line remains.

These are NOT Ferrari numbers stamped on the chassis.

At this point unless the car is totally stripped down, examined, and compared I don't think more will be known.

 

That's a pretty definitive statement. Out of curiosity, is anybody besides Jim willing to close the book on this possibility at this time?

I think that most will agree that we have not seen these numbers from the factory. But why the sudden belief that the Factory Knows All? In my opinion it has been well established that early records have significant holes, and important events regarding early cars were not dutifully documented.

Whether this car is Ferrari or not is not to be decided by factory records or lack thereof. Same for any other possible early Ferrari (including "The Earliest Known Ferrari"). So let's open our collective minds to any possibility, and keep the search going.

Peter

 

And then there are some chassis which have no numbers stamped on them at all.

I agree that the known facts about the car and about Ferrari history have yet to line up, but do believe that keeping an open mind on this one is just as important as it was for a certain special car now in your possession.

>8^)
ER

 

Let's put these guys on the case, and we'll have the answer in around 45 minutes...
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Peter

It's more than the factory records. There is no Ferrari chassis numbering system that would come up with "10S". 10 is an even number. All of the 1947-1950 "xxS" Ferrari Chassis are odd numbers. (001S-0079S)

Best

 

See post 607. That's where the know facts about Ferrari Chassis numbering fail to line up.

If for example in the spot I'd shown John to look 001S or less likely 01C had shown up I'd have taken that very seriously but they didn't.

Best

 

That makes a very strong argument.

 

Am I missing something? I believe that there is interesting history beyond just the provenance of the chassis. Are the other parts that are alleged to be early Ferrari items (brakes, steering box) proven to be non-Ferrari? If the brakes really are of the very first design that is historically significant for that part regardless of the chassis. From all the discussions it appears that in any recycling of 01C and 02C the brakes of the first design were replaced with the then current design.

Jeff

 

See Bill's posts about "125" casting number brakes being used by several manufactures.

 

I think it's wrong to take too much notice of the 10S stamping. It could have been put on at any time by anybody.


The only way this will progress is by better analysis of the chassis.

 

Are you saying you think it's possible that IF this chassis shows all the features of a very early chassis like yours that it might have been made for another manufacturer (who then stamped it 10S)?

This other manufacturer would have had to first persuade Gilco to sell him a copy of Ferrari's chassis, he would also have to use exact copy suspension front & back & steering parts to fit the pickup points on the chassis. Then someone would need to have found the chassis, scrapped the other manufacturers parts and transferred all the early Ferrari bits back into it!

Of course if it doesn't have evidence of the correct pickup points then the other manufacturer scenario is most plausible

 

I have done a fairly extensive examination of chassis built by Gilco over the years both by physical examination and by looking what they have in their records (that they were willing to give me access to). Gilco built chassis to their own designs, but also to the designs of others. They also supplied their extruded tubing that is ovoid in section and tapered in length to various companies. IMO, the chassis we are speaking about was built by Gilco, or at the very least, uses Gilco tubing. I agree that the stampings on the chassis tell us nothing, but I think ruling out any possibility of the chassis being one they built for Ferrari is a mistake. We simply do not have enough evidence to completely rule out that possibility (and probably never will).

 

Bill has said several times, and he has inspected the chassis and has first had knowledge of early Ferrari Chassis, that it doesn't have correct Ferrari pickup points or evidence that they were once there and Stu has said that Gilco made chassis for a lot of manufactures other than Ferrari at this time and many small runs of Sports Cars were made in Italy during these times.

The chassis is not stamped in the proper place with a known Ferrari number.

I do agree that the only way to know more is to totally strip the car down to the chassis and compare it with an unquestioned Ferrari Chassis from the period.

I also agree that in the end the metal tells the story.

For example the first photo shows that at some point the wheelbase of this chassis was shortened by 12MM and the second photo shows that at some point an original chassis tube was cut and a triangle section added which changed the angle of the original tube to mate with a different Typo engine.
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

IMO things that can be bolted on and off prove nothing about the chassis. The Chassis is what it is and the ONLY way to get more information as to what it may or may not be is to strip it down, inspect, compare and measure it against unquestionable data.

Cheers

 

Absolutely, the metal tells the story!

The research you have done on your P car is the model of what can be achieved, and I hope this will progress that way whatever it reveals.

Regarding Bill's comments after his examination, it seems that John Williman's comments contradict some of this, and after all he has frequent access to the car, so I wonder if Bill overlooked or mistook something.

Time will (hopefully) tell............

 

Regarding the wheels: I believe the first car to receive such wheels after the first one was 015(S?)

 

I agree and your comment on some of Bill's comments being challenged by John is true and all the more reason why the next step that needs to be done to move us ahead is a total strip down and examination.

Without that we're plowing the same ground.

Best

 

Very interesting thread, have not read the entire post, but did take the time and effort to research my period notes. It is considered by many that 1c was built into 010 1 in 1948 as a special 166 and again renumbered 101 in 1948 and rebodies by Jackman GB. Have nothing to back this up just my personal notes. Perhaps this input can be interspersed with others and something can be concluded and this post can rest.

 

You really need to read this thread in combination with the threads:
001S (this page)
02C/020I (this page)
Y Draig Goch...010I (last post 09-10-2009)
01C or 02C the first? (last post 06-01-2009)

 

This is how this could have happened. An engineer/builder employee at Ferrari could have obtained much of what was needed from the famous scrap heap and in his own shop built this car. We will probably never know the true story but to me this is the post possible solution. just one man's opinion tongascrew

 

Anything is possible, but I think that guess is highly unlikely. I have seen absolutely NO evidence that supports that thought. Based on 40 years of studying "etceterinis", the work of Gilco, and everythying I can find on early Ferraris, I tend to believe the chassis concerned is, at least in part, early Ferrari....as to WHAT Ferrari I have no idea...

 

Read my comments again. The 1C chassis does appear to be "in part, early Ferrari".So far this is the best senerio I can come up with. Of course there is no written evidence to support this theory.If what I say is true, the builder most likely never kept any written record. He certainly would not want word to get fack to Ferrari what he was doing. And how many "hot rod" builders kept written records of their efforts? tongascrewjust one man's opinion