125 and 159

Hi

Yes exactly. The 125 sports car chassis is the one I'm referring to where the chassis rails curve upwards at point of the shock mounts. I assume that that would be the 125 chassis that would have been used for 01C and may have been re used in 101I.

Best

 

OK.
The problem for me is that although I have seen 010I, 02 (your car, when owned by Sedorik), and 004C in the flesh, I never really inspected them or measured anything. I obviously have never seen a 125 sports in the flesh, other than the factory built "replica", and again did not inspect it or measure anything.

I agree with you that there are differences between what shows in photos that are available of the 125 sports chassis and the 166 sports chassis, but as to how, what, when, why and where I can only make a somewhat educataed guess. My specialty is NOT Ferrari, although I know a fair amount about them. Marcel's specialty IS Ferrari. I would certainly defer to his opinion.

As to 01C becoming 010I, it is nothing more than what I would call an "educated guess" on my part, and certainly nothing more than an an opinion; NOT fact.

As a scientist, my position on all matters is thus: Although such as thing as "ABSOLUTE TRUTH" or "TRUE KNOWLEDGE" may exist (some might call this knowing the mind of God), we as humans can only have an opinion and perception of what that is.

Maybe I'm too logical and rational for my own good, but I am who I am...



Best,
Stu

 

As I’ve already stated – in 1979 the wheelbase of 010I was the same as in 1947. In fact check Autocar 26 August 1979 where they did a write-up on 010I.
Also, 02C (also a 125, so the same w/b as 01C) had a SC style body, so to drop a SC style body on 01C wouldn’t be a problem.

Probably so that it fit into the numbering sequence that began with 006I.

No, but they do now !!

What about another chassis with 30+ years missing provenance? Are you going to apply the same logic to that?

With all respect to Stu he is not, by his own admission, a Ferrari expert. But many who are Ferrari experts accept that 010I began life as 01C way back in 1947, and they have accepted this for many years.
Nathan

 

Just to get cought up and understand this more clearly:

There is a current theory that 02C (one of two 125s) was wrecked and when rebuilt, it was given a new ID of 010I and sold as a new car (so, presumably, enzo could make more money). Although unconfirmed, the majority of Ferrari history scholars believes this.

There is a second possibility that the car was simply scrapped after the accident (then Tom Meade recovered it from the junkyard and rebuilt it - oh, sorry, wrong car ).

Assuming the first theory is correct, which is not being argued at the moment, the question is: how close to it's original configuration does 010I have to be to also claim 02C as it's SN?

To me, if the majority of the original chassis was used then the split SN, used on other cars, should apply - 010I / 02C.


Jim,

To me this is similar to your other car, (putting aside the current debate) the car was originally raced as a P3 in 1966 then it was converted to a P3/4. To me, the fact that it started life as a standard P3 doesn't get erased just because the factory modified it. To me the 010I history is similar, assuming the source of the chassis, modified or not, was 02C.

Regards,

Art S.

 

Art

01C. Here's the difference IMO. The chassis number in ****'s case stayed the same. O1C was crashed and destroyed and IMO if some of it's remains or even it's entire repaired chassis, was used to build another car the fact that Ferrari re stamped it with a new chassis number means it's a new car born on that day. This too is a Bill Clinton thing but in this case I think it's like the 20 year old with a transplanted heart of a 25 year old. He's 20 not 25.

Nathan

"What about another chassis with 30+ years missing provenance? Are you going to apply the same logic to that? "

Of course. Very respected Historians have been wrong many, many times that's why Dr. Stu who is a Doctor of Theoretical Physics and I beleive that it's important to prove things by scientific process as I did to Stu's satisfaction with ****.

In this case it seems to me that as the differences between a 125 chassis and a 166 chassis are clearly evident it would be a simple matter of how the chassis rails at the point of shock mounts look. I agree that if the wheelbase remains 125 that is very compelling evidence as well just as the wheel base of P3 **** vs P4 **** is very compelling as there is only one P car chassis with that modification: ****. Could respected Ferrari Historians have missed this for 26 years even though the chassis blueprints for a 125 and a 166 were readily available? Stranger things have happened...

As I've also said I hope the chassis remains of 01C do still exist because if they do, are in 010I, and ever come up for sale I like to buy them and restore 01C to it's 125 configuration.

Best

 

Jim,

I hope you do not restore 010I into 02C, even if it's chassis was originally a 125. Assuming the theory is correct, the two cars are one, this is like finding a Picasso painting where Picasso painted overtop of one of his own previous works - whould you destroy his newer work to reveal a previous piece? Another analogy, a bit closer to home: this would be like putting **** back to its P3 configuration.

Regarding the actual SN, remember that Ferrari swaped numbers around quite a bit to suit his or his customer's needs (if a customer traded in an old Ferrari on a new one, Ferrari would often swap serial numbers of the old and new cars to spare the customer taxes). Therefore, what is stamped on the chassis is not always as significant as what the chassis actually is. Today, these cars are usually reffered to by a dual serial number, the originally intended one and the actual one. Although the case of 02C is the reverse of what I described, the concept and reason are similar enough.

Regards,

Art S.

Regards,

Art S.

 

First, 01C was not crashed and destroyed. According to Ferrari **** was crashed and destroyed – so, according to your reasoning, that obviously doesn’t exist anymore either. (But, there’s another thread for that one.)

Your analogy, of course, is quite wrong. In this case it’s like a 50 year old man receiving the heart of a 25 yr old, and then changing his name. He’s still 50.
A chassis made in 1947 even with a different engine and a change of number was still made in 1947 – it’s simple.

And that is what has happened with 01C. It’s been proved to most Ferrari experts satisfaction, and has been for many years. If you refuse to accept what most experts accept then that’s your decision.
Nathan

 

Normally I'd agree with you but in this case (01C not 02C) as there are no original 125's existent it's an interesting thought. Remember at this point the discussion is entirely hypothetical as who knows if 010I is even for sale, it very well may not be, or if I'd be interested at what it would go for, and what Ferrari's thoughts would be. You could be right that it would be the wrong thing to do. One interesting point is if Nathan's right and there's nothing more to it than plopping on a different body, bolting in a different engine, gearbox etc. it's something as Bob said: "That could very be easily be done" and easily reversed at will.

Regards

 

Regarding Jim's comment: Does anyone know how much of the mechanical componentry of 01C made it into 010I? I thought the blocks of the 125, 159 and 166 were the same, just using different sleave bores.

Regards,

Art S.

 

I think if highly detailed photos of the chassis of 0101I, 02C, 004C, and of the Ferrari replica 125 were provided, as the cars currently exist, plus whatever blueprints and chassis photos exist from the date of creation were available all in one place, it would certainly help figure out what happened.

Does someone want to tackle this project? I simply don't have the time to tackle such an extensive project at the moment.

There is still a difference between "majority opinion" and absolute proof.

Both 01C becoming 010I, and that Jim's car is **** seem to me to be majority opinions. I don't think we will ever have anything close to absolute proof. Far too many of the people actually involved are long gone.

I certainly wouldn't change 010I back to 01C until I had a much more substantial amount of documentation than exists now.

 

Hi Art - it's not one I can answer, but I expect we'll find out one day.

You're right - blocks are the same, so no need to mess about with the chassis to fit a bigger engine;
125 = 55 x 52.5 = 1496.77cc
159 = 59 x 58.0 = 1902.84
166 = 60 x 58.8 = 1995.02
Source: Official Ferrari figures.

Another couple of interesting facts - FWIW;
Ferrari published Sales Sheets from 1946. They include the following information;
"125 Sport, Competition, Grand Prix" (1947) - Passo (wheelbase) = 2420
"166Sport,Inter,F2,MM" (1948/9) - 166 Inter - Passo (wheelbase) = 2420
Source: Official Ferrari figures.
Nathan

 

"Ferrari published Sales Sheets from 1946. They include the following information;
"125 Sport, Competition, Grand Prix" (1947) - Passo (wheelbase) = 2420
"166Sport,Inter,F2,MM" (1948/9) - 166 Inter - Passo (wheelbase) = 2420
Source: Official Ferrari figures."

Better and Better. I guess, as it always does, it comes down to the chassis which I'll try to get some photos of.

 

FYI:

Q020: from John Starkey, La Jolla
In the early drawings from Ferrari for the first Ferrari, dated 1946, the chassis is shown in plan form as having an 'X' bracing in the middle between the chassis longeron tubes. This 'X' also has a transverse
cross-bar through the middle of the 'X', linking the two longerons of the chassis. 010I is, apparently, the re-numbered 01C but the transverse bar is not in the chassis the car has now. There was also a cut-away drawing of 010I in a British magazine, ('Autocar', or 'Motor') in 1949. In this drawing, the transverse bar was missing. We know that 01C was re-bodied for the first time after a crash in August, 1947 when it was being test-driven by Righetti. (it was possibly re-numbered at this time also). Anybody have any ideas on the missing chassis cross-brace?

 

Does this mean you now agree?
Nathan

 

I neither yet agree or disagree. John's post claims the chassis is missing the transverse no more no less. I agree it's certainly possible and that's why I want to inspect the chassis to see if it's as you think, basically unmodified 125, modified 125 as John suggests, or 166 which would make it unlikely to be correct.

As an aside, totally hypothetically, assuming it is the original chassis of 01C the first Ferrari, do you think as there are no 125's existing that it would be the wrong thing to do to restore it to it's original configuration even with it's over stamping of 010I? Is what it became under Ferrari much like the few series I 250 GTO's that became Series II GTO's something better left as is. Many do take this view restoring to "As last raced" and I can see their point but other's feel it's all right to restore to another moment in time they prefer.

I'm not in any way being disingenuous I really am interested in your thoughts.

Best

 

Interestingly, if you go to the Gilco website it shows a drawing of the 125 chassis with the 'cross-bar', but in the photo there is no 'cross-bar'.
http://www.gilcodesign.com/doc/des/Ferrari125.htm
I also can't see any reason why Ferrari would cut the cross-bar out. The Gilco photo would suggest that it wasn't there in the first place.
Nathan
Nathan

 

Nathan,

What's your opinion on Jim's other question? I'm interested in your opinion on the option of reverting the car to its original form as well; if you are willing to share it.

Personally, as stated previously, I am against it as it would be like erasing the history of the car. The reason I am commenting is that Jim has both the means and ability to implement such a change, though the opportunity has not yet arisen. This 'theoretical' discussion may actually lead somewhere.

Regards,

Art S.

 

I think we need a LOT more photos of the chassis of 01C circa 1946 and of 010I circa 1948 to determine what is even close to the real story...

 

Look at this photo and there appears there WAS a cross bar (look next to the long plank they are using to align things..

http://www.gilcodesign.com/doc/des/GilcoFerrari.htm


Curiouser and Curiouser..

 

I agree.

Art

I really am asking a purely hypothetical question no more.

Best

 

That photo is NOT a 125. It's of a F1 chassis. Let's not confuse things even more.
http://www.gilcodesign.com/doc/des/Ferrari125.htm
Let's stick to the 125/166 thing please.
Nathan

 

I’m not sure that in this case it is possible to restore it. To me (IMO – FWIW – not much) to ‘restore’ it would mean to put the original parts back on it. But as they don’t exist then this wouldn’t be possible. It would be mainly another recreation, and as the factory have already done that then there’s not much point.
Also, I’m not the best person to ask because I think the SC body is much nicer the original 125S body. I’ve always been a fan of the SCs, even buying this wooden model about 20yrs ago. (see photo)
Nathan
PS – on 002C is the brake in the middle or on the right?
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

By brake do you mean foot brake or hand brake? The foot brake is conventional middle and handbrake in in center of car. Are the 125 recreation and 010I different? I've seen that, I assume you mean central throttle, on Bentleys but not on Ferrari's were the 125's like that? (Sports Cars or even GP cars?)

Very Cool Model.

 

OK, but my point was that was being built doesn't always conform with the blueprints, so wee need both data AND photos, and I have no idea what exists out there.....

 

Sorry - I meant foot-brake on right, throttle in centre. I was curious because the Scuderia Ferrari pre-war Alfas had foot-brake on right, throttle in centre (Some years back I had the privilege of driving Enzo's Alfa 8C 2300 - the one he won the 1931 Bobbio - Passo del Penice with) and I just wondered if they carried this over to the 125s etc. Just curious in case I ever get to drive one.
Nathan