001S

As far as I am aware, Gilco made EVERY Ferrari chassis until circa 1958.

 

Art;
The wheelbase measurements that I have cited are the ones taken by Bill Noon at the palm springs show and posted by Bill in the original "01C or 02C" thread. If you look back at those postings by Bill N. (and the commentary that followed), you will get an idea where I have sought to clarify his observations with photographs (i.e., the assertion that the chassis did not, in fact, have a cut away in the front crossmember for an external crank).
The known history of 001S would indeed be interesting to add to the discussion if, in fact, there was any connection.
I believe that Michael Muller pointed out in an earlier chassis design discussion (very well done by the way) that it is believed that 001S was built upon a chassis with an underslung rear (as opposed to overarching) similar to 003S. Michael, kindly correct me if I have inaccurately represented this observation of yours.
One question for the group... How easy was it to switch between the solid borani wheels and the wire ones? Would the wire rim "fit" with the drum brakes as seen on 1/10S or would mods have to be made to accomodate another style rim (given spline length etc...)?
Thanks.
-john

 

It's relatively easy to switch from CABO 'artillery' wheels to Boranni wires, at least on a Maserati of the same era that Bill N. knows well. It just required machining the inboard side of the wheel hub for proper clearance.

 

001S is clearly listed in race records 1C/10S/1 is not.

Until this chassis is stripped, measured, inspected and compared we're plowing the same ground.

As an aside stripping this car to a bare chassis to see what it is could be done in a very short time.

Cheers

 

Thus they could also have made a new one

Sorry don't get your point. The point I was trying to debate is that Ferrari was so limited and small that it could not fix a car by not just bending the old one straight. I think this view is inaccurate as they ran the Alfa Romeo works race team, made machine tools, etc.

Doesn't take much to make a mere car ...
Pete

 

I thought your implication was that Ferrari themselves could have built a replacement chassis.

 

Arh understood ... well I think they could have but maybe they were better at the machining and casting than welding.

Best
Pete

 

I found that at the 9° Coppa d'Aspromonte Domenico Tramontana was driving an unknown car under 1400cc

Willy

 

Unfortunately the race was held in 2009 (cc. Historic racing). Nothing from the Giro di Sicilia.

Willy

 

Post 54 confirmed as per:

http://www.targaflorio.info/35.htm

So now, we are faced with an unknown Ferrari 166MM, 2 liter class.

Willy

 

I haven't found anything on a 166MM raced by Domenico Tramontana. I wonder if this car could be an early rebodied cycle fendered spider.

Maybe tile to start a new thread called unknown 166 spider driven by Domenico Tramontana.

Willy

 

Barchetta has a photograph of a berlinetta which is wrong.

If the car owned by Domenico Tramontana is a rebuilt 166 spider, I have two candidates, rebodied as barchetta and sold in 1950-1951:

006I Antonio Viselli, spider Vignale designo di Michelotti. (Unlikely as per Ferrari by Vignale-Marcel Massini)

012I Felber rebodied barchetta

Willy

 

According to the Auto-plus forum:

The Ferrari in 1950 returns in Sicily and with a body modified in the posterior one shortened of 30 cm. with n.12 the Baron the Motta runs the Montepellegrino of 1951 and the circuit of Palermo.

the car comes subsequently re-plate Pa 19181 and entrusted for Targa Florio 1951 to Domenico Tramontana and Andrea Cardella it is withdrawn to a turn (?) . The car is be ulteriorly modified, over the posterior cowling finds place the spare wheel (external to the body) is introduced to the departure lacking in the template and with a single beacon! not are more the mythical wheels Borrani, but of the normal wheels to beams.

Later on, the car was completely destroyed.

Willy

 

Sorry, both are wrong.
10S HAS the frame design of 002/002C (Jim's car), the bended tubes welded together in the middle. Below photo of 002 (in the workshop) and 10S (from underneath). The transverse in place at 10S we already agreed last year is not original.
Contrary to the bended tubes layout (which afaik is typical for the LWB Spyder Corsas) 001S most probably had a complete different layout, at least if we consider her similar to sister car 003S. At the bottom a photo taking at Maranello in early (Jan/Feb) 1948 showing the chassis of 003S. At least this is my believe, as the frame is designed to carry a full width body (see my markings). 001S was on the road then already, and 005S too far away. The layout is "back to the roots", i.e. it shows that of the 1946 blueprint. This of course makes sense for road cars carrying a rather heavy body contrary to the pure competition SC's. Although there is no prove for that it should be logical that 001S had the same chassis configuration as 003S.
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

I agree.

Best

 

Topic frames.

In those days there had been only 2 options for a damaged frame - repairable or unrepairable. The "repairable" often went hairraising far, especially for cars like Ferraris where frames had been no internal spare parts but needed ordered from GILCO - with often long delivery times. If a frame was "unrepairable" you can bet that the rest of the car was the same. Only some components may have been saved for spares. In practice a new frame meant a new car.

 

Domenico Tramontana owned #001S. He bought her from the heirs of Stefano La Motta (who had a fatal accident with an Alfa Romeo 1900 during the Giro di Sicilia in April that year) on 29 July 1950. He either kept La Motta's registration "PA 17370" or used her unregistred for competition only. Registration then at Palermo on 29 March 1951 "PA 19181" on the name of Mrs. Matilde Grasso. As usual in those days in Italy - and especially on Sicily - luxury cars often were registred on the name of rather poor relatives or employees in order to keep the tax office away....

Tramontana (not La Motta!) raced 001S at the "Coppa Citta' di Palermo" on the Circuito della Favorita on 1 Oct 1950 (r/n 58, 4 photos) with her original front bodywork, but with shortened rear. Probably this modification happened already under La Motta's ownership, or even when owned by Sterzi. All photos I have of la Motta don't show the rear. Reports that the wheelbase was shortened for 30 cm are nonsens, it seems that this figure was related to the overall length.

At next year's Targa Florio on 9.9.1951 (r/n 12, 3 photos) the car appeared with a new nose, rather crude and ugly, thus possibly the result of an earlier accident. And also one week later at the Catania-Etna hillclimb (r/n 246, 1 photo).

On 3 October 1951 001S changed hands officially from Mrs. Grasso to Silvio Cammarata of Palermo. I believe that this was only another "protective registration" of Tramontana.

For 1952 the bodywork changed completely, the car is now fitted with a SC-like cycle-fendered body. Tramontana raced her at the Targa Florio on 9 June 1952 (r/n 10, 1 photo), and the Monte Pellegrino hillclimb (1 photo).
There is absolutely no relation to #006I (which in 1952 was in Rome with different owners) or #012I which then was still owned by the Marzottos (with Fontana barchetta body). I also don't believe that the former SC body of 012I found its way to Sicily, it was different in many details. I checked the histories of all Spyder Corsas, based on my knowledge none of them could have been Tramontana's 1952 car, so I am convinced that 001S was in fact rebodied.

In 1953 the car was sold and changed hands various times during the 50's - all within Sicily.

 

and then?

 

Jim,

and then it became 10S - sorry, couldn't resist...


Michael,

I am curious about your assumption that 001S' chassis is similar to 003S as opposed to 002I. If I recall, we debated whether the first two 'heavy' chassis were used in 01C and 02C or if they were put aside (and presumably used in later cars). I do not recall the consensus on the matter. Are the track and wheelbase the same on all three? How confident are you that the third picture is 003S?

To me, it seems logical that the chassis were made in small batches to a given design. A batch of chassis were made, they were used and learned from then the design was modified/improved based on the gained knowledge and the next batch would be ordered based on the modified/improved design. I cannot imagine Ferrari retreated to an earlier design. Thus, if 10S/1 is of the same design, then it must be very close in number. Similar chassis, as I understand it, are 010I (presumed to be 01C) 002I, 10S/1/?, and which others?

Regards,

Art S.

 

Below the full picture, no idea about copyright, if somebody complains will ask for immediate removal.

2 Spyder Corsas in progress, both with the frame arched over the rear axle thus LWB versions. The car in the middle has a firewall for horizontal magnetos. It has no passenger door, where the one in the back has one. Standard nose cones, one mounted, one on the work bench.

We can exclude 002(C) as it was a one-off, and it had the older version nose cone. Same for 004C. 008I and 014I had been SWB with underslung frames. 012I and 016I had vertical magnetos. So we have left over 006I and 010I, for which all details fit. Arched frame and horizontal mags, 010I was a 2-seater and 006I an offset singleseater. This photo confirms also that the horseshoe grille of 010I was not original but only fitted after the Sicily accident in April 1948.

Both cars had been delivered to Scuderia Inter end of March 1948, so considering the state of assembly we can date the photo to Jan/Feb 1948. As pointed out already, the chassis in the foreground is clearly designed for carrying a full width body. Cert. of Origin for 001S was issued on 4 Feb 1948, thus we exclude her. 005S first appeared at the Turin Motor Show in November 1948, we can be sure that Ferrari would have shown her to the public earlier if ready already in April or May. Thus only 003S which first appeared at the Mille Miglia on 2 May 1948 would be the only logical option.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

If I remember correctly (too lazy to check right now) all early cars had 2420 mm wheelbase. So indeed we can not exclude that the first 2 GILCO frames had been put aside and used for 001S and 003S. However, having 2 - paid - frames lying around for more than 1 year would not fit to Ferrari's then financial situation. We also have to consider the report that after the delivery of the first 2 (heavy) frames GILCO supplied 1 new (light) frame. If the first 2 frames indeed had been put aside, then GILCO should have made 2 (01C/02C) or even 3 (002) new light frames. The frame story is reported by John Starkey, however, afaik he didn't disclosed the source for it. Anybody knowing more?

 

Sorry, but wrong thinking. "Old" does not automatically mean "bad". What was wrong with the 2 first frames? They had been too heavy. Too heavy for what? For the competition cars 01C and 02C. But not for road cars like 001S and 003S, which didn't need the fragility of pure race cars, and which had to carry also heavier bodies. Most of the 166 (and even 195/212) road cars (odd numbers) had this frame layout, thus for sure it was neither bad nor outdated.

 

Off-topic in this thread, but anyhow. Already in the very early discussion about 10S I have noted that her frame design is identical to that of the LWB Spyder Corsas. At least the middle section with the bended tubes. No time to re-read the original thread - anybody remembering the rear layout of 10S? Arched over the axle or underslung?

 

Michael

All good thoughts.

Any more history of 001S?

Best

 

arched over