News

01C or 02C The first ?

Discussion in 'Vintage (thru 365 GTC4)' started by Gilles, Apr 28, 2004.

  1. richardowen

    richardowen Formula Junior

    Apr 2, 2004
    837
    Montreal, Canada
    Every photo I have of 02C is a roadster, with full enveloping fenders. Where do you get this information?
     
  2. richardowen

    richardowen Formula Junior

    Apr 2, 2004
    837
    Montreal, Canada
    Doesn't 001S fit into somewhere? Or is it a later car?
     
  3. Michael Muller

    Michael Muller Formula Junior
    Silver Subscribed

    Apr 28, 2004
    553
    Bergen NH (NL)
    Full Name:
    Michael Muller
    Just leaning back, slurping my coffee, nibbling some peanuts, and watch the show....

    There are 2 (two) Spyder Corsas being built at the same time, not that ugly 02C "cigaro". And if you look at both nose cones, then none of them could be 002C. Which was built anyway as a one-off in August 1947.
     
  4. kare

    kare F1 Rookie
    Consultant

    Nov 11, 2003
    3,228
    The chassis in foreground might very well be either 001/S or 003/S.
     
  5. richardowen

    richardowen Formula Junior

    Apr 2, 2004
    837
    Montreal, Canada
    Does anyone have pictures of the 02C cigaro?
     
  6. piloti

    piloti Formula 3
    Honorary

    Jul 11, 2004
    1,549
    England
    Full Name:
    Nathan Beehl
    #256 piloti, Mar 6, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 7, 2017
  7. Napolis

    Napolis Three Time F1 World Champ
    Owner Honorary

    Oct 23, 2002
    32,118
    Full Name:
    Jim Glickenhaus

    While you're doing that why don't to explain to all of us why you were so sure for decades that Ed's car was 031S before it was proven by physical evidence to be stamped 10S.
     
  8. ArtS

    ArtS F1 Veteran
    Rossa Subscribed Owner

    Nov 11, 2003
    5,971
    Central NJ
    Jim,

    The 31S thing is based on the article Bill Noon posted. Also the chassis in the '47 picture has cross member through the X that appears to be made out of tube rather than plate.



    Nathan,

    Very cool!


    Regards,

    Art S.
     
  9. Napolis

    Napolis Three Time F1 World Champ
    Owner Honorary

    Oct 23, 2002
    32,118
    Full Name:
    Jim Glickenhaus
    All true but for decades many Experts have unequivably thought that Ed's car is 031S when it clearly is not.

    I have asked Ed to post a photo of the other 1C stamping on the chassis, any evidence of previous bracketry, and what he knows.

    I asked him about the date of his purchasing the car in light of his telling me that the Motto body was attached when he bought it and he did not buy the Motto body or attach it and he that he had told me 1968 and he said he may be wrong and it may have been in the early Seventies.

    The mysteries continue...
     
  10. modena1_2003

    modena1_2003 F1 Rookie

    Aug 17, 2005
    3,702
    North Carolina
    Full Name:
    Jon
    Then it all makes sense.... Except with the matter of the other two cars, then it's foggy as hell...



    _J
     
  11. emiel

    emiel Karting

    Sep 26, 2006
    79
    Vlissingen
    Full Name:
    Emiel Wind
    In the 1947 pic (which is amazing!) the car on the far end if it is in fact 002C than the tail section looks slightly different (lower) in comparison with the body today i.m.o.
     
  12. Napolis

    Napolis Three Time F1 World Champ
    Owner Honorary

    Oct 23, 2002
    32,118
    Full Name:
    Jim Glickenhaus
    It's not. You also have to be very carefull when looking at photographs as the angle/focal lenght/f stop can make things look different. foreshadowing for example.
     
  13. tongascrew

    tongascrew F1 Rookie

    Jan 3, 2006
    2,989
    tewksbury
    Full Name:
    george burgess
    Hi, not quite sure what you mean by 1C stamp. It seems clear that the only stamps found so far are 10S. A few comments on the central cross brace. If you look at the frame of the factory repro of 01C you will see there is no cross brace at the center of the X. Briefly the original 01C was owned by Branford, sold march 1975, other owners before D K Eng. restoration started, 1996 to Symbolic where I believe the "Ferrari Fifty Years on the Track" photo was taken. No central crossmember shown in that photo which probably should be titled "01C restamped 010I". It does seem strange that the cross member wasn't added to this frame eather when it became 010I or later. Also there are two rear crossmembers connecting the outside rear over arching frame rails. Presumably one is forward of the differential and the othere behind it. The forward one has another flat channeled cross bar above the original oval one but from what I can see the oval one is slightly bent vertically in the middle which is correct and contained the original anti roll bar. Regarding Colombo, if you look at the 1945 chassis drawings he did the X member is there with no crossmember and a wheel base of 2400mm. It can be presumed that when Gilco got these original 166 drawings they lengthened the wheelbase to 2420mm but left out a central cross member. When the 166 chassis started to be built in 1948 with the longer 2600mm wheelbase and more powerful engine Gilco add the crossmember and strengthened the joint at the center of the X. This is what logic would tell you and is just one man's opinion.What was done at Ferrari in those days often defied logic, so go figure. Tongascrew
     
  14. Napolis

    Napolis Three Time F1 World Champ
    Owner Honorary

    Oct 23, 2002
    32,118
    Full Name:
    Jim Glickenhaus
    10S is also stamped 1C in two places on the frame for what ever that may or may not mean. I also note your point that it is strange that the cross brace wasn't added when 010I was built if that is in fact what happened and I hope that the allegation of forged chassis stampings on 01C/010I that Tom S. reported are cleared up one way or the other.

    Best and Thanks for interesting thoughts!
     
  15. piloti

    piloti Formula 3
    Honorary

    Jul 11, 2004
    1,549
    England
    Full Name:
    Nathan Beehl
    I want to listen! So, I have spoken to this individual and he confirms what Tom says. His story is quite interesting and probably throws up more questions than answers.
    He says that when 010I came into his possession (in the 1960s) there were NO stamps on the chassis. In order to register the car in England, and to export it, the chassis had to be stamped. This was not a forgery (unless one wants to look at it that way) in as much as it wasn't done to try and pass off the car as something it wasn't. The car was known to be 010I and stamping the chassis was a means of establishing its legal identity.
    Apparently the first stamping was incorrect and the chassis had to be stamped again.
    Nathan
     
  16. Napolis

    Napolis Three Time F1 World Champ
    Owner Honorary

    Oct 23, 2002
    32,118
    Full Name:
    Jim Glickenhaus
    Very Interesting! When you say no stamps I assume that as Bill later discovered the "01C" under a plug of lead which was stamped 010I that this person incorrectly stamped the "01C" and covered it with lead and then stamped 010I? That he meant to stamp 010I but his first attempt errornously came out "01C" so he covered it up and stamped 010I? He owned the car, legitimately believed it to be 010I, for whatever reason found no chassis stamps, needed to have chassis stampings on it to export it from the UK, tried to stamp it 010I, made a mistake and mis-stamped it "01C", (Picked up the C stamp instead of the 0 stamp) covered up the mis-stamp with lead, and restamped the Wilbanks car 010I in the 1960 ies?

    I agree that this does throw up more questions than it answers.

    Best
     
  17. tongascrew

    tongascrew F1 Rookie

    Jan 3, 2006
    2,989
    tewksbury
    Full Name:
    george burgess
    I wonder who the mystery person is and can he/she explain how this chassis came into England with no chassis numbers. As we all recall when Folland imported his car into England he had to to try all kind of tricks to avoid paying the big import duty and was finally forced to ship to car on the sly to Belgium before the tax man caught up with him There is something funny going on here which I doubt we have much chance ever getting to the bottom of. And there are so many possible explanations it would probably fill a large folio but what a mystery story it would be. What ever the case 01C had this stamp on it when it was built and presumably it was there when it was returned to Ferrari at the end of 1947.Someone is going to have to come up with a pretty convincing story to upset what is generally believed to be what happened from 1948 and beyond.Maybe the mystery man has some thoughts on this.Tongascrew
     
  18. tongascrew

    tongascrew F1 Rookie

    Jan 3, 2006
    2,989
    tewksbury
    Full Name:
    george burgess
    Just an observation about this photo. The two bodies with their high ernveloping cockpit sides look like they could be F2 monoposto bodies. It's hard to tell but the single windscreen looks like it could be in the middle. Again it is hard to tell but looking carefully an the car in the background it looks like the chassis could be underslung at the back F2 style. The body in the middle could seems to be the same F2 cockpit style but is on an early 125 type frame with the rear end up sweep. This could be temporary or some kind of trial mounting. We will probably never know. Tongascrew
     
  19. Michael Muller

    Michael Muller Formula Junior
    Silver Subscribed

    Apr 28, 2004
    553
    Bergen NH (NL)
    Full Name:
    Michael Muller
    The car at that time was not imported, it was temporary brought into the country. This procedure was usual for non-roadregistered racing cars, a so-called Carnet document was used. But that is exactly the point - the Carbet regulations had been - and still are - very strict, in order to make sure that the same goods left the country which had been brought in before the description must be very detailed, for vehicles a identification number normally was a must.
     
  20. Michael Muller

    Michael Muller Formula Junior
    Silver Subscribed

    Apr 28, 2004
    553
    Bergen NH (NL)
    Full Name:
    Michael Muller
    By looking carefully - okay, I have a better version of the photo - also the car in the background has an arched frame. There had been no F2 monoposti in 1948, only 125 F1 of which one at one occasion carried a 166 F2 engine. The bodywork and especially the nose of these cars was totally different, even the prototype, which had a similar nose, was still different. One nosecone is mounted already to the car, the other one - fairly identical - can be seem on the work bench. All the singleseaters had vertical magnetos, and at least the car in the middle is built for horizontal ones.
     
  21. piloti

    piloti Formula 3
    Honorary

    Jul 11, 2004
    1,549
    England
    Full Name:
    Nathan Beehl
    Fact: The 'mystery man' told me that 010I was imported the second time as spares. It was imported in pieces and didn't even have a body. It was imported as spares and then built up when it landed. The first body (built in England) was similar to a 250TR body, and when the mystery man bought the car it had no body (as he didn't want the 250TR style body), which is why a replica SC body was made.
    Conjecture: If the chassis was being imported as a spare/replacement chassis then the absence of chassis stamps might make sense? The presence of a chasis stamp might have raised questions with customs? Maybe the original 01C stamp was under lead which fell off 40 years later?
    Nathan
     
  22. kare

    kare F1 Rookie
    Consultant

    Nov 11, 2003
    3,228
    This is turning into a farce ;op
     
  23. emiel

    emiel Karting

    Sep 26, 2006
    79
    Vlissingen
    Full Name:
    Emiel Wind
    When I read this, it seems possible that the importer needed the chassis to have no number on it and that he might have covered the chassis number with lead to avoid difficulties at customs. It seems pretty unbelievable to cover up such a chassis number.
     
  24. Napolis

    Napolis Three Time F1 World Champ
    Owner Honorary

    Oct 23, 2002
    32,118
    Full Name:
    Jim Glickenhaus
    I agree. It will be interesting to see how may are willing to go on record. In light of all of this do you believe the Willbanks car is built on the re used chassis of 01C?

    I don't. I also believe that it's possible that it's not even an original chassis but is a spare chassis built at a much later time mistakenly first stamped 01C covered with lead to erase the mistake and restamped 010I. I don't believe Ferrari would have covered an original stamping with lead and re stamped the lead. Lead is too soft and non durable. I think if Ferrari had wanted to re use 01C's chassis they would have simply ground off the original stamping and re stamped the chassis. I had a good look at 002C/I's stampings today. The original stamping is on a ground flat section of the front cross member. There is plenty of metal left of the flat to grind it smooth and re stamp it if you wanted too. I think the idea that the original stamping would have been covered up with lead and then re stamped is silly. The simplest answer is that the chassis imported into England was un stamped is because it was a spare/replica un stamped chassis not an original one.
     
  25. kare

    kare F1 Rookie
    Consultant

    Nov 11, 2003
    3,228
    I am uncomfortably far from my expertise (being what?) here and too confused with all the chassis numbers coming and going to keep track on who is talking about which chassis at each time, who of all people may eventually have a brilliant idea and who don't have a clue etc. Few thoughts though:

    I think applying lead would be a very good way to cover up an old chassis stamping. I am not willing to speculate on WHO applied the lead, but probably someone who was familiar working with cars. He wasn't probably thinking that it should last for decades in the first place...

    I am very sceptic about the different chassis types. This is where I really am outside my knowledge: which Corsa Spiders - if any - do have that extra beam running across that "X" in the center of the frame?

    All the early road car frames seem to have one and I am tempted to think that it has something to do with supporting the full width bodywork, really. I am quite sure it doesn't really strengthen the frame in any way...

    The cross beam on Willbank's chassis looks like a rectangular steel profile. It may (based on my speculation above) indicate this was a corsa/cycle wing/monoposto/whatever chassis which was modified for street use. I have no idea where this frame came from. I have no problem with this chassis having been used in 031/S, if that is what people are saying. The early frames seem to carry all kinds of stampings (an evetual "10S" doesn't really surprice me!) and I wouldn't be shocked if an early chassis would in some odd case carry no stamping at all! you don't really need a chassis stamp when you have the type plate on your firewall...

    I do not expect anyone to be able to comment any of this but would neither be too surpriced if it turned out that some old frames were refurbished and put into production in the early days. They were no fools.

    But mostly I think that the speculation this thread has turned into is futile. Concentrating on facts would get us much further.

    Best wishes, Kare
     

Share This Page