01C or 02C The first ?

I've added two more photos. Hopefully they will show more of the rear suspension. I don't think they that clear but I don't have an expert eye. One is looking past the leading edge of the rear wheel on the right side. Second is looking from behind at the rear left side spring.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/24302083@N05/sets/72157604031063929/

 

Michael

The bottom line remains. We have a photo of 002C and everyone is invited to measure and inspect any and all parts of her as they are all my cars to determine what they are and what they are not.

The owner of this car allowed his car to be inspected and photographed.

Bill has stated that the Willbanks car matches the 46/47 Chassis drawings but to date if the photo that is posted is of the replica in the Ferrari museum (Made by Ferrari to the wrong blueprints which is another matter) until we see a photo proving what Bill has stated we remain in the dark. As you know there are chassis that exactly match the drawings photo's of which you commented that no one seemed to comment on.

Tom S has unequivicolly stated that he has been told by the person who claims to have forged them that the chassis stampings on the Wilbanks car are forged. I have not seen or heard of ANY evidence refuting that.

This is obviously a deep and wide mystery. Ferrari itself didn't realize what the correct chassis drawings were at the point they commissioned the Replica for the Museum if you are correct.

Let's let the sun shine in. Is the person claiming to have forged the stampings on the Willbanks car telling the truth? Was the chassis brace you pointed out added later? Why do later chassis exactly match the drawings? I'm willing to have 002C fully inspected. I believe the owner of 10S is. What does Tom S say after seeing this car? What do other experts say. Where are the photographs that prove that the Willbanks car is beyond the shadow of any doubt 01C and will physical inspection confirm that? If Ferrari was wrong and used the wrong blueprints to make their Museum replica I think this is a very complex problem.


"One exception is 010I, where the cross section is fishmouthwelded without center brace." Please explain how this statement
made by you can possibly mean Bill's statement that the Willbanks car Exactly matches the 46/47 Chassis Drawings?

The Willbanks car does not have a center brace but the chassis drawings do. How am I wrong about this??

Best

 

Jim, we're not discussing 002C or 010I or 01C, topic here and now is 031S.
We disagree about the X section, in your opinion the tubes are fishmouthwelded, in my opinion they are bent.
Let's see what the others are saying.

 

Looks like the frame is indeed arching over the rear axle. Which is not the frame design one would expect from a 166 Inter from 1949, which afaik all had underslung frames. Except the stiffening center brace in the X section the frame looks like a LWB Spyder Corsa. Which is interesting enough as such....!

 

Bill Noon:

"The chassis is stamped "10S" in the correct position for a 166 Sport / Inter."

Michael:

"topic here and now is 031S"

Both of you cannot be correct.

 

Jim, frankly spoken I cannot follow you.
"In the correct position" does not mean that the figure itself (10S) is correct.

Let's face the facts.
The car in question since decades is known as #031S. AFAIK it received in the 70's the Motto body and a 212 engine.
The frame is stamped with "10S", which does not fit to any Ferrari typology. The car carries a homemade plate saying it is "TEL - FERRARI *01C*" and "CAR - MOTTO *002*". Great! That's all?
Up to now we only have some press announcements that this is the oldest Ferrari, no history research details, and no statement by the owner WHY he believes it is.
So why all this hype?

 

Michael

This car is not nor has it ever been 031S. That is pure fact. That is simply an error repeated over and over.

Of course that plate was made by Stan Nowack when he was trying to pass 002C (I) off as the "First Ferrari".

The chassis DOES have stampings and one of them is 10S and the other one which is not yet public but will speak Very loudly for itself...

It is my opinion that this whole thing is part of a massive series of events that will be unfolding and that the truth will come out and it will be very interesting...

 

Jim,

You seem to already be privy to some of the additional information that has not been generally released yet. I would encourage those involved to disseminate this into an open forum so that everyone can see the evidence and make evaluations. You make it almost sound like the keepers of the information have some intention of doling out this in tidbits.

I also hope that there are multiple experts involved o that this is not a singular opinion. It might also be useful if the component codes are given so it is possible to understand if more than just the frame date to the beginning.

Jeff

 

This discussion is very interesting to follow, like reading an exciting thriller. One question though, is "the Wilbanks car" 010I, which has been discussed in the earlier thread with all the drawings etc?

 

I too very much encourage the dissemination of any and all of this information. I'm still waiting for the photographs I asked Bill to post and for Tom S. to weigh in.

I will say that I have been told that there is vestigial evidence of previous shock absorber mounts on this chassis among other things.

Scientific method will answer this mystery.

Best

 

Yes and some believe that it's chassis is the Over/restamped chassis of 01C.

 

Is it known yet who the "cast of characters" are that are in on this find? From your comment Bill N. and Tom S. are somewhere "in the know".

Jeff

 

We shall see...

 

Yes, I followed the older thread where the lead plug, the cross members and all that stuff had been discussed. Thank you!

 

This may very well be the real thing. The question is which "real thing" Just a few observations.The picture of the interior;note the shape of the stick shift nob. A closeup picture would be nice but it appears to be a round cornered triangle with a flat surface in the center of which is a slightly raised rectangle. My guess is there was originally an orange bakeolite nob on there probably with the shift pattern on it. Regarding the center X frame members it is hard to tell if they are actually joined at the center but it looks like they may be. Small extra bracing pieces have been installed at the inside joint.Regarding the outside support members connecting the chassis rails to the joint of the X member my guess is they were added at a later date. The very early Gilco frames had no support members of this type and the early Giclo drawings which do show these support members show them to be of the oval tubular type. The ones in the photo are flat, maybe half inch thick. bars. As I recall #002 does not have these same support members.and if it can be established the ones on this frame are not original it could help establish that this is in fact a very early 1947 frame. It could then be that #OIO"s frame w=may not have been from 01C. That this frame is 01C and 010"s frame was built from scratch. Well isn't this really what it is all about.Let's hear more. tongascrew

 

That's not the question, of course they are joined by welding, otherwise the X structure makes no sense at all.
Again, below a cutout from the 1946 drawing showing the center X section. 4 separate tubes are forming the X, they are fishmothwelded to the cross brace tube.
Please compare it with John's photo.
The next picture shows how this drawing looks in reality. Please compare again.
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

What would 1C's frame look like?

 

Seems you know it.
Quote from your #168:
"EXACTLY AS IN COLUMBO"S ORIGINAL CHASSIS DRAWING THAT WAS USED TO MAKE 01C."

 

Not 01C. 1C.

 

Just so everyone understands this car is not for sale nor are it's wheels...

 

What is the story on the wheels (besides 3-alloy/1-steel)?

Is the (one) steel wheel originally specified? Oriented to right rear?

 

I will start posting photos that I took with Ed and his car over the weekend. The chassis has what appears to be a correct original period stamp on the upper-left, main-frame rail between the two motor mounts. Very standard stuff and in the place one would normally look and expect to see the chassis number on any 166-195-212, 250 series Ferrari. Nothing appears to be out of the ordinary except that it does not fit everyone's logical thinking of what it should be. The number is "10S" and it is not stamped over anything or shows any signs of being altered.

There is another number "1C" stamped on the top of the front cross member. The stamping is very small and very perfect. It is in a location that I have never seen a Ferrari chassis stamped before. Like his made up chassis plate, it looks possibly like something Stan added to the car circa 1967-1968.

The wheel-base is 2420mm and the front track 1250mm. The rear track is also very close to 1250mm but as the car now sports a narrowed Ford rear axle, it is impossible to guess what it might have originally been. The frame has no provision nor any machined brackets/holes for the hydraulic shocks or separate hand crank / external starter motor assembly. The frame also has no provision or had any ever for the rear-sway bar. The frame is a standard late Gilco type "tall and narrow unit.

The engine is a late 1950 to early 1951 standard 166 motor. It is sequentially the 160th engine built. The original engine number has been purposefully and carefully machined off. The carbs are 36mm and rather than having one, three have been fitted on separate manifolds. The gearbox is also a 3rd generation item and a normal 166 part with the internal no. 46.

From my perspective the car is simply fantastic and looks like it would be a blast to race and have fun with.

Historically it represents three important time periods and evolutions of Ferrari from their early days. The earliest part of the car being the body, then the chassis and still later the drive-train. I have provided all of my photos to two prominent Ferrari historians for future use and reference as well as to Ferrari's Classiche Department. Warm regards, Bill Noon
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

More photos from the show:
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Thanks for the report, very impressive.

 

Hi Bill,

I looked at a lot of stamps when evaluating 0052M and have collected a couple examples to use as a basis for my cars comparison. So, I have paste 10C/ 1C stamps next to various 1950 chassis stamps.
It's convenient to compare the 10S and 1C stamps side by side (see below). Regardless of when the stamps were done, the "1" in the 10S and 1C are very close to being identical. I would guess they were done at the same time or different time same stamp tool, which is less likely.

Second. the "0" in 10S is typical shape used by Ferrari around 1950 ( see various 0 stamps from 002XM-007X). Only shape can be compared since their is no scale.

Note: The various example from the 1950,s show 0 of different heights in some cases. This is from a double hammer strike on a round chassis tube. That's why the zeros can be different heights.

Not to throw a monkey wrench in the discussion, the C could be a O if it was struck to one side. To me, it looks like a C. Closer inspection would tell. If the C is a C, it looks similar to the way Ferrari die tool set was constructed at the time. Back then, Ferrari die tools sets appear hand made and I would expect C's look like their made by cutting one side of a O.
Image Unavailable, Please Login