02C/020I

Jim,

I would think that your thoughts on this alleged renumbering may be most interesting; figure you started this thread with something in mind.

Have you thoroughly inspected the chassis in order to make an informed opinion?

With your current project have you been able to inspect the factory records on the other earliest cars?

Jeff

 

Jim,

There was a second question: Has your other project led the factory to give you direct access to their files on yours and some of the other earliest cars?

Don't mean to be a pest on this but if you have had this access it would be interesting even if there are restrictions on what you can discuss.

Jeff

 

Are you expecting more than is contained in these 3 threads?


http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/showthread.php?t=16284&highlight=02C%2F020I

http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/showthread.php?t=116277&highlight=02C%2F020I


http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/showthread.php?t=203274&highlight=02C%2F020I

 

It may take you several hours to go thru these sites and you may still be confused when you are done but this is the only way you will be able to have a chance of getting an answer to your question. You will also find you will have many more questions than answers on other issues. However when you are finally had enough you may be left with the final question which is what is the definition of an "answer" just one man's opinion tongascrew

 

Jim- Any images of the chassis stamping? A bit of experience on overstamping of WW-1 aircraft data plates. Stampings were similar.

Taz
Terry Phillips

 

Why are you guys giving so much attention to stampings?
To look at the frame layout as such is much more easier....

 

I believe after years of discussions in the other threads there is no doubt anymore that 01C and 02C had the frame as originally constructed by Colombo, the fishmouth-welded X with the stiffening transverse.

Afaik 020I's front part of the frame has Spyder Corsa LWB layout (same as Jim's 002, bended and welded in the center), whereas the rear part is SC SWB / MM layout (underslung).

 

Then, if the frame is made up of 2 halves, which chassis numbers donated the halves?

 

Indeed Jack, indeed - that is one very well put question.

 

I tend to think it is one chassis modified along the way, rather than 2 chassis that were made into one.

 

I know. You are just laying a trap for me. You know the answer and just want to see me wrong. Let me go into the files and I will stick my neck out. just one man's opinion tongascrew

 

You received a well informed answer to this question in post 13. Are you looking for someone to second that opinion?

 

CONFUSED!! The pictures and drawings I have of the first Gelco 125 chassis show bent tubes making the X support welded together where the two tubes join and no transverse tubes from the center X joint to the chassis rails. I thought the welded fishmouth joints and the transverse stiffining tubes came later to limit the twisting of the chassis. just one man's opinion tongascrew

 

If you are talking about the sketch done by Colombo showing a chassis with bent tubes forming the X, and no transverse tube, that appears in the book "The Origins of the Ferrari Legend" I don't think we have any evidence that a chassis like that was ever really built.

 

Are we starting at zero again?
The first 2 frames were delivered in Sep 1946 and weighed 56 kgs. It is very likely that the corresponding layout is that as shown on the drawing dated 5 June 1946 (see below). Ferrari considered these frames as too heavy, so another one was made weighing only 44 kgs, and delivered around June/July 1947.

It is more than likely that the first 2 frames had been used for 01C/1C and 02C/2C, and the 3rd one for 002/002C. Saving 12 kgs cannot be achieved by using smaller diameters and/or wall thickness, the missing transverse (as with all LWB Spyder Corsas) for sure is an important part of such weight saving.
Image Unavailable, Please Login