02C/020I

I do. I have several pictures of the actual chassis. If you would like to send me your address I will be glad to send you copies just one man's opinion tongascrew

 

Michael
I notice you say 01C/1C. Where do you stand regarding the possibility of Ed's 1C/10S chassis being '1C' ?
Please forgive my laziness in not going through all the posts in that thread to find out.
Will

 

Kind of off topic, but I found it interesting, did anybody else notice the column shift shown in the drawing above......

Don't know that they ever made a car with the shift mounted on the steering column, but a lot of American cars had this feature at the time and I wonder of the really considered it.

 

I would love to see photos showing that a chassis built to the 1945 drawing attached that was actually built. The earliest design I am aware of that was actually built is as shown in Michael's post above; a drawing dated 1946

My e-mail is [email protected]
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Isn't there a photo of this chassis floating around in one of the threads, when Novak was restoring a car? I seem to remember a photo of a chassis without the transverse tubes, but I may be way off the mark.

 

I also noticed a column shifter in a Motor (?) illustration in Fitzgerald & Merritt. I assumed that the car issultrated was not actually constructed?

 

It was a common feature on post war sporting Italian cars too eg Alfas 6C2500, Lancia B20 Aurelias etc.

 

I only realize the facts. "10S" - or whatever the real designation is - has the same Spyder Corsa frame as Jim's 002/002C, and as the forward part of 020I, that with the bended tubes welded together in the middle - )(
And the number 10S does not fit in any known Ferrari numbering system.
I leave over the discussion to whose who know more and/or better.

 

This is no drawing but only a sketch. The fact that a driver is placed in the car in my opinion means that it was only a general layout and dimension sketch, nothing more. For sure Colombo did more than only this one, as usual when a constructor starts from scrap. But this one is the only one which had been published in his memoirs, which nevertheless is no reason to "ride it to death". If I would dig through my archive (general automotive, not only Ferrari) I believe I will find 100's of sketches showing cars never built.

 

I'm working on it as I have time.It's a challange. I thought the first two 125 chassis delivered by Gilco at about 50kgs were considered to heavy and were rejected by Ferrari. Now Michael Muller is sayting they was used for O1C and O2C and the lighter chassis used on 002I He is, I think, the authority on the early cars. I notice that Michael is not absolutely sure about these first Gilco chassis being actually used. We may never know for sure. Will let you know what I find. just one man's opinion tongascrew

 

I wrote "it is more than likely", as indeed there is no prove. On the other hand I don't believe that Ferrari scrapped 2 new frames only because some overweight. Not only was he a *****rd, but also his then financial situation didn't allow this. And not to forget the timing, the project was already delayed on original schedule.

Somewhat less convinced I am about the layout as such, "it is very likely" that the frames had been made by Gilco as per the May 1946 drawing, but there is of course no confirmation. As long as we have no water proof confirmation, as e.g. period photos of 1C/2C (01C/02C) from underneath or without bodywork, we never for sure will know.

 

Michael, I am also sure Ferrari didn't scrap the the first two frames. Look how long it took Gilco to deliver them and then how long it took Gilco to deliver the first redesigned 44kg chassis.More on this later. just one man's opinion tongascrew

 

I agree that the first 2 frames were not scrapped. I believe they looked much more like the drawing Michael posted, rather than the earlier drawing I posted from Colombo's book, but have no proof.

 

There was an article posted on the 125s today at Topspeed.com which happens to be an excellent site

 

2C/02C was raced as late as 15 Aug 1948 at Pescara. Cortese finished 5th, undamaged. What happened thereafter is imho speculation. The c/o was issued for 020I, not for 02C.

 

I tend to believe 01C was used to make 010I and 02C was used to make 020I...but does that mean 01C and 02C no longer really exist?...in my opinion it does.

 

You may be right, but I'm not sure. I have never seen a good photo of the chassis of 02C. I agree that 002C is the oldest Ferrari

 

"Whilst at Symbolic’s service department, a lead plug, painted in the colour of the chassis and bearing the chassis number “010I”, was removed to display the number: “01C” beneath, thus proving, for once and all that the car had, as had long been thought, been re-numbered. On November 20th, a new U.S. registration was issued shofender the chassis number as 01C.

It has long been known that 02C, sold as a bare chassis in 1949 to Franco Cornacchia of Team Guastalla had been re-numbered as 020I and been re-bodied in 1950 as a coupe by Touring of Milan. The proof of the factory re-numbering both of their first two cars produced is evidence of Enzo Ferrari’s comment that: “ We had to sell the first cars in order that our workers could be paid.”"

© John Starkey 2004

 

I am historian, so wordings like "it has long been known" for me are without any meaning. I prefer sources and factual documents including period photos.

For sure 01C and 02C had been reused and sold, the question is - as what?
The identity of a car as such is a philosophic question, for some the frame is the heart of a car, for others only an assembly part. What about Bugattis, where the vehicle serial number is not punched to the frame but to the engine?

 

I only posted the facts. Conclusions I let over to others.