02C/020I

Jim is absolutely correct. 002C was the first Ferrari ever sold. It is also the oldest that has always retained a single identity as such since new.

Count Igor told me in 1997 that he believed he was the first and told going to be the only client of Ferrari. He knew almost immediately that this was a lie and that his new Spyder Corsa was "Muletto Usato" or a "used mule" and less than happy about it. He had very few kind words to share about Enzo and how he conducted himself. He did say that in hindsight knowing how bad the situation was at the time, Enzo had few choices if he was going to stay both in business as well as be competitive.

There is zero doubt that 002C was the very first officially invoiced Ferrari sold privately. Ferraris own records confirm this.

There is also zero doubt that the frame of 010I was over stamped 01C. I took the photos myself of both numbers more than fifteen years ago, long before the age of digital photos and sent them to Rogliatti at Ferrari who was in charge of the archives back then. He confirmed in writing as a simple matter of fact that 01C was scrapped at the end of the 1947 Season when deemed no longer competitive or usable. The chassis was then used and rebuilt as a new Spyder Corsa and given the identity 010I.

I have inspected 020I and although similar in some ways, it does not have the exact same frame features and measurements of 01C/010I. So far, I have not yet seen another Ferrari that has all of the odd frame features and measurements that are found on 01C/010I. I believe that Gilco's original design was both heavy and flawed and likely led to the improvement found on all subsequent Ferraris until the mid / late 1950s when Vaccari took over frame construction.

Just my opinion...

Bill Noon

 

It depends on what you mean by "really exist" In their 1947 exact original condition they of course don't exist. On the other hand if you consider the chassis as the final word of "exist" then 01C and O2C certainly do exist. These are semantics that can only be in the interpretation of the beholder. just one man's opinion tongascrew

 

Bill, you are absolutely correct. The 01C and 02C chassis were the first of the original Colombo designed chassis to be delivered from GILCO in Sept of 1946. These weighed 56klg and had the welded fishmouthed X support and the crossmember.. No two other chassis were ever again made exactly like these and they exist today with numerous changes.I hope someday someone will post pictures of these chassis as they are today.The nearest thing I have are see thru drawings form the Autocar and The Motor magazines of 010I when Wyer and Folland had it in England.These drawings clearly show a bent tube X bracing and no crossmember of a 44klg chassis So what happened to the 01C original 56klg chassis. 01C was completed in time for the 5/11/47 Piacenza and the first 44klg chassis wasn't delivered until July of 1947. The only other two cars built in 1947 were 001I and 002I both completed in the late summer of 1947.Nothing remains of 001I, except supposedly its wheels,. after it was destroyed in 1959/196?.OO2I is well doccumented and respored by "you know who" and clearly shows the bent tube X support and no crossmember. There are also pictures in "Ferrari,50 Years on the Track" of a chassis said to be of 010I which looks like one of the 44klg chassis's.It appears that more went into rebuilding 01C to 010I. Was the 01C tube taken from the 56klg chassis used in 010I 44klg chassis? It's also interesting that the chassis of the reproduction of 01C has a 44klg like chassis. This may be because what the builders had to go on was the chassis in 010I I have another possible theory, which is really far out, that one of the 44klg chassis is in 1C/10S . The pictures I have of this chassis shows a vey rought bent X support and thin bar,not tube, crossbrasing probably added later. I include this just to stirr the pot. Let's hear comments from the pundits on all of this. just one man's opinion tongascrew

 

Yes, that is correct. the CO issued showed 020I as the s/n. tongascrew

 

Probably true. What be need is some good pics of the 020I chassis as it is today. Who can post these?? just one man's opinion tongascrew

 

Has anyone had a good look at the 020I frame as it exists today. It should look more like a 56klg chassis with of course modifications. just one man's opinion tongascrew

 

OK, I got it wrong. The first two chassis had the welded X tubes and crossmember. It was the next one or two that had the lighter bent X tube ,no crossmember. From then on the X support was fishmouthed welded with the crossmember. tongascrew

 

I am curious if all of the chassis (010, 020, 001I and 002C) have each been stripped down to the bare metal and photo documented? I would think that paint/coating might have the ability to obscure modifications to the frame. In the case of 010 and (if the lineage is true) 020 then there must be some evidence of changes being made from the original 56Kg version. Even if all of the 4 chassis have not been documented at bare metal does someone have detailed photos for each so all the chassis can be evaluated at once?

Tongascrew, I do question if a cutaway drawing published in Autocar and Motor constitute enough evidence that the lateral support was part of the car at that time. I do not know what documentation may or may not have been used by the artist in the creation of the drawing.

About 1 year ago I had an internationally recognized Ferrari expert, also a Classiche historical consultant, emphatically state that in the early days nothing was thrown away. In more recent conversations several contacts have agreed that the history of these earliest days need to be revisited because too many inaccuracies continue to be perpetuated.

Jeff

 

.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Having good pics = yes
Posting them = no

 

Michael,

For which of these earliest cars do you have detailed frame photos of besides 020? Have you been able to make personal inspection of these to the extent that you can discern original factory modifications that might have been performed during recycling of an earlier frame into a later car?

Jeff

 

I'm historian, no automotive engineer....

 

Michael,

My thought is that evidence of something being hacked away or added on at a later stage in life should be able to be seen during a close inspection. Close physical inspection might turn up evidence that might be difficult to see just in photos.

Jeff

 

In May of 1997, I drove 01C/010I in the Mille Miglia and around Italy on a nice holiday for several weeks.

After the Mille Miglia, I continued my holiday which included an official invite and visit to the Ferrari Factory for two days of rather nice hospitality as well as many fun laps on the Fiorano Test Track.

While there, Ferrari's technicians took hundreds of photos and an equal number of measurements but except for cleaning the car, no work was done nor was anything removed.

After passing through the hands of several owners, I understand that the car was completely stripped down to nothing under the care of Ferrari Classiche / Client Services while under the ownership of Mr. Willbanks and his Son.

I returned to the Factory in May of 2007 and saw many large format photos of the car in a completely disassembled state as well as photos of a newly replicated body they had constructed for the car. I have never seen any of these published but was told at the time they would appear in one of Ferrari's Annual Yearbooks or officially sanctioned magazines.

Interestingly while they took the time to make a new body, they did nothing to address a rather crappy repair to the frame on the rear where one of the shocks is mounted that apparently broke in period during one of the car's races.

I saw the newly restored car at Pebble Beach and while wearing the all new body, under the skin it was the same chassis, engine, gearbox, suspension it had when in my short custody. The rear frame still showed the age-old hasty repair done in period.

In away, I am glad this has remained untouched as it allows easy reference of the car to a specific time and place when raced in period.

Cheers,

Bill

 

Now I'm totally confused! I've long been under the impression that 01C and 02C were virtually identical when first built.

 

OK, now I'm confused. I'm assuming 002I is actually Jim G.'s car. What is 001I that tongascrew mentioned?

Thanks,

Art S.

 

Hi Art
Let's try this shall we?
01C = 1947 125 S (sports body) - now 010I
02C = 1947 125 SC (spyder corsa body) - now 020I
002C = 1947 159 SC (now Jim's 166 SC)
004C = 1948 166 SC (iirc in USA since 1949)
I believe this is the current thinking. Hope this helps.
Nathan

 

Nathan... you did it! So short and concise but right to the point... May we move on / backwards and cover the SF Alfa era now?

I have a couple of hundred pre-war, two-digit SF numbers that I am dying to sort through and really mess with everyones mind.

Cheers,

Bill

 

Yes, but do we agree that chassis 01C and 02C looked virtually identical when they were first built?

 

Bill,

Not so fast, billnoon.. you skipped the two AAC Vettura 815 when you put this thread in reverse. The perceived wisdom is that one survives. Is this still the party line?

Best,
Dave

 

Jim
Any idea how/when it became known as 002C?
Should it not be more correctly referred to in future as 002I?
Nathan

 

I understand. If I send you my e-mail address would you send me copies. I agree not to post or distribute them.They would be kept in my file on this car. Regards tongascrew