To all, Puzzle (see pictures): Is it 01C or 001C ???????????????? and 010I or 0010I (seems most likely, or not?) Are we having two C's making a zero or not? (See red and yellow in the zero). TMO it isn't a zero. Regards, Eugène Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
in this thread, a NEW plug over the original chassis number was made recently....therefore it is totally irrelevent as to what is on it. The bottom line is that we have no real proof that what is generally called 01C actualy became what is now called 0010I or 010I, as none of us seem to have any documentation or photos of this change, which dates back to circa 1948. Even the restoration done circa 1975 is really irrelevent. For the last 15 years or so, I believed that 01C became 010I, but I am having more and more doubts. As to the Auto Avio 815, it is FAR more a Nardi than a Ferrari as to construction....
Some other items of interest. 002 (Some times incorrectly referred to as 002C) stampings over time have become very feint which I believe is inevitable as time goes by and corrosion fills in the displaced metal. 002 when first sold by Ferrari on December 30, 1947 on CO. N. 003 was described as tipo 166-I. It did begin as a 159 as stampings on it's Webers show but when Ferrari sold it it had been modified by Ferrari to a 166 I. The photos posted so far in this thread of 01C/0010I's chassis are identical to 002's 166 chassis. Are Colombo's descriptions of the 125 chassis and the drawings he put in his book wrong? Were the 125 chassis identical to 159/166 chassis? Yesterday I carefully inspected 002's transverse at the point of the rear shocks. It is far forward of the transverse shown in Columbo's 125 drawings. It's location relative to the dif. proves this beyond the shadow of any doubt. The drawings could be wrong. Columbo's inculsion of them in his book and his discription of the transverse could be wrong. There may be no difference between 125 and 159/166 chassis but like Dr. Stu I am becoming less convinced that this is true.
The drawings I'm speaking of are labeled "5th Periodo" and "previously unpublished" by Colombo as of 1985 and they are very different than a 159/166 chassis. Most importantly they clearly show the line of the 125 transverse at the top of the tallest part of the diff. housing, not forward of that point as in 002 (159/166) with a cylindrical 125 completely behind, not straddling the differential 166 fuel tank, to allow space for that transverse which it would not have with a 159/166 fuel tank. There is also an aligning cross drawn by Colombo on this drawing which centers this transverse DIRECTLY over the rear axle not in front of it as on the 159/166. Why would Colombo publish this "previously unpublished" drawing in 1985 if it was incorrect? See post 129 Plate 20 note "5th Periodo". My question remains. Were the 125 chassis the same as the 159/166 chassis? Exactly? If not how so? Still also awaiting the promised photo of this transverse in 01C/010I/0010I which, if as is in "5th Periodo" drawing would be very strong evidence. If the transverse is not on the line of the rear axle as shown in the "5th Periodo" drawing, Colombo who published it, describing it as "previously unpublished" in 1985, was mistaken or 01c/010I/0010I IMO was never a 125. My translation of "5th Periodo" is 5th Period, not 5th of June. I take them to be the 5th revision previously unpublished as of 1985. Best
I have this photo (don't recall where I got it) which is dated 2005 and shows a "125 being built". Could this be our 01C/010I car? The chassis is clearly visible. Image Unavailable, Please Login
At least a foot. It lines up with the shocks and runs under the spare tire holder. Image Unavailable, Please Login
That chassis is clearly 159/166 not 125 if Colombo's "5th Periode" drawing are to believed. Image Unavailable, Please Login
Again, I agree. What we need are Colombo drawings Periode 1 THRU 5, PLUS as many photos as possible from mid-1946 through late 1948.
Stu and Jim, Coming back the chassis stamp pictures for a moment. My point, was to show all of the the pictures that are supposed to be of the same stampings. In my opinion, they probobly are. However, as you both stated, as these photos are relatively recent, and no known pictures of the original stampings exist, how relevant are these recent images? Regarding the chassis: isn't there a picture of the first running chassis being taken out for a run without a body? I remember the photo but I have forgotten the source and the chassis number. Regards, Art S.
I don't know what Colombo means with "5° Periodo", but for sure not the 5th revision of the 125 project. It should be mentioned that the sketches say also "8/45-10/45" resp. "Agosto 1945 - ottobre 1945". So clearly his first ideas about the car after his meeting with Enzo Ferrari in July that year. The fact that these sketches are from Colombo's personal files may led to the conclusion that they never found their way to Maranello. In November Colombo was reactivated by Alfa Romeo, and the project was taken over first by Lucchi and later by Busso. The drawings issued officially by Ferrari's construction office on 5 June 1946 (which has nothing to do with "5° periodo)", and which had been the basis for the #01C replica (and possibly also the new body for #01C/#010I) seem to be much closer to reality, although it is not guaranteed that they really had been the last version. Busso, who joined Ferrari 5 days after this date as Technical Director, and als Eng. Cantafora of GILCO may have altered them in certain details. When looking to the Colombo sketches the transverse is not DIRECTLY over the rear axle, and not at the tallest point of the differential, but approx. 150 mm in front.
I posted this earlier in this thread, but the section in question is invisible. However, this photo confirms that it was possible to use the same chassis for SC and full roadster bodywork. Image Unavailable, Please Login
"I posted this earlier in this thread, but the section in question is invisible. However, this photo confirms that it was possible to use the same chassis for SC and full roadster bodywork." As 01C/010I/0010I and 002C have both been fitted with SC and roadster bodywork that has never been in question. " When looking to the Colombo sketches the transverse is not DIRECTLY over the rear axle, and not at the tallest point of the differential, but approx. 150 mm in front." In Plate 20 it is and it's position is confirmed by Colombo's "hash mark". You are quite correct that on another of Colombo's drawings it is located 150mm in front of that point. 150mm= .4921 inches. On 002C that transverse is at least three times that distance forward of Colombo's hash mark on plate #20. Best
I have not seen any of the "plates" you or Michael mention. As far as Colombo is concerned, I only have his book. I have had any number of conversations with Busso over the last 30 years (he passed away not too long ago), but most were about Alfa and NOT Ferrari. Busso's views and Colombo's views are diametrically opposed on almost everything! (In fact, in Colombo's book, he basically calls Busso a hack!) As I wasn't there, I do not know who is altering the facts about what really happened; but obviously one of the two was. As to what Gilco (the OTHER Colombo involved) has to say, I have visited there 3 times; all in the late 1980s and early 1990s, after he had passed away. The company was being run by the grandson. What is on their web site and in the Gilco book is 99% of what they still have (the company has been called Trafiltubi for quite some time) . There rest was either thrown away or lost over the years. I was mainly there to find out about the relationship with Alfa, and if they had any specific data on a particular "etceterini". I am really starting to believe that the chassis of 01C and Jim's car were NOT exactly the same when first built, and the what is now 010I is a combination of some parts off 01C and many new parts created circa 1948. Further, I believe that 010I changed again before 1974, and again circa 1974, when the first KNOWN restoration was done. I do NOT know this for a fact, but that is what the evidence we having is leading me toward at the moment. If I have any real expertise, it is on etceterinis, and NOT Ferrari. I am a bit surprised and disappointed that Marcel hasn't chimed in on this thread....
Hey We're speaking about the same Colombo drawings posted in post # 129 taken from Colombo's book as per your post. Agree totally. Best
OK; I was misundrsatand that there was another set of drawings. Based on what we have so far, thsi is what I believe: The 1945 drawings were never used. There has to be a set of drawings or blueprints dated later that depict the actual chassis of 01C, which probably does not still exist. Circa 1948, the chassis was substantially modified or a new chassis was built and numbered 010I. This car used a number of parts off 01C. As I do njot have any drawings or photos circa 1948 of the chassis, I do not know if enough of 01C was retained to provide a proper liniage. 010I may have had enough new stuff to be called a new car rather than a renumbered old one. Circa 1974, whatever the car was, it was restored to 010I specs, and NOT back to the specifications of 01C. Of course, with out the documentation, this is all speculation. At this point, with what we have, I think it OK to call what exists today 010I, but NOT 01C....at least yet....
We do not know whether these drawings - or better said sketches - had never been used. And it's also the question how to define the word "used". Surely not as basis for the manufacturing process, but most probably as some kind of starting point for the real construction work. These sketches are nice to see, but no document to prove how #01C exactly has looked. The real production drawings - as posted also here in this thread by others - are dated 5 June 1946, and somebody posted (sorry for not taking the time to check out by whom) that these drawings had been the basis for Ferrari's own replica of #01C they made some years ago. And we also can expect that these drawings now were used for the transsformation of #010I/#01C. However, even these "official" drawings not necessarely represent the final version of #01C, because it is very likely that Busso after he joined Ferrari made some amendments before the frame drawing and the purchase order for 2 units went to GILCO end of June. It would be very unusual for a newly appointed Technical Director to accept the work of his predecessor or his staff without bringing in own ideas. We also can expect that Eng. Cantafora of GILCO advised some alterations, because he had a lot more experience in chassis construction than the Ferrari people had. As a matter of fact we have no idea how exactly the chassis of #01C has looked. Neither "Substantially modified" nor "new chassis was built" is backed by any facts or indices. Modified yes, because every new body needs minor changes. Let's take #02C for example, the narrow "autobotte" body was substituted by a full roadster body, and the engine was changed from 125 to 159. Later the body was modified again and the engine changed to 166. Nobody ever argumented that the new body and the new engine made this a completely new car. Fact is that we do not know how exactly the transformation from #01C to #010I took place, and what was changed resp. reused. In 1951 the car was rebodied to full roadster in England. Again we can be sure that certain details had been changed, e.g. fuel tank and most probably also spare wheel position. Ca. 1974 #010I was completely restored and built back to Spyder Corsa configuration. This was done only on basis of period photos and inspection of #004C. And not to forget #002(C) which at that time also was with Bamford. He had the option either to restore #010I or #002C (also with full roadster body then), and opted for #010I. He took what he needed from #002C, and sold her then back to Nowak. The focus of discussion since 4 or 5 pages now is this transverse in front of the rear axle, which in #002C is positioned "at least 1 foot" ahead of the rear axle. We absolutely do not know where this transverse was positioned originally at #01C and at #010I (the early Colombo sketches IMHO are no proof), and we also do not know where this transverse is positioned at the actual car #01C/010I. This discussion was started before Bebble Beach, and a lot of you guys had been there. And nobody took the chance to have a closer look...? We also do not know the position of this transverse in other cars, despite some of them are available to regular posters here. A lot of knowledgeable people could be seen in this thread earlier, but most of them obviously have decided to stay out of this discussion now.
Hi Michael, Thats probably because it is going nowhere. Just repeating previous questions. The drawings are still being questioned despite your previous comments which you have posted at least 3 times. And which make perfect sense, and which are still being ignored! I quote Your other point is also valid. Again I quote; And also because, for most of us, the discussion is over thanks to Ferraris obviously major involvement. In view of Ferraris Classiche regulations it seems hardly credible that they would help in such a large way in this project if they werent sure that they had 01C as its base. So for most people the discussion is over. Is this 01C/010I? Yes Is it the oldest surviving Ferrari? Yes Discussion over. Nathan
With the risk of being abondoned from this board: For their very early history Ferrari SpA ist not really a competent source! Or how would you value the fact that they first built the replica with the 2160 mm wheel base of the 125 GP car? I also remember their previous website which contained numerous wrong captions to period photos.
Ferrari has released a copy of the Certificate of Origin for 010i to the owner. NOT paperwork for 01C. Has anyone seen the date codes on the cylinder heads?? David Sielstead and I were looking at Pebble Beach. Internal engine number appeared to be N and it was a correct 166SC block with timing mark at 2 O'clock and correct timing chest What is the internal engine number on 004C and 002C is there a sequence we can follow?
Michael Most on this board are only impressed by fact. The statement you made above is fact. In addition, if anything, the new chassis plate affixed by Ferrari clearly lists the car as a 166 and adds yet another chassis #0010I to the mix. You are also correct in stating that "Oldest existing Ferrari" is a matter of opinion/definition. 010I was stamped with that number when it was manufactured by Ferrari in 1948, pure fact, and issued a bill of sale listing the identity of the car as 010I by Ferrari that's what it is and no restoration can undo that. I also agree with what you posted in Atlas a while ago on the subject of the oldest existing Ferrari. Phil Hill and I feel that 002 is the oldest existing Ferrari. Nathan doesn't; kewl, but his statement: "Is it (01C/010I/0010I) the oldest surviving Ferrari? Yes Discussion over." remains laughable. If 01C still exists, which so far as I know was a typo 125, why did Ferrari recently stamp it typo 166 001OI? I agree that boring out a cars engine and rebodying it does not change it's legal identity but when it's manufacturer stamps, or, IMO still unproven restamps it's chassis (1948), it sure does. We know for fact that Ferrari stamped it 010I when it manufactured and sold it in 1948 and recently affixed a new chassis plate to it: Typo 166 0010I. Thinking that one's opinion disproves fact speaks for itself. Back to what has or hasn't been proven. I have posted photo's of 002's chassis. The only photo's posted so far of 01C/010I/0010I chassis are identical to 002's chassis and do not match Colombo's 125 drawings. This does not prove that 01C/010I/0010I's chassis was not originally 01C's chassis in whole or in part but IMO that absolutely remains unproven at this point. Once again if some one has proof that this car was built on the original chassis of 01C please present it. As for Pebble and inspecting 01C/010I/0010I Marcel and Keith both did. Marcel clearly told me how he felt. The statement that discussion is "over" on whether or not 01C's chassis in whole or in part is part of 01C/010I/001I is absolutely untrue. Tom It was nice speaking with you and Nick. Once again you were right about the price payed for the 4 cam. I'm glad that you've publicly stated exactly what the document Ferrari gave the owner of 010I says, something I feel was not made as clear as it should have been by others in posting here. David and your observations about the engine stampings on 002 and 004C are spot on as well. The ones on 002 are public record as I beleive are the ones David found on 004C. They speak quite clearly. I wonder if the Webers on 010I have any stampings. The ones on 002 are stamped 159. Best
That's exactly what I was talking about; the drawings dated 1945 are only just that. They are not production documents, and therefore, IMO, totally unimportant Exactly my point; we have no documents that show exactly how chassis 01C looked when first compleated Again, exactly my point. We have no documentation to show how chassis 010I looked when first constructed, nor any kind of PROOF that there is even a connection to chassis 01C Again true. Some modification would have had to be done to 010I, but we do NOT have any kind of PROOF that 010I is actually connected to 01C Again, we only have proof that this realted to 010I, and NO PROOF that it related to 01C. I wasn't there, so I can not comment. Surely someone took photos of the CHASSIS of 010I at Pebble. Please post them! As the recent "restoration" of 010I was based in part on the factory recreation of 01C....and the fact that the first version of the recreation appears to have had the wrong w/b, can we really KNOW anything? A LOT more documentation is needed IMO to prove ANY real connection to 01C and 010I as it currently exists. It is also interesting to me that some of the items we have say 0010I and some 010I. There must be a reason for this! I won't even attempt an answer to this one....
I am not an expert on early Ferrari's but for my 2 cents worth I agree with mr. muller and dretceterini We are all coming from a position of looking at what information exists from early Ferrari literature and exactly how do we know what of that info. is correct. Surely some of it will be spot on and others perhaps approximate or even complete imagination. So taking them at face value may not lead to a judgement either way. What concerns me more than the conversion of #01C into #010C is the later RESTORATION(S). I mean how can we be sure what was kept/ altererd/ replaced etc. etc. Because here we are 30 years on from restoration #1 and we are assuming that nothing was altered. What ever was altered in 1974 will surely affect our judgement, if they changed the fuel tank or even the rear axle at that point, right ?? So if we are basing it on were is the mounting point for the rear axle or what shape is the fuel tank, well what chance that these items are original and are "correct". and if the arent well that wont tell us anything. Further, from what I can tell the first few ferrari's are only loosely "similar" with some rather extreme mod's so comparing them in the first place COULD be pointless. All of this is of course IMHO Timothy
