hey all...i don't hang out here much...and so am always some pages behind... two things... i'm attaching a photo of the radiatore in 010I/01C...note relief in top for air inlet...in the 166 book there is a shot of 01C and 02C next to each other with their grills missing...clearly showing the large square radiatores in each...necessitating the need for a relief as these two chassis were the only ones to have the air inlet above the grill and not on the hood...obviously when converted to the spyder corsa body it received the horseshoe radiatore...but it would not have needed the relief for the air inlet at that time...curious...if the horseshoe radiatore were modified recently, then why not make the proper square style one...i mean...a modification like this one is no small job... second...i had stated previously that having 010I/01C and 012I in the same place at the same time, and also having a copy of the '46 blueprint...i did note that all three matched...the two chassis were virtually identical...and mirrored on the blueprint...i would imagine each chassis is a little different here and there...but for the most part were made to this document...and tailored to suit a need...except for the already stated short chassis cars... Image Unavailable, Please Login
Radiators so far as I know aren't chassis. Still waiting for photo of the transverse in the position of the Periode 5 125 drawings as you say they match the chassis, photos of engine stampings Tom asked for and photos of 125 stampings on Webers.
One other thing. Please explain how: "010I/01C and 012I" chassis match both each other and the 125 blueprints???? 002C dosen't match the 125 drawings and I doubt 012I does either. Look at the photo of the shock mount transverse. It's no where near the top center of the diff. or as Michael feels another drawing shows "150mm" from that point.
I think the thread should be closed until period blueprints or production drawings, along with period photos, are found. An answer is difficult to obtain, as we have little forensic evidence in this case.
125 Blue Print. Note transverse in center of X and shape of X. 002C's chassis at that point. 01C/010I/0010I's chassis at that point. (Or is photo Ferrari replica?) Believing Tom post which IMHO was a bit clearer than Bill's why is it that: "Ferrari has released a copy of the Certificate of Origin for 010i to the owner. NOT paperwork for 01C." ? Are there or are there not 125 stampings anywhere on the engine or carbs? What about Tom's other questions? "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" 01C/010I/0010I's chassis does not match the 125 blueprints. Why? How does the chassis in the replica 125 Ferrari built look at this point? Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
About the Certificate of Origin: For #01C never a c/o was issued, it was always a works car and not officially registered. So it is logical that Ferrari did not supply a copy. Same for your #002, c/o has only been issued when the car was sold to Besana.
Jim, I cannot comment on the mechanical issues you presented but I see your point regarding the chassis vs. the blueprint - they are clearly different. Your chassis and the other one pictured appear to have evolved from the drawing. My first thought is to ask if we know if the prints you posted were the final production prints. My concern with the prints is that in the early stages of a company, especially one that is very entrepreneurial and under funded, one doesn't necessarily have the resources (including both time and money) to properly document running changes. For example, the working copy of the prints you posted may have had some hand drawn comments and changes bringing the chassis print in line with your chassis (or, 010I). My suspicion is that things were done with lots of hand waving, gesturing and Italian language not printed in school books. As a result, there may not be any formal drawings of the chassis as produced - for a run of two, hand written mark-ups should have been enough. The next formal drawings were probably done for the 166. I am still of the opinion that there must have been photographs taken during the build of the first cars and those, when found, will give us our definitive answers. Regards, Art S.
I believe Tom was referring to what Ferrari recently issued to the owner: "NOT paperwork for 01C." Tom's statement is pretty clear to me. The blueprints seem pretty clear to me as well. You could be right. The design may have changed from the blueprints to the chassis but IF they did where's a period photo that proves they did? What about the dates of the engine stampings? Different engine? The blueprints are clear. The photo's of 002's chassis are clear and the photo that Boudewijn posted of 01C/010I/001I or the replica 125 are clear and they do not match the 125blueprint. I have yet to see any historical/unassailable proof that the 125 chassis was not built to the blueprints have you?
Art We can speculate until the cows come home that the 125 chassis were not built to the 125 blueprints but I'm still awaiting proof in the form of a historical photo of 01C that proves it. I do agree with you: " I am still of the opinion that there must have been photographs taken during the build of the first cars and those, when found, will give us our definitive answers." Best
Tru Dat; but those who dismiss the fact that the 125 blueprints are different from 01C/010I/0010I with no problem aren't. Best
Jim, I don't think it is dismissed, it is just assumed that there is a missing link that ties everything together. However, this link (i.e. the period pictures) is key to answering the riddle of whether everything ties together neatly or blows apart. Regards, Art S. PS. you ought to write 'Nuvolari sat here' on the drivers seat of your car
By the way, I found this while on the Nuvolari home page: I'm not sure if it's Ferrari. A Mantova nel 1948, sul circuito del Te Driving in Mantua, Circuito del Te, during 1948 Image Unavailable, Please Login
Sommers, Cortese, Phil Hill yes, Nuvolari no and given his alleged practise of using race cars as toilets perhaps that isn't such a bad thing...
to that crossbar in the drawings that connects the left and right chassis main rails and passes under the middle of the X? Was it ever there on ANY car? Either it was not, or it was and the "original" 125s were destroyed and what we think are 01 and 02 are not the orignal cars...the numbers were just reused! Seems to me the more likely case is that the crossbar was never there...
Having done a little fishmouthing of tubing and welding of same, I can make a couple of observations. 1. The 125 blueprint is more labor intensive than 002C cross piece. There is a lot of cutting and fishmouthing and lots of welding in that design. 2. The two bent tubes to make the X is much faster and easier to make, assuming you have a tubing bender. I have drawn up things like the 125 cross brace and when I get my prints down to the floor, the model shop guys look and me and chuckle a bit and say "why don't we do something like this............" I walk away better educated about how to really fabricate things and the design ends up better. I guess all this is nothing like proof but just reasons why the conjecture that the 125 print might never have made it to steel seem plausible to me.
I know as FACT that on the night before Ferrari won it's first race, the car was repaired in the shop of Tino Martinoli in Rome, as it had spun a main bearing. Tino was the man behind the AMP special with Alfa 6c2300 power. For years the car has been called the Alfa Maserati Prete. The car has ZERO connection to Maserati! The "A' stands for Alfa, the "P" stands for Prete, who financed the project, and the "M" for Martinoli, NOT Maserati! I only ever saw one of Tino's photo albums, and that was at least 20 years ago. It had pictures of the AMP special, and of his work doing Ferrari mods and repair as the shop "Marcor" in Hollywood in the late 1950s through early 80s. I believe he also did the prep for Hollywood Sports cars racing Daytonas. No 125/159/166 photos in that album, but he had dozens of albums. By the way, Tino came over from Rome as one of the mechanics on the Ferrari Indy car team, then worked at a sports car dealer before opening his own shop in the late 1950s. I knew Tino pretty well, and his son Mario, is a restauranteer in the Los Angeles area. Maybe HE has some of his fathers photos that are related to the issue at hand? Mario also had, at one time, a radio show in LA, but he never answered one of my calls or letters that I sent in about his father's stuff... As to crazy possibilities: What if two chassis, numbers 01C and 02C were built as in the drawings as Tipo 125s. These cars were changed to Tipo 159s. Later, the a combination of any of these three (Gilco, Colombo and Busso) came up with a better design. 01C and 02C Tipo 125/159s were destroyed/scrapped, ect....Then new cars were built as 166s with the new chassis design and also numbered 01C and 02C! Yes, the chance of this actually having happened is almost impossible, but we do not have enough photos to prove even something as silly as this was not the case...
In 1985 Gioachino Colombo wrote of the 125 chassis he designed: "For the chassis I devised a trapezoidal form, made up of spars with central cross bar, and ovoidal sections. I used the experience of a firm which specialised in the making of tubes in a special steel, GILCO autotelai, belonging to Gilberto Colombo, my namesake (to whom I was not, however, in any way related)." He was proud of this new design which was "cross-form" not traditional ladder frame and cross bars. An X with a "central cross bar". Again 1985.
Jim: I have Colombo's book, along with the Gilco book, but as far as photos, only ones that have appeared in various Ferrari books. Are you saying the silly idea I presented above might actualy be a real possibility, and that your car and 01C/0010I are NOT "updated" 125s??!! BTW, I have mailed the owners of Trafilubi (Gilco) asking for photos and drawings that are not on the website or in the book, but no response as yet. I doubt they have anything more anyway. More and more I get the feeling that what exists TODAY as 0010I is NOT the "oldest Ferrari", and that your car is the oldest one still existing....
I'm saying Colombo's 1946 125 Blue Print shows a center cross brace and in 1985 Colombo reiterated, in his book, that the 125 chassis had it as well. The chassis stampings don't impress me in light of the fact that someone, according to what I believe to be a reliable source, has claimed to have made them in the 70ies and notified the current owner as such. (So far unrebutted.) The date of the engine as Tom points out, rules out, as I understand it, that it's 01C's original engine. (So far unrebutted.) Bill's characterization of what the documents Ferrari gave the present owner need clarification in light of what Tom says the documents say and most importantly an undisputed period photo of exactly what 01C's chassis looked like on the day needs to be compared with how 01C/010I/0010I's chassis is today. If they match I agree. If they don't, I don't. 01C/010I/0010I does not match the blueprints or the description of the person who designed the chassis but it's possible the design was changed and Colombo misrememberes but without a contradicting period photo I'm inclined to believe him.
At this point I am thinking more and more that there is not enough, if any, parts off 01C in what is called today 010I or 0010I to consider it to be 01C. I may be wrong, but as you say, we need the photos.
Stu, Too much theorizing, not enough evidence. Erich's comments are similar to mine, yours is a different variation on the theme. I agree with Jim about the stampings: too much intrigue to use as a sole source of verification. Now we need a picture from the time of 01C or 02C's existence showing the frame or either car (I'm assuming the two frames were the same but this may not be the case as the were essentially working prototypes). I suspect that such a picture will eventually show up, but don't hold your breath. Also, a quick question, Jim's car is the lowest serial number of the second batch of cars but do we know if the cars were finished in serial number order? A batch means several cars were started at the same time, I would think 004C and several others would have been produced in parallel. I would say that Jim's car is the lowest serial number Ferrari in existence, but we would need the build dates or completion dates of the cars to confirm oldest status - personally, I think it's racing history is much more important. Regards, Art S.
Art The Blueprint is fact. It clearly shows a center cross bar. It is also fact that the person who designed the chassis unequivocally stated in 1985 that the chassis was built with that cross bar. It is easily provable fact as to whether 002C or 004C was manufactured first and there is NO question that 002C was manufactured before 004C. Tom's statement about the date of the engine currently in 01C/010I/0010I remains unrebutted as does his statement that Ferrari did not provide the owner with a CFO for 01C. The person who claimed to have stamped the chassis in the 70ies and that the stampings are not original and that he notified the owner has not been rebutted. Most importantly there is no period photograph of 01C's chassis with or without that cross brace and until there is the idea, in light of the above facts, that the discussion of whether or not 010I was built on the chassis remains of 01C "is over" remains laughable. Best
Art: The way things progrees through science IS to present theories, no matter how silly or absurd they might seem at the time. 50 years ago, who would have thought that things in the physical world were actually made up of BOTH particle and wave? Also note that on the Gilco web site and in the Gilco book, contrary to what Colombo says, that the chassis they call Ferrari 125 1947 has NO crossbar! That is why I think that my "silly theory" might actually be true; the ORIGINAL 125s 01C and 02C HAD the crossbar. A better design was come up with by the time the 166 motor was ready, and new cars ALSO numbers 01C and 02C were built... As far as I am concerned, I am at the point where I consider 01C not to exist. 0010I/010I as it exists today may have some parts that came from 01C, but not enough to still call the car 01C, and there is no PROVEN link at all. Certainly one of the main components, the motor, is NOT from 01C, and 0010C/010C was built AFTER Jim's 02C. That would make Jim's car the oldest existing today, based on what we have reasonable evidence of.
Stu, I am not yet convinced that any parts of 01C are in 010I (based on Jim's comments, it doesn't sound like the machanical bits are the same) however, if it can be proven that the chassis is the same, then one can make the case (as was done in another long thread ). As of now, we have a bunch of stories, including the saga of the chassis stamp and the published blueprints not matching the existing chassis. More evidence needs to be gathered. Jim, I hope you weren't offended by my comment regarding 002C and 004C. If there is documentation that yours was finished first, then it is so. My point was simply that the rest of the car's history is much more interesting and important than which one of the production batch was finished first. Regarding 01C, you already know my opinion. Regards, Art S.
