and I believe that 01C and 02C should have the center X cross brace as drawn and described by Columbo ESPECIALLY if they were heavier than 002C's chassis which the chassis in that photo "01C" does not. I agree with Stu than it may be from 010I and that if it is that: "that would negate any relationship between 01C and 010I as the car exists today" Best
After further research, I think I made a mistake on this one. The 159 chassis seem more directly related to the 166 chassis. Both the 125 chassis styles (GP and sports are different from each other) and both are different from the 159/166 chassis......hence part of the reason I am staring to think 01C did NOT become 010I, even though there are Ferrari documents that imply it did !
Hello everybody, I'm new in this forum and I'm interested in the first Ferraris' history. I've read about 125S, 159S and 166SC here and in other threads, but English is not my language and the informations are really too much, so it is possible that I've lost something. Sorry if I say something that someone has already said. I have my own opinion about the story of the first Ferrari chassis, and I explain it. I post this here because the topic is 125 and 159, and in my opinion is useless to open a new thread. We know there were the first two chassis: 01C-125S roadster (may47) 02C-125S Competizione (may47) The second series of chassis was: 002(C)-159S Competizione (sep47) 001S-159S spyder "Allemano" (nov47) 004C-166S Competizione (mar48) 003S-166S coupé Allemano (apr48) And then started the Inter series: 006I/010I-166I SC (mar/apr48) 008I/012I/014I/016I-166I SC (may48) Followed in the end of 1948 by: The Sport/Inter series (005S/007S/009S/...) The MM series (0002M/0004M/...) The Corsa series (02C/04C/.../12C) My idea is: Is it possible that the first three-figures chassis were in numerical order? 001S/002(C)/003S/004C If 002 hasn't a letter, why should be divided from 001 and 003? And so, if 001S came before 002, is it possible that 001S is "Pescara" Spyder? Last question: Is it possible that two of the 2C chassis (02C-125S, 002C-159S, 02C-125/166GP) were the same one. I hope you can clarify my doubt, because I'm not an expert, and so my questions can be stupid for some of you. Sorry for my not-perfect English (I'm Italian) MPC
Your chronological list above is basically correct. No, 002(C) was the first competition car of this series, and 001S the first road car. Within the odd/even scheme they are (fairly) chronological. Absolutely no. Absolutely no.
A lot of thanks for the reply. I believe you, but can you explain the reason of your sureness? Why do you say "Absolutely no"? What are the information that I don't know? Sorry for my insistence. MPC
28 Sep 1947 - Circuito Automobilistico Modena 02C (#16) driven by Ferdinando Righetti 002(C) (#20) driven by Franco Cortese First appearance of 002(C) = see above Certificate of Origin 001S dated 4 Feb 1948 Pescara = 15 Aug 1947 (Ferragosta as usual) Cas used by Cortese was 02C. Same car used at the Targa Florio / Giro di Sicilia on 3/4 April 1948 by Cortese/Righetti. 001S won that race with Prince Igor / Biondetti Monoposto 02C had completely different frame than 02C and 002(C). 002(C) was still in existance when 02C (F1) appeared.
We know that Certificate of Origin was made when the car was sold. 01C and 02C didn't have any C.O. So 001S could be raced before this day, the same happened with 002(C). I think now you hate me, but I need answers. MPC
If 001S would have been built as race car by purpose it would have been numbered even. There had been 14 race events in 1947 where Ferraris had been entered, which are covered by abt. 100 photos of my archive. There is simply no space for an unidentified additional Ferrari. The 1947 race history is researched rather unbroken and complete. It is nearly impossible to prove that something did NOT happen, so we can continue this discussion for days, weeks or even years. It's easier to do it the other way round, tell me when, where, and in which disguise you believe 001S has been raced before 4 Feb 1948.
No, I think that 02C didn't became the Pescara spyder (that for me is 001S),and Michael Müller said a right thing: And 02C? rebodied and reengined as 159S Spyder? it is the same. In the Rogliatti/Boscarelli book "Tipo 166" is said that the cycle fender version was better for the road circuit, because in this car is more easy to see the wheel and the track. The Spyder was more heavy, and was good for fast race. This fact is proved because in all the race with two 125S (or 159S) the cycle fendered one was given to the best driver (Cortese or Nuvolari). Why the only Cycle fender 125S should be transformed in a Roadster?
Today 001 and 003 never exist. 002 hasn't any letter, and 004C is the only one with this letter. After 004C there was the "I" series (from 006I) and the "S" series (from 005S). It is possible that the division between odd and even number started in 1948, and that the first four three-figures chassis were all together in a transition series. MPC
No idea why the C at 002 is missing. 004C was a sister car to 002(C), but built later. In November or December Ferrari decided to name the new car "166 Inter" (from Internazionale) and a folder was printed. At that point 004C was under construction already, but from 008 onwards the suffix then was "I" for "Inter".
This is my argument. For me the trasformation of a cycle fendered 125S in a full wight roadster 159S is unlikely, and you agree with me: you said the same for the trasformation of 01C in 001S (and the body of 01C is more similar to the Pescara'47 one, compared to the 02C first body). The 01C surely didn't became Pescara'47 roadster because it race with the first body also in later race.
Michael, interesting that you should bring up the differences between these two cars. I refer to an earlier post of yours regarding the first two GILCO chassis delivered in Sept 1946 weighing 56klgs and used for 01C and 02C. At Ferrari's request lighter chassis were built weighing 44klgs the first delivered june/july 1947, The weight reduction was achieved with smaller/thinner tubes and no cross support at the center of the X structure.Now we go to the connection between 01C and 010I. I have had my doubts about the connection between these two. When 010I went to England with Wyer and Folland there were several detailed schematics published in British motor magazines. The several copies I have of these all show no center cross brace. It's not possible or course to tell if the chassis tubes are smaller.However if this is chassis 01C and the cross brace was removed, surely there would be evidence of this. One question is, if the 01C chassis was not used what happened to it.It's doubtful it was scrapped unles it had been severly damaged.However the 44klg chassis was available when 010I was built and could very well have been used. I enouraged Jim to have the 002C chassis weighed during its recent restoration. There seems to be distinct similarities between the 002C chassis and the schematics of 010I. You now refer to 010I as a "recreation"We will look forward to you final conclusions. just one man's opinion tongascrew
The siluro body of 02C was extremely ugly, and even the contemporary press made jokes about it. The reason that e.g. Nuvolari preferred 02C over 01C most probably was the power output of the engine.
Ok, I agree with you about this, but I'm not totally convinced. I know that the design of 02C was criticized by a lot of people, but to change the body and the engine on a chassis that Ferrari considered too heavy seem strange to me, and with the little money of Ferrari in that time I don't thing they destroied a coachwork only because it was ugly. Do you know the letter of 001 and 003 from a sure source, like C.O.?
The first 2 Ferraris had been nothing more than test beds. The target they had in mind was the 1.5 litre supercharged Grand Prix car, with the sports car and road road versions with same engine capacity initially only necessary by-products. The siluro body of 02C was created to use the car also in the race car class with fenders and lights removed, but there was no suitable class for it. The standard was 1100 cc, and that class was dominated by the Cisitalias. So conversion to full 2-seater sports car, which could be used also for the long-distance events like MM and TF, was a logical step. The larger engine capacity was an effect from the new FIA rules, which introduced for 1948 2 new international classes, 2 Liter race cars (F2) and 2 liter sports cars. The first step was only 1.9 litre (tipo 159), full 2 litres (166) they reached only when using the new Vandervell thinwall bearings which increased crank.
Two questions: 1-Ferrari built a siluro car for a class which never existed? 2-The 159 didn't have the thinwall bearings?
