125 and 159

This is not how I read John's comment. He said;
"As an aside, there is a photograph in existence which shows a chassis without the transverse cross-bar bracing the centre “X” which connected the two chassis side members. This could be the lightened chassis; If so, it (refering to the lightened chassis without the cross-bar) does not appear to have been used in any car inspected so far by your author."
It's a bit convoluted but he's saying that the chassis photo doesn't have the cross-bar, but all the early cars he has seen HAVE the cross-bar.
The official Ferrari blueprint for the 125S has the cross-bar. Colombo's original sketch features the X with cross-bar. Maybe Gilco took their photo before the cross-bar was added. Maybe someone at PB can see what it has now and ask the owner/restorer?
Nathan

 

Nathan et al,

This is extremely interesting. So the original chassis numbers were still there? And the current owner has restored it to a 125 in 1947 form? I wonder what Ferrari has to say about this - do they recognize it as 01C or as 010I or both?

Also, I heard tell that 01C was wrecked. Was it just the body that was destroyed or was the chassis damaged and repaired? And are there any other parts of 01C surviving?

All very interesting!

Stephen

 

As far as I am aware, all the items that were still useable were incorporated into 010I, and the damaged stuff thrown away, but still doesn't constitute proof.

 

I saw this car too at Piet Roelofs. Must have been in 1987 or 1988.
Further proofs are 2 photographs. (Gli Amice is the Club Magazine of Ferrari Club Nederland)

Then, don't you have the book Origins of the Ferrari Legend by Gioachino Colombo????
I scanned 2 drawnings (page 20 and 21 and added information which of course can also be seen if enlarged.) Furthermore I scanned page 19. The text must be clear.

There is an interesting article in Forza no 6, page 24-30 concerning the re-numbering of 01C to 010I.

In Ferrarissima no 1 (series1) the following can be read:

"wheelbase 2420 mm"
"front tread 1255 mm"
"rear tread 1200 mm"

Further:
"The frame was built of manganese-chrome steel, oval-section tubin by Gilco of Milan.
It was formed of two longitudinal members, three cross-bars, a diagonal central brace and a cross-piece at the end."

"Cortese, finally, is almost certain it (the body) was done, unceremoniously, done in Modena"

I hope more can follow.

Regards, Eugène
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Dimensions mentioned in Ferrarissima 1 and the prictures, are of course from the 125 S.
I forgot.
Eugène

 

Origins of the Ferrari Legend by Gioachino Colombo only shows drawings, not actual blueprints. We do not know for certain if any of the design elements or dimensions changed between the time of these drawings and the actual construction of the car.

 

Stu - What design elements or dimensions do you want to know? We have fixed the w/b and track by now. The blueprint is very similar to the drawing shown here, even down to the column shift. The main difference is that the blue-print (in line with John Starkey's commnts) features the cross-bar on the X brace. Let me know what else you're questioning, and I'll see if I have/can find the answer.
Nathan

 

The first car built obviously didn't have column shift. I am also wondering if the car had the crossbar or not when first built. I am attempting to figure out everything that was modified on the car when it became 010I.

 

Missed this topic, because I'm not regularly visiting this site. However, it was clear that it will pop up (again).

I would like to make clear that I have no objection to get involved in theoretical questions like "oldest existing Ferrari" or "is a restamped chassis a new one or not". These are topics of the present "Ferrari scene", of which I am not a member, and even not a close observer. My interest is exclusively the history, and mainly that of period racing.

As Jim said, a lot of nonsens has been written in the past about the very early Ferraris, and most of this can be traced back to good old Stan Nowak, who always tried to make history fit to his cars. The $ 500 premium he got from Henry Austin Clark for "the oldest Ferrari" (#004C) at that time was good money, so he had to fight hard for it by claiming #004C was renumbered #02C. He came in trouble later when he restored #002C and tried the same trick again, this time worth even 1000 bucks...! So the only way to make it work was claiming #01C having been the basis for #002C. Pure nonsens of course, and this time he failed.
But let Stanley rest in peace, we are talking about an era where early Ferraris had been simply used cars. But strange enough his "histories" survived for decades.

"C" or "I"? The first cars had been named "competizione", hence #01C and #02C. This was carried through to #002C and #004C, although it may be that now the "C" stood for "corsa". In December 1947 Ferrari released a folder for the new car - now designated tipo 166 - naming it "166 Inter". No, this was not the road car commonly known as "Inter", but the competition car generally described as "Spyder Corsa". "Spyder Corsa" never was the car's type, only the layout of the bodywork. The "I" came from the newly introduced "Formula International 2" and the parallel announced "Formula International for Sports Cars", both for unsupercharged 2 litre engines. The road cars are not my specialty, but I believe Marcel can confirm that the early examples had been designated "Sport" ("S"), and only later in 1948, when the "Inter SC" was out of production, they had been sold as "Inter" (but still with the "S" suffix).

Although #004C and #006I had been delivered both in March 1948, it is obvious that #004C was started earlier, possibly only a few days or weeks before the decision was made to call the model "166 Inter".

Well, #010I...! Most of you for sure will know the story when this famous piece of lead dropped down and released the until now hidden serial #01C. I refuse to comment this, because as said, my interest is only the original history of these cars. But there are some details about #010I which are worth to mention.

First of all the fact that #01C simply disappeared in September 1947. Okay, Righetti crashed her in practice for the Modena race, but up to now nobody was able to tell me details. Front - rear? Left - right? How much was damaged? Anyway, as Righetti was able to start at Modena a few days later (with #02C) it can be expected that the crash was not really heavy.
By the way, Doug Nye inspected #010I in 1993, and he reported that the chassis' left front has been straightened after impact. Remarkably is that at that time #01C was not yet in the game.

Interesting also the number itself. 3 cars had been delivered in March 1948, just in time for the Giro di Sicilia, #004C, #006I, and #010I. The number in between - #008I - was only ready 2 months later, together with #012I and #014I. So I will not exclude that the chassis of #01C was renumbered to #010I, because it was easier than making 008I from it.

And what about the "horseshoe" grille? #010I was the only Inter SC with a higher nose than all the others, which may led to the conclusion that something under the bodywork may be different.

All this of course is no proof, but a lot of indices. And enough for me to rise no veto against the 01C-010I story. Which and how much parts may have been used, and which alterations to the chassis had been necessary - no idea.
Jim wrote that there are nearly 10 inch difference in wheelbase between the tipo 125 and the tipo 166, but that's not correct. Both cars had 2420 mm (+/- a few mm's). Possibly there is a mixing-up with the tipo 125 GP car which in fact had only 2160 mm.

The pictures on the GILCO website are at least doubtful if not even incorrect. The photo of the 125 frame does not correspond with the drawing on the same page (http://www.gilcodesign.com/doc/des/Ferrari125.htm). The drawing on the other side is very similar to the photo on the 166 page (http://www.gilcodesign.com/doc/des/Ferrari166.htm).
There had been only minor differentials between the chassis' of the very early cars, and there had been changes even during the 166 Inter series. If you compare e.g. #016I with #004C you will spot a lot of them.
The SC bodywork will not fit on a 125 chassis? Hmm! 3 arguments against this:
- the talent of Italian panel beaters
- the fact that #02C (the "autobotte") had a bodywork similar to the Spyder Corsa, and was later converted to a full bodied roadster
- this photo of #01C



The question whether #010I is a new car, or #01C with new number and new body, is a philosophical one, or - because we are talking Ferrari - a question of religion. No playground for me thus...!

 

thank you sir,
your post was a huge learning experience for me. boggles the mind the things the Historians on here know!

 

How can I edit my posting?
Of course it's "Doug Nye", sorry for the typo...!

 

...blueprints exist of those sketches...they were made available to me...though the body obviously is not drawn over them...the blueprint is dated 5-6-46 and is called-out as "Vettur 125"...the chassis underneath 010I is the same as other corsa chassis when compared side by side...(which i did...taking full advantage of what the gods had handed me)...it would appear that the 125 chassis was either retained through the corsa series...(014I being totally layed-out differently as it was a short wheel-based car)...or the corsa chassis i used to compare 010I (01C) against was a recycled chassis itself...


more after pebble...i'm sure...


Cp

 

Why should there be a difference between the tipo 125 and the tipo 166? Because of the designation? The complete different bodywork?

Let's face the facts, the construction of the tipo 125 - the first Ferrari - took nearly 2 years, Colombo started in August 1945, and when he was forced to stay with Alfa Romeo, Giuseppe Busso finished the job. Major input for the chassis design came also from Eng. Cantafora of GILCO. The whole car was well designed and represented the state of the art, so why the layout should change after only 2 units built?

The step from 125 to 166 had no technical reasons, it was based on new regulations in motorsport legislation. From the very early beginning Ferrari's intention was to build a Grand Prix car in accordance to the actual formula, thus 1.5 litre supercharged. The 125 Sport was only the very first step towards this goal. The engine capacity was also a logical one, because besides the 1100 cc class the 1.5 litre class was the most important one in Italy's racing scene in those days. Larger cars were classed "above 1.5 litre", so 2 litre cars had to compete directly with those having 4.5 litres as the Talbots and Delahayes.

This changed in fall of 1947 when the FIA announced the new formulas. The GP formula was retained (1.5 litre s/c resp. 4.5 litre u/s) and christened "International Formula 1", but the voiturette formula was changed from 1100 cc s/c to 2 litre u/s, with the new name now "International Formula 2". Additionally the basic sports car specification was fixed also at 2 litres, and most national MSA's announced a 2 litre championship for 1948. The other classes (750, 1100, 1500, and over 2000) had still been existing, but with limited popularity.

So the change at Ferrari from 1.5 through the interim 1.9 to finally full 2.0 litres was only logical. And logical was also the design of the cycle-fendered Spyder Corsa bodywork, which made it possible to enter the cars not only in sports cars races, but also in F2, simply by removing fenders and lamps.
Ferrari was not the only one with this idea, Maserati did the same with the A6GCS, and also in Germany (AFM, EMW) cycle-fendered 2 litre cars were built. Interesting to see that in Germany the general designation of these cars was "Intertyp".

Ferrari tried a narrow cycle-fendered bodywork already on #02C (nicknamed the "autobotte"), with the idea to enter the car in sports car and also in race car events. But the time was not ripe yet, #02C appeared only once in race car configuration, because the majority of the races had been for 1100 cc voiturettes where the Cisitalias D46 were dominating. And as the cycle-fendered body did not show any real advantages in sports car races #02C was converted to a full-bodied roadster similar to #01C. Possibly the rather crude and ugly body of the "autobotte" played also a part in this decision.

But soon after that the new FIA rules were announced, and the idea of a "semi-monoposto" with fenders and lamps was reborn by the newly built #002C. Although still built in 1947 the car was without doubt destined for the 1948 season.

Colombo returned to Ferrari in January 1948, and only then he started to refine the now tipo 166. He brought the engine to full 2 litres, and he shortened the wheelbase from 2420 to 2200 mm (realized only at #008I and #014I). After that he immediately started to finalize the construction of the Grand Prix singleseater, which still was Ferrari's major goal.
Although the interchangeable Spyder Corsa was a good idea, it was neither fish nor meat. It was no real monoposto, and for the long-distance races like the Mille Miglia and the Targa Florio it was too narrow for 2 persons. So specialization was required, the GP monoposto with 166 engine was the ideal F2 racer, and for the sports car races the tipo 166 MM was developed. Which was basically the 2200 mm SWB chassis of the 166 Inter SC with full enveloping bodywork.

I am absolutely convinced that there had been no major changes in chassis layout between the tipo 125 and the tipo 159/166, because Busso simply was not capable enough for such a job. He only refined Colombo's original construction and made it suitable for manufacturing process where necessary. Only Colombo in 1848 redesigned his own construction in some details, which explains that later examples of the 166 Inter SC differ from the earlier ones.

 

THANKS GUYS!!

 

So, they removed the gorgeous spider corsa body of s/n 010I and made another boring "like original" 125 S body.
I saw the same thing this year with Touring barchetta s/n 0036M.
These cars don't have any soul.

 

When #010I first was brought to England by Dudley Folland and John Wyer in 1949 this was done on Carnet basis (temporary import), so she had to be returned to Italy. In 1951 John Willment got a permit from the Board of Trade to import #10I to England for "research and development", but without bodywork. He then ordered a roadster body form from Williams & Pritchard. So it should be noted that #010I lost her Spyder Corsa bodywork already as early as 1951.

The car in abt. 1974 was acquired by Anthony Bamford, who also at that time owned #002C which he has taken over from Carl Bross. Bamford restored #010I (using also some parts of #002C) and fitted a replica Spyder Corsa bodywork.

So what is more "original", a SC body made in 1974, or a roadster body made in 2006?

 

Can you confirm this? I always thought this car was 125 F1 10C (<> 125 01C/010I). Best wishes, Kare

 

#10C was Peter Whitehead's Grand Prix car, which also was not imported to Great Britain. The car was never painted green, always red. For races in GB the entry was officially either by Ferrari, or by the Scuderia Ambrosiana. Also later when owned by David Murray and driven by Bill Dobson in the British F2 championship #10C was still painted red and entered by Ambrosiana.

Folland and Wyer did the same with #010I, a normal procedure as import tax was horrific. I have a photo of #010I from Goodwood 1949 where the car is painted red. The details of the purchase had been written in a letter from John Wyer to the later owner Paul Jackman in 1980. This quote from this letter has been written by Doug Nye in "Historic Race & Rallye" in 1993;

"At that time of course there was very strict exchange control ans it was quite impossible to pay for it or to import it legally. The price was 7 million Lire - about 4000 pounds -, and the deal was done in what was the usual way in those day. We put the money in a cardboard shoebox, wrapped it up in brown paper, and handed it to a courier in the bar at the Berkeley Hotel in London. The car then had to come to England on an Italian carnet and it was advisable for the nominal owner - in whose name the carnet was made out - to accompany it to allay the suspicions of the customs (I cant' imagine they were fooled for a moment). Ferrari nominated an employee for this purpose and Dudley went down in a truck to collect the car and brought the Italian back with him. I cannot remember his name."

And later:

"We had to clear the carnet and in, I think, November, Dudley and I took it as far as Paris and left it in Cattaneo's garage, with instructions to return it to Modena to be sold on our behalf."

 

Hi Michael,

I didn't remember that the spider corsa body was a replica one. So, I agree that the term "original" doesn't mean something with this car...
except the chassis of course...

Thanks.