125 and 159

It was not only a replica body, it was also an incorrect body. Well, incorrect isn't the right word, but is was a copy of the car when owned by Folland, not a copy of the original body.

 

Jim G.,

Someone has already done your bidding for you!

I hope you end up aquiring it; it would be great fun to see it running together with 002C.

Regards,

Art S.

 

Walter
are you sure? Doesn't it read
TEL166C No 01C/010I (note 01C - not 010)
Nathan

PS - I guess you have your original question answered ??

 

Nathan,

This has been a wonderful and informative thread!

Regards,

Art S.

 

Wayne
Where abouts on the car was this? Have you got a photo that shows it in context?
Nathan

 

I have:
http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/7268/166sc010istamping1fj2.jpg

Don't remember the courtesy, if someone here was the source please accept my apologies...

 

Something looks very odd about that number plate. When the discovery that a lead plug was covering the original 01C S/N at Symbolic, photos taken of the number 010I stamped on the plug look much differnet than what is shown now. I don't remember if the photos were in Cavallino or Forza. These look like they were simply made with welding rod. The numbers back at the time were stamped!

 

Yup. Can't recall if Bill's weighed in on this thread & I gotta amscray...
http://forums.atlasf1.com/showthread.php?threadid=83285&goto=nextoldest

 

The plate is brandnew, so does it really matter what is stamped on it...?

 

I believe he's refererring to Wayne's interesting photos.

Gotta Amscray #2...

 

I was referring to #160...

 

Hi Stu,
For your info and others following this story - my thoughts were the same as yours until I checked. The photo referred to appeared in Forza 6 p.28. The layout and placement of the numbers in the Forza photo looks exactly the same as Wayne's photo. The Forza photo is just poor quality.
Nathan

 

I don't collect magazines, so my copy of that Forza is long gone.....however, something doesn't seem quite right. I have never seen a Ferrari have a serial number that isn't stamped. The one on Wayne's photo looks like it is made out of welding rod or solder.

I actually prefer the barchetta style body to the siluro style body, and I know 01C raced with both...but did 010I ever race with the barchetta body?

 

no problem micheal...chassis stampings should be no secret thing...it is curious though...the corsa was still a three digit serial number...so why would there be a fourth 0, making it 0010I...i'm glad you didn't post it when i sent it to you though...


Cp

 

Hey

Marcel, Keith and I had some very interesting discussion and at some point I'm sure they and other's will weigh in. In the end, as Dr. Stu has said so many times before, it comes down to whether or not things are scientifically provable. No more. No less. I would look for a transverse at the point of the shock mounts containing an internal roll bar or evidence that it was once definitely there. Some times it's motor mounts and 12 mm changes in wheel base and some times it the existence or lack of existence of that tricky little transverse with an internal anti roll bar. As Marcel and Keith both noted when they re looked at 002C that tricky little transverse would have a lot of trouble going through a 159/166 fuel tank as I said earlier. That transverse is either there, or evidence that it was once was, or it isn't.

Feeling Lucky?

 

several references are made to this web site. can anyone giv me the complete web address for this.. can't find it on google. thanks reply to [email protected]

 

Try this
http://www.gilcodesign.com/doc/des/Ferrari125.htm
Nathan

 

Here's the photo.

T308
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

For those seeking answers follow these clues...

Just before I was on the phone to the desk not bidding on the 412MI a fellow fchatter and I were marveling at the $ for the 275 with three head gaskets esp. as there are more P3 heads existant than the ones for that one.

Another Fchatter later talked to him and he told an interesting tale. Perhaps he'll post it here maybe he won't.

I'd look for the man who restored the car a long long time ago. I'd ask him how the chassis was or wasn't stamped. I'd ask him if what he told the 275 head expert was correct.

 

OK, in that photo appears to be the same as today. Maybe my memory is failing, because I am almost certain there was another photo where the numbers appeared to be stamped, rather than made with what looks like solder.

 

Oh, come on...tell us the story. That's not playing fair

 

Once again it comes down to metal. Look at page 19 Fitzgerald/Merritt.

Someone please explain to me why they feel that drawing is not correct and why they believe in light of that drawing that 166 and 125 chassis were the same. IMO that transverse with the internal roll bar was changed/moved from the 125's to the first 159. We've all seen a 159 chassis and the transverse in not there at the center point of the shock mount. If it were it would have to go through the gas tank...
Image Unavailable, Please Login