Chassis 1C/10S Updated Information

Yes, it's arched over the rear axle as 002.
Yes also to the wheelbase (based on info posted here).

 

Are there any chassis that you can think of that are arched with the same wheelbase that are missing? Is 031S for example arched/same wheelbase?

As an aside 002 will be in Modena in September for quite a while and you're welcome to visit her.

Best

 

Michael,

That was the post I was referring to.

The picture is the one with the three chassis being built up: post 242 in the other thread.

Regards,

Art S.

 

Impressive, thanks for sharing! Do you have cross-member pics for 004C, 006C, 012I or 016I?

 

This x member looks a lot like the one in post #284 but it looks as it would look if the center cross brace of rectangular steel had been cut off.

Tom W

 

Unlikely. I'm no mechanical engineer, but the statical strength of the bended X lies in the structure itself, any cross member will improve it only slightly. Contrary to the fishmouth-welded layout where a cross member forms a vital part of the layout. It's all a question of weight, the bended layout is lighter than the welded version, but may be not suitable for carrying heavy(er) bodywork. So probably the flat transverse was added when the car received another - heavier - body.

 

Only one which comes up to my mind is 006I. As said already earlier - I have very limited knowledge of the road cars, but it would be logical that 031S had/has the welded X section and the underslung frame.

 

The frame on the picture (not 1947, but Feb/March 1948) is completely different than that of 10S. Fishmouth-welded oval tubes with transverse of same tube shape. 10S has bended - as it looks circular-shaped - tubes with a transverse of flat steel.

 

The picture in the middle I posted in #285 most probably shows 004C when restored by Nowak in the 60's. There is no 006C, if you mean 006I - it's missing. For 012I - yes, but I'm not authorized to post it. For 016I - no, but somebody who inspected the car told me so.

 

Unfortunately I have no idea. May be Jim can enlighten us about the tube dimensions of 002.

Acc. to my knowledge 002, 004C, 006I, 012I and 016I. But I do not know everything.
Oh yes, and not to forget the factory replica of 01C, which was made using the wrong drawings.... )

We all do not know the layout of 01C and 02C, all what has been written here and in the other thread is pure speculation. But if - Jim and Stu, I say "if" - 010I is based on 01C, then the picture taken at Symbolic and posted here in #262 shows us the frame of 01C. And this frame is different than that of the other LWB Spyder Corsas, welded X and not bent.

 

Possibly, but not necessarely. The tubes need a center piece to get connected, which then also had the function to carry the cardan bearing.

 

As a person trained in building structures only, it looks weak compared to all of the other shown configuration, and it looks to me as if it may not be as it was originally.

My thought is that the folks building these frames originally knew what they were doing. A configuration lacking a proper cross member seems unlikely to me. I know from experience with other cars that a proper crossmember adds tremendous twisting strength to the frame. The one with the very short front to back X ish structure not of oval or rectangular tubes looks all wrong too.

I speak only from my own experience with no actual historical knowledge beyond what is posted here and what I have seen in my limited library and from looking at the frame of my pf coupe.

I am really enjoying this thread. Thanks to all the knowledgable folks who have been posting.

Tom Walgamuth

 

I agree.

 

Please allow me to accumulate some information which had been discussed already earlier, but probably may not be present anymore with everybody.

This is the very first drawing made by Colombo as early as August 1945.
X section with fishmouth welded tubes without stiffening transverse. In my opinion a somewhat doubtful layout, similar to that of 010I (the photo taken at La Jolla, post #266). This drawing was the very first idea of Colombo after his meeting with Ferrari, where Enzo disclosed to him his idea to build cars. Therefore it has no real significance to the final construction of 1947.
.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Next the blueprint issued by Ferrari dated 5.6.46.
The X section now stiffened by a transverse.

Acc. to Gilberto Colombo (GILCO, no relation to Ferrari's Colombo) the Ferrari construction had been reviewed and changed by GILCO engineer Cantafora. He suggested a change in tube shape and type for weight saving and strength, and revised the wheelbase from 2400 mm to 2420 mm. 2 frames had been manufactured and delivered to Ferrari in September 1946.
Interesting detail is that the Ferrari drawing shows already a wheelbase of 2420 mm, so does the frame layout already include Cantafora's changes? Possible, but not guaranteed.
.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

These first 2 frames weighed 56 kg. Ferrari asked for a lighter model and suggested 50 kg.
It is unlikely that Ferrari in his somewhat stressed financial situation did not use these frames because of a few kilos weight. We can be rather sure that these frames had been used for 01C and 02C. But we can not be sure whether the frame layout as per blueprint dd 5.6.1946 was that of the final frames. The blueprint may have been altered again, either by Ferrari or by Gilco.

The next frame weighed only 44 kg, and was delivered only in June or July 1947. The main difference was the X section which now was made with bended tubes welded together in the center (see pictures in posting #266). This frame without any reasonable doubt has been used for 002(C).

Interesting is that the layout as per blueprint dd. 5.6.46 is exactly that of 001S and 003S. Therefore we cannot exclude that the frames had been put aside and used only later, because from the beginning Ferrari had planned a road version of his cars. The story of 2 frames (56 kg) in September 1946 and the 3rd one (44 kgs) in Summer 1947 is based on Gilberto Colombo's rememberings. May be there had been 2 others in between, which then had been used for 01C and 02C.

Although some voices here believe the frames of 01C and 02C MUST be identical to the blueprint dd 5.6.46, my conclusion is a different one. They CAN be, yes, likely, also yes - but not for sure. As long as we are lacking additional fireproof data, like period photos with proven dates, or other documents like period correspondence, memos, or similar, everything will remain assumption or even speculation. And that's not the way historical research works.

 

Michael, thanks for posting all the frame pictures. I am only now beginning to get an overview as a result of seeing the pictures. I can't help but wonder if all of the frames are original (excepting numerous bits and modifications, etc.)... Who knows...

As an architect several thoughts come to mind:
1) The oval tube reduces horizontal strength as it increases vertical strength. It is hard to know if oval tubes were lighter than round ones. If they were lighter they were probably made of thinner material.
2) As more oval tube was used the frame probably lost torsional and lateral rigidity. This effect would have been multiplied if the oval tube was made of lighter stock.
3) The brace across the center of the frame appears to have been an attempt to increase the frame's torsional strength. The cross member should increase torsional and lateral rigidity by further triangulating the frame structure.
4) The center frame detail is a rather complex fabrication and is critical to maintaining frame rigidity. Failure to join members securely here will greatly reduce the frame's stiffness. The earliest frames (?) appear to use one (bent) diagonal member from front to back. Later designs appear to break the diagonals into four shorter pieces and use the cross member as a universal welding point to ease fabrication and increase this joint's strength.

To my eyes these pictures reveal a logical progression of structural investigation. The later frames appear to be more structurally developed and to use more oval tubing. I can't help but think that oval tubing was harder to obtain that round tubing at the time. This could explain why more oval tubing is used on the later frames. Each variation appears to be working towards a stronger central joint and easier fabrication. The flat bar stock cross member appears to be an amateur attempt to resolve these issues and does not appear to be factory work.

 

I'm going to take a wild guess here and say that the chasis drawing in post 315 is Colombo's design, but the more blueprint like drawing from mid-1956 is Busso's design. I say this because Colombo left Ferrari in November 1945 for Alfa, after delivering the 125 drawings. He did not return until Jan 1948. Colombo was also involvede with the Alca Volpe minicar design in late 1946 and in 1947.


)1C/010I seems much more realted to the original Colombo drawings than the 1946 "blueprint". This makes no real sense to me, and there are rumors the chassis had no stamps in the late 60s/early 70s. Also, that rectangular plate in the middle of the X doesn't look original to me. I would like to find out on what basis the car was certified, as the more and more I think about this car, the more it bothers me..

 

There has been no mention so far of the back axle.
Is it a proprietary type, and are all the early axles similar?
Certainly it looks less elegant than the axle illustrated in the Colombo drawings.
Could there be any clues there in the event of it still being the original?
Has John looked to see if there are any stampings on it?

 

Stu,

Have the drawings posted by Macael always been availible? If not, when did they come to light? If all of these drawings were not public, in the '60s then the owner's perception of historical correctness may have been different. What do you think about the possibility that Stan Novak modified the 01C/010I frame to match the first drawing?

Regards,

Art S.

 

This is no wild guess, but simply a fact.

Concerning the chassis photo of 010I, I only posted it for reasons of completeness, and also to show the differences between 010I and the other LWB Spyder Corsas. I would appreciate if the discussion 01C v/s 010I is continued in the other thread.

One remark for those who are not that familiar with the situation at Ferrari in the early years. The Ferrari factory at Maranello originally was purposed and equipped to build machine tools, not cars. This was Enzo's business during the war years, from which he build up the capital to start his car business. Therefore a lot of work had to be outsourced, e.g. forging, panelbeating, and also frame manufacturing. GILCO was one of Ferrari's customers for machine toos, hence the connection. They had been very experienced in building automotive frames.
.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Made in Detroit by Ford Motor Company.

 

010I is one of the few early Ferraris Stanley NEVER had been involved. God bless...

 

I would guess that the rectangular cross pieces are later additions - probably to strengthen the chassis when the Buick V8 was fitted?
Nathan
Image Unavailable, Please Login