Chassis 1C/10S Updated Information

Damn, I seem to have made an accidental (and unlucky) copy paste and replaced "have" with "on Buick power" in the last chapter: it should say

I also think that if Stabilimenti Farina preferred working on early style frames, Ferrari may have sent leftover early style frames their way on purpose. I believe switching over from one type chassis to another may not always have been easy for a coachbuilder, so I would also think that Ferrari might even HAVE ordered a few more early style frames for St. Farina's production. It would be interesting to know what other Farinas have - and also to compare to Touring production of the same period.

(if the "management" has too much time on their hands, it owuld be nice if the two previous postings were edited - my original and as quoted by Napolis - and this post was deleted entirely).

 

If it can be shown that there is a single Inter out there with this style of X-member and the depression for the starter on the front of the chassis I will tend to believe this is the remnants of 031S.

So, please, which Inter has this type of chassis?

Some other points:

I personally don't think it's at all likely that Farina would have a preference for one chassis type over another. It makes so little difference to a body constructor that this idea seems far-fetched. What's the actual practical problem you're thinking of Kare?

I also still find it very strange that those very early parts happened to appear on 031S (if this is 031S).
1. Why would anyone swap them over in Italy? Accident damage wouldn't happen to all 4 brakes and a steering box.
2. If it was Desormeau who did the faking, ie restamping + acquiring and fitting the early parts (how would he have got them?), why didn't he then try to capitalise on his chicanery?
Jim says there were people out there looking for the 'first Ferrari'. Surely we might have seen an advert for this car, or someone would have reported it. Wouldn't Nowak have gone for it then rather than trying to buy from Ed later?
Remember it wasn't a big deal to Ed Willimann. I'm sure Desormeau would have been asking bigger bucks than Ed paid, 'a few hundred dollars' I think he said.

Another question for Jim and John/Ed:

Fitzgerald & Merritt (p18) say of the first 3 cars: "The wheel hubs were of a pre-war pattern, similar to those used on Alfa Romeos of that period". Does 002 have these hubs and does 1C/10S have them?

Other miscellaneous facts FWIW:

Nowak - 40 years on the road (1988) says "031S...In Colorado USA in 1960s with Buick engine. May have been rebodied with old Spyder body"

I've seen photos of 10 Inters with CABO wheels, and also of course the courtyard car.

 

#007S

 

Thanks. I'm getting more converted to 031S......

 

#031S was delivered in June 1949, in a period where Ferrari still was far away from being financially sound. The Spyder Corsa series was stopped 1 year earlier only and not "years before". Frankly spoken, for which cars should they use surplus 2420 mm SC frames? The MM had 2200 mm wheelbase only, and of course Colombo's new chassis layout with underslung frame at the rear. 2620 mm LWB Inters we can drop also.

 

"2. If it was Desormeau who did the faking, ie restamping + acquiring and fitting the early parts (how would he have got them?), why didn't he then try to capitalise on his chicanery"

David Castellano posted that he did try to pass this car off as "The First Ferrari" but as DM and other's believed it was 031S no one was buying it.

As for bolt on parts by the 60ies there were a lot of bolt on parts floating around and as Michael has pointed out Ferrari often reused "scrapped" parts themselves.

Ferrari did a lot of things that suited them and some times what they said about them was simply not true.

They painted 0856 as the Daytona winner and told David Clarke that it was. (I have a photo of 0856 taken by David Clarke with handwriting on the back clearly identifying chassis 0856 as The Daytona winner driven by Amon and Bandini. The same handwriting also states that Nino drove 0856 in the Targa Florio in 1967. There is only one P car that Nino raced in Sicily and that is not 0856 and there is no question what-so-ever that 0856 was not the Daytona winner.

 

When you have built a certain type of body on a certain type of chassis, everything is just copying from then on. You know what it takes and you may have templates, jigs and tools still around. Learning curve is also always present. You may have learned some things the hard way and not very pleased of an idea having to go through the same trouble again for no advantage just because some idiot changed a perfectly good design. In the end the shop mananger may quote -10% discount of price and minus a week or two out of delivery time for getting his hands on the same type of chassis again. Common practices in manufacturing industry. Subcontractors charge money for "the unknown factor". In later times it seems coachbuilders put one chassis aside until the production was flowing smoothly. 0357GT, 0505GT and 0797GT may all be examples of such thing. It seems the cars were completed later than the serial number suggests.

Who says they are "very early"? If they were good for racing, they most certainly would be good for street a few years later - and they might be cheaper. Why installing latest gadgets on a street car that is not going to see any competition work? That would be burning money in the owen!

Hmm... What is "the courtyard car"?

Best wishes, Kare

 

OK with me but I still think that learning to do new stuff is always more expensive than doing that old stuff again.

It is a well known fact that in the early days Ferrari reused expensive left overs like steering boxes. It is also a well known fact that Ferrari part numbers often contain the type number which indicates the model where a certain part was first used. I am almost sure that my GT/E has parts with "166" on them. This has created a lot of confusion through the years as almost everybody thinks such parts must have been taken from an earlier car!

 

I agree about the castings being used for later models - it's very common on Ferraris. Actually the same with many parts, just look at the parts book numbers.

I had understood that it was agreed that these were very early brakes, but maybe I got this wrong. As I said I hope to go and look at 029S and will see what brakes are on that.

Regarding the steering box: This really does seem to be from the very beginning of Ferrari. Now if they re-used it, that suggests it came from an earlier car, maybe even the first. How about if they also re-used the chassis & brakes too when they made 031S?

 

Techically we know very little of early cars. Without Napolis' input we would know even less. Having a look at brakes on 029S is a good idea. Still we cannot be absolutely sure if some of the brakes have been upgraded.

I don't know what to think of steering box numbers. If they are special order units and Ferrrai ordered 10-20 pieces at a time to optimize the price, the numbers can be randomly scattered among early production. We know too few numbers to see a pattern. Best wishes, Kare

 

Maybe, but 031S was produced 2 years and some 34 (2 seat) cars after 002.

 

At that time Stan had very clearly written that 002C WAS "The First Ferrari".

Quite bizarre that Desormeau would represent this car as "002C" especially as everyone at that time knew that this car was not 002C and exactly where 002C was. I now understand why David Castellano found Desormeau hinky.

002 passed through US Customs and was road registered as 002C. Under what chassis number did this car pass through US Customs?

What number is used in this cars logbook when it was raced? 002C? 1C?

 

Here are some shots of 0045 S, an early short WB chassis Inter. The front cross member does have a notch for the starter handle.
Tom
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Hello Tom
It's great to have these photos of your car, and interesting to find that the later centre x-brace exists in combination with the starter handle notch.
It would be interesting to see photos of the chassis stamp (even better if you could give the height of the letters) and to know exactly where it's located if you can post that.
Can you also photograph the steering box checking if it has numbers, and the brake drums, especially to see the casting numbers, and also measure the length of the splined hubs projecting from drums front & rear?
Many thanks
Will

 

Hi Will,
I will check it out and post what I find.
Tom

 

Hi, great pixs thanks much. Plese everyone compare the cross bracing here with the cross bracing on 1C10S and you will see why the 1C10S bracing is not original GILCO. just one man's opinion tongascrew

 

Jim, of course it's a guess but based on a certain amount of research and logic and 'just one man's opinion' george

 

Nice pictures (really). Your chassis looks to be well preserved, in the best of British traditions

Obviously a later addition, but is the tubular shock absorber effective at such an acute angle? I understand, if your explanation is to leave the chassis and axle mounting points completely unaltered.

I hope to view pictures of the shiny side some day, if not the actual car.

Best regards,

Randy Forbes

 

When your Dad bought "002C" Stan had published that 002C was "The First Ferrari".

Did your Dad think he was buying 002C? Did he think he was buying "The First Ferrari"?

What chassis number did your Dad use in this cars racing logbook?

Was your Dad aware of David S's article? Did he think it was right/wrong?

When your Dad saw the press release stating this car was "01C" "The First Ferrari" what was his reaction? (If he saw the press release)

DM is still with DOT so far as I know. Perhaps he can help you answer the question as to what the chassis number was when this car was imported into the US.

 

I fail to see your logic that this chassis is the repaired remains of "001S" or in any way connected to "001S".

 

This has been an interesting one to follow...and, as someone who has dealt with older vehicles (BMW motorcycles), customs, and DMVs quite often...I have a few comments:

To this day, customs and DMV paperwork can be suspect. If the customer/consumer has done some homework and is prepared, either one (customs or dmv) can be a breeze. It's mostly about knowing what they want and giving it to them without any stories. Generally, all they want is a number on a vehicle that matches a number on a piece of paper.

For example, in a past life I traveled hundreds of thousands of airline miles with a small production, proprietary electronic "system." The system had many strange components that were essentially hand built. To make travel easier (in some cases possible), I had a carnet for the equipment. It made most trips through customs a breeze...because I had paperwork that matched the *hand-written on office supply label* serial numbers. The reality was (and still is) that *I* was the one who could control or manipulate the actual products to match whatever paperwork I had.

Same with DMV...esp. with vehicles built prior to the 17 digit VIN requirement (1981). If the vehicle being inspected has some official-ish looking something-or-other that matches the number on the registration or title, they are usually quite happy.

Giving or having too much information raises flags; too little information raises flags. The "just right" amount of information makes it a breeze.

THEN...as some others have discussed...after DMV (or customs) is happy with what you have presented to them, they will do whatever they need to do to make the transaction fit their system. If the VIN isn't long enough for their modern computer database, they will add digits as they see fit. Here in Oregon, they need at least 7 digits...when I titled my 1958 sidecar rig, it's 6 digit VIN was stretched by adding a zero to the beginning.

My point is: it's a bit naive to believe that a car could not have passed through customs without the legally required chassis stamps...regardless of what the legal requirements were at the time of import or at the time of manufacture. It's also naive to believe that a DMV issued document...simply because it was issued...accurately reflects any bit of any truth...

...these things should be considered and are part of the story, but they are certainly not bits of evidence that can stand alone.

Ted

 

Hi, I agree with you about how the older Ferrari parts, particularly the center frame rails and the X bracing, could appear on 031S. That is why my belief is that if that center section came from any car it had to be one of the early 44klg chassis from 1947 with the bent X tubing and no cross bracing. just one man's opinion tongascrew