Chassis 1C/10S Updated Information

I believe there was one and possibly two chassis built by Gilco that followed these drawings by Colombo. Gilco soon realised that where the central X member joined in the middle needed to be supported with two tubes connecting tke X joint to the outside chassis tubes.There is a picture in "Ferrari, Fifly Years on the Track" of an early chassis without these cross members.. Both 01C and 02C when rebuilt at Ferrari had the cross members added and they were also incorperated on all othere Gilco road car chassis. just one man's opinion Baltic35

 

I'm not sure if any chassis were actually built with just the "X" crossmember, as in the Colombo drawings. It sure would be nice to see a plan view of 1C/10S....

 

See below.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Thanks. Interesting, as I've never seen that chasis style before. Does the caption give a chassis number?

 

That's "01C/010I"

 

Something about it looks funny to me. That, plus the fact there is no documentation on 1C or 10S....

 

That's 01C/010I not 1C/10S

 

Oops, my error. There is still something that doesn't look quite right to me unless there were a fair number of changes from 01C (assuming the car was built to the Colombo drawings) to 010I

 

It's my understanding that 01C became 010I; not 1C....and that 01C and 1C were 2 different chassis...

 

I'm wondering if people are afraid to post an opinion about 1C/10S becuase of possible legal ramifications over the fact that Classiche has "certified" 01C/010I ??

 

Stu

Have you heard of 1C as opposed to 01C? Bill's post is strange and interesting as he does refer to 1C.

Best

 

I have seen a reference to cars numbered 1C and 2C; both without any zeros. I don't remember where though, and I've been searching through what I have since my long conversation with "Jawsalfa" last evening. It may have been in the Geoffrey Eaton book from circa 1986, of which I don't have a copy (or if I do, I can't find it)

It's very possible the zero (or two zeros) was left off, and (for example), when the writer (Eaton?) referred to a car as 2C, he was actually talking about your car.

I have seen articles and posts that call your car 02C, but also 002C.

This is the first time I've ever seen or heard of anything about 10S.

Based on the photos posted here and the research I've done so far, I believe what we have are PARTS of the first Ferrari, but I wouldn't even hazzard a guess as yet if there are enough parts there to call it the first Ferrari car.

 

Interesting.

 

I have at least one (1) maybe two (?) books by Goeffery Eaton; I'll take a cursory look...

Fortunately, my scanner has fritzed out so not copyright infringement to worry about.

Edit: turns out I have three (3) books by GODFREY Eaton, so this will take longer than I thought.

 

Yes, Godfrey Eaton! I had a John Godfrey book out just before and confused the two - sorry.

 

As he is also talking about 3C obviously from Stan Nowak, because "3C" ist Stan's invention.

 

I am not saying that this is the answer, only that this is what I was told ....

Note: "Apparently the first stamping was incorrect and the chassis had to be stamped again." Maybe when stamping 010 the last 0 didn't stamp correctly and only came out looking like a C (hence 01C) so it had to be stamped again?
Nathan

 

The interesting thing is that this person claims that the stampings on 01C/010I were made by him in the sixties and before he made those stampings there were none on that chassis and interestingly no one has refuted that statement.

We know from the log book that 1C/10S stampings were on the car for at least 40 years.

Michael you owe me a bottle of good wine. The dimension from the rear cross bar to the cross bar that the sway bar runs through in 002C is 2 feet.

 

Hi Stu
I don't know about afraid of being sued - I think it's more a case of not knowing what 1C/10S is. As you posted earlier in this thread "That, plus the fact there is no documentation on 1C or 10S.... ". I have checked many references, going back many years and I can't find any references either (other than Godfrey Eaton's reference to 1C which seems to be 01C).
A fascinating thread and thanks to Jawsalfa for starting it.
Nathan

 

I agree. The person you spoke to/of about 01C/010I's stampings has stuck to his story for a long time and I do think it's odd that the current owner of 01C/010I, The Judges at Pebble, and Ferrari Classiche have ignored the allegation that those stamps are not original. If those stamps are not original what are they basing their belief that that is in fact 01C's original chassis used by Ferrari to make 010I at a later time?

1C/10S's 125 brakes and wheels are very interesting. They could simply be a case of binned parts being used at a later point but they are 125.

Cheers

 

Your theory about 1C/10S parts is the berst one to date. See my previous post. justy one man's opinion tongascrew

 

A couple of questions in regard to this chassis: (some had been covered somewhat in other threads -- too bad they aren't all in one comprehensive thread)

1) Is there a definitive ownership chain of this chassis pre-Bamford?
2) Has this chassis shared shop space with other 125/159/166 chassis? (Nowak or Bamford?) Just curious if parts might have been swapped amongst chassis at one point (and re-stamped)? ie: putting better brakes on a running chassis and putting old ones on non-running chassis.
3) If this was a 125 chassis (TBD - but most likely) -- what coachwork has been on it pre-Motto (current) and post-original?
4) The disc wheels and brakes -- can we get better external and internal pictures of them for historial purposes?