I am currently constructiing a beautiful little 43rd scale resin kit of the 1960 F2 Ferrari 156 car. To the tiny handful of people who know less than I, this is the car with which Wolfgang von Trips won the 1960 Solitude Grand Prix and the car that developed, later that year, into the Sharknose.
My question is: given that these 43rd scale kit and model manufacturers are pretty accurate with their dimensions, why does this car appear so big in comparison to my Sharknose cars from 1961?
Was it a bigger car or is it simply an error on the part of Tron (the kit makers) which I would doubt, given the cost of the model. (Well over £100 if you buy it built - but a fraction of that in kit form.)
Does anyone have dimensions of the 2 cars to compare sizes?
Big car?
Started by
Barry Boor
, Sep 21 2002 08:59
18 replies to this topic
Advertisement
#2
Pete Stowe
-
- 481 posts
- Joined: May 02
Member
Posted 21 September 2002 - 09:31
The appendicies in Tanner & Nye's Ferrari list both cars (156/F2 and 156/61) as having the same wheelbase (7 ft 7 in) & front and rear track (3 ft 11 1/4 in) :
#3
Vitesse2
-
- 41,859 posts
- Joined: April 01
Administrator
Posted 21 September 2002 - 10:55
Hmm .... Setright's "Grand Prix Car 1954/1966" doesn't have wheelbase or track figures for the Sharknose 156: the only car in the examples for which these are missing.
But wasn't the rear-engined F2 car more correctly called the 156P? I'm probably wrong about this, but I thought it was based on the same chassis as the 246P which Ginther ran at Monaco in 1960, in which case it would have been bigger than a Sharknose, as it was essentially a front-engined Dino 246 chassis AFAIK.
Or not? Setright quotes a wheelbase of 7ft 1in (later 7ft 7.5in) with front track of 4ft 0in and rear track of 3ft 11in, but that's probably for the front-engined Dino 246.
Sounds to me like the figures quoted in Tanner/Nye are for the older car only. Even in 1968 it wasn't possible to go and measure a Sharknose, which is presumably why it's blank in Setright.
But wasn't the rear-engined F2 car more correctly called the 156P? I'm probably wrong about this, but I thought it was based on the same chassis as the 246P which Ginther ran at Monaco in 1960, in which case it would have been bigger than a Sharknose, as it was essentially a front-engined Dino 246 chassis AFAIK.
Or not? Setright quotes a wheelbase of 7ft 1in (later 7ft 7.5in) with front track of 4ft 0in and rear track of 3ft 11in, but that's probably for the front-engined Dino 246.
Sounds to me like the figures quoted in Tanner/Nye are for the older car only. Even in 1968 it wasn't possible to go and measure a Sharknose, which is presumably why it's blank in Setright.
#4
Barry Boor
-
- 11,549 posts
- Joined: October 00
Member
Posted 21 September 2002 - 11:21
I'm probably wrong about this, but I thought it was based on the same chassis as the 246P which Ginther ran at Monaco in 1960, in which case it would have been bigger than a Sharknose, as it was essentially a front-engined Dino 246 chassis AFAIK.
Yes, Pete, I think you may well be right about that one because the general shape of the front end of the model I have is very similar to my home-made slot-race rear-engined 246P.
I always wondered if the reason that the rear-engined car never ran at Monza that year, when they entered as many Ferraris as they could in the absence of the British works teams, was because the car no longer existed. Whereas, the 1.5 litre rear-engined car DID race.
#5
Vitesse2
-
- 41,859 posts
- Joined: April 01
Administrator
Posted 21 September 2002 - 11:46
Pete? How long's my name been Pete?
#6
Roger Clark
-
- 7,506 posts
- Joined: February 00
Member
Posted 21 September 2002 - 11:49
I'm not sure what Vitesse means by saying that the 246P "was essentially a front-engined Dino 246 chassis ", although many components may have been shared.
I believe that the rear-engined car that ran at Monaco in 1960, in Formula 2 at the end of that year and the car that Bagheti drove at Syracuse in 1961 were all essentially the same car, though much modified along the way. As Pete Stowe says, Tanner & Nye quote the same track and wheelbase for all of htem.
It is clear that the 1960 bodywork was much more bulky than that used in 1961. Presumably also, the 2.5litre car would require greater fuel capacity than the 1.5s and would therefore be bigger cars than the sharknoses. It is possible that te F2 cars retained the larger fuel tanks.
Incidentally, am I right in thinking that the bodywork of Beghetti's Syracuse car was different from that used in the later cars? When viwed from the side it looks much more stumpy with the upper surfaces more curved.
I believe that the rear-engined car that ran at Monaco in 1960, in Formula 2 at the end of that year and the car that Bagheti drove at Syracuse in 1961 were all essentially the same car, though much modified along the way. As Pete Stowe says, Tanner & Nye quote the same track and wheelbase for all of htem.
It is clear that the 1960 bodywork was much more bulky than that used in 1961. Presumably also, the 2.5litre car would require greater fuel capacity than the 1.5s and would therefore be bigger cars than the sharknoses. It is possible that te F2 cars retained the larger fuel tanks.
Incidentally, am I right in thinking that the bodywork of Beghetti's Syracuse car was different from that used in the later cars? When viwed from the side it looks much more stumpy with the upper surfaces more curved.
#7
Pete Stowe
-
- 481 posts
- Joined: May 02
Member
Posted 21 September 2002 - 12:59
The Tanner /Nye text on the rear engined cars says that the prototype rear-engined 246 that appeared at Monaco was drastically modified to turn it into a 1500cc prototype, the chassis frame was shortened at the rear by eliminating the extension that held the clutch throwout cylinder, the headrest was trimmed down (on the 246 version the engine fairing taped back from the top of the drivers fairing, whereas on the 156 - as pictured at the Modena GP in September - it was no higher than the seat back, with a bubble over the carb intakes), the fuel tanks were repositioned and the drivers seat moved lower in the frame. The car won at Solitude, raced at Monza (modifications including a smaller radiator, hence a smaller air intake) and Modena, then "the car went back to the factory to be converted to 1961 specifications which included a new body."
The track & wheelbase dimensions listed against the 246/RE are the same as for the 156.
The 1962 Interim 156 is listed with a wider track of 4ft 1 in, while the 156/62/P reverts to the original track, but is given a 7 ft 6 in wheelbase.
I understand that Tanner was an 'insider' at Modena, but he does not go into the origins of the 246 prototype other than saying that Ferrari had done some studies on the Cooper chassis owned by Centro Sud prior to building it.
The track & wheelbase dimensions listed against the 246/RE are the same as for the 156.
The 1962 Interim 156 is listed with a wider track of 4ft 1 in, while the 156/62/P reverts to the original track, but is given a 7 ft 6 in wheelbase.
I understand that Tanner was an 'insider' at Modena, but he does not go into the origins of the 246 prototype other than saying that Ferrari had done some studies on the Cooper chassis owned by Centro Sud prior to building it.
#8
Doug Nye
-
- 11,533 posts
- Joined: February 02
Member
Posted 21 September 2002 - 13:18
From memory the 1960 2.4-litre 'MP' prototype Formula 1 car which Richie drove at Monaco was the same chassis used subsequently for Formula 2 with the 1.5-litre motor installed and bodywork modified. This same chassis I believe was then employed as the 'Sharknose' prototype and, due to its age and 65-degree V6 engine bay only, it became the car provided to the FISA -confederation of Italian scuderiae - not to be confused with the modern FISA alleged 'governing body' - as Baghetti's 1961 mount, French GP winner etc. The frame was somewhat deeper and probably broader than the sister 1961-season works cars and from contemporary pix the bodywork cross section was somewhat more 'full' to the eye. Yes Barry, the car would appear to be marginally bigger, more tubby, than the definitive 1961 works 120-degree engine bay cars.
DCN
DCN
#9
Barry Boor
-
- 11,549 posts
- Joined: October 00
Member
Posted 21 September 2002 - 14:58
Thanks everyone. I think the situation has been adequately explained.
Vitesse: sorry about that, as I scrolled back up after reading all the posts, I somehow missed the end of Pete's message and the beginning of yours.
Apologies, Bruce!
Vitesse: sorry about that, as I scrolled back up after reading all the posts, I somehow missed the end of Pete's message and the beginning of yours.
Apologies, Bruce!
#11
Barry Boor
-
- 11,549 posts
- Joined: October 00
Member
Posted 25 September 2002 - 18:31
Here is the little version of the big car:
If I had bought this as a made up model, it would have cost me 170 euros; and I wouldn't have paid it! In kit form it was only 42.50 euros and well worth the effort and time it took to put together.
It is numbered as for von Trips at Monza.
If I had bought this as a made up model, it would have cost me 170 euros; and I wouldn't have paid it! In kit form it was only 42.50 euros and well worth the effort and time it took to put together.
It is numbered as for von Trips at Monza.
#12
scheivlak
-
- 16,488 posts
- Joined: August 01
Member
#13
Roger Clark
-
- 7,506 posts
- Joined: February 00
Member
Posted 25 September 2002 - 18:48
Very nice indeed, Barry.
#14
Ray Bell
-
- 80,228 posts
- Joined: December 99
Member
Posted 26 September 2002 - 00:12
It also seems to have a stumpier rollover bar than the 1961 cars...
How could anyone have measured the track on them, anyway? They ran so much negative camber that there'd be a very different figure at track level to what was measured at the top of the wheels... or would it be measured at hub height?
How could anyone have measured the track on them, anyway? They ran so much negative camber that there'd be a very different figure at track level to what was measured at the top of the wheels... or would it be measured at hub height?
#15
Barry Boor
-
- 11,549 posts
- Joined: October 00
Member
Posted 26 September 2002 - 06:17
It also seems to have a stumpier rollover bar than the 1961 cars...
An interesting observation, Ray. Especially since neither the car in the Forix photo, nor my model, have any rollover bar at all!!!!!
#16
Roger Clark
-
- 7,506 posts
- Joined: February 00
Member
Posted 26 September 2002 - 06:22
And, of course, roll-over bars only became mandatory in 1961.
#17
Ray Bell
-
- 80,228 posts
- Joined: December 99
Member
Posted 30 September 2002 - 23:58
That was my point...
Even the introduction of the rule meant little... especially obvious when you look at the Lotus 21 or the Ferguson.
It was years before serious rollover protection was built into most cars.
Even the introduction of the rule meant little... especially obvious when you look at the Lotus 21 or the Ferguson.
It was years before serious rollover protection was built into most cars.
#18
ry6
-
- 525 posts
- Joined: October 00
Member
Posted 01 October 2002 - 18:27
Barry - magnificent effort (as usual).
Is this the same car that's on pages 100 and 101 of Graham Gauld's book "Memories of Modena?"
Is this the same car that's on pages 100 and 101 of Graham Gauld's book "Memories of Modena?"
#19
Barry Boor
-
- 11,549 posts
- Joined: October 00
Member
Posted 01 October 2002 - 21:25
Is this the same car that's on pages 100 and 101 of Graham Gauld's book "Memories of Modena?"
Well, YES and NO! If you check back in this thread you will find that the car you quote, which was the 2.5l F1 car did become the 1.5l F2 car later in the year.
The front end remained virtually identical, I think, but the rear bodywork was much lower as the V6 1.5 litre engine was, presumably, that much smaller.
Interestingly, Tron Models in Italy do make a model of the 2.5 litre car too. I'm very tempted!
