Ferrari 246 F1 fuel tanks
#1
Posted 03 August 2012 - 13:00
Advertisement
#2
Posted 03 August 2012 - 20:07
Did the 1958 Ferrari 246F1 have side fuel tanks on both or only one side?
Does this help. Drawing copyright Motor Racing.
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
#3
Posted 03 August 2012 - 22:07
The drawing posted by Graham Gauld shows Collins' car from the Silverstone International Trophy. It was the small diameter tube frame introduced in 1958. This was apparently insufficiently rigid and most cars raced through 1958 had the 1957 frame with larget diameter longitudinal tubes. Lack of rigidity doesn't seem to have bothered collins at Silverstone.
#4
Posted 03 August 2012 - 22:52
#6
Posted 04 August 2012 - 06:42
Does the book give any clues as to which car is represented?The drawing in Piero Casucci's book appears to show a right side fuel tank.
#7
Posted 04 August 2012 - 23:12
Does the book give any clues as to which car is represented?
The car in the drawing has disc brakes which would make it a late 1958 car. According to Casucci discs were first used on Hawthorn's car at the 1958 Italian GP.
Just had another look at the drawing and noticed that the car has low exhausts which would make it a 1959 car.
Edited by Milan Fistonic, 05 August 2012 - 05:01.
#8
Posted 05 August 2012 - 06:49
The car in the drawing has disc brakes which would make it a late 1958 car. According to Casucci discs were first used on Hawthorn's car at the 1958 Italian GP.
Just had another look at the drawing and noticed that the car has low exhausts which would make it a 1959 car.
It is the 1958 machine, the exhausts curve up at cockpit level and finish a the the level of the top of the rear tyres.
This exhaust arrangement was unique to the 1958 Dinos.
Surely the car depicted in the drawing has the huge finned drum brakes. Discs (by Dunlop) were introduced for Monza, Mike Hawthorn being instrumental in having this modification carried out.
The small-tube frame may have lacked in rigidity which would probably be a factor in the alleged harsh transition from understeer to oversteer which the 1958 Dinos suffered, certainly it was mentioned
a lot after Collins' Pflanzgarten accident.
I was only 10 at the time, but the cars I got to inspect fairly closely in the Norburgring paddock seemed to have had tail fuel tanks only. If I remember correctly, that is
Edited by doc knutsen, 05 August 2012 - 06:50.
#9
Posted 05 August 2012 - 08:35
#10
Posted 05 August 2012 - 08:50
#11
Posted 05 August 2012 - 09:52
You're talking about the drawing in Post 2, Doc. Milan's reference was to the one in Post 5
The drawing in post 5 still features drum brakes and the high exhausts, unless mye eyes have undergone the Murray treatment
Edited by doc knutsen, 05 August 2012 - 09:53.
#12
Posted 05 August 2012 - 10:45
By quoting Milan you seemed to think he was referring to that drawing, where his reference to low exhausts clearly indicates he was commenting on the drawing in Post 2
#13
Posted 05 August 2012 - 11:03
Yes, that's my point
By quoting Milan you seemed to think he was referring to that drawing, where his reference to low exhausts clearly indicates he was commenting on the drawing in Post 2
Que? The drawing in post 2 shows a car with drum brakes and high exhausts, just like the one in post 5. I think Milan is referring to a drawing in a book with which I am not familiar, not to either of the drawings shown in this thread.
#14
Posted 05 August 2012 - 12:34
#15
Posted 05 August 2012 - 17:13
I believe that Collins' Nurburgring had a large tube frame.The small-tube frame may have lacked in rigidity which would probably be a factor in the alleged harsh transition from understeer to oversteer which the 1958 Dinos suffered, certainly it was mentioned
a lot after Collins' Pflanzgarten accident.
Am I correct in believing that here is no evidence of a 1958 Ferrari with right side cockpit fuel tank?
If the number 3 is correct in the car depicted in post 5 then it must be either von Trips at Silverstone or Hawthorn at the Nurburgring (I think). It seems to have a small tube frame which rules out Hawthorn (I think).
#16
Posted 05 August 2012 - 17:20
DCN
#17
Posted 06 August 2012 - 12:41
DCN,As far as I can recall from work on my book about the Dinos, Jim Allington's drawing provided by Graham in Post 2 was prepared by Jim in the garage at Brackley in which the Ferrari team was based during the 1958 BRDC International Trophy meeting. It depicts the small tube frame variant as driven by Collins in that specific event. Jim took dozens of nutsy-boltsy detailed photographs from which to work up his drawing.
DCN
Any input as to the side fuel tanks?
#18
Posted 06 August 2012 - 13:51
In case Doug doesn't see this, or can't remember what he wrote al those years ago. he said that the first of the 1958 cars dispensed with cockpit fuel tankage and that, at the British Grand Prix Collins and von Trips had additional fuel tanks on the left side of the driving seat but Hawthorn didn't. This matches the theory that the car in post 5 is von Trips' Silverstone car.DCN,
Any input as to the side fuel tanks?
It may also be worth mentioning that one car had the oil tank in the cockpit instead of at the extreme rear. This was the car built for the Monza 500, later converted to Formula 1 specification. It should be dentifiable as it had a shorter than normal tail and coil spring rear suspension,
#19
Posted 06 August 2012 - 14:12
Advertisement
#20
Posted 06 August 2012 - 19:00
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
#21
Posted 07 August 2012 - 07:03
Image shack has been mucking about again but here is von Trips at the British GP in 1958
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Isn't this one of the most gorgeous F1 racers? Thank you for posting Mr. Gauld!
Edited by Arjan de Roos, 07 August 2012 - 07:04.
#22
Posted 07 August 2012 - 09:32
Edited by Roger Clark, 07 August 2012 - 09:32.
#23
Posted 07 August 2012 - 11:21
Jim had a huge collection of detail photographs, mostly stored as rolled-up, un-cut 35mm negs, kept in shallow boxes with egg-box style cardboard dividers. At one time I offered to archive them for him, as I didn't think this was the best way of storing them, but my offer was ignored. By far the most were his, I think, some may have been by David Phipps, I can't be sure of this. I wonder where they are now...As far as I can recall from work on my book about the Dinos, Jim Allington's drawing provided by Graham in Post 2 was prepared by Jim in the garage at Brackley in which the Ferrari team was based during the 1958 BRDC International Trophy meeting. It depicts the small tube frame variant as driven by Collins in that specific event. Jim took dozens of nutsy-boltsy detailed photographs from which to work up his drawing.
DCN
#24
Posted 08 August 2012 - 06:29
#25
Posted 08 August 2012 - 17:04
In his race report and Notes on the Cars, DSJ refers on occasion to "Houdaille vane-type shock absorbers", and on others to "regular Houdaille shock absorbers". Are these the same thing? Ferrari was also experimenting with Koni shock absorbers.
Houdailles were typically rotary shocks in prewar days, so I guess "vane-type" would be just another word for that. I have to admit to being somewhat surprised to see them still in action in the late fifties!
#26
Posted 09 August 2012 - 20:33
DCN
#27
Posted 09 August 2012 - 20:38
I believe the Maserati 250F used Houdailles until the Piccolo. No doubt somebody will correct or confirm.
Edited by Roger Clark, 09 August 2012 - 20:40.
#28
Posted 15 August 2012 - 11:24
Thanks Michael and Doug. It's strange that DSJ referred to one car having vane-type Houdailles and the other regular Houdailles in the same article.
'Regular' Houdailles probably means vane-type. Did Houdaille make any others?
#29
Posted 15 August 2012 - 11:53
At Monaco, Hawthorn's car had a significantly longer cockpit area and, presumably, longer wheelbase. Does anyone know how much longer it was, and whether this applied at all races?
'Mon Ami Mate' has profile photos of both Hawthorn's and Collins' cars braking for the Mirabeau which clearly shows the difference - a bit of work with a ruler and calculator should provide the answer tonight. I think Hawthorn's car was used by him at every race - I doubt he could fit easily in any other of the team cars.
There are several cutaways of the 1958 246 in that thread but none provide any more info than the one re-posted.
Paul M
#30
Posted 15 August 2012 - 13:38
'Mon Ami Mate' has profile photos of both Hawthorn's and Collins' cars braking for the Mirabeau which clearly shows the difference - a bit of work with a ruler and calculator should provide the answer tonight. I think Hawthorn's car was used by him at every race - I doubt he could fit easily in any other of the team cars.
There are several cutaways of the 1958 246 in that thread but none provide any more info than the one re-posted.
Paul M
This is the Hawthorn car at Monza in 1958 with its new Dunlop disc brakes, centre, whereas the other team cars had drums
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
#31
Posted 15 August 2012 - 15:18
DCN
#32
Posted 15 August 2012 - 15:42
In Graham's photo, the car beyond Hawthorn's is, I think, Gendebien's, originally the 3-litre special built for the Monza 500. It was later converted to formula 1 spec and taken as spare car to the German Grand Prix where Hawthorn drove it in practice. It differed in several respects from the other cars, including telescopic rear shocks and the oil tank in the cockpit instead of at the extreme rear. It would be interesting to know its wheelbase.
#33
Posted 16 August 2012 - 13:46
Paul M
#34
Posted 16 August 2012 - 15:59
#35
Posted 16 August 2012 - 16:27
#36
Posted 16 August 2012 - 18:45
I found three well matched negs of the cars, side-on, and scaled off their wheelbases using a tyre sidewall height as the constant. I think the wheelbase worked out to 14 times the sidewall height for the first two cars but, sure enough, 15 times the sidewall height for Piacenza's. So all three cars most definitely did not comply with the wheelbase length declared, by inference, for all three team cars.
I then checked the weigh-in records, and sure enough Piacenza's car was not only substantially heavier than its two shorter-wheelbase, smaller-chassis, sisters - it was also the heaviest car in the entire entry. The photo evidence was supported there by the weigh-in figures. In the photographs the Piacenza car simply looked longer through the cockpit area. Measuring it out against its sisters settled the issue.
DCN
Edited by Doug Nye, 16 August 2012 - 18:48.
#37
Posted 16 August 2012 - 19:00
#38
Posted 17 August 2012 - 05:38
I've been through Doug's Dino book, his article in Historic Race and Rally, Pierre Abeillon's article in Automobile Historique, the Tanner/Nye Ferrari tome, all of DSJ's race reports and Notes on the Cars and Champion Year and I found no mention of Hawthorn's car having a loger wheelbase. I've also looked at a number of photographs and found nothing conclusive. The ones in Mon Ami Mate are suggestive but the impression may be heightened by Hawthorn's aero screen.
#39
Posted 17 August 2012 - 09:51
The impression of greater length giving rise to the comments with the photos in the book is, as Roger says, distorted by Hawthorn not having a wrap-around screen, but the distance from the back of the engine cover to the aeroscreen appears to be greater in proportion. However we know all the bodies were hand-made and individual in shape (the tail tanks look different in the photos, as an example) so every dimension may have been different.
The only other relevant fact is that in previous years with Ferrari, whenever Hawthorn took over or tried a team-mate's car he couldn't fit in it properly, being about 4" taller than the next tallest driver.
As an aside the 1959 cars had a given wheelbase of 2220mm, 60mm longer than that of the 1958 cars - possibly coincidence or possibly not. Maybe JMH's car was 60mm longer.....
Since it was scrapped none of us are likely to find the definitive answer - I was just doing my best to suggest an answer to a question (see TNF inquisition, etc!)
Paul M
Advertisement
#40
Posted 20 August 2012 - 22:56
But as with so many things in life, don't knock it if you haven't tried it.
DCN
Edited by Doug Nye, 20 August 2012 - 23:07.
#41
Posted 21 August 2012 - 00:15
I use a similar method to do this and find the results very accurate; however I do it in a physical sense.Where scaling from photographs works best is in confirming differences between 'sister' cars. Don't just look at JMH's 246, compare his car to its contemporary sisters. Then it does become quite interesting. And from my long experience of working from original photographs it can provide surprisingly accurate dimensional proof. Those who conclude otherwise are just, plain, wrong. Initial photographic quality is, of course, critical. If you happen to have access to an original visible (measurable) component, such as a hub nut, that helps too...
But as with so many things in life, don't knock it if you haven't tried it.
DCN
If you convert the image to a slide or overhead projection sheet, you can project the image onto a screen or background and adjust the focal start point to a position relative to where the camera was when the shot was taken, the only assumption you cannot make is that the ground was level when the shot was taken, that can be adjusted by tilting the projector.
Once you have the image projecting you make a template of a known component, I have only ever used a wheel, but any major/large part would do, you place that template/component in the shot so it matches the position in the image. Of course the bigger the piece the better the result. An I beam axle would be really easy as it has lots of reference points in one plane.
I then use a plumb blob to drop a position onto a level plane. The floor of my patio actually. Once I have a reference point to start from and that’s has been the wheel centre, I proceed to drop points off the part I’m trying to measure. Be careful if you try this as it is only one dimensional when you do it and the pickup point has to be in the correct focus. I did my racing car first and projected over it an image from the 1950's to see how accurate it was and you can go within millimeters of an accurate result. Up close images are the best and in focus is a help, albeit long shots have a better focal depth.
Try it one dark night in the back yard on your own car its quite an exercise in thought process.
#42
Posted 21 August 2012 - 07:22
#43
Posted 21 August 2012 - 08:49
DCN
#44
Posted 21 August 2012 - 11:39
I've never tried it, but intuitively I feel you must measure dimensions in the same direction to eliminate any distortion from foreshortening. Even a 'side on' shot may be slightly angled and a shot of a moving car with a focal plane shutter camera will introduce another distortion. But as you are measuring relative dimensions if the reference wheel diameter is measured parallel to the ground, ie in the same direction as the wheelbase, the distortion effect will be minimised.
Whilst Im not a rocket scientist I found it a simple thing to do, one important thing I did learn was to use the back wheel as the reference point. It can be reasonably assumed that it is pointing straight ahead, and the front wheels are often turned on some incline so they can play tricks on you, but you can orient the front wheel to reflect this. That way you get a reasonable estimation of wheel base. KPI will alter the wheel base number. If it’s a mobile shot going down a straight well you can pretty well assume that it’s correct. Variation between front and rear track poses some difficulty too. It’s rare that the photo will give the rear wheel base. The important point you make is that you must drop the measurement to the same plane. You can do it vertically and horizontally too. Some tricks that help. Hopefully the bonnet centre line is in the middle of the car so that gives a really good vertical check point but remember it’s got to be done in the same plane so you have to reference it from one side of the car to the other on the floor. A spirit level on a base works I found. In the end I made some wheels for a vertical post painted white and wheeled it around and put a pencil mark on it to establish the height of each pick up point. God knows what the neighbors thought when the saw the lights on the patio in the wee small hours!!
#45
Posted 22 August 2012 - 12:37
#46
Posted 22 August 2012 - 16:45
I have never seen a suggestion of a right hand fuel tank.Glad to see my thread hijacked into a photo lessson, but can anyone help me with the orginal question. Did the Dino ever have two side fuel tnaks?
#47
Posted 09 September 2012 - 16:31
" .... for 1960 independent rear suspension was officially adopted and an improvement was sought for the weight distribution of the 246 by going back to side tanks, leaving the one in the tail for fuel reserve and oil. For the same reason the engine was moved back 25cms.; moreover, it was offset in the opposite direction, angled from left to right passing to the right of the driving seat. The gearbox lever was moved to the left..."
Does that help at all?
I am happy to scan and post the cutaway if it helps, for relevant education and explanatory purposes. The car faces left to right and slopes downwards about 10/15 degrees, if that helps with recognition.
Roger Lund
Edited by bradbury west, 09 September 2012 - 16:33.
#48
Posted 09 September 2012 - 18:14
DCN
Edited by Doug Nye, 09 September 2012 - 18:16.
#49
Posted 09 September 2012 - 18:22
In Jonathan Thompson's book on the F1 cars there is a tail-on view of Hawthorn's car taken at Monza from dead centre, clearly showing the engine angling to the left, the steering-wheel being offset slightly to the right, and the gearchange gate being right where a right-side tank would be - not conclusive in any way, but a clue.
And in Chapter XII of 'Champion Year' Mike says "My car having a slightly longer chassis, two or three inches longer to give my large frame a bt more room...." (to drift over to the other point again.)
Paul M
#50
Posted 10 September 2012 - 06:02
Doug's Dino book mentions some cars having left side cockpit tanks on occasion, see post 18, but not right side. That book, and his article in Historic Race and Rally magazine are the best accounts I know of the development of these cars.
I would very much like to see the drawing referred to by B. West.