Hi all
I have a few comments:
- Chico Landi’s Ferrari was the “tipo 166” not 159, because engine was modified (or changed) after Gabriele Besana came back from South America. Volume was increased from 1903 to 1995 cubic centimeters.
- Chico Landi’s Ferrari was entered by Gabriele Besana not Scuderia Ferrari, because it was his own car. Or by Automóvel clube do Brasil.
- Chico Landi initially was entered at March, 22 without specifying of the car by Automóvel clube do Brasil. They planned to start with Plate’s Maserati 4CL! After arriving they realized that the race will be held among the cars of formula No. 2 and decided to put on the race 2 litre T-car BMW Spl. But Chico's time in practice was awful. Day before the race Afonso de Castiglio (ACB) called friend of him, Gaby Besana, and agreed that Besana will provide his Ferrari to Landi.
- Achille Varzi initially was entered with SIMCA Gordini, Equipe Gordini. But started with Cisitalia D46 instead Adolfo Macchieraldo (entered as #107, DNA).
- Tazio Nuvolari and Nando Righetti cannot use chassis 006I and 010I as reserve, because both cars at the same day was in Stockholm (Sommer and Biondetti).
- Taruffi’s car was Cisitalia D47 (1200 cub.cm).
- Another entries – “Raph”, SIMCA Gordini, DNA and Clemente Biondetti as reserve driver for the car #726, DNA.
Faber, what kind information do you need another? Starting, prize money? Insurance amount? Or some specific details about the race?
Sorry for my English because it is not my native language
Thanks for all the extra information. That's how I can improve the quality of my database all the time.
On #1 I slightly disagree. The car was born as a 159, so for continuity's sake, I keep on referring to it as a 159, even after the engine has been upgraded to a 166.
And #5, there is a slight misunderstanding. Alt-Ch. is not spare car (that is a field called T-car, which didn't apply at this race) It means that I have seen sources which give an alternative chassis number. In this case it is clear that the alternatives are wrong, as you rightly point out. I still don't know whether to remove them or mark them as incorrect when I got positive information like this. In the future I can find other references which copy data from the incorrect source, so I must be sure not to "repair" my correct info then.