
Fangio in a Lancia D50?
#1
Posted 20 January 2009 - 00:13
Based on my limited knowledge of the subject, the car looks to me like a Lancia D50 (despite the Ferrari markings), complete with its side fuel tanks, separated from the rest of the body. I had alway made the (probably wrong) assumption that all D50s were modified by Ferrari after the 1955 season and received a rear mounted fuel tank and one-piece body. However, this video seems to prove otherwise.
So did any D50s survive in their Lancia shape?
Advertisement
#2
Posted 20 January 2009 - 04:21
But this link will help explain what happened to the remnants .
http://www.conceptca...Lancia_D50.aspx
#3
Posted 20 January 2009 - 06:09
#4
Posted 20 January 2009 - 08:06
Steve
#5
Posted 20 January 2009 - 12:59
#6
Posted 20 January 2009 - 13:26
Strangely two cars did survive in their original form because as far as I'm aware they were retained by Lancia who donated one to the Biscaretti Museum.
#7
Posted 20 January 2009 - 13:32
So Fangio in a demo run 60ish with a Lancia.
#8
Posted 20 January 2009 - 13:37
#9
Posted 20 January 2009 - 16:11
What really impresses is the fact that JMF could still drive like that despite being retired 12+ years. Also did anybody notice the parked cars on the left just past St. Devote!
Truly there was never anybody quite like him, especially in single seaters.
#10
Posted 20 January 2009 - 16:13
Originally posted by Paul Parker
This was shot in 1970 I think.
What really impresses is the fact that JMF could still drive like that despite being retired 12+ years. Also did anybody notice the parked cars on the left just past St. Devote!
Truly there was never anybody quite like him, especially in single seaters.
On 15 year old Engelberts too!
#11
Posted 20 January 2009 - 18:21
#12
Posted 20 January 2009 - 18:54
Originally posted by Dutchy
On 15 year old Engelberts too!
Look at the understeer through the hairpin!
What a lovely movie

#13
Posted 18 February 2009 - 16:50
Lovely film, though - the old man drifting what was apparently a tricky car out of the Gasworks hairpin and converting understeer to almost a four-wheel drift out of Station Hairpin is a joy to watch.


#14
Posted 18 February 2009 - 17:28
http://forums.autosp...ighlight=hudson
What a class act the old boy was!
Justin
#15
Posted 18 February 2009 - 17:29
Should this be cross-referenced to the 'F1 terminology' thread?Originally posted by cpbell
Lovely film, though - the old man drifting what was apparently a tricky car out of the Gasworks hairpin and converting understeer to almost a four-wheel drift out of Station Hairpin is a joy to watch.:
The terms 'drift' and four-wheel drift are among the most abused in modern discussion
By correct definition, drifting out of a hairpin would not be possible

#16
Posted 18 February 2009 - 17:35
Originally posted by David McKinney
Should this be cross-referenced to the 'F1 terminology' thread?
The terms 'drift' and four-wheel drift are among the most abused in modern discussion
By correct definition, drifting out of a hairpin would not be possible![]()
Begging your pardon, my terminology was somewhat loose there. I should, of course, have typed "powersliding what was...". I still say, though, that all four wheels are sliding as he applies the power down the hill to Lower Massanet. Is "four-wheel powerslide" an oxymoron in a conventional, RWD racing car?

#17
Posted 18 February 2009 - 17:37
#18
Posted 18 February 2009 - 17:42
DCN
#19
Posted 18 February 2009 - 17:58
Advertisement
#20
Posted 18 February 2009 - 18:38
#21
Posted 18 February 2009 - 19:01
My source would have been DSJ in MotorSport, but clearly, he was struggling to get first-hand information about any handling problems.
#22
Posted 18 February 2009 - 19:09
Tell you what, though, when you floor it the thing really lifts its skirts and goes like gangbusters! Yeehaa...
DCN
#23
Posted 18 February 2009 - 19:23
#24
Posted 18 February 2009 - 21:48
No, "powerslide" is fine - it's a slide (of two wheels or four) provoked by powerOriginally posted by cpbell
Is "four-wheel powerslide" an oxymoron in a conventional, RWD racing car?Whatever it be called, it's beautiful to watch.
And yes, great to watch

#25
Posted 18 February 2009 - 21:58
Originally posted by David McKinney
No, "powerslide" is fine - it's a slide (of two wheels or four) provoked by power
And yes, great to watch![]()
Thanks!

#26
Posted 19 February 2009 - 02:21
I did meet with him on several occasions in the late 1980's in Argentina however, and he was never too bothered to chat for a while. A true gentlemen in every respect.
#27
Posted 19 February 2009 - 10:24
The architecture of Monaco was also interesting...didn´t know, that the tunnel was that short in the earlier years...should be watching the movie "Grand prix" again with the drive of "Sarti" through the streets of Monaco in the 60s...
#28
Posted 19 February 2009 - 15:25
Originally posted by Der Pate
The architecture of Monaco was also interesting...didn´t know, that the tunnel was that short in the earlier years...should be watching the movie "Grand prix" again with the drive of "Sarti" through the streets of Monaco in the 60s...
There is an ongoing thread called "Monaco Architecture" which covers the changes on and around the GP circuit over the years.
#29
Posted 19 February 2009 - 19:05
Originally posted by cpbell
There is an ongoing thread called "Monaco Architecture" which covers the changes on and around the GP circuit over the years.
Thanks...!!!
#30
Posted 19 February 2009 - 19:08
#31
Posted 19 February 2009 - 21:16
Originally posted by Paul Parker
This was shot in 1970 I think.
What really impresses is the fact that JMF could still drive like that despite being retired 12+ years. Also did anybody notice the parked cars on the left just past St. Devote!
Truly there was never anybody quite like him, especially in single seaters.
And I saw him fully twenty years after his retirement...
I can tell you, he'd lost none of it at all. I've previously described the high level to which he was driving, much of it being so subtle it was totally lost on those looking on.
#32
Posted 20 February 2009 - 04:44
Originally posted by Der Pate
...should be watching the movie "Grand prix" again with the drive of "Sarti" through the streets of Monaco in the 60s...
Watch out Pate, not all Monaco in "Grand Prix" is really Monaco. Have a look at the Grand Prix film thread.
#34
Posted 26 February 2009 - 12:38
I know well this one, and it has nothing of a D50 but the gearbox.
#35
Posted 26 February 2009 - 14:56
That number's from a Dino 246 - a real one
#36
Posted 26 February 2009 - 15:10
Doug, I think you are absolutely right. Sudden breakaway is typical (and more-less unavoidable, at least up to certain extent) for the cars of low polar moment (majority of the mass is situated around the CoG) in comparison with cars that have heavy components widely spaced.Originally posted by Doug Nye
My understanding is that the D50 handled and gripped very well as it approached its adhesion limit, but that it gave very little warning of being close to that limit before it would break away and career off course - all four wheels tending to lose adhesion at once. It was a different taste sensation in an era of basic oversteerers - 250F - or initial understeerers - W196. My limited experience of driving one of the replica cars was that it just felt tiny, friendly, rigid and precise. But how close to its limits did I venture? Maybe that could be judged in light years...
Tell you what, though, when you floor it the thing really lifts its skirts and goes like gangbusters! Yeehaa...
DCN
D50 had its fuel within the wheelbase and perhaps a tad too much bhp (at least in certain conditions) for the still-narrow tyres of the era. But such a car could be a brilliant world-beater in hands of somone skilful enough to approach its limit very close but rarely or never overstep it.
#37
Posted 26 February 2009 - 19:46
Many people think that Jim Clark, Ayrton Senna, Michael Schumacher et al number amongst the best Grand Prix drivers ever, but before you rate them you must first put Nuvolari, Fangio and Moss on the podium and then you can list your top ten.
By-the-by Kevin Wheatcroft told me that his favourite car in the Wheatcroft Museum is the Lancia. A man of impeccable taste.
#38
Posted 26 February 2009 - 19:55
Originally posted by zg1972
Doug, I think you are absolutely right. Sudden breakaway is typical (and more-less unavoidable, at least up to certain extent) for the cars of low polar moment (majority of the mass is situated around the CoG) in comparison with cars that have heavy components widely spaced.
D50 had its fuel within the wheelbase and perhaps a tad too much bhp (at least in certain conditions) for the still-narrow tyres of the era. But such a car could be a brilliant world-beater in hands of somone skilful enough to approach its limit very close but rarely or never overstep it.
Jimmy Clark?
#39
Posted 26 February 2009 - 20:39
Please, tell !!Originally posted by Tony Matthews
... it was an original D50 - more to come...
There was a better choice than a replica. :Originally posted by Bauble
By-the-by Kevin Wheatcroft told me that his favourite car in the Wheatcroft Museum is the Lancia. A man of impeccable taste.
Advertisement
#40
Posted 26 February 2009 - 23:03
Originally posted by zg1972
But such a car could be a brilliant world-beater in hands of somone skilful enough to approach its limit very close but rarely or never overstep it.
But the car was in hands of someone skillful enough, namely Alberto Ascari, 1952 and 1953 World Champion.
During the 1954 season, when the D50 made several non-appearances, DSJ talked of 'low polar moment' as being a problem, though it wasn't clear whether not he had witnessed any handling problems.
It is a little ironic that Andretti Fan named Jimmy Clark as his nominee for the skills necessary to tame the D50. I think of Clark as walking in Ascari's shoes as far as deftness at the wheel was concerned. And as unlikely to have a fatal accident.
And DSJ was not the only one who thought Ascari's 4-wheel drifting skills were superior to Fangio's...
#41
Posted 26 February 2009 - 23:28
Really?Originally posted by Doug Nye
Tmeranda - that was precisely why the D50 is so highly regarded today. In original form it was, by the competitive GP car standards of the time, absolutely tiny!
DCN
D50: Wheelbase 7ft 6ins, track 4ft 2ins
250F: Wheelbase 7ft 6ins track 4ft 4ins front, 4ft 2ins rear
W196 in 1954: wheelbase 7ft 8.5ins, track 4ft 4.5ins front, 4ft 5.5ins rear
553: wheelbase 7ft 0ins, track 4ft 1.5ins front, 3ft 11.5ins rear
#42
Posted 27 February 2009 - 06:18
#43
Posted 27 February 2009 - 07:22
For sure. Probably any top driver: Fangio, Ascari, Moss...Originally posted by Andretti Fan
Jimmy Clark?
#44
Posted 27 February 2009 - 07:35
Yes, absolutely, Ascari was astonishingly great driver.Originally posted by oldtimer
But the car was in hands of someone skillful enough, namely Alberto Ascari, 1952 and 1953 World Champion.
During the 1954 season, when the D50 made several non-appearances, DSJ talked of 'low polar moment' as being a problem, though it wasn't clear whether not he had witnessed any handling problems.
It is a little ironic that Andretti Fan named Jimmy Clark as his nominee for the skills necessary to tame the D50. I think of Clark as walking in Ascari's shoes as far as deftness at the wheel was concerned. And as unlikely to have a fatal accident.
And DSJ was not the only one who thought Ascari's 4-wheel drifting skills were superior to Fangio's...
I would say that Lancia was not sorted out well yet while Mercedes had a car that was already well proven in races. Mercedes also had a few bhp more (20-30 or so), probably due to the direct PI system. However, I don't think anything was basically wrong with te D50. Had Ascari lived and Lancia not folded, I think the car would be developed into a mercedes beater. It was Ferrari that really spoiled the car. They made quite a few retrograde steps: square crankcase, tail tank (a concession to lesser drivers perhaps?), Englebert tyres, abandoning of the engine as a structural member....in fact, almost every step taken by Ferrari was retrograde....but Mercedes also went backwards in comparison with the pre-war practice by employing the swing-axle rear suspension on the W196.
Mercedes had a very good car and an extremely precise and efficient Teutonic operation but they were also lucky in not a small way (I think Doug would agree with that but Karl Ludvigsen would not!

#45
Posted 27 February 2009 - 07:58
I can't recall seeing figures for that dimension. Setright quotes frontal areas in "The Grand Prix Car" but they're difficult to believe. Looking at contemporary photographs, the D50 doesn't seem lower than its rivals and higher than the W196. The D50 was a lot smaller in front and rear overhang which has a big effect on the onlooker's perception.Originally posted by David McKinney
And height to scuttle?
#46
Posted 27 February 2009 - 08:03
Yes, it had short tail because the fuel tanks were between the wheels. But it was a small car.Originally posted by Roger Clark
I can't recall seeing figures for that dimension. Setright quotes frontal areas in "The Grand Prix Car" but they're difficult to believe. Looking at contemporary photographs, the D50 doesn't seem lower than its rivals and higher than the W196. The D50 was a lot smaller in front and rear overhang which has a big effect on the onlooker's perception.
#47
Posted 27 February 2009 - 09:16
962 mmOriginally posted by David McKinney
And height to scuttle?
These "retrogade steps" allowed the D50 to get at last a handling...Originally posted by zg1972
...in fact, almost every step taken by Ferrari was retrograde...
#48
Posted 27 February 2009 - 09:45
And yet in the three races contested by both cars, no Mercedes was faster in practice than the best LanciaOriginally posted by zg1972
I would say that Lancia was not sorted out well yet while Mercedes had a car that was already well proven in races
Sounds pretty well-sorted to me

Scuttle respondents - thanks

Now all we need is the comparative heights...
#49
Posted 27 February 2009 - 09:47
Originally posted by Roger Clark
Really?
D50: Wheelbase 7ft 6ins, track 4ft 2ins
250F: Wheelbase 7ft 6ins track 4ft 4ins front, 4ft 2ins rear
W196 in 1954: wheelbase 7ft 8.5ins, track 4ft 4.5ins front, 4ft 5.5ins rear
553: wheelbase 7ft 0ins, track 4ft 1.5ins front, 3ft 11.5ins rear
Yes really. Compared to the Maserati and Merc it had hardly any overhangs... 553 was teeny too, I'll concede that., though tail treatment was not so neat, nor so bobbed. Ah, I see a later post mentions lack of overhang upon visual impression. Absolutely right. By the way, Rudi Uhlenhaut himself said to me that in 1955 "...the Lancia was the only one we feared...". In manufacturing quality it was also the only one close to Mercedes-Benz..apart from the otherwise uncompetitive Vanwall, and the late appearing BRM Type 25.
DCN
#50
Posted 27 February 2009 - 13:06
It was fast but it broke down more often than Mercedes and handling could have been fine-tuned further. Not even at Monaco 1955 was Lancia able to match Mercedes' race pace.Originally posted by David McKinney
And yet in the three races contested by both cars, no Mercedes was faster in practice than the best Lancia
Sounds pretty well-sorted to me