Jump to content


Photo

Lancia D50 again


  • Please log in to reply
78 replies to this topic

#51 paulb

paulb
  • Member

  • 6,140 posts
  • Joined: June 00

Posted 20 August 2002 - 19:53

You could do a reasonable job of verifying Setright's numbers numbers using the square grid approach. The smaller the squares, the better. Start with good drawings and it shoudn't take more than an hour or two.

Who has such drawings readily available?

Advertisement

#52 VAR1016

VAR1016
  • Member

  • 2,825 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 20 August 2002 - 19:55

Originally posted by Roger Clark


In view of this, Castellotti's pole position at Spa is almost unbelievable.


Yes indeed; Castellotti's death was a tragic loss. It seems that only the very best drivers could get the best from the Lancia - Gianni Lancia lost Fangio to Mercedes-Benz, but was happy to get Ascari - another tragedy.

Since Fangio was quick in the BRM V-16 (Moss's "worst ever racing car") I have no doubt that he could have been splendid in the Lancia.

Referring again to Chris Nixon's "Rivals" one must ask if the W196 was quite as good as it should have been; on the basis of the colossal expense and effort its makers put into it it should have been as dominant as today's Ferrari F2002 is - but really it wasn't. Bear in mind that a privateer could buy a 250F for £5000 at the time and the 250F was able to give the W196 a race - as I said before at a tenth of the cost! Imagine that today: "Webber in the Minardi just steals pole from Michael Schumacher" I don't think so!

VAR1016 :smoking:

#53 Doug Nye

Doug Nye
  • Member

  • 9,476 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 20 August 2002 - 20:27

Certainly in top car pantheon the Mercedes-Benz 300SLR has a place as of right - and the Mercedes-Benz W196 only just scrapes in - it was beatable, it broke and it was beaten. Re smallest - D50 versus Type 25 is an interesting one. A very interesting one. A really very interesting one....because they met only once in unusual circumstances I hadn't really made the necessary link before. How dumb.

Thanks Odtmr... :

DCN

#54 oldtimer

oldtimer
  • Member

  • 1,291 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 21 August 2002 - 02:06

Originally posted by VAR1016


Amongst the changes were variations in bore and stroke - culminating in 80 x 62 in the 801 engine which claimed 285 BHP, but that was 1957 when the super whizz-bang fuels were about. Ferrari used the famous long exhausts - better with the 90-degree crankshaft used in the engine.

Other developments included unequal-length wishbones and forged steering arms after problems (at Monza I think). Later there was also a revised strengthened chassis, and coil springs replaced the leaf springs on some versions. The car remained competitive, so one has to accept that the developments were worthwhile.

VAR1016 :smoking:


Didn't the 801 have bunched megaphone exhausts? And didn't Jenks tell the story of Tony Vandervell strolling along to the Ferrari pit at Monza in 1957, where the Ferraris were well behind his 3 Vanwalls in practice, and suggesting to Jano that his cars would be faster if less energy were blasted out of the exhausts and more sent to the rear wheels?

The 801 couldn't hold a candle to the Vanwall on the straight, so the 285bhp sounds like a PR number with several intentions.

#55 VAR1016

VAR1016
  • Member

  • 2,825 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 21 August 2002 - 09:55

Originally posted by oldtimer


Didn't the 801 have bunched megaphone exhausts? And didn't Jenks tell the story of Tony Vandervell strolling along to the Ferrari pit at Monza in 1957, where the Ferraris were well behind his 3 Vanwalls in practice, and suggesting to Jano that his cars would be faster if less energy were blasted out of the exhausts and more sent to the rear wheels?

The 801 couldn't hold a candle to the Vanwall on the straight, so the 285bhp sounds like a PR number with several intentions.


That's right; Ferrari even tried reversed-cone megaphones.

The 285 BHP was actually probably a bench figure, but Vanwall allegedly had over 300BHP.

And Vanwall had Frank Costin's streamlining so I am not surprised that it was good on the straights.

VAR1016 :smoking:

#56 Roger Clark

Roger Clark
  • Member

  • 6,815 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 21 August 2002 - 21:33

Originally posted by Doug Nye
Certainly in top car pantheon the Mercedes-Benz 300SLR has a place as of right - and the Mercedes-Benz W196 only just scrapes in - it was beatable, it broke and it was beaten.


May I respectfully, but firmly, diagree? These things may have been true in 1954, but by 1955 the W196 was unbeatable and almost unbrakable. The only exception was Monaco where all three sufferred the same fault which never occurred again. It really was a case of Trintingnant finishing first, not winning. If the Mercedes were occasionally challenged by a Maserati, there is evidence that Fangio and Moss were only going as fast as they needed to.

If Ascari had lived, and if Lancia had managed to maintain the pace of development things might have been different. These are very big ifs, and the time it took Lancia to get the D50 raceworthy in 1954 suggests that, although their design abilities may have rivalled those of Daimler-Benz, their development resources did not.

#57 Doug Nye

Doug Nye
  • Member

  • 9,476 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 21 August 2002 - 21:58

Roger - your point is very justifiable, but if you break before the finish, you are plainly beatable. The fact that the car poised to do the beating, the D50, went skinny-dipping instead is just a umm err semantic inconvenience...???

At Monaco '55 the W196 design DID break - and while it was beatable, breakable and experienced both - in contrast, which is the point I was trying to make, the 300SLR was just about truly unbeatable - and was never beaten, having dominated the D-Types at Le Mans prior to the team's withdrawal - almost unbreakable, and in my eyes will always walk on water ...

I maintain that the preferred M-B self-image of unbeatability was left unproven by the Formula 1 W196s, but was confirmed in spades by the sports-racing SLRs...oh, and there's NO need for you to be respectful on my account...you've plainly got your spurs...

DCN

#58 VAR1016

VAR1016
  • Member

  • 2,825 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 21 August 2002 - 22:28

Originally posted by Doug Nye
At Monaco '55 the W196 design DID break - and while it was beatable, breakable and experienced both - in contrast, which is the point I was trying to make, the 300SLR was just about truly unbeatable - and was never beaten, having dominated the D-Types at Le Mans prior to the team's withdrawal - almost unbreakable, and in my eyes will always walk on water ...

DCN


Now I'd be the last to argue that the 300SLR was not an exceptional sportscar, but at Le Mans for the first session, Hawthorn and Fangio were at it hammer and tongs - neck and neck, with lap records falling almost alternatively.

Of course evrything fell apart for Jaguar after the terrible accident, with Hawthorn distraught and only poor Ivor Bueb to carry the torch - and of course he was no match for Moss or Fangio - unlike Hawthorn who had been having one of his exceptional days.

And at Dundrod, whilst the suitability of the 300SLR for the circuit ensured Moss's eventual victory, Hawthorn (in what must have been a stunning performance in the unsuitable D-type) made fastest lap.

In 1955 the D-types were both fast and reliable - and designed for Le Mans. It's really another great might-have-been - a pity that there was not really another Le Mans for battle to be re-joined.

VAR1016 :smoking:

#59 oldtimer

oldtimer
  • Member

  • 1,291 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 22 August 2002 - 02:27

Originally posted by Doug Nye
Roger - your point is very justifiable, but if you break before the finish, you are plainly beatable. The fact that the car poised to do the beating, the D50, went skinny-dipping instead is just a umm err semantic inconvenience...???

At Monaco '55 the W196 design DID break - and while it was beatable, breakable and experienced both - in contrast, which is the point I was trying to make, the 300SLR was just about truly unbeatable - and was never beaten, having dominated the D-Types at Le Mans prior to the team's withdrawal - almost unbreakable, and in my eyes will always walk on water ...

I maintain that the preferred M-B self-image of unbeatability was left unproven by the Formula 1 W196s, but was confirmed in spades by the sports-racing SLRs...oh, and there's NO need for you to be respectful on my account...you've plainly got your spurs...

DCN


Doug, the D50 went skinny-dipping on account of a mechanical shortcoming. The fact that the mechanical shortcoming occured a matter of some seconds after the mechanical shortcoming of the Mercedes cars does not elevate the outcome to the D50's advantage IMHO. Just some more perversity and argumentiveness from an old geezer :)

In the same vein, I regard the Hawthorn crouch as a major factor in the competiveness of the 1955 D-types at Dunrod and LeMans.

Furthermore, says he, never mind the M-B self-image. I thought the image was a pretty widespread 'O-my-God' as soon as they whipped the tarpaulin covers off the cars at Reims. Okay, Froilan made them tear off their handsome bodywork after Silverstone, Ascari and Moss gave them a very hard time at Monza, as did Hawthorn and Ascari in Spain. Oh, what am I saying? :eek: That looks like unproven unbeatability. :blush:

Advertisement

#60 Ade Maritz

Ade Maritz
  • New Member

  • 21 posts
  • Joined: August 02

Posted 22 August 2002 - 05:56

Originally posted by Roger Clark

May I respectfully, but firmly, diagree? These things may have been true in 1954, but by 1955 the W196 was unbeatable and almost unbrakable.


Just like I've always thought - brakes just slow you down.;)

#61 Roger Clark

Roger Clark
  • Member

  • 6,815 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 22 August 2002 - 06:16

Originally posted by Ade Maritz


Just like I've always thought - brakes just slow you down.;)


That's presumably why they could never decide where to put them.

#62 Doug Nye

Doug Nye
  • Member

  • 9,476 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 22 August 2002 - 13:16

:rotfl:

#63 Barry Boor

Barry Boor
  • Member

  • 11,332 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 17 March 2007 - 23:22

Restoring this old thread to page 1 in order to show a very strange 'mistake' on the diecast D.50 model I received yesterday.

I have posted the second image on one of the 'rubbish' threads, but I know that many people don't go there 'cause everything on it is rubbish.

The thing is, this model has the 4-branch exhaust system, on each side of the car, turning through 90 degrees and exiting through the sidepod.

Posted Image

Now I have Chris Nixon's 'Rivals' book, which is full of D.50 pictures but nowhere can I see any version of this enigmatic car with its exhausts coming out through the sidepods just in front of the rear wheels.

On this view you can see the 4 little stubs of the exhausts, though they are painted in the same red as the sidepod.

Posted Image

So where on earth did they get this idea from? Was it ever considered by Vittorio Jano? If not, what was this model maker thinking? Or was it simply an idea to avoid royalties or some such...

#64 JB Miltonian

JB Miltonian
  • Member

  • 546 posts
  • Joined: February 04

Posted 18 March 2007 - 01:39

The exhausts came through the sidepods (in more than one configuration) after the cars became Ferraris. Not sure if they ever did that while they were still Lancias.

#65 soubriquet

soubriquet
  • Member

  • 376 posts
  • Joined: June 03

Posted 18 March 2007 - 02:10

It's very easy to calculate the frontal area of a car from a digital image. All you need is a mask, and to count the pixels. If anyone has good front or rear shots, or better, drawings, of both cars, and some critical dimension such as track I can do it. Assuming anyone's interested.

I love Lancias. My most beloved car was a Fulvia.

#66 dretceterini

dretceterini
  • Member

  • 2,991 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 18 March 2007 - 02:23

I'm mainly an Alfa and "etceterini" gut, but I love Lancias too. I would choose a B20 over an Alfa 1900

#67 Wolf

Wolf
  • Member

  • 7,881 posts
  • Joined: June 00

Posted 18 March 2007 - 03:03

I can't fathom I missed all this frontal area discussion. The answer is very simple- it's not calculated but measured, and in a very easy manner. Draw the head-on view and let this little bugger do the work- http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Planimeter .

#68 rudi

rudi
  • Member

  • 255 posts
  • Joined: September 04

Posted 18 March 2007 - 06:15

Barry, the cars were raced with such exhausts at the 1956 Argentina GP.
The changes were done at the Ferrari factory.
But there is still a problem on your model, the Lancia nose, used until the 1955 Argentina GP...

#69 Roger Clark

Roger Clark
  • Member

  • 6,815 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 19 March 2007 - 07:20

On Barry's second picture you can also see that the fuel tank is in the tail, indicating Ferrari modifications. Fangio and Musso had cars in the configuration in Argentina, Fangio taking over Musso's car to win. These cars retained small fuel tanks in the front end of the panniers. DSJ referred to them as Argentine models, in contrast to the Syracuse model which was more or less the definitive 1956 Lancia/Ferrari with full-width bodywork. The Syracuse model had no fuel in the panniers, small side tanks being retained attached to the chassis frame.

#70 VAR1016

VAR1016
  • Member

  • 2,825 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 19 March 2007 - 10:26

Originally posted by soubriquet
... I love Lancias. My most beloved car was a Fulvia.


Amen.

And no, Lancia never raced with the four separate per side. In fact I am surprised that they persisted with the very unsatisfactory arrangement they had. Ferrari obviously knew by then that four pipes per side was the only way really with a 90 degree crankshaft.

On the other hand Ferrari really spoiled the car in my view although unequal length wishbones were a good idea.

PdeRL

#71 Barry Boor

Barry Boor
  • Member

  • 11,332 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 19 March 2007 - 22:52

So... summarising.... what I have is actually a very early 1956 Lancia D.50 after Ferrari had got his oily mits on it.

All that is wrong, then, is the shade of red, the radiator opening and the Lancia badge on the nose....

Thanks to those who contributed towards sorting out this shambles! :)

#72 dretceterini

dretceterini
  • Member

  • 2,991 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 20 March 2007 - 01:40

An elaborated upon Dallari Models Lancia-Ferrari from Argentina 1956 (Fangio) at this link...

http://www.amv-lilli...i50/1956_22.jpg

#73 David M. Kane

David M. Kane
  • Member

  • 5,402 posts
  • Joined: December 00

Posted 20 March 2007 - 02:47

Don Capps:

Yes it was Augie who drove the car into the pool according to Michael Argetsinger's book on Walt Hansgen. Turns out Walt's camera was in the trunk and he had to dive in the pool to attempt to save it.

#74 paulhooft

paulhooft
  • Member

  • 873 posts
  • Joined: January 01

Posted 20 March 2007 - 13:45

Barry Boor wrote:
Restoring this old thread to page 1 in order to show a very strange 'mistake' on the diecast D.50 model I received yesterday.

I have posted the second image on one of the 'rubbish' threads, but I know that many people don't go there 'cause everything on it is rubbish.

The thing is, this model has the 4-branch exhaust system, on each side of the car, turning through 90 degrees and exiting through the sidepod.

----
I have another of these RBA Lancia D50's in my collection.
These models where sold with a magazine in Italy and or Spain.
The car does not have a windscreen.., and
I never found a photograph of this car with the number 4 on it,
and it is not in Chris Nixons Rivals book..
Paul Hooft.

#75 Barry Boor

Barry Boor
  • Member

  • 11,332 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 20 March 2007 - 14:00

Paul, do you have any of the other cars in this series?

I am interested to know what others were there. According to Carlos there were 39 other models in this series. :eek:

#76 paulhooft

paulhooft
  • Member

  • 873 posts
  • Joined: January 01

Posted 20 March 2007 - 14:53

Barry,
You can find the first 29 numbers of the series at:

http://www.collections-presse.com/
under
Fabbri Grand Prix legendes de Formula Une

Ther was another more extensive list, but I cannot find it anymore

Paul

#77 iicarJohn

iicarJohn
  • New Member

  • 22 posts
  • Joined: January 06

Posted 26 March 2007 - 21:11

History is just that. History. You can argue about the various details and minutiae, but you ain't gonna change it.

I see a lot of people discussing a lot of what-if's about engine output and the various claims made by various builders about this and that and about how one might have been more honest than another, etc. etc.. There are many technical reasons why the numbers achieved and reported on one dynamometer might differ from another. Add "psych games", rounding errors and errors due to translation from one standard to another and a lot of time is baing "wasted" tilting at windmills. Renato Ambrosini, son of the builder of Siata cars told me once about horsepower, "Ci sono cavalli e ci sono asine." Translated and placed in context, he said literally "There are horses and there are asses". His explanation was that horsepower could be made for prolonged periods of time while asspower was a number that could be seen and registerd (on a dynamometer) but might not be possible to use.

Frontal area is a figure that can be related from one car to another but it is often given far too much importance. It is a multiplier in equations having to do with other parameters. It really has so little bearing on a car's ultimate perfomance under certain circumstances that it is, in my opinion, a number only to be minimized during the conceptual stage until there is a better reason for changing the conceptually obvious fact that pushing a pin through air in a longitudinal manner is going to displace less air less than pushing it sideways. A car is not as simple as a pin and, over and above the body's simple drag are the other aerodynamic effects which can create forces in beneficial directions as well as non-beneficial directions. The rotating wheels, tires and all the connecting bits also create their own complications and the race-car designer's task is to use all of these not-so-subtle effects to advantage as much as possible. Frontal area should not be maximized. That is about as close to a rule-of-thumb on a racing car as you are going to get.

There undoubtedly have been better racing cars than the 250F, but to say that it won't pull the skin off of rice pudding? I understand the historic alliteration but it is a preposterous use of the alliteration. Maserati 250F cars are magic. I am sure that Lancia D50 are also magic. I'm sure that the Mercedes W196 (actually "RW-196") is also magic. None of these cars was as good as they should have been, but we have a lot of retrospect from which to make that judgement today. We are not living in the historical reality of the moment in which these cars were created and used. It is preposterous and unfair to sit at this distance in time and judge them (cars and people) for what they should have been. They were all magic. Some had better magic than others and some had more ready use of their magic day to day. And, from a marketing standpoint, is it better to have your cars go out and trounce the opposition or fight a close fight and come off victorious? From a production-car builders standpoint, it wasn't only about the racing, and for those who enjoy detracting by stating what could have been, that point might make Mercedes a bit justified in having cars that were not all that they could have been. How much money have you thrown at the design and build of a racing car and what have you learned as a result?

There has been some discussion about the "Lancia D50" and mechanically-related sports cars ... or perhaps I should say ... "discussion about the "Lancia D23" and mechanically-related cars built by Rosani. Great cars! A perfect example of what can be done with an otherwise static pile of metal that would otherwise be deteriorating in other ways. For the listings that I maintain that attempt to describe the histories of virtually all Italian sports and racing cars, I am choosing to call these cars "Rosani". When and if there are times when the donor bits can be described as having come from certain specific cars that made Lancia history, I will provide links and cross-references to that history as well. But, as far as I am concerned, the historical trail of each Lancia car used in the construction of the "Rosani" cars ended long ago. I have not received much Rosani info in the last while. If anyone has news from the last ten years, it might be new to me and I would like to record it.

Best regards.

John de Boer
The Italian Car Registry

#78 arttidesco

arttidesco
  • Member

  • 6,310 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 24 November 2015 - 14:59

Four sports cars I think - one to Maclean, one retained by Rosani, one to an owner in Germany and one to a private owner in Italy - but I'll check for you.


DCN

 

02_IMG_3943sc.jpg

 

I am fairly certain I (mis?)read in the Goodwood FOS 2015 prog, which I do not have to hand at the moment, that the D24 above came from the Lancia museum and was the Panamericana winner driven by J-M F and subsequently used as a practice car for the '54 MM, just wondering why, if true it is carrying the #612 which was the number carried by the Meyer / O'Hara Moore Aston Martin DB3 on the MM in '54 ?

 

Any help identifying which D24 is in the pic would be much appreciated.



#79 john winfield

john winfield
  • Member

  • 2,860 posts
  • Joined: July 02

Posted 06 June 2018 - 13:55

D50 enthusiasts might be interested in this new thread:

 

https://forums.autos...d/#entry8385379