132 replies to this topic

[Criceto]

It's only comparatively recently that a "restorer" was given the task of dismantling the well-known and unique Brooklands racer "Multi-Union" with a view to recreating the Tipo B Alfa that made up its core.

Whatever your views of tearing apart a unique car with a forty year racing history in order to cobble together yet another fake P3 (as you can tell, I'm completely impartial over this....), I was wondering if anyone in the know could enlighten me as to the fate of the bits unique to poor Multi-Union?

Have they been saved? Are they being stored anywhere? Has anyone commissioned someone like Crosthwaite & Gardner to make a set of replica Tipo B mechanicals in order to resuscitate it?

In simple terms - what's going on?

[WGD706]

I found the following from Spa Ferrari Days: Shell Historic Challenge by Sydney Brown
1.5.02
An integral part of the Spa Ferrari Days, and with much-increased sponsorship, this series is divided into categories for drum and disc-braked cars and provides two races for each category. The first two were on Saturday afternoon and the second races on Sunday afternoon. Drum-braked cars compete over seven laps and disc-braked for eight.
Under such adverse racing conditions it is always invidious to pick out a driver for particular mention but, aside from Jon Bosch's masterly drive, one must mention Robert Fink's efforts in Sunday's Drum 2 with the 1932 Alfa P3 single seater. I have known the car in question for many years - firstly as the re-bodied Multi-Union of Chris Staniland and later driven hard by the Hon. Patrick Lindsay and sold from his estate and subsequently returned to its present P3 configuration. I have never seen it driven so effectively to finish within one second of a car 24 years its junior on a circuit like Spa in the wet. It just shows that the validity of Vittorio Jano's pre-war design and Enzo Ferrari's management of Alfa Romeo's racing interests can still produce remarkable results after all these years.
http://www.ferrariow...a_historics.asp

Perhaps contacting this club and/or Sydney Brown might produce some answers?

[Doug Nye]

My understanding of what I regard as an appalling act of vandalism is that Multi-Union II was to be 'recreated' with a fresh frame and mechanicals 'underneath' the surviving original body and J.S.Worters bits, while the 'Alfa Tipo B' core of the Multi-Union was rebodied and restored to its 'original' standard Tipo B form...and resprayed in what the German Alfa fanciers (and restorer Paul Grist here in the UK) fondly imagine to be Alfa's contemporary racing livery - known to true believers here in the UK as 'Grist Racing Green' (it's a dark, dull, maroon).

I don't like talking about all this - makes me spit blood. But owners can do what they like with their own property. Spot the phillistine?

DCN

[Criceto]

Thanks for that, Doug. So presumably the Multi-Union parts are in some storage unit, gathering dust....

This is one of the motivations for continuing to fill in those little lottery numbers each week. That and the Frazer Nash Replica Replica they made out of a unique prototype. If the bits still exist, the damage done can be undone. Oh, and there are one or two tourer-bodied Alvises, Lagondas and Bentleys I wouldn't mind commissioning stately saloon bodies for too, for that matter....

[Ray Bell]

I really don't mind that somebody wanted to return this car to its former form...

Nor if somebody wants to recreate the Multi Union using new bits to replace those used in the Tipo B reconstruction...

As long as everything is made exactly as it was in the first instance.

Then again, that would probably leave them at a disadvantage compared to the "original" cars still running... but is that important?

[Ian McKean]

Seems a great pity that the Multi Union should be cannibalised to remake an Alfa, since the former had a superb body design.

Just been doing a little searching on the net and discovered that someone who I had never heard of previously, Stewart Tresilian, did some work on the Multi Union. Apart from learning that Patrick Head was not the first motor racing designer to have come out of Wellington College, I also discovered who cured torsional vibration problems with the RR Merlin crankshaft, argued for stressed skin construction in 1938, came up with the idea of disk brakes for racing cars again in 1938, was a fervent advocate for oversquare engines long before it became fashionable, worked for JAP, RR, Lagonda, Armstrong Siddeley, ERA, Alvis, BRM, Connaught, etc, etc., etc., from http://www.designcha...TresilianCV.htm

I know how well-informed many of the TNF regulars are but I think many will be interested in this web page and will find something new.

He also came up with the idea of the transmission brake used by BRM, perhaps that wasn't his best idea, but ...

[Vitesse2]

I see he owned a T35 Bugatti, among other interesting facts and connections. Did he race it?

Thanks Ian - I suspect that may provide a few interesting leads into other things, particularly in the 30s and 40s! Some good BRM stuff too ....

Hans, Leif, Alessandro, Marc - if you haven't checked this out, you should!

[Doug Nye]

Stuart Tresilian was a great man - he played a major (largely uncredited) role in creation of the Lagonda V12 engine of 1938-39 normally credited solely to W.O.Bentley, and of course he did the basic design of the 4-cylinder 2 1/2-litre Formula 1 engine which became BRM's P25 unit. But where Tres - as he was known to all and sundy - had specified 4 small valves per cylinder Peter Berthon substituted the two hideously large BRM valves. Initially that Tresilian engine had been intended for Connaught, but McAlpine and Clarke couldn't afford it.

Concerning the Multi Union - I never thought I would say this but Ray you're talking through your bush hat. Do you really think that way???

DCN

[Ray Bell]

I'm pleased at least that you say you never thought you'd say it...

But let's analyse the position, or the position as I see it:

You have a history in which each car existed at some time. One is felt to just be one of a bunch, the other a bit more unique, and I would say the more unique car is more fondly recalled and has a longer history.

So now the bits from the original car have been returned to mate with more bits made up to complete it as an original car. One of a bunch, sure, but one of a bunch of mighty famous and important cars.

And the rest languishes, decaying in a shed or something?

And nobody who didn't see the Multi Union in its heyday has a chance to see it?

Well why not, seeing as the various teams of 're-creators' can do the job, let it all happen?

The classic argument is that "The two cars never co-existed in reality."

Sure. So what? How unique is the Tipo B that's been re-created? Just one of a number, right? So the real Multi Union used to stand up alongside a number of Tipo Bs, right?

Moreover, which one of the vast number of 'genuine' old racing cars still contain all their original parts? Or even, say, 80% of their original parts?

What's the difference?

The main point is that it can't live on unless this happens... it remains a fond memory of a dying race of men.

[Vitesse2]

But why go to the lengths of taking the Multi-Union apart, rebuilding it as a Tipo B (probably with a replica body) and then building a replica Tipo B chassis to put the remains of the Multi-Union on? You then have what are essentially two fakes, neither of which has any real racing history in the form in which it is exhibited. The more honest route is just to say "sod it" and build a replica Tipo B, leaving the Multi-Union intact.

[Ray Bell]

Our starting point is always today...

And today the situation is that a semi-original Tipo B exists and the bits exist that could, with the addition of some reproduction Tipo B bits, become the Multi Union.

On the basis that most racing cars have lots of bits and pieces replaced periodically, neither would be fakes as long as there is nothing changed, that all the bits are exactly as it had originally.

[Vitesse2]

Yes, bits wear out. Chassis plates don't.

I'd rather see the Multi-Union on its original chassis. Equally, I wouldn't want to see the Alfa Bimotore in the form it ended up in in New Zealand, with a GMC truck engine. It's a moot point whether it should have been restored back to single-engined or two-engined configuration, but by extension Ray, you could argue that it should be rebuilt as a Tipo B as well, since that's what it was originally built up on.

[Ian McKean]

Originally posted by Doug Nye
Stuart Tresilian was a great man - he played a major (largely uncredited) role in creation of the Lagonda V12 engine of 1938-39 normally credited solely to W.O.Bentley, and of course he did the basic design of the 4-cylinder 2 1/2-litre Formula 1 engine which became BRM's P25 unit. But where Tres - as he was known to all and sundy - had specified 4 small valves per cylinder Peter Berthon substituted the two hideously large BRM valves. Initially that Tresilian engine had been intended for Connaught, but McAlpine and Clarke couldn't afford it.
DCN

Of course I expected that if anyone here could add to Stewart Tresilian's history it would be Doug!

I see you spell him 'Stuart', Doug. Are you sure about this? Can you add any more to the web page, which seems to come mainly from the aircraft side of his career. Is there a biography? Should we start a thread, or would it peter out with only DCN knowing any more about him?

Interesting comment about the valves, since we had a thread recently about multi-valve engines and I think someone mentioned the P25 in that connection. (Sorry, too lazy to look it up).

I infer from the web page that Tresilian did not think too well of Berthon. Can you add anything to this?

Certainly a lot of interesting material there, and yes it seems he did race his Bugattis at Donnington.

[Ray Bell]

Not necessarily... but I can't wear this line that "both cars never existed at the same time..." as a reason for cars not being reconstructed.

For instance, the Maserati that came to Australia sans moteur during the war provided the final body for the Kleinig Hudson. In that form it practised once but never raced.

The original body was discarded... the car sat around in the Maser body for years... then Tom Roberts bought it to get the body and finally decided to reconstruct the Kleinig Hudson in its original form as well... which meant building a new body.

I have no idea where he's getting an engine for the Maserati from, and I know he still doesn't have the steering box... which car will be most genuine? Which will be most historic?

Which cars would we miss out on seeing if he hadn't decided to do this?

[Mark Beckman]

Well I'm with Ray on this one except his 80% comment, I have doubts wether many restorations have that much originality.

2 of my Mates (yes I have some) both own Rickman Mitesse powered by 650 Triumph engines for racing in the pre 1965 class.

Gavin bought a genuine 1965 built bike sitting in a shed which had bulk rust problems, Michael purchased a replica frame from MRD in England.

Gavin sent his rusted out frame to MRD who replaced every frame tube but retained the steering stock, all 5 inches of it with the original serial number, or should I say the steering stock was removed from a replica frame and the 1965 steering stock was welded back into it.

(By the way the man making the replica's was the man welding them together in 1965).

So ones "The Genuine Thing" and one is to turn your nose up at ??

Give me a break, they both effect your senses exactly as they did/would have done in 1965, they look identicle, they sound identicle and they perform identicle.

If a properly constructed identicle replica is "fooling" you then its fullfilling its requirement.

And no, I dont dispute the value difference of a machine that has a life started when it was supposed to and a recorded history (regardless of components replaced) and no, I dont forgive the criminal act of trying to pass off a replica for monetry gain either.

[Doug Nye]

Nicely developing an impetus here, aren't we?

For TNFers who haven't a clue what the Multi-Union was all about let me just explain (those in the know please bear with me);

At Brooklands in the 1930s one of the finest regular drivers and motor-cycle riders was Chris Staniland. His day job was chief test pilot for Fairey Aviation. Yes - he was pretty darned well wired-up.

He drove an elderly 2.9-litre Alfa Romeo Tipo B Monoposto GP car which was cared for at nearby Chertsey by a motor engineer named J.S.Worters. In 1936 he and Staniland hatched a scheme with backing from Jack Emmott of HD Alloys of Slough and Lockheed brakes to modernise the Alfa. The engine was developed, a new 4-speed gearbox made to replace Alfa's original, Lockheed hydraulic brakes were fitted and a new body was made modelled after the contemporary Mercedes-Benz W25 series. The result was painted silver and Staniland christened it the Multi-Union.

In 1938 he won the Phoenix Park road race in Dublin, Eire, at over 97mph. He ran the car on the Brooklands Outer Circuit and won a couple of handicap events there, and lapped at 141mph...amazingly close (to many) to Cobb's outright 143.44mph lap record in the 24-litre Napier-Railton.

For 1939 the car was further modified. It reappeared as the Multi-Union II, with much larger superchargers, changed carburetion and much more power. It retained the Alfa Romeo Tipo B chassis side-rails, the split drive was retained - though probably re-made by Worters - and the fuel tank was allegedly the original retained within that new bodywork. Tecnauto independent front suspension replaced the Alfa front axle, located by trailing links and sprung by coil springs in torsion. The rear axle was now suspended on coil springs instead of leafsprings. Even bigger hydraulic brakes were fitted. Driver adjustable hydraulic dampers were added. The body was remade, and lowered, and looked if anything even more 'Mercedes'.

Staniland already held Brooklands' Class D Outer Circuit lap record in Multi-Union I at 141.45mph and looked set to break John Cobb's outright Outer Circuit lap record of 143.44mph in the final August 1939 meeting - only for a piston to fail.

Staniland then ran it regardless in a handicap race that day, finishing 4th with a hole in one piston. The car's pace on just under 3-litres absolutely dismayed the stuffiest of Brooklands habitues who adored the notion that you need ten tonners and at least 8-litres to do the business there. That such a road racer should be so fast really upset some of them.

Now I am NOT a Brooklands fan but I am a Chris Staniland and Multi-Union fan. Staniland lost his life in a wartime flying accident.

As far as I am concerned here was a supremely important British racing car of the 1930s, based upon an Alfa Romeo Tipo B with a relatively insignificant history. In creating the Multi-Union Staniland and Worters had virtually modified the original Alfa out of existence.

When postwar the car never regained running order due to its engine metallurgy having suffered badly from the ravages of time, it ultimately fell into the hands of an Alfa enthusiast who saw the chance of making a big-money coup by breaking up the Staniland car to re-create a 90 per cent spurious Alfa Tipo B - for sale. And that's precisely what was done.

And I didn't appreciate it. Personal thing. I thought the process (and the thinking and motivation behind it) all stank - and I still do. End of story.

DCN

[Ian McKean]

Just been looking at Bolster's description of the Multi-Union in his book on specials, which broadly confirms Doug's last post, and wondering how it would have been possible to make an Alfa out of the Multi Union. Easier to make one out of what they had taken out of the Multi-Union. For example, many of the engine internals appear to have been redesigned, as well as "all the gears and shafts" in the Alfa twin propeller shaft system.

Certainly Bolster thought it evolved into a genuine special rather than just being a re-bodied Alfa.

Interesting snippets from Bolster are that the front/rear brake balance was cockpit adjustable. (Is this a first?)

Other innovations mentioned by Bolster include recessed filler caps under covers, connected to remote controls in the cockpit; shades of modern F1.

Bolster also emphasises that the handling was much improved over a normal Tipo B. Another interesting bit of info from Bolster is that the Fry cousins had it for a time. Did they use it in anger?

[Roger Clark]

Originally posted by Doug Nye
Tecnauto independent front suspension replaced the Alfa front axle, located by trailing links and sprung by coil springs in torsion.

What does that mean?

[David Beard]

Originally posted by Roger Clark


What does that mean?

Out of my depth here , but is Tecnauto suspension what is found on i.f.s. ERAs? (Have no ERA books )

I do have a lovely but tatty little old book .."The Racing Car Pocket Book" by Jenks, 1962.

It says of the Multi-Union "After the war G.F. Yates bought the car and made a brief appearance with it and then abandoned the idea of racing it: after lying dormant for many years it is, at the time of writing , undergoing a rebuild."

What happened in the intervening years?

[Ray Bell]

Doug, I have to agree with you... I certainly didn't know enough about the car, and for the illumination I thank you.

And I would have fought tooth and nail to prevent the car being split up when the mercenaries moved in.

But it's too late for that now... and I really do think that a reconstruction using parts identical to those used originally is not only desirable but essential.

Another small point, and though I don't think this sways me it may in the fullness of time, is that we had two Tipo Bs race in Australia, and very famously so. Now we have none... the prospect of a Tipo B being available to turn out at an Historic meeting is something to rouse the adrenalin a little.

Problem is that Alfa Romeo no longer catalogue this model...

[Doug Nye]

Roger - coil springs in torsion - this comes in haste word-for-word from a DSJ description of the car, a coil-spring is in any case simply a convenient packaging of a torsion bar but I think in this case one end of the spring/bar was twisted by a linkage while the other end remained securely anchored. Tecnauto was used on one ERA to my knowledge, the Pollock (?) car used postwar by Abecassis. The Hon. Patrick Lindsay acquired the Multi-Union II after its unhappy period with George Yates who - I think - ran it only in the Brighton Speed Trials. It resided for donkey's years in a back store with Crosthwaite & Gardiner who looked after Patrick's cars, and I recall at one time marvelling at its 1939 spare wheels which still wore slick-tread Dunlop Racing track tyres as used on the Brooklands Outer Circuit. These tyres were eventually inherited by Jenks for his Brooklands Duesenberg and they are the tyres on the car as exhibited and preserved at Brooklands today. Incidentally Dick Crosthwaite and John Gardiner are presently - at their own expense - most of the way through building a running engine for the Duesey! We are seeking sponsorship to complete it in order to run the car once more.

The Hon. Patrick eventually despaired of ever getting the Multi-Union II's modified engine to hold its water and oil separately and the car was sold to the Phillistines...

DCN

[Ray Bell]

So the Tecnauto system was merely the springing medium acting on the original beam axle, or did it involve a trailing arm or Dubonnet style of suspension?

[Roger Clark]

According to David Weguelin, the Tecnauto independent front suspension "used a coil spring inside a horizontal cylinder that acted upon a swinging arm, in much the same way as ERA's torsion bar arrangement". In 1937 the car was raced by Nicky Embiricos and looked after by Ramponi who converted the front suspension. Embiricos appeared only once with the car in this form at the 1937 Florence Grand Prix where he crashed in practice. It was then sold to Pollock.

[Ray Bell]

So it was a swinging arm suspension with a wierdo springing medium?

Swinging arms like the Bellamy IFS on this Bugatti?



I can imagine some binding problems if the spring and cylinder didn't have nice clearances... but wierd designs were rampant those days, like RR's oil bath front suspension...

[dbw]

re the asformentioned front end, imagine an early volkswagen front axle unit with coil springs [horozontal,as in a mousetrap]instead of the v-dubs multi leaf torsion bars...i've seen rodney smith's ERA with it's unit apart and it's a great job of packaging....

as for the alfa/multi-union...has it escaped everyone that at some point mr staniland systematically butchered a perfectly good alfa???[try to ignore mr. nye's inflammatory "elderly" remark] i suspect that if someone were to buy the lotus that was "modified" at the historic monaco race and wanted to "update" it for oval racing,this place would totally blow a communal gasket....but in fact it's just an out of date "elderly" old lotus.....;)

[Ray Bell]

Thanks dbw... drawing on Auto Union experience, obviously...

I think Doug's point was that it was just one of a number of 'elderly' Tipo Bs when this happened. Let's face it, at the end of 1938 they were so low on the food chain that one was sold to Australia. And that was a 1935 model... with the Dubonnet front end.

[Mark Beckman]

Originally posted by dbw

as for the alfa/multi-union...has it escaped everyone that at some point mr staniland systematically butchered a perfectly good alfa???[try to ignore mr. nye's inflammatory "elderly" remark] i suspect that if someone were to buy the lotus that was "modified" at the historic monaco race and wanted to "update" it for oval racing,this place would totally blow a communal gasket....but in fact it's just an out of date "elderly" old lotus.....;)

It certainly hasnt escaped me that it was originally an Alfa and if both cars can be resurected using many original parts in both I think thats great as I see it was both cars at a point in time and yes I do have sympathy for Dougs point of veiw.

The real quandry as I see it is the chassis number as mentioned, 1 for 2 cars even though they both rightfully could claim it.

[Doug Nye]

DBW - "inflammatory remark"? Me??? At the time that Staniland and Worters - as you rightly say 'butchered' (not inflammatory?) a perfectly good Alfa it was no longer perfectly good... It was 4-5 years old and no longer any use to man nor beast so far as their racing ambitions were concerned. Rather like the 'Bimotore' when it was 'Monomotore-ed' or the Charles Boulton A-Type Connaught when he performed a freelance 'AL' long-wheelbase chassis stretch on it, or all the ex-1 1/2-litre Formula 1 cars that were re-engined with V8s for Formule Libre, hill-climb or early Formula 5000 racing. Or the F3000 tub mouldings being used today as flower pots or for water storage. Err come to think of - that's probably a v. good idea in many cases...

DCN

[Bladrian]

I have a slightly different slant on this story. I see the Multi-Union as a monument to a very special racecar engineer, and thus the preservation of the car as eventually presented by Staniland should be the prime consideration here.

My hap'orth.

[oldtimer]

I agree with that hap'orth. I would not have done that without Doug's piece of history, which describes how the out-dated Alfa was turned into a pretty serious, albeit fragile, racing car.

[David McKinney]

I think someone should put the other side of the argument.
The choice faced by the owner of the Multi-Union was this. He could use its components for the re-construction of an important pre-war Grand Prix Alfa Romeo, with Scuderia Ferrari and Sommer history. Or he could preserve a one-off special with no international history and no important successes even in British events, apart from some good lap-times on the anchronistic Brooklands speedway.
I'm not saying he made the right choice, but feel the argument should be put nevertheless.

[Bladrian]

David:

You make a good point - but there is this to consider. A large number of remarkable and/or significant cars would fit your description of 'one-off special'.

Just a thought.

[Roger Clark]

Originally posted by David McKinney
I think someone should put the other side of the argument.
The choice faced by the owner of the Multi-Union was this. He could use its components for the re-construction of an important pre-war Grand Prix Alfa Romeo, with Scuderia Ferrari and Sommer history. Or he could preserve a one-off special with no international history and no important successes even in British events, apart from some good lap-times on the anchronistic Brooklands speedway.
I'm not saying he made the right choice, but feel the argument should be put nevertheless.

...and the value (or in Oscar Wilde's cynical words, the price) of the result had no bearing on the matter....

[Ray Bell]

Both deserve to live on... I think that's clear.

How much of the Alfa went back into the Alfa? I daresay there's just as much of the Multi Union remains to have re-created parts put into it.

Everybody wins a prize...

.....specially the good folks like Crosswaite and Gardiner who'll get paid lots to do it.....

[VAR1016]

Originally posted by Ian McKean


Interesting comment about the valves, since we had a thread recently about multi-valve engines and I think someone mentioned the P25 in that connection. (Sorry, too lazy to look it up).

I

Yes that was me. And I particularly mentioned the P25 which had all sorts of terrible valve trouble.

Berthon really was quite eccentric was he not? (over to Doug??)

PdeRL

[Mark Beckman]

Originally posted by Bladrian
David:

You make a good point - but there is this to consider. A large number of remarkable and/or significant cars would fit your description of 'one-off special'.

Just a thought.

Certainly in Australia where many "Pure" racecars were modified for our Formula Libre rules such as Massa 250F with V8 American iron.

I may list some but I'm not sure if I want to be responsable for the coronary's for some of the purist's

[Mark Beckman]

Originally posted by David McKinney
I think someone should put the other side of the argument.
The choice faced by the owner of the Multi-Union was this. He could use its components for the re-construction of an important pre-war Grand Prix Alfa Romeo, with Scuderia Ferrari and Sommer history. Or he could preserve a one-off special with no international history and no important successes even in British events, apart from some good lap-times on the anchronistic Brooklands speedway.
I'm not saying he made the right choice, but feel the argument should be put nevertheless.

Well you have convinced me, of the 2 the Alfa gets to keep the chassis number.

[dbw]

err...didn't the alfa always have the chassis number???

[Bladrian]

Originally posted by Mark Beckman


Certainly in Australia where many "Pure" racecars were modified for our Formula Libre rules such as Massa 250F with V8 American iron.

I may list some but I'm not sure if I want to be responsable for the coronary's for some of the purist's

I guess that sort of thing wasn't just perpetrated by the Antipodeans - I was invited to race a Lotus 18 with an Alfa engine and a Citroen gearbox many years ago ..... I think it was an ex-Doug Serrurier car, and no - I have no idea what happened to the original engine and gearbox.

[David McKinney]

Originally posted by Mark Beckman


Certainly in Australia where many "Pure" racecars were modified for our Formula Libre rules such as Massa 250F with V8 American iron.

I may list some but I'm not sure if I want to be responsable for the coronary's for some of the purist's

I look forward to that list Mark. No 250F Maser ever raced in Australia with anything other than a Maserati engine

[Ray Bell]

Originally posted by Bladrian
I guess that sort of thing wasn't just perpetrated by the Antipodeans - I was invited to race a Lotus 18 with an Alfa engine and a Citroen gearbox many years ago ..... I think it was an ex-Doug Serrurier car, and no - I have no idea what happened to the original engine and gearbox.

The Alfa engine was extremely popular for F1 in South Africa in the early sixties... a logical installation, and when you've been through the mill with the 'queerbox' you'd possibly be crying out for a Citroen box as well...

And as David points out, there were no 250Fs fitted with Chevys in Australia... or NZ if I'm not mistaken...

There was an Alfa Tipo B (similar to the one used for the Multi Union, incidentally, but a later rendition) that lost its engine to the second World War and had, in succession, an Alvis 4.3, GMC six and then a Corvette installed. There was a Ferrari that got a Corvette, too... that was F1/114 that had belonged to Dick Cobden and had some dreadful swing axle rear suspension... sounds lethal, though it was the Alfa that did the killing...

Otherwise I can't think of any other 'pure' cars that copped V8s other than the many Bugattis which found the crankshafts and rods supplied by Ettore unable to stay inside the crankcase for long enough.

Oh, and yes, the 1919 Indianapolis Ballot (as well as the 1922 Targa Ballot...) had a flathead Ford installed.

Looking at that entry list for a race in Spain or Portugal or whatever that was posted last week, however, I would think that this sort of thing happened in Europe as well... at least with the Bugattis. Not as often as here or in Africa or South America, but still it must have happened.

We had a couple of late fifties Coopers had ohv V8s too... and every other kind of engine that rotated...

[Mark Beckman]

Originally posted by dbw
err...didn't the alfa always have the chassis number???

err....you dont seem to have caught on to what some of the discussion is about.

Alfa leaves the factory.

Alfa existed as racing Alfa.

Later Alfa gets turned into Multi Union.

Now we have 2 cars with same chassis number existing in history but at different times.

Move forward to today.

Man has enough bits and money to reconstruct/replicate both Alfa and Multi Union.

Therefore both cars will exist at same time but only 1 chassis number.

[Ray Bell]

.... and the Multi Union doesn't need it.

It's a unique car, one of a kind, made from available parts that came together at the time.

If those that were made specially for it are wedded back to parts identical to those derived from the Alfa, and these in turn are modified as was done when the Multi Union was around, then we have all we need.

[dbw]

hmmm....let's see......

alfa leaves factory with chassis number assigned by alfa.

alfa races as alfa with same[factory assigned] chassis number.

alfa gets "old and useless"..but still retains [factory assigned] chassis number.



alfa gets mutated into "multi union" over a period of time..but still retains [factory assigned]chassis number.

multi union becomes "old and useless"; lies about unused,but still retains [factory assigned]chassis number...note it is still an alfa chassis as "multi union" has no factory and assigns no numbers.

move into "tomorrow land"....

man with time and money wishes to go back in time;subtracts added bits,adds proper bits and alfa is once again an alfa; note...car still retains [factory assigned] chassis number.

"multi union" reduced to bits...same bits added [once again]to alfaish bits[this time with no factory assigned chassis number]and a vehicle results....

i' not sure what you may want to call the second vehicle but the alfa with[factory assigned]chassis numbers still exists.

let's face it...the "multi union" was a new dress and a fancy pair of shoes on a once grand dame...let her wear her chanel suit again and be seen as herself.

is there anyone i'm not offending here????

[David McKinney]

Originally posted by Ray Bell

And as David points out, there were no 250Fs fitted with Chevys in Australia... or NZ if I'm not mistaken...

Sorry Ray, there was a Corvette-powered 250F in NZ, imported as such and always entered as a Tec-Mec after the Italian outfit that built it

[Mark Beckman]

Originally posted by dbw


1/ i' not sure what you may want to call the second vehicle but the alfa with[factory assigned]chassis numbers still exists.

2/ let's face it...the "multi union" was a new dress and a fancy pair of shoes on a once grand dame...let her wear her chanel suit again and be seen as herself.

3/ is there anyone i'm not offending here????

1/ We are calling the "2nd" vehicle by its rightful name, "Multi Union" and the whole point is that it had the Alfa's chassis number and can rightfully claim to wear it againg if replicated, you cant change history, it was the chassis number it wore when it existed.

2/ This is the problem, the Multi Union did exist WITH THE chassis number of the Alfa and when it did, it was its identification and I take your point that if you rang the Alfa factory and quoted the number they would tell you it was an Alfa P3, however in reality it was a Multi Union even though it was really a P3

3/ Give it time.

[Doug Nye]

Don't get too carried away by the 'chassis number proves all' concept. I don't recall the Multi-Union actually bearing any kind of chassis plate - the bulkhead of the original Alfa body which bore it had long gone, as had the rear spring hanger chassis section on which it would have been stamped. And at what point does a modified vehicle become so much modified that its identity becomes more 'now' than 'then'...????

Just a question...

DCN

[Ray Bell]

Knowing that, Doug, I'm beginning to wonder why the present owner is going to the trouble... there'll be so much to remake and take back to Alfa standard that he's going to be at it for years... better off starting from scratch, methinks...

[Mark Beckman]

Originally posted by Doug Nye
Don't get too carried away by the 'chassis number proves all' concept. I don't recall the Multi-Union actually bearing any kind of chassis plate - the bulkhead of the original Alfa body which bore it had long gone, as had the rear spring hanger chassis section on which it would have been stamped. And at what point does a modified vehicle become so much modified that its identity becomes more 'now' than 'then'...????

Just a question...

DCN

Good question Doug and to be honest personally I dont care wether its a replicar or not as long as its done to the true original specs without shortcuts or "improvements" other than obvious safety.

Chassis numbers etc are only for the collector/investor and obviously the avid historian as I see it.

I would think that cars like the Auto Unions we see at Goodwood for instance are originals but probably 80%+ new parts made from scratch are they then originals or not ?

For instance, the bodywork on them is perfect, the 1930's pics I have look like hand formed/beaten products which is what they were. (note that I didnt personally see them in real life in the 30's, it was kind of before I was born)

WW2 plane restorations are the worst though, they find burnt out, rusted, bent and twisted airframes, retain nothing but the chassis plate, completely restore them using all brand new replicated items and yet pass them off like they were the originals.

[Doug Nye]

Mark - the situation with aircraft restoration is enormously different to that with cars. If aviators wish to fly their old aircraft they have to comply with stringent airworthiness requirements supposedly to prevent us all benefiting from a regular 'aluminium shower'. It is absolutely accepted virtually throughout the aviation world that to restore 'an original aircraft' to flying order is effectively to replace and replicate it.

With cars the situation is not so critical....and it is eminently possible to retain large proportions of 'as original' structure and fabric without any problems with what appears to be your accepted great god of safety. What is grieving is to witness something which has survived virtually intact for over 45-50 years - for the Multi-Union deed was done some time ago - chopped up for profit absolutely regardless of its history. Are you of the persuasion that the Mona Lisa is old, let's respray it, stick it in a brand new frame and it's still 'original'? Sorry pardon - but mere condition can be bought at any time - originality, once lost, has gone for ever...it is utterly irretrievable and very, very, very few historic machines have survived to this day retaining it.

DCN