ala spessa 915096??

[dretceterini]

One thing I've noticed is that the 1939 cars (red car with no numbers on it, listed as "street version", and silver car #6) do not have the stripes above the headlamps, and the 1940 cars do. Check out the attached:

http://www.alfamodel43.com/Alfa%20Ro...ssa%201939.htm


I'm still not sure if there were 2 or 3 cars with Ala Spessa coachwork....

[gtv2000]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dretceterini I'm still not sure if there were 2 or 3 cars with Ala Spessa coachwork....

[dretceterini]

The results list I have from 1939 shows 6c2500SSs in 1st and 2nd, and 6c2500s in 3rd and 4th overall. I'm not sure exactly what that means...

1) Righetti-Rangoni
2) Pintacuda-Severi
3) Leonardi-Dei
4) Cornaggia Medici-Gobatto

[iicarJohn]

Nobody has mentioned it yet here so I will remind that "Ala Spessa" means "thick wing", "wide wing" or "large wing". (edit: Thanks to gtv2000 for an additional "precision" here.)

915096 was almost certainly not yet built when the other "Ala Spessa" cars were racing on the Targa Abruzzo.

To make things clear, I like cars. I like cars that function as cars should and I really don't care if others wish to label a car simplistically with terms like "good" or "bad" or "real" or "fake" or "replica" or "reconstruction" or whatever. To me, they are all good cars ... if they function as cars should and give us some visceral pleasure upon viewing and/or use. That said, when I view a car with the idea of learning something from it, my perspective shifts to "How much can I learn?" as well as "What would I like to learn?".

What would I like to learn? As much as possible about how the car was originally built and thereby gain insights into the people who did the work and the time-period in which the work was done. This can be simplified perhaps to ask simply "What was the purpose?" and then "How did the builders respond?".

How much can I learn? That depends on how much is left of the original car and also the context in which a car (and its parts) is presented.

If I know that a car that I see today has been built from parts and then reclothed, then I know that there are very likely historical lessons only in the parts themselves. There may be some historical lessons in someone else's interpretation of how to build a "Touring" or "Zagato" body, but I can't actually sense the build characteristics of any original Zagato or Touring builder in the part and how it was worked. This kind of thinking makes it a bit difficult to "judge" a car that has been modified heavily or even rebodied over the years and then restored to an original configuration but which lacks the original stuff in the restoration. Very nice, but no real lessons to be learned from that work.

If I believe a car could be "original" but too many anomalies show up early on in a car's presentation, then I start to believe that the car has perhaps been too well-used or modified to convey more than a sense of the original. But, that use can give a sense of history that is also very pleasing and we risk losing "what is" when we convert it to "what was". Some of what we have seen represents "what could have been", especially if we do not know "what was". Still, sometimes there is simply not enough to go on and decisions have to be made if it is to become a car again.

Whether there were two or three "Ala Spessa" cars is something we would certainly like to answer, but the world doesn't seem a worse place if we consider that there might be one evocative car existing now that never did before. It is perhaps a bit of a shame to have lost the representation of what 915096 might have been as an "original" car in the process, but I do not know that this happened in order to make the car as it sits today. It might be that the original car became non-original long ago? It may be important to the owner or a potential buyer to understand that, after reviewing all the information currently to hand ("915096" was a "berlina") plus the probabilities implied by what we know (915091, 915092, 915093 being race cars built just in time for the so-called "Mille Miglia in April of 1940) and the fact that the "Ala Spessa" style of bodywork had already been surpassed on those cars means that there is very little chance that there is anything historical to be learned from the "Ala Spessa" style body currently fitted to 915096. This means that 915096 is evocative of two or three earlier cars, but not of its own origins. Now, in 50 years, we might look back and find something historic in it for reasons we do not currently consider important! That would be history of today mingled with history of some 60-70 years earlier. In 100 years, people may "shake their heads with wonder" or perhaps "shake their heads and wonder" at any of this stuff, "original" or not?

Still, 915096 is a cool car and I would welcome a chance to have a look at the car in general as well as (hopefuly) the component parts that are hidden by the body so that I might feel that I'd actually learned something from the car and its parts.

Carry on.

[dretceterini]

Quote:

Originally Posted by iicarJohn Nobody has mentioned it yet here so I will remind that "Ala Spessa" means "wide wing" or "large wing". 915096 was almost certainly not yet built when the other "Ala Spessa" cars were racing on the Targa Abruzzo. To make things clear, I like cars. I like cars that function as cars should and I really don't care if others wish to label a car simplistically with terms like "good" or "bad" or "real" or "fake" or "replica" or "reconstruction" or whatever. To me, they are all good cars ... if they function as cars should and give us some visceral pleasure upon viewing and/or use. That said, when I view a car with the idea of learning something from it, my perspective shifts to "How much can I learn?" as well as "What would I like to learn?". What would I like to learn? As much as possible about how the car was originally built and thereby gain insights into the people who did the work and the time-period in which the work was done. This can be simplified perhaps to ask simply "What was the purpose?" and then "How did the builders respond?". How much can I learn? That depends on how much is left of the original car and also the context in which a car (and its parts) is presented. If I know that a car that I see today has been built from parts and then reclothed, then I know that there are very likely historical lessons only in the parts themselves. There may be some historical lessons in someone else's interpretation of how to build a "Touring" or "Zagato" body, but I can't actually sense the build characteristics of any original Zagato or Touring builder in the part and how it was worked. This kind of thinking makes it a bit difficult to "judge" a car that has been modified heavily or even rebodied over the years and then restored to an original configuration but which lacks the original stuff in the restoration. Very nice, but no real lessons to be learned from that work. If I believe a car could be "original" but too many anomalies show up early on in a car's presentation, then I start to believe that the car has perhaps been too well-used or modified to convey more than a sense of the original. But, that use can give a sense of history that is also very pleasing and we risk losing "what is" when we convert it to "what was". Some of what we have seen represents "what could have been", especially if we do not know "what was". Still, sometimes there is simply not enough to go on and decisions have to be made if it is to become a car again. Whether there were two or three "Ala Spessa" cars is something we would certainly like to answer, but the world doesn't seem a worse place if we consider that there might be one evocative car existing now that never did before. It is perhaps a bit of a shame to have lost the representation of what 915096 might have been as an "original" car in the process, but I do not know that this happened in order to make the car as it sits today. It might be that the original car became non-original long ago? It may be important to the owner or a potential buyer to understand that, after reviewing all the information currently to hand ("915096" was a "berlina") plus the probabilities implied by what we know (915091, 915092, 915093 being race cars built just in time for the so-called "Mille Miglia in April of 1940) and the fact that the "Ala Spessa" style of bodywork had already been surpassed on those cars means that there is very little chance that there is anything historical to be learned from the "Ala Spessa" style body currently fitted to 915096. This means that 915096 is evocative of two or three earlier cars, but not of its own origins. Now, in 50 years, we might look back and find something historic in it for reasons we do not currently consider important! That would be history of today mingled with history of some 60-70 years earlier. In 100 years, people may "shake their heads with wonder" or perhaps "shake their heads and wonder" at any of this stuff, "original" or not? Still, 915096 is a cool car and I would welcome a chance to have a look at the car in general as well as (hopefuly) the component parts that are hidden by the body so that I might feel that I'd actually learned something from the car and its parts. Carry on.

[gtv2000]

Quote:

Originally Posted by iicarJohn Nobody has mentioned it yet here so I will remind that "Ala Spessa" means "wide wing" or "large wing". [...] To make things clear, I like cars. I like cars that function as cars should and I really don't care if others wish to label a car simplistically with terms like "good" or "bad" or "real" or "fake" or "replica" or "reconstruction" or whatever. To me, they are all good cars ... if they function as cars should and give us some visceral pleasure upon viewing and/or use. That said, when I view a car with the idea of learning something from it, my perspective shifts to "How much can I learn?" as well as "What would I like to learn?".

[dretceterini]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gtv2000 Well, John, call me pedant, but the very translation of "Ala Spessa" would be "Thick Wing". Those bodies were "outdated" at the time of the 1940 MM because the cons (135kg of weight, a bit less visibility on tight corners) were seen as more important than the aerodynamics at the time. Decades later, historically, the Ala Spessa is probably much of a ground breaking design than the 1940 Spider Corsa. I understand your point about learning from a car, and a recreation of an original design may have as little historical relevance, for that purpose, than an evocation of another style of body. You are probably aware that Angelo Tito Anselmi wrote a vitriolic article on Auto d'Epoca circa 1992 about body recreation. His point was that they were misleading the public because, since the replica often didn't show the balance and subtility of the original design, people unaware of the nature of what they are watching could believe that Touring actually built such an ugly thing. When an original survives, it can be properly copied. When not, the interpretations from period pictures have little to do with what they are supposed to represent. Anselmi illustrated his point with pictures of the recreations of a couple of 6C2500 Spider Corsas MM40. The comparison with period pictures showed beyond any doubt that the replicas were no way as beautiful as the originals, with wrong shaped rockers, grille, etc. Some of those cars were later modified in an attempt to look closer to the real thing. I know that Anselmi is kind of radical in his thinking, and I myself asked an opinion to late CF Bianchi Anderloni who didn't care so much. He saw the recreations as a tribute to the period work, even if not perfect. Yet, I feel Anselmi's point as a sensible one: beyond the risk that, after some years, no one recalls that a car has a replica body and common knowledge represents it as the real thing, even if that is avoided, people are mislead as per the real lines of the body. If I'm commenting that today, it's also because I bought yesterday the current issue of Thouroughbred and Classic cars, that features a MM1940 6C2500 Spider Corsa. The body is of course a recreation, since none original survived. It's said in the article that the body is not a period one. Yet I'm quite uncomfortable with the oddities to be read in the article, such as dating the body style of 1938-39 (maybe that fits the chassis number? it's not quoted), plus the statement by the owner that those might have been the first Superleggera types: complete BS. So an enthusiast bought a nice and driveable car, and uses it, even travels a lot with it. That's fine, that's what tha car were built for. Yet he reckons he knows very little about the car history. Strange: if I were to afford one, I would study the case either before (better!!) or after the purchase. So, assuming ignorance, the man, possibly in good faith, misrepresents his own car. And adds that the regular use is giving the car a "nice patina". It's the owner's plain right to use it and say what he wants; it's a lack of professionalism that the TCC journalist doesn't mind to check anything before publishing his article. I wonder about the effect on the readers, and we are back to the point of historical learning, not only for you or us "experts", but for the majority of the enthusiasts.

[iicarJohn]

"Thick wing" is another good (and more literal) translation but I will stand by my original interpretations, gained from listening to popular usage in Italy ... which, as with English, is most certainly evolving ... so we may be only able to guess at the original intended allusion of "Ala Spessa". Regardless, the imprecise nature of such a moniker might foster a bit of misuse? And also inspire additional questions. Was it an official name used at the time of building and use or has it become popularized after the fact? The answer to that question might just lead us back to a simpler and more generic "6C Corsa" or "256SS" (or some variation) moniker as being more historically correct?

I was in Italy at the time that Anselmi's diatribe came out against the AR6C cars that were appearing on the scene. I met with him (and others) shortly therafter. I've always had the impression that he would not have been nearly so offended had the various "copycat" builders done a better job of their works. But, by the time three or four cars were noted to be quite "wrong" in many aspects, the others that may not have been be so "bad" became equally guilty in a "guilt-by-association" sense. Although some feel he was over-reacting, and I feel that there was something of a longterm dis-service done by resorting to the use of single-word decriptors such as "false", Anselmi did us a real service by calling public attention to something that was truly getting out of hand. However, this has not stopped it from happening throughout the car-restoration and car-building world and not just on Alfa Romeo 6C chassis. We have cars of all kinds today that are perfect show cars when they were built quite imperfectly for a very different purpose. We have show cars that could never have won anything because of some basic flaw in design or execution ... but today they have been revised and made "winning" or almost winning. Admirable work from a craftsmanship sense, but not evocative of history! Again, it is a difficult line to walk. Many of the cars we admire most today were built in quite a hurry to perform a specific task or to satisfy an impatient buyer before he or she took his or her money elsewhere. Today, during a restoration, we have more time to consider the longer term effects of some build details and can improve on certain things that it might seem silly not to. How far do we go?

There are other things that have changed quite dramatically on the car-interest scene. Almost gone are the days when the seller of a prized "baby" sought out the correct buyer to care for the car that they'd cared so much for. Almost gone, it might seem, are the days of deals done personally between principals. We have various forms of used car salesmen (some in the guise of auction companies) quietly assuring their customers that "they know the car" and (perhaps because they really don't know it very well?) that "it really doesn't matter where it came from or what anyone else says about it" ... and "May I please be payed my 10% "finder's fee" up front" ... while perhaps collecting another percentage from the seller.

Almost forgotten it seems are Denis Jenkinson's attempts to quantify in a certain way how much of an original car (or representation) is actually remaining in a car that appears before us today as a critical audience. I wonder how he would have described a certain Alfa Romeo 8C Monza that was built in recent years around an "original" 8C engine that was numbered probably not by Alfa Romeo (lacking certain "normal" Alfa Romeo numbering), but most likely was numbered by Scuderia Ferrari as a replacement crankcase for the terminally damaged original? So, it is a car re-created around an original crankcase that is perhaps not truly original? I feel this is a great car, correctly built and regularly campaigned and shown off in a wonderful manner, but we need to wrap our minds around these kinds of extreme cases to understand the possibilities that surround us anytime we see cars that get us excited. What is it that excites us? I'm sure it varies from person to person and only you can describe what it is that resonates within you when you get excited by a specific car.

Personally, I can get excited for a bit at watching a closely-fought race, even historic. I have been excited at being in a couple, now many years ago. I've even gotten excited at winning a couple of times and "almost-winning" a couple of others. I have been excited by seeing collections of cars, sometimes at concours, that allow us to see certain cars side by side and compare them just a bit. But the exciting and satisfying sensations that last are those that come from the oftentimes seemingly small "Ahah" moments when a little discovery is made about "how this was done" or "what that means" (or probably means) and, little by little, something is truly understood. When lucky, the lesson of that moment can be applied to other little mysteries. Those are exciting moments for me!

I believe that an owner of any item has something of a right to do with it as he or she sees fit. I believe also that there are certain items that transcend actual "ownership" and those items should convey a sense of duty and resposibility to any owner worthy of ownership. But, an appreciation of what something "is" should also give us a sense of responsibility to be true to each and every object that comes into our possession. If an item has a certain place in history, why should we be so bold as to attempt to change perception of that history by creating a new one in an attempt to overshadow the former?

Decay and neglect are oftentimes a part of history. A pet peeve of mine are those who would like to pretend that decay and neglect never happened and think they can cover it up by fitting a new ID plate (or plates) in place of decent, if imperfect, old ones. I have no problem with those who replicate ID plates for cars that have lost their originals but too many people today seem to be completely unaware of where their original ID plates are! As an aside, I note that I've found some very interesting information scratched on the backsides of a few original ID plates.

I have also noted that many original builders (Anderloni included) have tended to accept a good many evocative cars as "tributes" more than personal affronts. Anderloni was a distinguished and kind gentleman when I met him on several occasions but I wonder if there might not have been a bit more combative younger man inside when deemed necessary? Stanguellini today seems not to mind when certain cars call themselves "Stanguellini" with little or no cause, but then, Vittorio is no longer with us. There are a number of "Siata" cars (mostly prewar) that are also difficult to describe as being truly "Siata" in origin but there is absolutely nothing left of any Siata archive to say if the Ambrosini family might have had any concern at some time. This is why I believe it is necessary to describe each individual car as best we can and why I feel that it dishonors the passion of anyone who uses overly simplistic descriptive monikers such as "good", "bad", etc. in any way other than a very general sense or to describe a bearing or piston.

I will also note that we shouldn't fall into the trap of thinking that everything that Touring or (insert your favorite car-building name here) produced was necessarily "great design" or even "great execution". Some Italian cars do not qualify as anything remotely great or even all that good. Even so, I can and do enjoy most of them at some level. But that's true also of most British, German and French cars. Even many American cars!

This posting has already wandered far too much, so another will follow with some information that perhaps (I hope!) you all will enjoy. I certainly hope to learn something from all of you as a result of your input. Sometimes small, seemingly insignificant details can add up into something significant, so please don't be shy about sharing something "small".

[iicarJohn]

It has been far too long since the 1994 edition of The Italian Car Registry. Although I've been working on the files all along, I have not been able to tear myself away from data collection, sorting and cross-referencing for a period long enough to produce an update. The 1994 edition took many months to prepare, editing from much larger files. I also made the mistake of adding content to some of the lists during production. I can't say that I've gotten all of the late additions entered yet into my master files! The master files have grown tremendously and the task has grown far larger even though I've done some primary editing already for many of the lists. To be frank, some cars will require much attention before I can describe them the way I would like to. In fact, all car descriptions need more work as far as I'm concerned!

When I published the 1994 edition, it was my intention that the volume be only a hasty stopgap while preparing a more detailed version that would be issued in multiple volumes. There is still far too much remaining to be done to do that any time soon so I have decided to do another "stopgap" version similar in concept and format to the 1994 edition. A lot has changed and grown so it should be quite exciting.

For those of you who are not aware of it, a bookseller in the Brescia area has been reprinting my 1994 edition without permission for the last few years and without establishing any kind of royalty payment structure. I'm not going to do anything to stop them at this point, but they will not be allowed to be any kind of official distributor of the new edition. In addition, I will try to find some time to prepare the 1994 edition shortly on CD in digitized form. If I am able to find my old master files, it may even be possible to do some text-searching?

Here is a listing germane to the "Ala Spessa" discussion on this thread. It shows the early 915xxx chassis numbers and some bare-bones information about what is believed to be known about them. I've made no recent attempt to go through and correlate actual characteristics with the various descriptive monikers and make those descriptions consistent in usage. So, there may be some things to be tidied up here in some obvious way. If you would like to be a part of the process, please feel free to respond either publicly or privately on this forum and I will produce updates as they seems warranted.

This document is an MS-Word (.doc) file. If anyone cannot read this file, please let me know and I will send another format to to you. Certain characteristics may be lost in that file as a result and the formatting may become less clear as a result.

Best regards,

John de Boer

[dretceterini]

Quote:

Originally Posted by iicarJohn There is still far too much remaining to be done to do that any time soon so I have decided to do another "stopgap" version similar in concept and format to the 1994 edition. A lot has changed and grown so it should be quite exciting. For those of you who are not aware of it, a bookseller in the Brescia area has been reprinting my 1994 edition without permission for the last few years and without establishing any kind of royalty payment structure. I'm not going to do anything to stop them at this point, but they will not be allowed to be any kind of official distributor of the new edition. In addition, I will try to find some time to prepare the 1994 edition shortly on CD in digitized form. If I am able to find my old master files, it may even be possible to do some text-searching? Best regards, John de Boer

[6ccorsa]

John
Thanks for posting your very interesting list of the prewar SS cars.
This has set me to wondering about the features which make a SS engine.

I have got the impression that the engine differences are limited to piston changes (to alter CR) and the number of carbs fitted excepting the Corsa.
Fusi gives these figures:
6C2500 Turismo CV 87@4600 CR 7.0:1 Carbs 1
6C2500 Sport CV 95@4600 CR 7.5:1 Carbs 1
6C2500 Supersport CV 110@4800 CR 8.0:1 Carbs 3
6C2500 SS Corsa CV 125@4800 CR 8.0:1 Carbs 3
and slightly anomalous:
6C2500 Coloniale CV 90@4500 CR 7.0:1 Carbs 1 (con correttore di quota) - maybe a better carb?
Does anyone know of further changes? Pistons and carb variations would seem to account for the quoted power differences again excepting the Corsa which must have had different valve timing although still using the same valve sizes (Fusi).

I have engine no S923911 which fits into Fusi's range of engines grouped together as Sport or Super Sport. I am interested to note that in John's list some engines prefixed by S rather than SS were fitted in cars with the SS conversion. I would like to know if mine was one of them and it has occurred to me that I can check the CR when I get the engine back from the machine shop. I obtained it dismantled and it came with a single piston (maybe not original to the engine?). This is marked 'R7-6,75. 12/45 G 275'.
12/45 could be piston manufacture date I suppose, although the engine is listed as 1940 by Fusi.

I'll post this also in a new thread so as not to confuse too much with the Ala Spessa info.

[6ccorsa]

[quote=gtv2000;433353]Well, John, call me pedant, but the very translation of "Ala Spessa" would be "Thick Wing". Those bodies were "outdated" at the time of the 1940 MM because the cons (135kg of weight, a bit less visibility on tight corners) were seen as more important than the aerodynamics at the time. Decades later, historically, the Ala Spessa is probably much of a ground breaking design than the 1940 Spider Corsa.

Where does the information that the Ala Spessa bodies weighed 135kg extra come from?
It doesn't make sense to me.
I'm sure they could have been built with a weight penalty of the order of 10-20kg maximum.

[gtv2000]

[quote=6ccorsa;433821]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gtv2000 Well, John, call me pedant, but the very translation of "Ala Spessa" would be "Thick Wing". Those bodies were "outdated" at the time of the 1940 MM because the cons (135kg of weight, a bit less visibility on tight corners) were seen as more important than the aerodynamics at the time. Decades later, historically, the Ala Spessa is probably much of a ground breaking design than the 1940 Spider Corsa. Where does the information that the Ala Spessa bodies weighed 135kg extra come from? It doesn't make sense to me. I'm sure they could have been built with a weight penalty of the order of 10-20kg maximum.

[6ccorsa]

[quote=gtv2000;433822]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 6ccorsa Nope, sorry for having been unclear, as I thought I was quoting a weel-known figure. It's in Anselmi, and possibly also in the Touring Superleggera book, that the "Ala Spessa" body weighs 135kg instead of roughly the half for the "Siluro" body, i.e. the separate-winged Corsa spider. I've not in mind the exact weight quoted for the lighter one, neither have I the book at hand here. John, I can agree with your point of view: the desire to learn more about the cars is what drives us. How about other people is another story...

[6ccorsa]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gtv2000 I would say 3, because I seem to remember a pic of the Targa Abruzzo start where they are all three.