Fiat 806: research and scratchbuilds

[Totally Mad Olivier]

Roy, the way you added this extraordinary document - that I would call photo 0 and not photo 28 because, except from a chronologic consideration based on the date of discover, of its fundamental importance - recalls me the day you added our photo 12, frontal view, as if it was just nothing. 

With Hannes, I wonder where the devil you found that stuff. I will send it to Sebastien and to Paul Kierstein.

It is definitely the document we needed from the beginning. I made a more contrasted version, that you can add as 0 B (or 28 B, if you like), that allows to see better some details, like the Bordino tip, a bit light on "your" version.

Roy, you know that I deeply regret that you took some distance with the thread, still following us nevertheless.

This incredible discover is here to say you were a leader, an essential element of our team.

If you could come-back motivated as you were, leaving for now the Delage project - just for a few months -, it would be great.

Of course, I know - as everyone here - your reasons, but...

 

Edited February 25, 2017 by Olivier de St Raph

[Totally Mad Olivier]

Dear Hannes,

I understand very well your explanation about going from the general to the details, and it is of course full of logic.

But I did not feel to have considered details without thinking of the general. I just considered them simultaneously, and indeed, our methods were a bit different. If not, my yesterday comparison would not be so close from truth.

When I have been working a long time on the fairing, for exemple, is it general or detail?

When I said the cockpit was too long, the tail too short, the final end much too long, was it detail?? 

In fact, this distinction between general and detail is imho a bit artificial, except for some details like louvers...

 

[Hannes]

Maybe an overlaying with drawing 2 ´s side- view could be of interest?  Hannes

[Totally Mad Olivier]

Will you allow me now to make measurements? 

In fact, I did not wait! (I couldn't...)

The first obvious thing I notice is that this confirms that the original Drawing 2 is wrong about the tail. Ok Hannes?

Our altered version is on an other hand very close from truth! Good new for me...

Edited February 25, 2017 by Olivier de St Raph

[NickD]

[Roy vd M.]

Ok brief reaction because I'm very busy at the moment:

 

- Photo is from the 1949 book "The Grand prix Car" by Laurence Pomeroy. 

- That book was recommended to me by Mr Daniel Cabart who recently wrote the book on the Delage 15-S-8. Fortunately not only does the book contain nice images on the Delage but also this photo. 

- I will add the darkened photo as 'Photo 28B', renaming the other as 'Photo 28A'. 

- Drawing 2 and Photo 28 cannot be compared very well through overlaying because of lens distortion and parallax issues with Photo 28. Besides, it seems the photo was taken with a camera above the car's vertical centreline. 

- Still Photo 28 is very useful, for example as regards engine support struts, tail length, tail shape, car interior, steering wheel position, radiator slope, fairing shape, steering linkage position when wheels are straight, and more. 

 

[Hannes]

My tip is not far away from truth. On the photo  the tail ends where the photo ends . Hannes

Edited February 25, 2017 by Hannes

[Totally Mad Olivier]

This photo 28 (and 28B) is the missing piece we all dreamed to find. It's a treasure. It's incredible that such a document was in that book, Roy. I imagine your reaction when you fell on it!! For me, it was after my saturday's nap. I was like Nick's emoji! Look for example at the fairing shape, very subtle. Mine was very close from that but thanks to you, I could modify it slightly, with this double curve.

I have decided - Hannes will be glad - to reproduce the "wire effect" on the outside edge of the fairing, probably with LC flowable resin that I used for the steering wheel screen (see above).

This doc falls at the right moment for me, as I was beginning painting. 

Thanks guy!!

I am so excited, I don't find words!!

Edited February 25, 2017 by Olivier de St Raph

[Totally Mad Olivier]

That's ironic, you found that looking for Delage docs!! It is the destiny! If you had not been interested by the Delage, probably we would not have got that incredible stuff...

Edited February 25, 2017 by Olivier de St Raph

[Hannes]

Yes , that´s the missing link . Regarding the fairing : A part lies in the shadow the frontal part in the light so be cautious regarding it´s profile !  Hannes

[Totally Mad Olivier]

Yes Hannes I had noticed that too, I agree 

[Hannes]

Even if Roy is right when saying an exact comparison with drawing 2  cannot be made due some circumstances , an approximational comparison should be possible .

This could be very important for checking out some important issues like height , frame dimensions radiator case´s size and wheel sizes .

This could show us where we can trust drawing 2 and where we should remain sceptical.  Hannes

Edited February 25, 2017 by Hannes

[Roy vd M.]

32 minutes ago, Olivier de St Raph said:

That's ironic, you found that looking for Delage docs!! It is the destiny! If you had not been interested by the Delage, probably we would not have got that incredible stuff...

 

It even goes beyond that. The fact that this photo is now in our collection is a result of a philosophy to share where possible, and to show gratefulness. I'll explain. 

 

Mr Daniel Cabart had arranged for me to be able to photograph Delage #1 at Rétromobile as long as I wished, even though I'm 'just' a modeler and there were way more important guests at the Delage stand at Rétromobile. I felt very honored and glad. It saves me a trip to Florida (yes I know I am crazy), planned in two years or so. That trip was meant to photograph and measure certain aspects of the car that I was yet to model. For me discovering about a car like this, and the Delage, is like an exciting quest and Florida was one of its destinations. Through Mr Cabart's allowing me access to the cars it isn't necessary to visit Florida anymore for measurement / photography purposes. 

 

Because I was so grateful for that I decided to send him an e-mail, offering Mr Cabart a copy of all my photos and videos made at Rétromobile (appr. 5 GB of stuff, more than half of which regarding the 15-S-8). I had also written a review on his book, both in English (to be read in my Delage topic) and in Dutch (on another forum), offering Mr Cabart to post the review elsewhere if so desired. Next I provided Mr Cabart with a list of typing errors etc. in the book, for the benefit of a possible second print. Also I pointed Mr Cabart to the documentary of the 1927 Grand Prix. It contains moving imagery of Robert Benoist, which is quite rare. 

 

It was clear that this e-mail by myself was to be considered as a 'thank you', not expecting anything in return. But what happens...? Mr Cabart sends me an interesting drawing of the Delage (unpublished) as well as a link to Mr Pomeroy's book. That book, although expensive, is worth the price even if looking at all Delage-related contents. But also this new photo of the Fiat is a gem. I was very surprised to find it in the book, because there is no chapter on the Fiat 806. It was included seemingly quite randomly. It seems that this photograph was completely forgotten by Fiat (the book was issued 15 years before Centro Storico was even opened). On the other hand this is the only source that shows parts of the interior used in the kit... I still think that Protar had more sources of information such as photos. And I still think that Centro Storico contains those photos, hidden in its archives.

 

But what I wanted to say is... sometimes doing a favor without asking for anything in return leads to unexpected and beautiful effects!  

[Totally Mad Olivier]

Incredible Roy! It recalls me the circumstances in which I could visit the Rev's institute, that I even didn't know, and that was 30 mn from my patients house! 

[Hannes]

What an exciting story ! Maybe some other photos like from the left side are still undiscovered .A thrilling book or an exciting movie could be made about this thread !  Hannes

Edited February 25, 2017 by Hannes

[Totally Mad Olivier]

1 hour ago, Hannes said:

Even if Roy is right when saying an exact comparison with drawing 2  cannot be made due some circumstances , an approximational comparison should be possible .

This could be very important for checking out some important issues like height , frame dimensions radiator case´s size and wheel sizes .

This could show us where we can trust drawing 2 and where we should remain sceptical.  Hannes

I agree, Hannes, and will do that, with care conclusions. You can do it too, so that we will compare...

[Totally Mad Olivier]

14 minutes ago, Hannes said:

What an exciting story ! Maybe some other photos like from the left side are still undiscovered .A thrilling book or an exciting movie could be made about this thread !  Hannes

Funny to read that, Hannes. When I was at Brussels last week, I visited Magritte museum. I don't like very much this surrealist painter, but the works were magnificently highlighted, and I said to my wife, my son and my daughter that I would dream of showing all our stuff in such conditions. I think many people would be interested. Pity, it was just a dream... 

[Totally Mad Olivier]

First measurement: 

when I have 200 mm wheelbase, I have 275 mm total lenght from the bottom of the Bordino tip to the bottom of the front wheel (I can't see the front rod). It seems that the front rod does not exceed the front wheel, we would see it... So, we can consider, with a little error margin, that the total lenght is around 275 mm at 1/12 scale , which is 3300 mm at 1/1 scale.

Edited February 25, 2017 by Olivier de St Raph

[Roy vd M.]

 

 

Wheelbase was, almost completely sure, 2.400mm. 

[Hannes]

The U-shaped tube for the oil case seems to be at the same place as the steering wheel . On drawing 2 it´s about there , where the Protar tube is situated ,on a place before the steering wheel.

So the Protar designers used ( wrong regarding our car ) drawing 2 for their kit imho . Besides that it´s higher too ! . Hannes

[NickD]

Chaps,

 

I've done the comparison of my existing lines (6-16) with the miraculous Photo28. Results below

 

Key features. Rear body work too low , as suspected. result is likely to be more consistent with Roy's drawing 2. Cowling right shape not quite right place. Bonnet back edge too far back. again this is likely to make the lines more consistent with Roy's drawing. Fairings way too big. Frame too thin. This is probably the biggest surprise for me. Frustratingly, the wheels still remain a question for me though I am perhaps being a bit picky.

 

If this was the same camera used for the other studio photos, the left hand edge is probably distorted but I can't see any evidence at the moment.

 

I'll post a version with Roys Drawing 2 when I have made the above amendments. Still think we are likely to find it is quite a good source.

 

Now alls we need Roy s the picture they took from the front, the one from the rear, and the one where they hung the photographer from the ceiling to get a top view. No hurry!

 

Nick

[Totally Mad Olivier]

Results and comparisons of my measurements on the photo 28 and on my kit: first of all, let's say that we have an error margin, low imho, probably much less than 10%. The values between parentheses are my measures on my build, considered eye viewed, one eye closed to avoid 3D distorsion. I will complete with camera photo at 1 m distance later. I recall that I first set the photo 28 wheelbase to 200 mm (2400 : 12), "almost completely sure", as said Roy:

1- End of Bordino tail: 15 mm (15 mm) OK

2- Height of rear louvres: 10 mm (11 mm, I had increased them a bit yesterday...)

3- 80 mm (89 mm!!). This is a real surprise. Hannes said the tail portion was longer (coming back to the original Drawing 2), it seems on the contrary that even my own tail, that I had so much decreased in lenght, and that seemed to me a bit too short now, is in fact still a bit too long, even if my seat fairing goes a bit to frontally (I will correct that). I won't modify it nevertheless, because I am fed up with eternal changes (I think you will all understand me...). 

4- 58 mm (58 mm) OK now, but will be about 59,5 mm after correction of the seat fairing mentioned just above.

5- 29 mm (30 mm) OK

6- 75 mm (80 mm). Other big surprise: we considered (especially Hannes but me too, to a lesser degree, about 1,5 mm) the kit's bonnets were too short, they seem to be a bit too long, about 5 mm!! Hannes, what do you think of that?

7- 12 mm (13 mm). Other surprise: the radiator case lenght, that we also considered too short, is in fact OK (on this photo, anyway)

8- 118 mm (118 mm). OK. Hannes, didn't you think this part of the frame should be elongated?

9- 61 mm (64,75 mm). As I said yesterday, the Protar wheels are bigger than the car's ones. But I will keep them as they are, as I said too this morning.

10- 18 mm (18,6 mm). OK for me, in the error margin.

11- 8,25 mm (9,25 mm). My frame is a bit too height, maybe I will decrease it a bit. But this measure on the photo is not very accurate, because of the shadow of the frame.

12- 41 mm (42 mm) OK, my cockpit lenght is good.

13- 20,75 mm ( about 20,5 mm). This measure on my build is very difficult because following the way I hold it, I get differences. But one thing is sure, this photo will be helpful for me, showing little and easy corrections are necessary on left side cockpit shape. 

14- 8,6 mm. No measure at now, but this will be a reference when I will set my steering wheel.

15- 82 mm (84 mm) OK. Good new for me, I had cut my frame in that portion, it is just still a little bit too long but very acceptable.

16- 44,3 mm (44,3 mm) Exactly the same lenght for this underbody extension.

 

Of course, I repeat we must be careful with these measures, but I must say I am not unhappy with them, except maybe for the tail lenght, that is really a big surprise. I look forward to see your own conclusions, especially Hannes ones.

 

 

Edited February 25, 2017 by Olivier de St Raph

[Hannes]

Dear Olivier ,as you know I work with a different scale so my measurements cannot be compared directly with yours . But I´m content with my general design and of course still some alterings are necessary , To give you an impression about my scale : The Protar tyres would be much too small and the Mef tyres and the Protar wheels suit very well with my model .I wonder why you asked me about an elongation of the frame ( 8 ) That´s what I recommended several times to you !  Maybe I really speak Chinese !

However , I´m going to print out this photo in exactly my scale tomorrow and will answer other questions in a more detailled way.

But I´m already happy with a lot of good alignements , so  only minor alterings will be necessary imho.Regarding the Bordino tip I would be cautious because two curved panels meet and a camera with lenses distortions could falsify the real lenght .As on  all other photos not everything you see must be the same in reality , so a combination of several informations is required !

But what do you say about Nick´s comparisons ? How often I was critisized when doubting drawing 2 ! I hope , at least the frame has the same lenght as our car !

Many greetings !  Hannes

[Totally Mad Olivier]

Another measure is the angle between the up of the 2 fairings: it is 13,5° on the photo and 14° on my build, after a little necessary reduction in height of the main fairing.

But my problem is that on my build, my seat fairing is about 4 mm higher than the body at this level (beginning of tail portion). If I decrease it as I have to do, the angle will increase to about 17,5°. This is because, as Nick said, the rear body is too low (I think Hannes said that too above)... In french, we say "on n'est pas sorti de l'auberge!"...

 

Edited February 25, 2017 by Olivier de St Raph

[Totally Mad Olivier]

46 minutes ago, Hannes said:

I wonder why you asked me about an elongation of the frame ( 8 ) That´s what I recommended several times to you !  Maybe I really speak Chinese !

Hannes, I asked that to you because you said I should elongate my frame - if I understood well - in this portion, but the result I get with the comparison shows my frame's lenght is very good.