Fiat 806: research and scratchbuilds

[Totally Mad Olivier]

Hello to all,

 

look at this photo: this comparison shows very interesting things, about the shape of the 4G cap (good word?)... Thank you Roy whose observation on PM fell so well when I am beginning to work on the body...

 

 

 

 

 

On the second photo, I have added the exhaust pipe, to check it... it confirms it is a bit too large (they have the same size on the photo while the scale is not the same, kit a bit smaller than photo in the background... Notice that the rivets have the good size but there is more space between them. The fixing pin for the exhaust must be removed and there is a little recess of the exhaust at this level.

Edited November 25, 2016 by Olivier de St Raph
add

[Totally Mad Olivier]

P.S: I had the idea to complete the photos above  with a larger view, very instructive too:

- you can see what will be my final color, applied on the frame, I would call it "cherry"

- the frame should be higher, I won't redo it but will compensate by cutting the body (masking tape) that will allow me to get a lower car

- the cockpit is longer on the kit than in reality on this right side, no?

etc.

I think to what Sam said, it is sure that such changes could discourage us... I 'll try to do my best, aware it will be a compromise...

 

 

 

 

Edited November 25, 2016 by Olivier de St Raph

[Totally Mad Olivier]

P.S 2: take a look at the box-art: the cap has not at all the same shape than on the kit, much better. The Italeri builder seems to have modified it too, unless it is still Photoshop...

Edited November 25, 2016 by Olivier de St Raph

[Totally Mad Olivier]

On this next photo, I have added the rear cap and the seat, and tried to surimpose the 2 cars with the same scale (the kit is still a bit bigger) and the same angle, to avoid misinterpretations...

Reassure you, I do not intend to use the seat of the kit! 

Notice that I began to modify the cap shape... but there is a lot of work yet...

 

 

Edited November 25, 2016 by Olivier de St Raph
add

[Hannes]

_{Hello everybody! After spending some days in Hospital,I´m back online.}

_{The vitality of our thread also makes me vital again!}

_{Now it´s time to check out all the new discoveries.}

_{All the best to you all!  Hannes}

[sharknose156]

Dear Hannes i hope all is well now. Your health is your wealt. Wish you to be fully recovered and back to do what you love.

Sam

[Roy vd M.]

Hannes hopefully you're doing okay now and it wasn't something too serious.

 

I'm going to describe what I feel is major progress toward the end of our search for accurate car dimensions. We're far from there but we're getting there.

 

Yesterday I compared the engine drawing as included in Sebastien's book (page 147) to Drawing 2. One thing wasn't clear to me: what's the beam-like thing that protrudes from the engine front, as seen on the engine drawing? Comparing it to Drawing 2 made me realize that it's the engine support bracket connected to the rails. And that's some very useful piece of information... because now we we know the start of the car's frame, relative to the engine. I'll simply hold this factory blueprint as correct... we'll definitely not get better info than a 1927 Fiat-certified drawing titled "Motore 406". 

 

So today I overlaid the engine drawing with Drawing 2 and it matched almost perfectly. To reasonably respect Fiat Powertrain Technologies' copyrights of this drawing (although they have told me they don't have this very drawing... so I can't be sure) I'm not going to post it in full view. If you are interested, do buy Sebastien's book. It's a pleasure to read and it contains plenty of info on the Fiat 806 and other Fiat racers... for example the F-2 which should interest Pocher fans.

 

What I feel I can do for educational and referential purposes is post a low-resolution overlay video. Remember: the real engine drawing contains plenty of information and has a very high resolution. I cut away most of the adstructive lines and numbers in the engine drawing and overlaid it onto Drawing 2. In the video I indicate the differences. Summary: most of it matches very well, in some cases there is a 2-3 pixel deviation. But as said, in my opinion that is an acceptable error margin for technical drawings that are 90 years old. I really think Drawing 2 is that old. The reason is that, where I first thought Drawing 2 was based on the side engine drawing, now I see that several aspects are ever so slightly different in both drawings (the artist who made Drawing 2 didn't simply copy the engine drawing into his own work) and, especially, where the engine drawing contains info left out in Drawing 2, Drawing 2 contains info left out in the engine drawing. I wonder if there is any other source for that info. 

 

So I stick to my theory on Drawing 2 being made somewhere in July or August 1927, depicting the car in "as is" and "as will be"-state. Now I come to think of it.... maybe Drawing 2 is a copy of the original blueprint whereby part of the top view was carefully erased (rear end) and replaced by the dotted line. Which dotted line, being the only dotted line in all of Drawing 2, is thicker and darker than the other lines in the drawing. I refer to my earlier theoretic muses.

 

Here is the video:

 

 

 

Now of course we'd like to know if the engine dimensions match the wheelbase dimensions of Drawing 2 as well... 

 

When you take a good look at the engine drawing in Sebastien's book, we see that measurements have been included. Only problem is they are tiny and although the print quality of the book is exceptional, still they are not or barely readable. 

 

Based on Drawing 2's wheelbase (2400mm = 1063 pixels), the length 'front of frame to end of engine' as seen in Drawing 2 would be (454 pixels =) 1025 millimeter. So that's the magic number we're looking for.

 

Somewhere in the engine side drawing I found a number that is almost surely '856'. As I said, most of it is unreadable but some of it can be read - or so it seems. So I measured that part and 856mm. on the real engine = 135,95mm. on the engine drawing copy. So I finally measured the long stretch between front of frame and end of engine (in two takes, my caliper wasn't long enough) which was 121.35+42.02-> 163.37 mm. One final calculation which produced the number....... 1.028 millimeter.  Only 3mm. difference!! I'll happily take that as a measuring error on my side or an inaccuracy of either drawing, but the most important thing is: both drawings match both in shape and in wheelbase and track width measurements*.

 

So:

 

- Wheelbase: 2.400mm.

- Track width front: 1.300mm.

- Track width rear: 1.300mm.

- Tyre height: approximately 770mm.

- Front of frame to end of engine: between 1.025 and 1.028mm.

 

@Olivier de St Raph could you perhaps ask Sebastien to check his version of the side engine drawing, to see whether it is 1.025 or 1.028?

 

 

 

* Perhaps I went a bit fast there. Suppose the frame front-engine rear distance was 1.025mm. long, wheelbase was 2.400 and track width was 1.300. Suppose the engine drawing is 1/41 scale. That means that on the engine drawing, the 'frame-engine' length on the engine drawing is 25mm. long. Suppose Drawing 2 is 1/10 scale. That means the 'frame-engine' length on Drawing 2 is 102,5mm. long. We know from the engine drawing that 102,5mm. is a realistic measurement and does depict the car as it was. If we then compare this to the wheelbase of the car in Drawing 2 (2.400mm. should be 240mm. on the drawing) and that matches, it can be concluded that the wheelbase of the car as depicted in Drawing 2 is correct. If we also know that the track width of 1.300mm. relatively matches the wheelbase, we know that all numbers match and Drawing 2 is correct as regards wheelbase, front track width, rear track width and front of frame to end of engine. 

[Hannes]

_{Dear Roy,I want to thank you for both your Kind words and your amazing work too! I was suffering from a jaundice caused by an viral liver infection and looked like a banana the last 2 weeks.}

_{But now I´m almost recovered and my power will rise again..Lying side by side with a poor guy,who knows,that he´s only got some weeks to live made me think a lot about life and death.}

_{The docs say,that I´m in good condition,so there´s no Need to be scared.}

_{I´m very impressed by your and the other´s members wonderful thoughts and works and I would be glad to help with my experiences as a sculptor,whenever this will be necessary.   Many greetings !  Hannes}

[Roy vd M.]

And more good news... the lateral position of the engine in Drawing 2 matches Engine Drawing 1 perfectly. I matched the valve cover ends in both drawings and used a guideline to check whether the manual crank shaft opening in Engine Drawing 1 would line up to the manual crank as seen in Drawing 2. As you can see, that is definitely the case:

 

 

 

 

I put this into schedule:

 

 

 

The blue parts we know for sure are in the right place laterally vis-à-vis the purple parts. The only thing we don't have proof for is their relative lengthwise position. In other words, the purple parts could turn out to be a little more to the front of the car, or to the rear. Probably Drawing 2 is spot on in this respect, but I'm being very careful here, not wanting to jump to conclusions. What you see in the above image is what we know 100% for sure (based on the 2400/1300-numbers). 

 

@Hannes: it is good to know that it wasn't in fact, with you, a threatening situation. Hopefully the other guy is doing as well as is possible, given his condition.

 

 

[Totally Mad Olivier]

Dear friends,

first of all, very glad to read that you feel well now, Hannes!

Roy, many congratulations for this amazing work! In fact, Sebastien had suggested me to check the lenght with the engine picture, but I had not well understood what he meant exactly. 

 

 

[Roy vd M.]

Olivier we're lucky that the engine drawing contains measurement numbers and that one of them could be read. Otherwise we would have been dependent of Sebastien's good will of looking the drawing up in his archive, or Fiat Powertrain Technologies of granting us access to the full version of the engine drawing. Still it would be nice to know what the measurement is exactly (1025 or 1028). 

 

Regarding relative position between the purple and blue parts: perhaps it can be derived from Photo 4 (comparing radiator cap position to front wheels center). If Drawing 2 isn't 100% correct (it wouldn't surprise me if it is in fact 100% correct) then the difference will not be substantial. 

[Roy vd M.]

The Gimp file I posted yesterday can be used for measurement of parts for our scale model (for example, to check the kit parts): first use the 'measure tool' in Gimp to measure the number of pixels (you can always add guidelines by simply pulling them from the left or top ruler... if you use guidelines it's easier to measure a distance, as the measure tool 'snaps on to' the guidelines. You can disable this (sometimes you don't want your ruler to snap to the guidelines) in the 'view' menu. To measure straight lines without guidelines, use the command key (on a Mac... not sure which key you'll use on a Windows computer... just try a few, you'll see your measure line getting horizontal when it's the right key).

 

 To get from pixels to millimeters (real car) multiply by 2,25776105. 

 

Then to get to scale, divide by 12. 

 

As an example the cooling ribs on the bottom of the engine. That part is 286 pixels in length. Multiplied by 2,25776105 is 645,7196 millimeter. That's the size on that part on the real car. Divided by 12 makes 53,81mm. That's the size the part should have on our scale model. See here Italeri part 81:

 

 

Measuring the Protar Italeri part, it seems to be a very tight fit. That's not very surprising.. even before having known for sure the side engine drawing existed I said that it's almost certain that Italeri Protar had a blueprint drawing of the engine side at its disposal, given the specific details of the kit engine. But still it's a good feeling that at least this part of the kit seems to be accurate (remember, I only calculated its length).

 

It won't keep me from measuring every single part of the engine against both important engine drawings (front and side views) as well as Drawing 2 though. 

 

Anyway I can now open up that sprue bag because I now know I'll most probably use it. Although I can already see that I'm going to replace 10 of part 81's cooling ribs, because those ejector pin marks are nasty! Mind that the 'ejector pin mark' in the center of the raised section of part 81 is the oil plug: it only needs a bit of sanding but should not be replaced by cooling ribs. 

Edited November 25, 2016 by Roy vd M.

[Roy vd M.]

So why not open up that seal bag right now and make a better measurement...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0,29mm. difference between calculations made of scanned 90-year old drawings on the one hand, and a model kit about half that age on the other hand... not bad! That's difference of less than 0,5 percent. 

 

The good news for those who are looking to build something... I estimate the kit engine is highly accurate and can be built according to Drawing 2 (you can use the Gimp file) combined with the Engine Drawing 1 and the engine side drawing as found in Sebastien's book. The side view of Drawing 2 still needs straightening but I don't expect that to bring much difference to how it looks now. 

[Hannes]

Dear Olivier thank you for your friendly words!

I just want to add a comment about the heat shield for the exhaust pipe.

Because the original shield Shows a pure U-shape,the photo-etched Version does not seem suited for me.

I used the plastic Version and glued triangular styrene stripes on the inside of the upper edges.

This way you can get a convincing U-shape without breaking through by filing and sanding it down!  Many greetings!  Hannes

[NickD]

Roy,

 

Can't see any flaws with your analysis - just can't match your workrate.

 

You asked what I had used to scale my previous Blender drawing. I used the length. Everything else was derived.

 

Olivier,

 

Your pictures highlight  the fairing shape difference in front of the steering wheel. It's surprisingly big.

 

Hannes,

All the best - get well soon.

Nick

Edited November 25, 2016 by NickD
Correction

[Hannes]

_{Thank you very much,dear Nick!  Have a good night all together  Hannes}

[CrazyCrank]

Dear friends, i've had a very busy and hard day at my office, and then a meeting of my Yacht Club.

I just come back home and discover all your posts .

Well, good news for the engine and the manual crank.

Hats off, Roy for the incredible work you've done today about this topic.

 

Dear Hannes, I didn't know you was sick and hospitalized !

As a physician, the health status of others matters a lot to me, and my friend's one much more.

I hope you'll get quicky all your faculties back.

All the best to you

 

[Totally Mad Olivier]

 

 

 

 

[Roy vd M.]

Why? How?   

[Roy vd M.]

As a bonus for the loyal followers and participants of this thread (and to satisfy my own curiosity) I made a drawing based on possibly correct info.

 

What I did using Drawing 2 as a basis:

 

- In the side view I extended the two mysterious lines at the rear of the body to the end of the utmost body point as indicated by the top view.

- I used Photo 4 to measure and calculate the approximate distance between radiator cap to start of grille. 

- From there I pulled down the grille line, correcting Drawing 2. Interestingly, for the most part this is exactly the end of the grille as seen on the original drawing. 

- I used the approximate tyre size as calculated before.

- I filled the drawing with the colors grey, blue, red and brown. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm starting to really like these sleek, agressive, ahead of its time looks better than Protar's version, with all respect to those who have built it and all of those who will build the model out of box. (By the way I still like the looks of Protar's take on this car...)

 

Really can't wait to see Nick's Blender model and, especially, the first finished model bearing substantial resemblance to the real car.

[Roy vd M.]

Alternative rear end... looking at Photos 3, 4 and 8 I realize that the rear end of the body drops somewhat below the frame! 

 

 

[vontrips]

Roy, you are very, very close!

 

My observations from pics 3, 4 and 8: -  the vertical tail line needs to be a couple (or less ) degrees slanting forward, (and possibly slightly curved) and don't forget the radiused top and bottom.

 

Our front photo is curious? From a quick eyeballing, I'm guestimating that the steering wheel hub height was near the horizontal bonnet line? The cockpit fairing cover emulates roughly the steering wheel diameter. With that knowledge we know the fairing top must be approximately 1/2 steering wheel diameter above the bonnet line, or am I missing something?!

 

Now get to bed!

[vontrips]

2 hours ago, Olivier de St Raph said:

 

 

 

 

Now that is a proper engineering drawing! Shows every sign to me of being the real deal...very nice find.

[Roy vd M.]

Thanks John I'll look into that more closely after the weekend... must say though that my drawing and coloring practice was very basic, seeing how far I'd come with only minimal amendments to Drawing 2. Some preliminary replies:

 

- You're right about the tail. I tried to correct that a bit.

- (Not a reply but a remark:) I had flipped my previous picture horizontally so that wasn't right. I flipped it back in the below pic.

- Steering wheel: I was wondering about that too. It may well be that the eventual height of the 'metal windshield' was higher than in Drawing 2 (could be another easy-to-change thing in the workshop... perhaps Bordino felt more comfortable a bit further out of the wind). In the next comparison drawing I added a bit of height to the metal windshield giving that add-on a slightly lighter colour... please let me know what you think (have a look at Photo 2 for comparison purposes). 

 

Re. new engine drawing: yes I was awestruck as well. Really great... now we not only have an official engine side view blueprint, but also a front view blueprint. Just amazing. 

 

Ok I couldn't resist this... a comparison between (99% certain) Protar's main inspiration for the kit, or maybe even Protar's own kit drawing.... and the amended Drawing 2. It really is a huge visual difference. I used the wheelbase of 2400mm. (originally noted on Drawing 1 so we know it's a fair comparison) as a matching point. 

 

 

 

 

When the details are washed out, the two shapes seem to look a bit more alike (or maybe it is just me), perhaps making it a bit more understandable why Protar chose the shape it did. When measuring though, serious differences become apparent. 

 

 

 

  

 

 

Note that where Hannes originally thought the model was supposed to be longer than the kit, that seems to have been an optical illusion. It is actually shorter. That was a big surprise also to myself, I had never expect to come to that conclusion.

 

The next overlay, using the wheel hubs as matching points, says it all...

 

 

Edited November 26, 2016 by Roy vd M.

[CrazyCrank]

4 hours ago, vontrips said:

Now that is a proper engineering drawing! Shows every sign to me of being the real deal...very nice find.

 

And where does this drawing come from ? could you quote your sources, Olivier, please ?