Fiat 806: research and scratchbuilds

[Hannes]

The scratchbuild of the oil tank is done now and I couldn´t use parts of the kit .I will build a connection with the engine and a protection sheet for the pipeline at a later time .

It´s my interpretation of what we can see on both drawings 2 and photo 28 .

This construction is partially made of real metal and wood , Uschi´s powders helped a bit to let shine some surfaces .

Many greetings !   Hannes

[harveyb258]

You have made a fantastic job of that, dear chap!!

I love it when a project starts coming together. Top marks, Hannes!!

 

Cheers, H

 

 

[Hannes]

Many thanks , dear Harvey ! Now the tank in front of it will be my next project. It´s fixation to the chassis rail and the lever will be the challenging tasks .

All the best  !  Hannes

[Totally Mad Olivier]

Dear Hannes I put a "like" for your oil tank because I couldn't put a "love"!! So neat, so beautiful, a jewel!

And the 3rd photo, with your as amazingly awesome red seat, whets our appetite...

Keep up the artistic work my friend!

 

Cheers

 

Olivier

 

 

[Hannes]

Many thanks , dear Olivier ! As it seems only a few parts of the kit will be usable and only if altered . I thought about a 50 / 50 build in the beginning but I guess it will be 95 per cent of scratchbuilding . That´s new for me but it´s also very satisfying !   Many greetings !    Hannes

[Totally Mad Olivier]

Yes Hannes, you can imagine that I am not surprised at all by this very poor percentage of usable parts from the « Italeri » kit... 

But scratchbuilding gives indeed probably still more satisfaction, so... have fun!

Many greetings 

Olivier

[Hannes]

 

 

 

 

[Hannes]

Photos 4b and 14 are the only ones where we can see the second additional tank . In my opinion this was a tank for cooling water and could get operated by the driver . I will establish a connection with the engine at a later time .

The engine suspension plates will be my next project . In my opinion the left plate was triangular shaped like we can see on drawing 2 .

On the right side the shape was quadrangular because this plate also had to carry the short  steering rod .

If there had been a quadrangular plate on the left side , the gap between this tank and the plate would look different on photo 14  imho .

Many greetings !   Hannes

[harveyb258]

Excellent work, as always, Hannes!

I still think the tank is for transmission oil, though. How are you planning to attach it to the chassis??

 

I think you are correct regarding  the left plate and mine will get altered before the engine gets installed.

 

Cheers, H

 

[Hannes]

Dear Harvey , the tank is situated on a plate with two bolts , The two holes on the tank  for the bolts are drilled a big larger and the tank can slip over the bolts, I´m  still able to shift the tank a bit if necessary by enlarging these holes .It depends on the internal frames of the bodywork and  how much space will be left ,maybe 0.5 mm .

I´m pleased to hear that you ´re going to change your left suspension plate . Photo 14 is very blurred and optical illusions did already  puzzle  us several times .

Thanks a lot for your kind words !   Hannes

[harveyb258]

My dear Hannes, I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but I've only just spotted a small error ( or was that your intention?) on your large oil tank....you have taken the top-plate to the rear of the tank, with the "appendage" sat atop it; on drawing 2, the plate stops before the "appendage".

 

Cheers, H

[Hannes]

Dear Harvey , I´ve been mulling over this topic as well . One thing is for sure  imho : The square construction on the side-view  which is directly connected with the tank is not the same as we can see on the plan view ! Measure it out and you will see that I´m right . Nick´s virtual reconstruction also  shows only this square-shaped under-construction .

This is one of the cases where we can see a detail on one of the two drawings 2 and not on the other one ( and vice versa ) The plan view does not show the tank ! Only the top plate . 

In my opinion the cone-shaped construction on the top-plate helps to hold the top-plate in place and the square construction under this stump is welded to the tank .

The question is : What was the purpose of this stump ? In my opinion this was a provisional support for a co-driver´s seat back rest .

We should not forget that drawing 2 shows a car with a low bodywork on both sides of the driver´s region !  Noone already asked why this was the case regarding the successor .

Many greetings !   Hannes

[Hannes]

There are two reasons why the stump on the top plate is cone-shaped imho : The top plate can get removed without pinching and the angle corresponds with the inclination of a theoretical back rest .As you can see on my not " liked " drawing above ( exception ; You , dear Harvey ) this part should be a bit longer than the tank itself . I didn´t represent this " hangover " for again two reasons : We don´t know how the tank in our 806 really looked like . Maybe there was no top plate and no stump as well . We just don´t know and will probably never know . With this perception in mind I decided to construct an aesthetically satisfying solution .That´s all .

Many greetings !  Hannes

 

[NickD]

Chaps,

 

I continue to track progress and hopefully add some new content.

 

On the topic of tanks, we know:

 

1. Drawing 2 represents a version of the car that was not raced or built. We do not know why it was drawn. It appears to show changes related to body rather than mechanicals. The revised body has larger capacity tanks shown. The radiator is also different but this is not relevant to this discussion.
2. Drawing two shows some things that look like tanks and correspond with descriptions in some of the articles. There is not a lot of detail. On the rear oil tank: None of the pipework or fixtures are shown apart from the N-shaped tube, a cap with two lugs, and a wheel thing on a rod. There appears to be a long plate above the tank on which the fixtures are mounted. It appears to be mounted on square rod or tube. At the rear is a conical structure and a plate. All the terminology I have just used is made up and speculative. The two views are not consistent with each other.
3. The only bit of the tank system we can see on the 806 is the N-shaped tube on Photo 10 and something that looks like a tube below the car on Photo 28. There is also a hint that there is a tank structure on the left hand side, below the exhaust between the engine mounting point aft to the start of the rear bodywork (Photos 4, 14, 21, 24) Unfortunately none is particularly clear.  The N-tube seems to be a very similar geometry to drawing two but 0.193m further forward.
4. The 806 as built could not have accommodated a riding mechanic
5. Drawing 2 suggests a revised body that potentially would allow two seats.
6. 806 raced in short races only.
7. Oil consumption was high.
8. The oil went into the engine on the left and came out on the right.
9. The is a suggestion that there was a heat-exchanger under the oil tank in both one of the descriptions and on drawing 2.

 

Have I missed anything?

 

If these are the knowable facts, everything else must be guessed, deduced or inferred. My logic, such as it is goes something like this:

 

1. 806 was a short range car. To travel longer distances would require larger capacity tanks for all consumable liquids.
2. Drawing 2 could be the concept for a long range car. It does not look like the mechanicals have been significantly modifed. My reasoning for the purpose being the tanks is that there is a lot of detail for everything else which to my mind suggests that the designer started with a copy of the drawing of the old car (with as built detail) and then erased and replaced the things he wanted to explore. He had not got to the specifics of most of the fixtures and fittings for the tanks (e.g. mounting brackets and pipes). hence the picture we see. Also perhaps why they are not consistent between plan and sideviews. Perhaps he was looking at a number of different options.
3. The main question is whether they represent anything that is conceptually different from what was raced. The radiator looks like it was restyled - but the radiator was not moved or resized (despite cooling issues). The N-shaped tube is the only evidence we have of the built car. It is the same concept to the drawing. On this weak evidence I think we should assume that the raced car had a tank that was identical with one exception to the Drawing 2 tank but shorter (by the amount the N-shaped tube moved: 0.193m). The fact they are detailed on drawing 2 could mean that they already existed - who knows.
4. The exception is the bit at the back of the tank on the top. What was this for? On the race car, there was no space for a seat so if that was its purpose it would not be required. I am not convinced. It looks heavy and complicated compared to the seat on Drawing 2. Why is it not just a version of the driver's seat. It does not make sense. I wonder if it was some sort of collector tank for returning oil -containing a filter or something. This could easily be barking but it might fit with the circulation described below. One thing in its favour is that it would be readily accessible to maintainers.
5. When I looked at the tube on Photo 28, I found it plausibly went from the back of the low point on the sump of the tank forward to just behind the start of the low bodywork. i.e. it is the engine oil feed pipe (though it looks a bit vulnerable). I will post a drawing but I am out of time tonight. If that were the case, a partitioned tank with oil leaving at the bottom, returning at the rear (possibly in the cone structure) . Oil would flow from the rear to the front through the heat exchanger under the tank.
6. The N-shaped tube still puzzles me. Why does it contect two parts of the tank. Could it be an overflow that ensures oil has a path from the return to the deliver side of the tank in the case of a blockage in the heat exchanger.

 

I think that's everything. I will submit a drawing (though not with all the pipes probably). I'd welcome any thoughts. Outright skepticism perhaps!

 

Oh and on posts, I try and tag all the ones I like. But I don't assume a lack of a like means I don't value the contribution. More likely is that I have read it but not been logged in and then forgotten.

 

Regards

Nick

 

Regards

 

Nick

[Hannes]

Dear Nick , I´ll try to express my point of views regarding your statements . Let me first say a huge " Thank you " for your considerations !

I´ll start with part 1

Point 2 : The long plate seems to be a removable construction and all the fixtures are mounted on the tank and not on the plate . I choose wood for the support square rod  because it´s the lightest material and seems to be sufficient for it´s purpose .

 

Point 6 : I firmly believe that the concept of our 806 was a long-range GP-car from the beginning . The ambitions were high but the reality  allowed only a performance in a short formula libre race . ( although a 170-litres fuel tank already existed ! ) 3 cars should have been completed for the Milan GP but only one car was finished in time and Salamano could not participate .

For the next race in Brooklands at least 2 cars should participate but Agnelli stopped these plans . Drawing 2 as a concept drawing  should possibly persuade Agnelli to continue with the racing activities . It was drawn some weeks after the successful first appearance in Milano .

Of course we cannot see all the pipelines and other details on a concept plan . ( same as drawing 1 ) Unfortunately all detail plans were destroyed .

 

Point 7 : I agree with Fred that there was a fresh oil supply fom the 31-litres oil tank .Hot oil was desired ! Therefore no cooling of the oil and no heat exchanger was necessary imho .The oil also did not return to it´s tank  .The compressor most likely needed a lot of oil because it  was situated behind the carburetor . We don´t know if the oil was mixed with the gasoline or if there was an internal supply . The very flat oil pan indicates that there was no big sump . The crankshafts would turn slower if they would take a bath in an oil sump .As Harvey pointed out there were problems with the oil supply during the test drives ,the pipeline below the tank could have been a possible solution .

 

part 2 

Point 4  : I still believe that the cone-shaped part has nothing to do with the oil system . A filter on the highest point makes no sense for me . I suppose that the Fiat crew wanted to be prepared if there were new rules coming up . For the year 1927 the CSI ( after 1946 : FISA ) , the separated  motorsport  division of AIACR ( after 1946  : FIA ) allowed single seated cars  if there was a width of 80 cm in the driver´s region . What if the rules were altered for 1928 , let´s say a width of 90 cm was required ?  Even if no real co-driver could find a place in this car ( except he was a tiny snake-man ) some prescriptions needed to be accomplished and it doesn´t matter if they made sense or not . 

I want to tell a small episode from that time :  For record drives it was prescripted  that the car could drive backwards .The gearbox of the Fiat Mefistofele didn´t have a reverse gear !  But the co- driver knew a trick how to move the car backwards some centimeters by operating the fuel pump . After that presentation  the permission for the record drive was given . This story somehow reminds me of many  contemporary  politicians and connected  media .

Many greetings !  Hannes

[Hannes]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Hannes]

I was building a new fairing in the last days . A part of the kit´s fairing was used and completely altered .

It´s removable now and a basic shape was achieved , detailling and adaption works will follow later on .

I decided to build the fairing now because I wanted to check the proportions of my construction .Some small alterings on the bodywork will be the consequence .

The final part of the bodywork construction will be the heat protection sheet on the right side , my next project .

Many greetings !   Hannes

[harveyb258]

She becomes more and more beautiful with each update!!!

Great work, Hannes!

 

Cheers, H

[Hannes]

Thank you , dear Harvey ! My intention is to show  the beautiful aspects of this unique car . It should be some kind of small monument and even if there were some flaws in reality they will get retouched . It should look like an engineer´s dream  and this means even louvres , painted first cross-member , a decent upholstered seat ,no dents in the bodywork , no visible rivets and no aging .  Protar apparently did not understand  the form language and missed the chance to create a great kit .

Maybe our pioneer´s work will help to bring back this great car into the consciousness of many people who like motorsport history !

All the best !   Hannes

[Totally Mad Olivier]

4 hours ago, harveyb258 said:

 

She becomes more and more beautiful with each update!!!

Great work, Hannes!

 

 

+ 1, dear Hannes!

 

Many greetings 

 

Olivier

 

 

[CrazyCrank]

+ 2,  dear Hannes 👍

[Hannes]

Many thanks to both of you ! It´s unusual to start with the outer parts  and to build the more " technical" parts later  . But in this case it´s the logical proceeding for me 

because  the shape of this car is the most important issue imho and everything else has to subordinate . The unknown and hidden aspects require  different tactics .

Harvey´s proceeding is also  very clever and well-thought out and I´m sure this proceeding will lead to a great result as well .

Olivier as our  first pioneer now can sit in his rocking chair and watch what the other boys do ☺️

Many greetings !   Hannes

[NickD]

Hi guys,

 

Somewhat delayed, here is my interpretation of a shortened tank

 

OK so pictures don't seem to work again. Hey ho. The link hopefully works.

 

I have shortened the tank but 0.193m and raised the n-shaped pipe to match the photos. Also added the lower purple pipe in line with the only view that shows it. The purple line I assumed is the input line to the engine. I routed it so it ran inside the lowest piece of bodywork. I have shown no return line - see below.

 

Heat exchanger pipe is shortened by the same amount. It seems to fit between two chassis members which is a good thing.

 

Hannes,

 

+3 for me

 

On point 7 I still feel there was a return. It all hinges on the n-pipe for me. Why do you need an n-pipe if the tank is just a single volume. Surely it would only be a straight pipe. An n-shaped pipe suggests the tank was divided. One explanation would be that there was a return in one end of the tank that fed the heat exchanger shown on the drawing. Engine feed would be from the other part of the tank, feed from the heat exchanger. So, for me if you have an n-pipe you have both a return path and a heat exchanger.

 

I have not drawn the return line. From the engine side view, the location would be opposite the feed on the other side of the pump. Logically it would go into the top of the rear section somewhere.

 

On the subject of seats. I will never be convinced. It does not look like a convenient perch.

 

Regards

 

Nick

 

 

Edited July 12, 2018 by NickD
Fixed picture link - minor word change

[Hannes]

Dear Nick , according Fred´s opinion ( page 195 ) the n-shaped tube was a release system  , the " pump " was just a dip stick for controlling  the oil level  and the big cap was  the opening for filling in the oil . Please read his explanations ! Fred is a very experienced specialist  regarding  vintage cars and there´s no reason for me not to believe him . Too bad that we cannot see your elaboration and the link doesn´t work as well .Another source for frustations : Some photos and our movie vanished from the first page .

Maybe Roy could help ? We didn´t hear from him since a longer time and I hope he´s OK .

Regarding the seat : We should ask ourselfes why there´s is a low left  bodywork on drawing 2 in the driver´s region .Bodyworks on a chassis can get exchanged if necessary .  In 1925 the concept for this car most likely was a 2-seater with an central engine and propulsion drive . Salamano who spoke about a covered second seat seems to be credible for me . He was driving this car ! For 1927 this was a CSI-rule : 2 seats remained mandatory for two-seated cars ! If our 806 was classified as a  2-seater , it all makes sense .

Regarding the concept as a GP--car : I quote engineer Massimino : The problems regarding the jumping left front wheel could not get solved during the test drives . The engineers strenghtened the chassis and altered the dampers - all in vain . The engine was very powerful but short-living , that´s why an agreement was made with the organizers of the Milano race : Two races instead of only the GP-race over 500 km (.The 50 km formula libre race was held for Fiat ! ) This way both Delage and Fiat could win their races .

This statement indicates that our 806 was a GP-car " in spe " and for the next race in Brooklands an improved version should participate the long run .

Many greetings !   Hannes

[NickD]

22 hours ago, Hannes said:

Please read his explanations

Hannes, @Black Knightand @Fastcat,

 

Contrary to the above quote I have tried to read the explanations quite carefully and thoroughly (but won't stop me being wrong). My interpretation is the sum of the following inputs from my esteemed (i.e. all of you) colleagues:

 

On 19/06/2018 at 15:03, harveyb258 said:

Lubrication forced circulation of the dry sump type; pumps (one for delivery and recovery of the other) always moves by means of the gears of the left cylinder group. Motor-pumps approximate gear ratio: 1.3 / 1. The tank was placed in the driver's side; the lower part was in tubes to Activate cooling. average lubricant consumption, always recognized in Monza, were: 3.2% 3.6 kg / 100 km.

 

It says it was dry sump.

On 21/06/2018 at 12:12, Black Knight said:

There are four basic engine oiling systems

1. totally manual - the driver has to pump oil onto the moving parts - totally old fashioned and mostly done away with by 1928

2. sump and spray; the oil is kept in the sump, as the crankshaft and connecting rods rotate in the oil they splash the oil around the engine insides and it gets carried to parts such as the valves and cylinder bores

3. sump and pump; the oil is kept in the sump and a pump operated by the engine pumps the oil around the engine to the parts which need it

4. reservoir and pressure; the oil is kept in a separate reservoir tank and the oil is distributed around the engine by either pump or hot oil pressure

 

Within these 4 are 2 sub-categories

a/ total loss; which means - after the oil gets to the engine parts it vaporizes or drips off the engine, [and car!] or burnt out through the exhaust. This uses a lot of oil but its always clean,

there is no need for a filter in the system. Number 1 is this always. Numbers 2, 3 & 4 can be this system

b/ scavenger; this is used in your modern car. The used oil drips and runs back into the sump, usually after going through a filter of some sort. Number 1 can never be this. Number 2 and 3 can be this and Number 4 can be this but not usually.

So it must have been a type 4 - reservoir and pressure. Otherwise it would have been wet sump.

 

What is not clear to me is whether it is an a or b. The little short pipe on drawing 4 looks to me like a Type b. So I would vote for 4-b - exotic though that appears to be.

 

i.e (in my non-expert head and speculating wildly) the oil came in to the engine from an external tank via the entreta olio. Goes into the pump and is pumped round the engine before returning to the pump and being pumped out through the righthand pipe. The pump also sucked the internal drips that collected in the sump.  Hannes makes a very good point about the lubrication of the supercharger and Fred's comments about Castrol R, still need to be woven into this story. Anyone have experience lubricating roots blowers and mixing oil for carburation.

 

Now to the tank. If the translation above is correct, the lower part was in tubes to activate cooling. So at some point (maybe after a trip through the blower) the oil returns to the tank. It would be hot and apparently required cooling. Given the tendency to sludge, would they have been able to filter the returning oil. If so where would the filter have been.

 

The oil then ran through some sort of heat exchanger before returning to the colder inlet side of the tank. I guess the front part would be inlet because the filler is that end. 

 

While all our ideas are speculation, I believe the above is completely consistent with the available limited information. Hence the way I drew the tank (but without a return because I have yet to figure out where it would go.

 

Against this, would the front tank perhaps be an expansion or reserve oil tank as it is on the cold inlet side of the tank.

 

I look forward as always to your thoughts.

Regards

Nick