From the Rolls-Royce experimental archive: a quarter of a million communications from Rolls-Royce, 1906 to 1960's. Documents from the Sir Henry Royce Memorial Foundation (SHRMF).
Merits of single-ended versus double-ended spanners for car tool kits.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 16\6\ Scan055 | |
| Date | 13th February 1932 | |
| X7580 Hs.{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair}16.2.32. X55-80 COPY OF MEMO RECEIVED FROM R.{Sir Henry Royce} DATED 13.2.32. c. to Sg.{Arthur F. Sidgreaves - MD} Wor.{Arthur Wormald - General Works Manager} Rg.{Mr Rowledge} c. to E.{Mr Elliott - Chief Engineer} Da.{Bernard Day - Chassis Design} BY.{R.W. Bailey - Chief Engineer} c. to BP. Re. CAR SPANNERS. I hope you will not press for the change of spanners from single to double ended ones. (1) We have already very good and light single ended ones which we personally have spent much time to get to R.R. perfection, and it would take a long time to get back the cost of changing. (2) Single ended ones were adopted because they have the following advantages :- (a) They require less room in use to get the required turning angle. (b) Often one requires the spanners on the other end of the double ones to hold the head, i.e. our 5/16 bolts have heads that need the 1/4 spanner to hold, very necessary in frame work. (c) Each size of nut has its proper length of handle whereas double ended are relatively larger and bigger for the smaller nut. (d) Single ended ones are better for hammering or lengthening by tube as I generally do for certain work. (e) One has to get the same number of ends made to nut sizes i.e. we only save part of a handle in weight and cost. (f) If one end is damaged we discard a single ended one, but a double ended one is a nuisance for ever. The trouble of the tool kit is with other items than these small spanners, equipment on 25 HP. car here quite a joy, but ones heart is not universal. Many of the bigger special things need not be carried. R.{Sir Henry Royce} | ||