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).
Strongly disagreeing with a report to discontinue using subframes, citing past failures and suggesting further testing.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 14\8\ Scan295 | |
| Date | 7th February 1931 | |
| TO. SG.{Arthur F. Sidgreaves - MD} FROM EV.{Ivan Evernden - coachwork} COPY TO HS.{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} RE SUBFRAMES. EVI/7.2.31. X.7380. HS.{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair}l/MJ.5.3.31. X.5380. I agree that we ought to reconsider the question of the subframe on P.II. From time to time every thing on the car should be reconsidered in the light of tests which should be made by the Expl. Dept. Without appearing to be prejudiced in favour of the subframe I would like to point out that with the rest of this report I strongly disagree. I do not agree that there is no positive evidence that cars with the subframe behave differently to those without. It was the almost pathetic cracking up of bodies on the 10,000 miles test in France that led us to the subframe, and after many such subframe cars had been tested over a period of 5 yrs. on the very strong representations of the Expl. Dept. Sales agreed to standardise the subframe. Also I disagree with the statement that "Standard bodies on 20/25HP without subframes the usual practice is to put rubber between the body and the brackets on the frame". Such a policy has been tried and has caused the dropping of doors etc. I do not know of any one who uses it now in London. To do so one would reinforce the bottom-side with a deep flitch plate. I am surprised to read that subframe cars give "any amount of trouble" as the 10,000 miles reports do not confirm such a statement. We suggest that the test reports of non-subframe cars should be compared with those of the subframe cars giving any amount of trouble. I am still more surprised at the suggestion that we should make stock bodies without subframes, and sell them to customers after a summary test in London. I suggest that we must build a non subframe body for P.II and use it for a 10,000 miles test in France. Also I suggest that the body should be of maximum dimensions and should be of a type not having a roof, i.e. de ville front, open car or landaulette. In view of all we have heard about booming and engine vibrations; that engines will always vibrate is certain, and also that bodies will have component parts with natural frequencies; I believe that a certain degree of isolation between the body and the chassis is essential. If we cannot do with our expensive subframe we might see consider one on the lines of that used by R.R.I.A., which is made of wood reinforced with sheet steel, and made by the coachbuilder but mounted with our supports. Such a policy is worthy of consideration, as it would throw the cost on the coachbuilder who ought to bear it. On the other hand we should run the risk of the frame being well-made, or not. EV.{Ivan Evernden - coachwork} | ||