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).
Continued discussion on vehicle stiffness, focusing on body-to-frame attachments and wheel arch brackets with a table of competitor methods.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 111\1\ scan0067 | |
| Date | 23th April 1938 | |
| -2- Da{Bernard Day - Chassis Design}/Ev.{Ivan Evernden - coachwork}2/N.23.4.38 Cont'd.{John DeLooze - Company Secretary} Many of the cars have the body attached to the frame in a large number of places, because the body is part of the vehicle stiffness. The table given below shows what happens on the large cars of which we have particulars, and here there seems to be no uniformity. It is not uncommon for the wheel arch to be supported somewhere along its length to the frame. On B.III and B.50 we are asking that the wheel arch brackets on the chassis and the frame be provided, and that tests be made with and without attachments at these points, but we are inclined to feel that we shall need at least one bracket in this position and possibly transverse stays to control side-ways shake. Table. New Humber Snipe. One bracket in arch and one at tail. Lagonda 6 & 12 Bracket in front of arch, at centre cylinder. and at tail. 3½ litre Daimler. Bracket in front of the arch and one at the tail. Railton. Arch bolted to frame along entire length. Riley Vee 8. One bracket in front of arch, one at centre and one at tail. Daimler 25. One bracket towards rear of arch. Oldsmobile. Body attached at seven points a side along frame and arch. Chevriolet. Body attached at front, centre and rear of arch. Buick. Body attached at front, centre and rear. Armstrong. One bracket in arch. Ev.{Ivan Evernden - coachwork} | ||