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).
Comparative analysis of spool gear, freewheel & jaw clutch, and synchro-mesh transmission schemes.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 15\5\ Scan146 | |
| Date | 1st September 1930 | |
| RL/M.9.30. contd. -2- SPOOL GEAR. (Graham-Paige and Chrysler) (1) 3 pairs of gears always in mesh (both idling and direct drive, and there is no reason for easier change except :- (2) 3rd. to 4th. very small ratio of change. (3) Some backlash in gears, clutch, or transmission. (4) Smaller HP. than our Phantom II. Nos. (1) and (3) would not pass on our cars and would lead to endless production troubles and service. Reliability and wear may be passably good. FREEWHEEL & JAW CLUTCH. STUDEBAKER. (1) Only applied to 4th. and 3rd. The specimen borrowed last week failed before leaving London and was changed for a Graham-Paige - very recently adopted. (2) Does not go far enough and seems unreliable. (3) Two pairs of gears always running. SYNCHRO-MESH SCHEME. (1) Only applied to 4th. and 3rd. (2) Two pairs always in mesh. But as far as we know this is the only scheme worth considering good, but it is the property of General Motors and also does not seem to go far enough towards complete solution to last long. We have given Derby a design for a freewheel which failed and is thought by all of us not good enough to endeavour to perfect it. It should, however, be as good as Studebaker. We have helical gears which were reported to be insufficiently silent. On this point they should be as good as Studebaker, Synchro-mesh (Cadillac and other General Motor Companies), Maybach, and Packard, all of which depend on the same type of gears. Easy change was jaw clutch first engaged by alternate jaw - (should be equally as good as spool gear | ||