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).
Comparison between Dunlop and Rudge-Whitworth wheel systems, expressing a preference for the Dunlop system.
| Identifier | WestWitteringFiles\V\March1931-September1931\ Scan198 | |
| Date | 19th May 1931 | |
| HY.{Tom Haldenby - Plant Engineer} FROM R.{Sir Henry Royce} C. to SC. WOR.{Arthur Wormald - General Works Manager} [Struck through] C. to HS.{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} HY.{Tom Haldenby - Plant Engineer} ORIGINAL 20/25 - DUNLOP WHEELS VERSUS RUDGE-WHITWORTH. R1/M19.5.31. 85810. With reference to BY6/G14531., if the customer is willing to pay £5. more we should prefer the Dunlop system which has done so well for us. In fact I have never been entirely satisfied with the Rudge-Whitworth system of locking. It would appear that the friction of the slow cone prevents the main cone being really tight unless there is risk of the wheel becoming so tight that it is difficult to get it off. To make standard anything less than the best we consider is a departure of RR. principles, but we are quite willing to follow the wishes of the majority as to whether we spend the money or not, but if I was a buyer I would pay the extra £1. per wheel for the more positive lock, and the wheel tighter on the cone which carries the load. We consider the extra cost of the Dunlop wheels (with their share of the cost of the spanner) - £1. per wheel - to be reasonable. We did not consider the earlier statements were comparable. We quite agree that the triple spoking which, as you say, was a creation of the Rudge-Whitworth people, is probably impracticable, and not necessary. [STAMP] RECEIVED 21 MAY 1931 H | ||