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).
Use and scaling of coachwork parts from existing models for the 'Peregrine Two' project.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 178\3\ img062 | |
| Date | 4th March 1932 | |
| FROM DA{Bernard Day - Chassis Design}/EV.{Ivan Evernden - coachwork} C. to M.R.W. HS.{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} SECRET. PEREGRINE TWO. We venture to offer the following comments on Pere: largely with reference to parts concerning coachwork which are not exactly capable of being scaled down from J.{Mr Johnson W.M.} 3. WING STAYS. Since the wheels will be approx: the same dia. as 25HP. & J.{Mr Johnson W.M.} 3. and the track is the same the weight of the wings will be the same. We therefore suggest that the 25HP. wing stay be used on Pere: 2. BODY BRACKETS. For a similar reason we suggest that the body brackets be the same as for 25HP. and J.{Mr Johnson W.M.} 3. SIDE WHEEL CARRIER. The weight of the wheel being approx: the same there seems no reason why there should be any difference between the fundamental parts of the wheel carrier of Pere: 2. and 25HP. & J.{Mr Johnson W.M.} 3., except perhaps for the reduced speed of the car, in which case this could be allowed for by a thinner gauge of tube. SIDE LEVERS. There is some argument in favour of a lighter gear lever as although the lever is the same length as J.{Mr Johnson W.M.} 3. and 25HP., the effort required to change is less. We think however that one could with advantage use a 25HP. & J.{Mr Johnson W.M.} 3. side brake lever. LUGGAGE GRID. The luggage grid of J.{Mr Johnson W.M.} 3. which folds into the apron will not scale down in the .8 ratio, in fact, a smaller grid than that on J.{Mr Johnson W.M.} 3. would be unserviceable on any car. The question arises as to whether we can use that same design on Pere: 2., and whether we ought not to do something less efficient but cheaper to produce. For instance, an apron with an external grid, or an apron which opens out into a platform for luggage somewhat like on the 25HP. Sunbeam, but which is not much good as a grid as it has no guard rail, and is only about 1 ft. or so long. This is a question the writer proposes to take up with Sales. RADIATOR SHUTTER GEAR & FILLER CAP. We suggest that the radiator shutter slats and mechanism, and also the filler cap, could be the same as J.{Mr Johnson W.M.} 3. Reduction in width of the radiator is not enough to enable 2 shutters to be removed, therefore we suggest it will be necessary to obtain the reduced width by a greater overlap of the shutters. FRONT APRON. The design will follow that of 25HP. & J.{Mr Johnson W.M.} 3. LAMPS. We suggest that the lamps standardised be Lucas bi-focal dippers RB.{R. Bowen}160. SUTS. This points to the same size lamp standard as on 25HP., as these lamps have been used until quite recently on the 25HP. (1) | ||