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).
Blueprints and design modifications for the Bensport J.1 unit.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 3\4\ 04-page115 | |
| Date | 29th October 1932 | |
| 84523 To Ba. from E.{Mr Elliott - Chief Engineer} E.7/HP.29.10.32. C.R. Se. For. Hs.{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} Hy.{Tom Haldenby - Plant Engineer} By/EV.{Ivan Evernden - coachwork} re Bensport J.1. With our previous memo K.6/HP.26.10.32. we sent you a blueprint of LeC.3256 dealing with the modifications for the rear end of J.1. to enable you to design the clutch and clutch casing for this unit. We now attach a blueprint of LeC.3258 dealing with the front end of the J.1. unit, and showing the engine suspension and radiator. These drawings should enable you to settle on the position of the engine in the frame relative to your floorboards and front axle. We also attach a blueprint of UL.492 showing the standard 20/25 underpan. The underpan for the Bensport will follow on these lines. LeC.3258 is naturally more of the nature of a suggestion, as we shall expect to receive from you the ultimate design of the radiator. We have, however, shown this radiator with the bottom tank level with the bottom of the radiator shutters, which gives us additional matrix to the extent of 4½" more depth, and increases the volume of the Bensport radiator matrix to 1190 cu.ins. as compared with 1820 cu.ins. for the standard 20/25 radiator. The engine suspension we show demands a straight tubular crossmember behind the radiator with a bracket hanging down in the middle, which will take the present standard 20/25 or J.1. extensions and cross beam from the crankcase. If this scheme is adopted the torque would be taken on rubbers at the rear end of the crankcase, with reaction dampers if necessary at the front end, which represents no departure from the present J.1. unit, as tested. The feet on the rear end of the crankcase would be different in design, but the principle would remain unaltered. On the other hand if the suggestions as seen recently with regard to this engine are adopted then the suspension would also need entire reconsideration, and would be more on the lines of J.J. and Peregrine. E.{Mr Elliott - Chief Engineer} | ||