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).
Design issues and alternative schemes for the rear end, wheel carrier, and luggage grid of the EAC.10 chassis.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 13\5\ Spare05-page013 | |
| Date | 14th April 1928 | |
| To R.{Sir Henry Royce} from Ev.{Ivan Evernden - coachwork} c. to BJ. Hs.{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} X-7600 Ev{Ivan Evernden - coachwork}1/14.4.28. EAC.10 'SS{S. Smith}'. REAR END. X.7800 X.7400 X.7380 We are sorry to have disappointed you with our designs for the rear end of the SS.{S. Smith} EAC.10 chassis, by reverting to the 20 HP. type carrier. We did this with some misgivings and only after exploring all the possibilities of the present Phantom type and the suggestion originally made on the quarter scale drg. The scheme we eventually shewed seemed to have sufficient advantages over the others to justify our finishing it off. The Expl: Dept: have complained of the Phantom wheel carrier not holding the wheel steady owing to the rather elastic attachment of the centre plate to the frame via the body guard rails. When the tank is raised in the frame the extraction of the filter does not allow & of fixed horizontal bars in the body guard rail. Also, it prohibits the handle being between the body and the wheel for the handle fouls the tank when the tyre is deflated. Sales and Hs.{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} say that it is impossible to really tighten up the bolt with the handle in its present position on Phantom. The shortened hub prohibits the use of the ordinary cross bar type of grid as on EAC.7, and also does not allow the wheel to be placed aft of the rear tubular cross member without the use of a torsional dumbiron 8.000 ins. long or the sloping of the wheel forward at the top. Both of these features we considered to be undesirable. We have practically completed a similar set of five schemes for India 3, on the same lines, using many of the present 20 HP. wheel carrier pieces and the same luggage carrier as we shew for EAC.10. This latter feature is of interest in that we should sell the grid as an extra on both cars and this would facilitate production. There is no reason why the same grid should not be used on both cars for both carry the same weight of luggage. In the case where a man does not want a grid, we would be able with the minimum of alteration to provide for two wheels at the back. This is becoming popular on fast cars, and EAC.10 must be ahead of today. see sketch 1. (Original memo.) The scheme for alternatively carrying wheel or luggage at the back is becoming rather out of date and may be much more so by the time we sell EAC.10. The writer would therefore suggest that, besides the alternative scheme and the two-wheel scheme we should also be prepared to offer a scheme for permanently carrying one or two wheels and luggage at the rear. We would supply the wheel | ||