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 differences and suggestions for the 20HP side spare wheel carrier.
| Identifier | WestWitteringFiles\T\March1929-December1929\ Scan192 | |
| Date | 22th August 1929 | |
| HS.{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} FROM DA.{Bernard Day - Chassis Design} ORIGINAL DA{Bernard Day - Chassis Design}1/M22.8.29. 20HP. SIDE SPARE WHEEL CARRIER. x5600. In reply to HS{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair}/RM{William Robotham - Chief Engineer}2/MJ19829., we sent you a drawing - N. scheme 2914. dated 26/6/29. - which was the result of a discussion with R.{Sir Henry Royce} on this subject, and gave some suggestions to be tried. With reference to all the suggestions made from Derby in the letters quoted by you we have the example of the SS.{S. Smith} spare wheel carrier, which is rigid, and yet has all the defects referred to. There are 3 differences only, namely, 1.250" instead of 1" tubes, the base of the top fitting which is attached to the plate is longer in the vertical direction on SS.{S. Smith} than on the 20HP., and thirdly the diameeter of the aluminium casting bolting up against the plate is slightly smaller in reference to the tube centres. The plate thickness, size of the bolthead, etc, are the same. If the above 3 points are considered to make the difference between the rigid and non-rigid carrier, then on proposal No.2. of N.sch. 2914. we have agreed to the use of all the SS.{S. Smith} fittings,and suggested that they should be tried. We cannot understand why we have not had some report on the suggestions made on this drawing, especially that of using the larger tubes and fittings. We may say that the proposal to fit a tie from the top to the bottom of the bent tube is quite inacceptable. DA.{Bernard Day - Chassis Design} | ||