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).
Secret internal memorandum discussing battery options and fitting issues for 40/50 & E.A.C. models.
Identifier | ExFiles\Box 54\2\ Scan007 | |
Date | 1st January 1924 | |
H.{Arthur M. Hanbury - Head Complaints} M.{Mr Moon / Mr Moore} 888A (100 T) S. H 159. 11-8-20::G.{Mr Griffiths - Chief Accountant / Mr Gnapp} 2900 X.4617. TO EFC. FROM DA.{Bernard Day - Chassis Design} S E C R E T. DA{Bernard Day - Chassis Design}9/M18. 1. 24. X.4617. re. BATTERIES FOR 40/50 & E.A.C. We regret the delay in replying to your EFC2/T201223. but we have not contemplated any change in the battery dimensions with EAC.2. and 3. and possibly with EAC.4. since it will have the same propeller shaft. The first new battery will probably be on EAC.5. the scheme for which we have outlined, but we have not up to the present been able to carry it out. One difficulty appears to be that there are 2 positions for the battery - one in the frame, and one on the runningboard, and that there are 2 battery makers - Exide, and P & R.{Sir Henry Royce} who are not making exactly the same battery. As regards the Exide batteries we believe there is no difficulty as they can be carried on the runningboard or they can be carried in the frame in the sheet steel box originally instructed for armoured cars which we understand is a good job and gives effective service, but your information on this point may be later than ours. With the P & R batteries however though they can of course be got on the runningboard on account of the fact that the room taken by our inside wooden box has been absorbed by their mouldings it is impossible for us to get a sheet metal box of the dimensions of the armoured car type, and therefore we cannot get this battery into the frame. We understand that London experience considerable difficulty on this point and have had to ask for Exide batteries to replace the P & R for this reason. At the moment we have no solution for this difficulty other than using an Exide battery. Now referring to the information given in your EFC2/T201223., we believe that the dimensions you quote are those of a battery in the frame designed here and fitted to 6.EX. They are of course much less than the dimensions shewn on F10013. We should expect therefore that there would be very great difficulty in getting even the normal capacity from this battery. We understand that the Exide battery has a capacity of 56 amp. hours. The P & R battery which we have recently agreed to (but not for fitting in the frame) has 74 amp. hours, and we have rejected the proposal to use an 85 amp. hour battery. Do you consider it is possible that the capacity of even 54 amp. hours can be got in the dimensions given in your note? If not we think that it will not be possible to use this battery to any extent, and we should think that the more satisfactory way would be to carry on with the Exide battery in the (1) | ||