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).
Proposed modifications to the 40/50 HP bonnet and radiator to improve its appearance.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 12\7\ 07-page020 | |
| Date | 1st January 1927 | |
| To R.{Sir Henry Royce} from DA.{Bernard Day - Chassis Design} c. to BJ. Hs.{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} 47260 DA{Bernard Day - Chassis Design}2/M11.1.27. 40/50 HP. BONNET. X. 7260 K.{Mr Kilner} 8280 With reference to your memo. suggesting modif- ications to the radiator and bonnet proportions to improve the appearance E, EV{Ivan Evernden - coachwork}, and DA.{Bernard Day - Chassis Design} have discussed it, and agree that reducing the depth of the tank .400 or .250, resulting in the raising of the 'shoulder', will almost certainly be an improvement, although a very slight difference in this dimension appears to affect the appearance. We think there is a definite tendency to do this on modern cars. The resulting modifications to the top line of the bonnet also seems sure to be an improvement. Reducing the width of the dash at rear we are not so sure of, but the proposals are being set out in a comparative form. We suggest that any loss due to reducing the length of tube might be met first by the slight increase of height of matrix, secondly, possibly by using a smaller tube, say 7 mm. instead of 8 mm. since there is sure to be a best dia. for a given length. This is assuming of course that a reduction of length is found desirable. With reference to the question as to how the bonnet shortening came about, this was due to pushing the engine forward 1.5" on EAC.7 and 8, there being this amount of waste space under the bonnet. This might have been taken off the wheelbase, but it was decided to add it on to the body space thus giving, in combination with new pedal and steering positions, the max. body space on the existing wheelbase. We only found it necessary to make one correction to your memo., viz: the 5/8" shortening referred to, should have been 1 5/8" (1.450 on EAC.7.) from drg. and Hs{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair}' memo. Since this only represents 3½% reduction in the bonnet length we considered it did not seriously affect the meaning of your memo. EV.{Ivan Evernden - coachwork} will discuss your proposals with the Sales conference tomorrow, with a view to getting a preliminary agreement if possible, and we shall be sending you the results of our investigation in a few days. E's comments are attached hereto. DA.{Bernard Day - Chassis Design} | ||