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).
Comparing the body bottom-side construction and mounting brackets of models 1-B-5 and 1-B-50.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 111\1\ scan0097 | |
| Date | 2nd June 1938 | |
| SECRET. Pm. from Ev.{Ivan Evernden - coachwork} c. Hy.{Tom Haldenby - Plant Engineer} c. Da.{Bernard Day - Chassis Design} c. Rm{William Robotham - Chief Engineer}/FD.{Frank Dodd - Bodies} c. W/S - Hn.{F. C. Honeyman - Retail orders} c. Rm{William Robotham - Chief Engineer}/IMW.{Ivan M. Waller - Head of Chateauroux} Da{Bernard Day - Chassis Design}/Ev{Ivan Evernden - coachwork}5/A.2.6.38. Body Bottom-Side Comparisons 1-B-5 & 1-B-50. Further to our criticisms in item (3) of Da{Bernard Day - Chassis Design}/Ev{Ivan Evernden - coachwork}12/G.10.5.38. of the construction of the body bottom-side and mounting brackets of 1-B-50, we have now made a detailed comparison between the design of the bottom sides of this car with that of 1-B-5, which followed the accepted practice adopted on the standard all-steel Bentley coachwork. We attach to this memo sketches of both constructions. On 1-B-50 the vertical bending rigidity of the runner is solely the edge plate. By supporting it at a distance horizontally from its polar axis of inertia a very considerable torque is applied to it. To make conditions worse, the section of the bottom-side is one having a very low torsion modulus indeed. The same remarks cannot be applied to the construction of the bottom-side of 1-B-5. The mounting support is almost directly under the torsion or polar axis of the section, and the box section has a high torsion modulus. Da{Bernard Day - Chassis Design}/Ev.{Ivan Evernden - coachwork} | ||