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).
Cause of a seized piston in a 3.5 Litre chassis, questioning if an untinned piston was supplied.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 100\3\ scan0123 | |
| Date | 10th December 1938 | |
| W/K.{Mr Kilner} c. GWH.{George W. Hancock - Head Chateauroux} at K.{Mr Kilner} BY.9/N.10.12.38. 3 1/2 Litre Chassis B.2.CW. Referring to your memo Pk/KC/DPB/7.12.38 and the attached letter from Messrs.Laystall Eng.Co. in connection with the Piston that seized in the engine of the above chassis, from an examination of the Piston we should say definitely the seizure is due to insufficient care being taken during the early running after the re-bore. We note the owner says the car was not driven at more than 30 m.p.h. and the engine revs did not exceed 1500 before the seizure took place, but we must agree with Laystalls, that it is a case of over-driving. The only alternative is a tight Piston, but knowing Laystalls capabilities, we should imagine this is out of the question. There is one thing we cannot understand and that is, how has an untinned Piston got into service as we assume you would supply the Pistons to Laystalls, and as only 70 miles has been done, presumably the Pistons have recently been supplied. We were under the impression when it was decided to tin coat the pistons, all your stocks were done, and no further new pistons would be supplied without being tin coated. We shall be interested to receive your views on this point. BY.{R.W. Bailey - Chief Engineer} [STAMPED: DEC 12 A.M. 1938] | ||