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 weight and cost savings for adopting a sealed down Phantom III cross steering tube joint on Bentley and 25 HP models.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 106\3\ scan0367 | |
| Date | 8th April 1936 | |
| To E.{Mr Elliott - Chief Engineer} c. to Wor.{Arthur Wormald - General Works Manager} c. to By.{R.W. Bailey - Chief Engineer} c. to Da.{Bernard Day - Chassis Design} c. to Ev.{Ivan Evernden - coachwork} c. to RHO. x 550 Ha/WJH.23/KW.8.4.36. Bentley & 25 HP. Side & Cross Steering Tubes. Re RHC{R. H. Coverley - Production Engineer}/EH.1/ETM.2.4.36 and R/ev.{Ivan Evernden - coachwork}5/MN.4.4.36. We consider that, if any change is going to be made to the side and cross steering tube ends on the 25/30 and Bentley, we should adopt a sealed down version of the Ph.III type of cross steering tube joint. The following figures show our reasons for this :- Weight Cost lbs. per Joint 25 HP. Cross Steering Tube Joint 2.31 £1. 3. 0d.approx. Bentley " " " 1.78 £1. 2. 3d. Ph.III " " " 1.63 £0.12. 0d. Sealed down Ph.III joint (estimated) 1.40 £0.11. 0d. The adoption of this joint would effect the following savings per car (3 joints). Weight Cost 25 HP. 2.17 lbs. = 34% £1. 15. 0d. Bentley 1.14 lbs. = 21% £1. 14. 0d. Concerning the detail points in RHC{R. H. Coverley - Production Engineer}/EH.1/ETM.2.4.36 - (1) Location of Ball Pin on Lever. We agree that it is difficult to determine whether the locking washer has entered correctly when assembling a ball pin on to a lever and considerable time can be wasted owing to this. However, we agree with the Design Dept. that an alteration to the limits or dimensions could overcome this at much less expense than an alteration to design as suggested, and consequent re-tooling on production. | ||