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).
Use of a Peregrine axle on the Bensport front axle, its associated issues and proposed solutions.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 178\3\ img188 | |
| Date | 30th May 1932 | |
| FROM DA{Bernard Day - Chassis Design}/EV.{Ivan Evernden - coachwork} DA{Bernard Day - Chassis Design}/EV{Ivan Evernden - coachwork}1/M30.5.32. C. to SG{Arthur F. Sidgreaves - MD}-WDR. HS.{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} D.{John DeLooze - Company Secretary} BENSPORT FRONT AXLE. x4553 Re. BY2/C26532., referring to DA{Bernard Day - Chassis Design}/EV{Ivan Evernden - coachwork}1/M19532., and DA{Bernard Day - Chassis Design}/EV{Ivan Evernden - coachwork}2/M19.5.32. We suggested that you use the Peregrine axle on the first Bensport, not because we want to do so, but because we thought it would expedite the building of the first chassis, although it raises the front of the car .500". It may be considered that to avoid making new dies we could continue to use the Peregrine axle on Bensport, but we would prefer to make the axle with .500 more downset for Bensport, and to use it on Peregrine also, by adopting one of two courses: (1) Packing under spring on axle. (2) .500 positive camber in spring under full load. We cannot use Peregrine axle on Bensport and avoid the raising of the front of the car, because on maximum bump the brake levers on the axle are very close to the radiator tank, and the brake ropes only just clear the carburetter - see the arrangement on N. sch. 3476. Should we find however that we do not need the 2" of bump for full load to maximum bump, but only about 1.5" or slightly more, then with the Peregrine axle the front of the car will not be raised above the height drawn on the arrangement. We think we should wait and try the first car before going all out for new axle dies. DA{Bernard Day - Chassis Design}/EV.{Ivan Evernden - coachwork} | ||