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).
Bodywork issues including scuttles, pillars, and hinges with suggested improvements.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 71\1\ scan0221 | |
| Date | 26th June 1926 guessed | |
| (2) (2) SCUTTLE AT INSTRUMENT BOARD. We suggest that the best advantage of the subframe had not been taken at this point, and that a bent sheet stiffener as in sketch (3) would have been an advantage. We are of the opinion that the scuttle at the instrument board is also parallel-ogramming and suggest that thin sheet steel gussets be fitted similar to those suggested at the dash for this section. (3) REAR DOOR HINGE PILLARS. In order to compensate for the weight of the subframe it was suggested to the coachbuilders that they should save weight in their ironing. It was rather unfortunate that they chose the most vital portion of the body on which to exercise this economy, the rear door shut pillar ironing. This chassis being a short chassis makes the construction of the wheel arch and rear hinge pillar extremely difficult. The ironing used is apparently too flexible and we suggest in sketch (4) a type of sheet metal bending and welding which would overcome this, making use of both the heelboard and the subframe. (4) DOOR HINGES. The door hinges, especially those of the rear doors, were far too flexible and allowed the doors to drop. One of these had apparently broken and been repaired. Barkers' now stiffen these up with spring steel backing plates, but we suggest that they should be made of Staybright steel, and that the present ¼" pin of the hinge could with advantage be 5/16". By making the hinge of steel the total dia. of the barrel need not be increased over and above its present size to receive this larger pin. Unless there is some technical reason we felt that the upper hinge might be raised so as to be in the black moulding. This would materially increase the heeling base between the hinges and so reduce the load on them. (5) FRONT DOOR HINGES. The front door lower hinge appeared to be inadequate. The pin is in single sheer and fastened into neither member. We think that at least the pin should be put into double sheer unless it is fixed into one of the hinge members. One of the front pins appeared to have broken off in bending. (6) SHUT PILLARS. The shut pillars seemed in themselves to have held up, but they had been loosened by the excessive slamming of the doors, during which process the door pushing at the shut pillar had to force the hinge pillar back into position. We suggest that the fibre shut plates are of a material which is too hygroscopic, and | ||