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).
Issues with back axle controls, universal joints, and torque tube control.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 65\4\ scan0049 | |
| Date | 21th April 1926 | |
| [Handwritten: V8005] To Hs.{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} Da.{Bernard Day - Chassis Design} } FROM R.{Sir Henry Royce} E.{Mr Elliott - Chief Engineer} RG.{Mr Rowledge} } c. to BJ. Wor.{Arthur Wormald - General Works Manager} BY.{R.W. Bailey - Chief Engineer} RE. BACK AXLE CONTROLS AND UNIVERSAL JOINTS. [Handwritten: V8005 (crossed out) X4183 X8350] OY. wrote some months ago about the even turning of a certain make of universal joint that would correct the error of torque control, but the difficulties we think we experience are not due to the angle of the drive but to the rise and fall of the back axle causing a change in angular velocity required. This is what we believe so distressed the fabric couple on Phantom until it was considerably improved in its resistance to maximum stress, and hence permitted more flexibility in the transmission. This fault of the torque tube control is more or less in all its forms very bad with short control (as on the Hispano) and is at a minimum as arranged on G.1. (where we also halved the angle by two joints and so reduced the error of angular velocity except in the short shaft between the two joints.) I write this because it shews our reason for trying the parallel control in some recent experimental chassis. It has been quite successful on the 20 HP. and was also excellent on the Northcliffe in another form, (pre-war experimental chassis, at present with Hawk engine) and it promises to be superior on EAC.1. as far as this has been criticised. It will also be on EAC.7. but will be carefully compared with our latest EAC.8. (present type very up-to-date.) The back axle with parallel control does not dither on the road braking forward or driving backwards. We want Springfield to see our reason, and not make up their minds until they realise the wonderful advantages of prevent-ing the troubles of knocks in the transmission due to these speed changes. We also found that by eliminating this speed variation the car was less susceptible to other speed variations due to engine irregularities at light loads etc., over-runs, etc. This subject is very important and it would be serious to miss these wonderful advantages (through prejudice) [struck out text] of eliminating the trouble we have known of for a dozen years. R.{Sir Henry Royce} | ||