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).
Analysis and comparison of Chrysler vehicle component weights.
| Identifier | WestWitteringFiles\U\January1930-April1930\ Scan063 | |
| Date | 24th January 1930 | |
| To R.{Sir Henry Royce} (Held up) c. to AG. c. to DA.{Bernard Day - Chassis Design} E.{Mr Elliott - Chief Engineer} c. to EY. From Hs{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair}/AIL. ORIGINAL Hs{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair}/AIL.1/WJ.24.1.30. X4013 X5770 CHRYSLER WEIGHTS. We have been analysing some of the Chrysler weights to see if we can learn anything from them. When weighed with wheels the front axle assemblies come to almost exactly the same poundage. The Chrysler has lighter hubs and wheels (smaller tyres and wood wheels) and no brake shafts, but heavier steering levers, brake drums, and brace carrier plate assemblies. The tubular axle construction is less than 5% lighter than the I section forging. Therefore in this unit we cannot see anywhere where we could with advantage learn from the Chrysler. The radiator weights we have already commented on. The Chrysler engine unit is 118 lbs. heavier than that of the 25 HP. largely owing to the use of cast iron in place of aluminium in the crankcases etc. The R.R. four speed box and servo weigh almost exactly the same as the Chrysler three speed box and transmission brake. The propeller shaft weights favour the Chrysler, but we think they have obtained their reduction at the expense of wearing quality. The rear axle weights are deceptive because the R.R. rear axle carries two complete sets of brake shoes, operating shafts, large brake drums etc., the Chrysler only one. We can see that they have lighter hubs and wheels and they have | ||