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).
Optimal placement and design of side spare wheel carriers for a 40/50 HP chassis.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 68\3\ scan0053 | |
| Date | 15th February 1925 | |
| c. HS.{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} X.8600 BY2/H.{Arthur M. Hanbury - Head Complaints} 15.2.25. 40/50 HP. CHASSIS. SIDE SPARE WHEEL CARRIERS. -------------------------------------------- Referring to C/Hn{F. C. Honeyman - Retail orders}10/MH.{M. Huckerby} 12.2.26. with reference to the question of the position of the spare wheel carrier, we do not see any reason technically, providing the spare wheel is to be in front of the driver, why we should quibble about an inch or two either way. The amount by which the weight distribution would be affected by even the maximum possibilities of movement of the side spare wheel carrier, are such as to make such movements negligible in regard to weight distribution. If it is a question of carrying the spare wheel on the side or behind the car, then we would vote all the time for the spare wheel behind the car, but changes of position at the front are, as pointed out above, quite negligible. In view of the fact that we have actually had frames scrapped by the fitting of spare wheel carriers produced by coachbuilders, whilst even when this does not occur the mass of the parts is such as to be out of all proportion to their duties we had thought that the question of having one of our own spare wheel carriers was considered to be of the utmost importance, both by Sales and ourselves. We are therefore surprised that you should suggest the change in design at this juncture. Obviously, the time to put forward a proposal in regard to spare wheel carriers is when the matter is under consideration from a design point of view by R.{Sir Henry Royce} and not after we have been permitted to run thousands of miles in an attempt to standardize the spare wheel carrier, and again one would like to remark that criticisms of this nature, with actual proposals in regard to how the design ought to be carried out, are not likely to be acceptable to our Chief Engineer under such circumstances. It is a distinct advantage to have a fixed position for the spare wheel carrier which does not vary for different types of chassis, as by so doing it is not necessary to plug up holes in the frame and drill others when the type of steering is altered. In view of the fact that we have had to actually face the issue of scrapping frames as the result of totally inadequate designs of spare wheel carriers having been permitted by the C.S.C. to be fitted to our chassis, I certainly feel that now we have got a design which is Con. | ||