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).
Various issues and recommendations concerning Phantom II subframes.
| Identifier | WestWitteringFiles\T\March1929-December1929\ Scan304 | |
| Date | 10th December 1929 | |
| BY.{R.W. Bailey - Chief Engineer} FROM DA{Bernard Day - Chassis Design}/EV.{Ivan Evernden - coachwork} C. to HS.{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} EP.{G. Eric Platford - Chief Quality Engineer} C. to CX.{Major Len W. Cox - Advertising Manager} JLE.{J. Lee Evans - Chassis Test Manager} DA{Bernard Day - Chassis Design}/EV{Ivan Evernden - coachwork}3/M10.12.29. ORIGINAL +7380. PHANTOM 2. SUBFRAMES. (1) EP{G. Eric Platford - Chief Quality Engineer}/THN6/H51229. We do not think we should be very nervous over the latest clearances specified for the rear brake drums as given to us by the Exp. Dept. We understand that they investigated this and were satisfied. With respect to the last para. but one we would point out that we distinctly state in our subframe book that the body at the rear should be mounted not central with the chassis frame but central with respect to the rear tyres and brake drums. With the present type of springing however we should not anticipate that the axle would be far out of the centre of the frame, but coachbuilders tell us that on measuring chassis they find that there is considerable discrepancy. (2) CX{Major Len W. Cox - Advertising Manager}19/MM1229. We have heard from several sources, and especially Hooper's, that the front cross member of the subframe fouls the end of the dash bracket, and we recommend that immediately if possible the dash brackets should be shortened on the horizontal end by an amount as indicated on our recent N. scheme 2993. In the meantime coachbuilders are cutting this dash bracket. (3) HOG/EBN11029. We have found from experience that the rear body bracket on the subframe is too far aft to be useful, and is in the wheel arch where it has to be materially cut away. We wish to have this bracket moved forward to a position as indicated on N. sch. 2993. This should only be done when it is absoultely convenient to production to make the change. (4) Centre support. The horizontal bolt at the centre support is only just long enough now provided there is an equal amount of packing at either side between the subframe bracket and the frame. If, as is usually the case, there is twice as much packing on one side as the other, one bolt is too short. We would be glad if these bolts could be lengthened about .250" We are also experiencing considerable difficulty in mounting bodies due to the distance between the forward support bracket and the hole for the centre support in the side of the main frame not being the same on the subframe and the chassis frame. In cases that have come to our notice we have given coachbuilders permission (1) | ||