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).
Meeting notes discussing chassis stiffness, pedal spacing, turning circles, and suspension design for a small car, with comparisons to competitors.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 117\3\ scan0110 | |
| Date | 5th July 1940 | |
| -2- Ev.{Ivan Evernden - coachwork}7/JH.5.7.40. itself is a function of the bending stiffness of the screen pillars. Therefore, since we propose like others to reduce the section of these pillars we must expect to derive more of our stiffness from the side channels or side box members of the base structure. P.S.C. asked that in the vicinity of the sloping floor boards the depth of these box members should be 10". With the floor in its present position this entails ramps in the side of the scuttle projecting into the body. (4-5") and so rendering the room for the spacing of the pedals in peril. P.S.C. said this is one of the high hurdles in the monocoque race. The Hillman Minx has such a ramp. We propose being helpful by setting out our ideas on how closely the pedals can be crowded together towards the centre of the car. (5) The ramp referred to in No. 4 would protrude less into the sloping floorboard if Ev{Ivan Evernden - coachwork}/DB.{Donald Bastow - Suspensions} would reduce the lock of the inner wheel to less than our normal 41°. This gives a turning circle of 33' as against our B.V. with approximately 40'. We are of the opinion that we want 33' or something very near it, if we are to hope to compete with our competitors, and to give the impression of a small car. (6) There is some difficulty in anchoring the front end of the rear springs and we suggested we should look at the Minx and the Vauxhall because we might wish to alter the wheelbase and the seats so that the spring eye is not immediately under the rear seat heel board. Rm{William Robotham - Chief Engineer}/GB. said that we shall require a rear roll bar in any case with this size of car and therefore the placing of the front end of the rear spring on the inner side of the side member giving spring centres of 38 - 39" was permissible. Ev.{Ivan Evernden - coachwork} suggested that the project of the body base structure on the axle section should take account of the fact that we require this roll rod in conjunction with small type Gordon Armstrong shock absorbers placed in front of the axle. ( (7) ) Similarly it would appear to be difficult to find a means of providing a bracket for the tension shackle at the aft end of the rear spring. Cont'd.{John DeLooze - Company Secretary} | ||