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).
Design and development of closed bodies for the E.A.C 14 model, including options like coachbuilt vs Weymann.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 71\1\ scan0384 | |
| Date | 30th December 1927 | |
| to Sg.{Arthur F. Sidgreaves - MD} from Ev.{Ivan Evernden - coachwork} 48830 EV{Ivan Evernden - coachwork}4/30.12.27. copy to Hs.{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} CLOSED BODIES FOR E.A.C 14. Hs.{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} Thank you for your Sg{Arthur F. Sidgreaves - MD}18/M/28.12.27. and the copy of Sg{Arthur F. Sidgreaves - MD}3/M/23.12.27. We have not made any complete designs of a closed body on E.A.C.14. although we have given the matter some consideration with a view to having a closed experimental car, as soon as we have cleared up the three open ones. We presume that the next C.S.C will be held on Tuesday January 3rd. By that time we will endeavour to let you have a sixteenth scale scheme of a proposed body, which can be either coachbuilt or Weymann. The question of the wheel in the tail, "Must we have it", has its answer in experimental data and evolutional design to remove the loss of horse-power which this data disclosed. The wheel at the back in the orthodox fashion acts as a churn. Experiments shew that removing the tail of 10 EX accounted for as much power as raising the hood. The tail on the open sports car is a logical extension of the body to do away with these features. We understood that the idea was that we should make the very best job of the first few cars we build and that they would be apostles of our creed. We realise that not every one will join our particular faith, at least not at first, and that they will be warned of the results of breaking our commandments. We presume that, if they do not mind, we do not object. "Shall the body be coachbuilt or Weymann"? The following remarks may assist you in coming to a decision, although we suggest that we should be prepared to supply either. The building of a Weymann body on E.A.C. 14. offer no strange difficulties. We feel convinced, as a result of our long experience with subframe bodies on the 10,000 miles test, that the real solution of building a light coachbuilt Saloon, which will permit of a rough engine and be free from noise and booming, lies in the body being relieved of the larger chassis distortions. Such a system has been used on all experimental cars for several years and is used in a modified on the first three Open Sports Cars. We could evolve a closed body structure on these lines, and, judging by results we are getting on the open cars, a very low weight could be reached. It would appear that on this body and not on the Weymann there is some research work to be done. We agree with your remarks concerning the luggage box at the rear, and the abolition of the valances. This latter feature is difficult to do on the Phantom, owing to the position of the rear cantilever springs. All one can do is to actually finish the body at the top of the chassis frame and then have a valance which is detachable but which is curved to be a continuation of the body panels. Cars with springing such as that of the "Twenty" have not this trouble. | ||