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).
Letter from a supplier discussing the performance of a standard rubbing block material versus the specified Tufnol material.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 168\3\ img004 | |
| Date | 7th November 1938 | |
| DELCO-REMY & HYATT LTD. Telegrams: DELREMYHYAT, SOWEST, LONDON Head Office & Works 111 GROSVENOR ROAD, LONDON, S.W.1. Telephones: VICTORIA 6242 (7 LINES) 6119 Messrs.Rolls-Royce, Ltd., DERBY. Attention of W.A.Robotham, Esq. YOUR REF. Rm{William Robotham - Chief Engineer}5/R.{Sir Henry Royce} OUR REF. BR/RS.{Sir Henry Royce's Secretary} SUBJECT 7th November 1938. Dear Sirs, Further to your letter of November 4th., I have now looked further into this matter. As you are aware, we were never in agreement in using the Tufnol material which was specified by you, as by our own experience we find the material we use as standard is so much better. We realise that initially there was some trouble with our Distributor on your engine, but as you stated in your letter of December 24th 1937, you have to admit the failure of our standard rubbing block to stand up may be due to an idiosyncrasy of your engine, and with your standard piece you did not expect this trouble. We have in the meantime run exhaustive tests on our standard material, and have been using it for the last twelve months on our aircraft jobs, and have failed to get any breakages. This later test was on a 9 cyl.cam, hand made and unhardened; although occasionally the cam is slightly scored, the rubbing block has stood up well. I feel, therefore, that as you have no doubt improved your drive since that date, our standard rubbing block should now prove to be satisfactory. We have made no changes in the specification of our cams since 1932, and this is the first complaint we have had | ||