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).
Discussion comparing epicyclic and synchro-mesh gearbox designs, with reference to a Buick implementation.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 170\2\ img042 | |
| Date | 15th May 1931 | |
| Detroit. Copies made. May 15/31. 6 My dear Hs.{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} Have just received yours of May 4 and discussed it with E.W. Seaholm. (which perhaps you may not have intended.) Replying to these points as they come up— ① Epicyclic. From what I have seen of helical boxes I should say this is a waste of time. The helical even in its present stage is generally as quiet as the average spool-box and is occasionally silent. The helical with synchro mesh is not the millenium but seems to me by actual trial near enough to it for the next few years. ⑧ The Buick synchro-mesh is better than ours as a production job. Ours with its damping action etc is a nicer feeling job - when right. There are no bugs in the Buick scheme except that it is not applicable to a helical box in which constant mesh & second are at opposite ends of the box, which is a favored design for solid mounting of helicals. We favor a box on traditional lines with helical second in central position, helical first speed also, and big section shafts. Boxes with center bearings & 2nd in center are also being produced for better support of | ||