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).
Issues with R. engine cam forms and comparing camshaft designs for car work.
| Identifier | WestWitteringFiles\V\March1931-September1931\ Scan242 | |
| Date | 5th June 1931 | |
| HS.{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} ) FROM R.{Sir Henry Royce} & E.{Mr Elliott - Chief Engineer} BY.{R.W. Bailey - Chief Engineer} ) C. to SG.{Arthur F. Sidgreaves - MD} WOR.{Arthur Wormald - General Works Manager} RHC.{R. H. Coverley - Production Engineer} CAR WORK - J.1. & P. 2. CAMSHAFTS. R1/M5.6.31. x5090. filed x7090. The R.{Sir Henry Royce} engine cam forms are the same for inlet and exhaust. We fear: (1) Mechanically noisy because of coarse foot and clearance. (2) Roar because of inlet opening before T.D.C. (3) Spoiling slow running because of (2). Car work demands finer foot and clearance - .013" - and we think shorter inlet than exhaust by 2 divisions - 4° = 8° on flywheel. It gives less overlap and later inlet opening: other points of opening and closing are the same. My memo. of 21. 5. 31. mentions for J.{Mr Johnson W.M.} 1. two camshafts which it is understood you have - i.e. No. 1. and 3. They are made with cams of inlet 57 div: and exhaust 61 div: but two angles between 114° and 116°. These should be an excellent camshaft for car work, and we can so far only repeat. We gave in the same memo an ultra high speed one using the above exhaust as inlet, and new exhaust of 63 div: - design Sch. 1158. We can only repeat this for new P. 2. high speed camshaft, with higher lift of .473". [Illegible signature] [Stamp] RECEIVED R.{Sir Henry Royce} 1931 JUN 8 | ||