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).
Inspection report detailing the condition and performance of various vehicle components after mileage.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 91\3\ scan0227 | |
| Date | 14th November 1935 guessed | |
| ( 13 ) [Handwritten note at top right: What about this] The mileage rubbed and seized partially. Examination of the brake found one brass rivet in the auxiliary shoe broken off, but no other fault to cause the rubbing. The leverage was stiff due to sludge and dirt. It was probably caused by the adjustment being too close. We have found that if the brakes are adjusted when warm or hot, they are half a turn too closely set when cold. It must be definately understood that brakes must be adjusted cold. The water excluders had been effective, no water having entered the drums. The brake operating rods under the front apron were rusted up and considerably worn in all the connections. They had become loose and sloppy. The drum breaking surface was in a good condition. [Handwritten note in left margin: Martindale Cork material?] ROAD WHEELS LEC 46II G 83707 G 83717. No spokes have broken or become loose during the mileage. It was noticed however that the hubs were a very loose fit on the hubs of the axle (front and rear). When the retaining nuts were being tightened up, one could observe the wheel being lifted up into a position on the cones. FRONT STABILISER LOP F 87498 NS{Norman Scott} 4512. The front stabiliser was very effective in preventing roll of the car when cornering. The car was very steady on corners and no discomforture was felt by the rear passengers. The wear of the bearings caused knocks endways and vertical, large size rubber bearings would cure this and do away with a lubrication point. [Handwritten note in left margin: Les.{Ivan A. Leslie} Silentbloc mountings required] REAR STABILISER. HS{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} 1870/I The rear stabiliser mounted in rubber blocks was free from rattle. We were of the opinion that it required a larger diameter torsion rod to effectively keep the axle steadier. The scheme of the connecting links rubber block bearings at the top were not entirely satisfactory. The bolt holding the centre bush worked loose allowing the steel portion to act as the bearing instead of the rubber. The biting in bolts were too small to be effective. [Handwritten note in left margin: Les] FRONT AXLE LOP G 83342 2 G 8378I PIVOT BUSHES IN C.H.N.S. There was no indication of seizure or excessive wear. They were not dismantled. REAR SPRINGS LOP F 87604 SHACKLE PIN TO MOD.15848/F TYPE 1300 LBS. We examined the rear road springs parting the leaves. The lubrication has been good, grooves and oil holes were free from oil sludge. We had no trouble with the mounting of the springs, shackles and pins had been amply lubricated. | ||