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 considerations for the Bentley 111, focusing on the back axle, weight, and performance.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 97\1\ scan0206 | |
| Date | 10th September 1938 | |
| SS{S. Smith} Hs{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} Rm.{William Robotham - Chief Engineer} 400 BY.4/G.10.9.38. BENTLEY 111. In launching Bentley lll there can be no question but that we must, if we are to maintain our position avoid introducing into the chassis any features which are open to doubt, either from the point of view of reliability or quality. It has taken us between five or six years to eliminate, from the production Bentley, weaknesses in the back axle; to achieve this has meant no less than ten major changes, this being the case what hope have we of avoiding trouble if we try to introduce with Bentley lll a design with which we have no experience whatsoever, and an absurdly short time in hand, to cover development. My considered view is that the new semi-floating axle should be definitely relegated to the Bentley 50 chassis, as this will :- (a). Give us a considerable increase of time in which to thrash the axle and eliminate its faults. (b). Make a major distinction between the Bentley 50 and other chassis, as a reason for a change in price. As the new semi-floating axle stands at present it is certainly considerably heavier than that of the present Bentley, and in my opinion with the sole exception of the wheels more expensive. Our enquiries have eliminated entirely the view freely expressed before we committed ourselves to the experiment that the axle shafts did not break, as America are still altering designs of accomplish this end, and information over here confirms that axle shaft failures are still present in British designs. Bentley lll is still a Sports model, and as such must have performance, and we cannot therefore afford to allow any unit to increase in weight materially, we should as a matter of fact be reducing chassis weight, to offset the increase in body weight necessitated by the demand for greater body space, which again must be strictly limited to what is really demanded by customers whilst not unduly increasing wind resistance. The object of this memo is to settle finally | ||