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 40/50 model wing stays, refuting coachbuilder criticisms, and suggesting solutions for fitting.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 67\1\ scan0260 | |
| Date | 15th February 1927 | |
| TO SC. FROM DA{Bernard Day - Chassis Design}/EV.{Ivan Evernden - coachwork} DA{Bernard Day - Chassis Design}/EV{Ivan Evernden - coachwork}1/M15.2.27.16 Hs{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} 1927 Copy to - BY.{R.W. Bailey - Chief Engineer} HS.{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} 40/50. WING STAYS. X8390 With reference to SG{Arthur F. Sidgreaves - MD}/HN{F. C. Honeyman - Retail orders}18/ED{J. L. Edwards}14227., and HS{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair}1/LG7227., re. the above, we make the following suggestions and comments. (1) The suggestion of both Hoopers and Barkers, that because the headlamps are mounted on the wings it will be absolutely necessary for a cross bar between the wings to be fitted, is in our estimation merely a guess. Our experimental reports shew that several cars have completed 10,000 miles and more in France fitted with these wing stays, mounted by the coachbuilders, with the standard 40/50 lamps carried on them, without reporting any failure: no cross bars have ever been fitted. We have also test reports of wings with coachbuilders stays giving endless trouble and delay in the test. We therefore feel no fear in suggesting that the criticism made by the coachbuilders on this point is not justifiable. The coachbuilders claim that the wing stays are weak and flexible is the result of two features - Firstly, the coachbuilder does not appreciate that an elastic stay made of spring steel or its equivalent will stand up longer on test under vibration than a rigid stay made of short grained material, possibly burnt by forging, such as the coachbuilders stays are. Secondly, while the stays appear to be flexible when mounted on the chassis before the wing is fitted, it must not be forgotten that the wing is part of the structure and is made to do some useful work besides the shielding from mud. (2) The difficulty experienced in obtaining a wing stay shape that will suit all types of every coachbuilder's wings is obviously an insuperable one. We believe we are correct in saying that the wing stays were set out to suit a standard Barker short front wing. We are not surprised therefore to hear that the stays were not correct for a Hooper wing. We suggest that since the same trouble must exist with the 20HP. wings which have been successfully used for some years there can be no difficulty in dealing with a similar stay on the 40/50. The course to be adopted by the coachbuilders is to heat up the wings and bend them to the configuration that they require. In the case of Barkers and Hoopers we suggest that a simple sort of jig could be constructed with advantage. (1) | ||