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).
Body mounting methods, contrasting rubber isolation with metal-to-metal contact.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 104\3\ scan0116 | |
| Date | 12th March 1930 | |
| -2- HS{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair}/Rm.{William Robotham - Chief Engineer}1/WJ.12.3.30.Contd. We think that your remarks on body mounting on N.Sch. 2623 are misleading if you really meant us to do what you specify in italics on page 19 of the subframe book. We should like to know what the objection is to using the isolated means provided of mounting the body on rubber at the rear and why, in view of the trouble taken in using rubber at four points the body weight should actually be carried to a large extent on metal to metal contact, since this support is close to the c. of g.{Mr Griffiths - Chief Accountant / Mr Gnapp} Our own view is that we cannot get the best carriage unless we isolate the body from the chassis with rubber and that the sideways location should also be rubber in place of the present aluminium washers. Furthermore, that the compression on the rubber need not be great for sideways location, with the present sideways location we think that too much compression could be put on the rubber even if it was used. You will realise that our hands are tied with regard to the engine mounting as we need this unit to strengthen the frame and so cannot introduce the desired flexibility at this point. We should like to have your views on this problem and to know whether you agree to getting away from the centre metal to metal support at once HS{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair}/Rm.{William Robotham - Chief Engineer} | ||