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).
Modifications to the rear axle and damper mountings on a Bensport model, addressing clearance and sales requirements.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 84\4\ scan0003 | |
| Date | 3rd March 1933 | |
| To E.{Mr Elliott - Chief Engineer} from EV.{Ivan Evernden - coachwork} x 202 EV{Ivan Evernden - coachwork}3/3.3.33. COPY TO SG.{Arthur F. Sidgreaves - MD} WOR.{Arthur Wormald - General Works Manager} HS.{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} BY.{R.W. Bailey - Chief Engineer} HDY.{William Hardy} REAR AXLE AND DAMPER MOUNTINGS ON BENSPORT. We thank you for your E.3/HP.24.2.33. and the print of Lec.3387. As we have already told you on the telephone we regret that we cannot agree to the back of the rear cushion being sloped off as we have been forced to move the rear squab back yet another inch or more to meet the Sales demand for more room. We have indicated in yellow on the print herewith a shape of bracket which we think is mechanically sound and which will permit of the cushion remaining unchanged. With reference to our suggestion that we should use a 7.500 ins. shock damper lever and move the damper and tube rearwards so as to move the cushion still more backwards, we regret to say that so far we have not been able to do this, for the following reasons. Hdy.{William Hardy} is not sure whether he can agree to the ~~following reasons~~ short lever with the total axle movement of 9.500 ins. We think he should be able to do so if the same damper will work with a 9.000 ins. lever on Peregrine having low rating springs and a half inch greater bump. Secondly we see that the exhaust swan-neck prevents the cross-tube from going back very much. We are at a loss to understand why it has been found necessary to assume a metal to metal bump as drawn, and do not know what were Hancock's experiences on Peregrine in France. We can find nothing about it in his report. We have sent a drawing to the coachbuilder shewing the increased axle bump and have stopped all work until we have redrawn our clearances. If it is true that the rubber may compress to nothing on a two wheel bump we shall need an increase of height in our rear wheel arches of something in the neighbourhood of .650 ins. As we have jigs in hand we are very anxious to be sure we understand what we are doing. We would be glad if Derby would report to us exactly what is required and what fouls occurred to cause this step to be taken. It will be appreciated that in the case of Peregrine the extra .500 ins. of movement if it occurred should have caused the tyres to have touched the wheel arches, the axle to foul the battery cross member and the cushion to be badly punctured by the axle. EV.{Ivan Evernden - coachwork} | ||