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).
Responding to three raised points regarding a torque reaction damper rod and countershaft mounting.
| Identifier | WestWitteringFiles\R\October1927-December1927\ Scan087 | |
| Date | 16th November 1927 | |
| ORIGINAL (stamp) BY.{R.W. Bailey - Chief Engineer} (crossed out) FROM DA.{Bernard Day - Chassis Design} Copy to - HS.{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} EAC.14. DIPPING HEAD LAMPS. DA{Bernard Day - Chassis Design}1/M16.11.27. V4555 (handwritten) With reference to BY3/G111127., we see that you raise three points which seem to us to be somewhat inter-dependent. (1) You say the rod cannot be run straight through because it fouls the torque reaction damper arm. (2) You say the rod is too long and will vibrate. (3) You say the mounting of the stepping-aside countershaft on the engine foot will cause difficulty in erecting. Dealing with point (1) - and referring to N. scheme 2331. shewing the axle control mounted on Phantom with a 14" lever, the only difference between this and EAC. 14. is that in the latter case both the engine and the shock damper body are moved forward 1.5", thus retaining their relative position. Under these circumstances we do not see why we should not have the torque reaction damper exactly as indicated on N. sch. 2331. We do not mind about the eye section engine arm at the moment, but what we cannot do with is the type shewn on N. sch. 2295. Now referring to point (2) - the rod is exactly the same length as that which has run 25,000 miles on R's car down here, apparently without giving any trouble. On this car it is ¼" rod, and it may be that this is better for not vibrating than the tube we have called for, though we should not have expected this to be so. Then referring to point (3) - we certainly should not have thought that the erecting difficulty you refer to was likely to arise. As we understand it the engine feet are pushed back to mount the engine in the frame, the bearer being already in place with its flange brazed on, and a hole drilled through it to receive the outer bracket fixing of the counter-shaft. The whole of the engine foot is then bolted up in place exactly as is now done. The last operation is to push the countershaft, with its lever already brazed on andits collar in place, into the bearing in the engine foot, after which the outer bearing is slipped on and then shifted by means of the clearance hole through the engine foot tube until the shaft is free, after which it is tightened up. The loads are of the same order as those used on the cutout, in which precisely the same fixing is used, and we should have thought that the arrangement as shewn would have been satisfactory. We see however that these points appear to be inter-dependent, and we see that if we were to agree that the rod was too long, | ||