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 water and dirt ingress from the undershield and a separate handling problem on a 20 HP car.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 4\9\ 09-page215 | |
| Date | 22th April 1926 guessed | |
| surface of the undershield and then rebounds and is driven upwards through the loovers of the side engine guard. This is the chief fault and to cure it, the gear box undershield should be taken back at an angle from where the engine guards join on to it. We also get a rebound of dirt and water from the engine case which finds its way through the loovers. This point I am not clear at the moment how to avoid. There is another bad feature however. The holes cut in guards for exhaust pipe, main oil pipe, and water drain from pump, should have a definite lip or extension fitted to the front side of these so that instead of water being washed up through these holes the guards would divert it. To prove my statement we have for the last two days been running without the gear box undershield, with the results that the engine has kept 75% cleaner. We trust these observations will be duele noted as they were taken at pessennel risks and discomfort. We have also noted another bad feature on the car since the wet weather came along. There is not a little, but a great amount of water and dirt washed up inside the car by the side of the change speed and brake levers. The cause of this is due to the sub frame being wider than the chassis frame leaving unprotected space between the two. We get a similar thing happening here as with the undershield. There are the flat surfaces of step iron and one fitted by the coach builders. These are fitted just in front of the brake levers and diverts the dirt upwards this should be attended to if the sub frame is adopted. I shall report more fully on the sub frame in my next report. On Tuesday I had the occasion to speak to Mr Pearson on the phone and strange to say he asked what was to be done with a 20 H.P. car with too resiliant rear springs. He said the owner had refused to take over the car due to the fact that it would not hold the road at hight speeds and, wished to know if we were fitting any new shock dampers. He had overcome his trouble by packing up the springs in the rear dampers, thereby increasing the friction leads which has overcome the owner's trouble. From what I gathered the car had features similar to ours. I informed Mr Pearson that Hydraulic shock dampers would be coming through shortly which we hoped would obliviate these troubles. We have found that our car rides generally much better since taking the ballast out. G.W.Hancock. | ||