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).
Comparing the weight and size of a Studebaker body against the B.V. body.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 99\4\ scan0237 | |
| Date | 8th January 1939 | |
| SECRET. 428+ 1092 To Rm.{William Robotham - Chief Engineer} from Ev.{Ivan Evernden - coachwork} c. to Mr. Ward. c. to Rm{William Robotham - Chief Engineer}/FD.{Frank Dodd - Bodies} c. to Rm{William Robotham - Chief Engineer}/Cr.{Mr Cra???ster / Mr Chichester} Ev.{Ivan Evernden - coachwork}7/JH. 8.1.39. re Studebaker body. We have examined the weight analysis of the Studebaker body, and have noted its comparison with the B.V. body. As requested we have produced two sketches. (1) The Studebaker overlaid on the B.2. body. (2) The Studebaker overlaid on the B.V. body. In every case the Studebaker is much the larger. We have a skeleton analysis of the body B.B.V. given with Rm.{William Robotham - Chief Engineer}4/R.2.7.38. and we have tried to compare this with the Studebaker. The appendix sets out our findings in detail. We are prevented from localising the actual items on which the B.V. body exceeds in weight those of the Studebaker because we have not individual part weights of the B.V. corresponding with those of the Studebaker in every case e.g. the doors, the boot lid.{A. J. Lidsey} It would appear however that the B.V. loses due to its extensive shell framework, its sunshine roof and door trimmings. Although we cannot prove it, we suspect the rear boot lid{A. J. Lidsey} and the floor. We would be glad if the weight analysis could be extended to cover the items mentioned for both B.B.V. and the Studebaker. Ev.{Ivan Evernden - coachwork} | ||