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).
List of technical queries and action points regarding the development of the Wraith model.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 174\3\ img155 | |
| Date | 13th May 1937 | |
| WRAITH. -2- (1) How does the proposed Wraith camshaft compare with the short duration camshaft now fitted to Wraith II ? (2) Are we going to get some anti-squeak brake linings on the first car to go to France ? What is the trouble with the brake efficiency, cannot we have lighter pedal pressures ? (3) Where are the Wraith roll rod bushes made ? This should be a copy of a typical american roll rod and have rubber bushes and possibly jumped up ball ends. (4) We should at least ensure that with the present standard clutch (25/30) the proposed Wraith engine mounting is no worse than the present 25/30, particularly as clutches are still under a cloud. (5) Where are we with axle groans and overdrive rattles on the Wraith, in view of the fact that we have no longer a prop. shaft damper ? (6) What about a firm recommendation to do away with the hand ignition control and substitute a Vernier adjustment on the distributor to take care of poor fuel? (7) Will our weight specialist co-operate with R.P.S. to get the weight of every part (with photographs) of the next Wraith car as it is built? (8) Martindale to consider how we can get some flexibility between the front suspension and the frame on Wraith, this more particularly refers to transversely than fore and aft. As an example, the Dubonnet requires a less stiff frame and is less noisy due to the flexibility of the arm than the wishbone. [Diagram shows a wishbone shape with arrows indicating 'DIRECTION' and a central line labelled 'FLEXIBILITY REQUIRED'] (9) G.H.alt did some distribution tests on the 25/30 with a duplex car. What were the results ? We want to use a duplex carb because we can get one that has all the latest improvements, i.e. anti-flood, anti-vapour lock, anti-float chamber surge, etc. Hudsons have had good results, i.e., much better low speed M.H.P. | ||