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).
Inclusion and specifications of a lifting jack for the chassis.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 10\6\ 06-page15 | |
| Date | 14th July 1913 | |
| Hy{Tom Haldenby - Plant Engineer}18/C14713 x 659 J.{Mr Johnson W.M.} 14.7.13. In answer to your CJ11/J12713, I do not see why we should include in the price of our chassis a lifting jack. I think it is important that we should be able to advise a purchaser which Jack we consider is best suited to our chassis requirements and be in a position to supply it. I have examined the one ton Michelin Jack, which has the merits of being light and small, so that it can be easily packed away. I do not see why the two ton Jack should be necessary. I think the whole question of Jacks is well worth the Works' attention. It seems to me in much the same unsatisfactory position as detachable wheel devices have been in the past. For example, the one ton Michelin Jack, in common with most others, is too high to be placed underneath the front axle with the tyre deflated, and consequently must be placed underneath the springs, therefore, the flat provided for the purpose on the axle, is not often very useful on the road. The ideal jack, of course, would be one which might have some of the desirable features of the hydraulic jack, with which very little effort is required to raise the car and no effort whatever to lower it. It is important, in view of the small space available for such accessories on cars nowadays, that the shape of the jack should enable it to be easily packed away in a flat position, from which it would follow that if it be desired that the base of the jack should have a superficial area of 25 square inches, then I suggest that the dimensions should be approximately 3 x 8½ instead of 5 x 5. Hy.{Tom Haldenby - Plant Engineer} | ||