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).
Recommendations for coachbuilders regarding subframes, scuttle isolation, and aprons for the 20/25HP model.
| Identifier | WestWitteringFiles\U\2January1930-September1930\ Scan140 | |
| Date | 24th May 1930 | |
| EP.{G. Eric Platford - Chief Quality Engineer} FROM DA{Bernard Day - Chassis Design}/EV.{Ivan Evernden - coachwork} (Struck through) C. to HS.{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} E.{Mr Elliott - Chief Engineer} LHS.{Lord Herbert Scott} (Struck through) C. to C. BY.{R.W. Bailey - Chief Engineer} (Struck through) ORIGINAL BODY MOUNTING ETC - EP{G. Eric Platford - Chief Quality Engineer}7/H21530. DA{Bernard Day - Chassis Design}/EVL/M24.5.30. X4613. X7380 X5380 X7005 X5005. LHS.{Lord Herbert Scott} has given me a copy of the above memo. We were surprised to hear that trouble had been experienced in obtaining a correct use of the subframe. We would be glad if the Coachwork Inspection Dept. in London would give us their views on this subject. Your remarks referring to the clearance between the front floorboard and the gearbox we presume only applies to the 20/25HP. and we will look into the matter of the strength of these boards. With respect to scuttle isolation we would like a definite ruling on what is the latest recommendation of Exp. Dept. Generally speaking the coachbuilders do not heavily compress the rubber. The last time we had a recommendation from the Exp. Dept. it was for the use of very hard rubber washers, and consequently a fair bolt tension giving an increase in the damping between the scuttle and the dash. We have also been told that a continuous rubber insertion was the thing to use. Also we have been told that blocks of rubber between the vertical scuttle pillars and the cast aashboard are advantageous. Most, if not all, of this information has been conveyed in circular form. We would welcome some definite statement on the subject which would enable us to make consistent recommendations to coachbuilders. The question of front and rear aprons is as follows:- We recommend coachbuilders to fit front aprons to all cars. The apron is of the horizontal type and is fitted with louvres to give it stiffness and to permit of a free passage of air. Rear aprons are only fitted to those cars which have no rear wheel carrier, and theoretically we are not responsible for such cars as they are not in accordance with our recommendations, although we are fully aware that they must exist. Some while ago we sent a revised design of fitting for the K.S. petrol gauge on the tank which would make an improvement in appearance. We strongly recommend that in these cases a toolbox be fitted inside the frame to take the place of the spare wheel. We have circularised coachbuilders that when an apron is fitted across this portion of the car it must be not rigidly attached to the chassis frame but mounted on felt or rubber, and that it must have louvres in it to allow the exhaust fumes to pass out without being trapped. We are recommending to R.{Sir Henry Royce} that the exhaust pipe be extended to the rear cross member to make the possibility of this still less likely. With reference to the use of a rubber support at the centre of the subframe instead of the present rigid one we would be glad if Exp. Dept. would give us their latest views. At one time we understood that they considered marked improvement in the smoothness of the car was made by this change. We agree that if this can be confirmed we ought to attempt to bring the change in as standard as soon as possible, and we have mentioned the matter to CX.{Major Len W. Cox - Advertising Manager} intimating that such a change is not unlikely to be asked for. DA{Bernard Day - Chassis Design}/EV.{Ivan Evernden - coachwork} | ||