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).
Chassis length, weight distribution, and a proposed design for flexible engine mounting.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 14\5\ Scan039 | |
| Date | 3rd January 1929 guessed | |
| (2) with 1 or 2 spare inner tubes for emergency. The alternative is to continue to fit one side wheel carrier. I want it to be clearly understood that the SS.{S. Smith} chassis does not demand any greater length than has been used in long Phantoms under conditions of one wheel or luggage at the back. Works have so clearly demonstrated the advantage of some weight behind, and SS.{S. Smith} without accessories provides some of this weight, so will actually carry side wheel better than Phantom. It, like all other cars, is benefited in riding and easy steering by the weight of some of the accessories at the rear of rear axle, and although the riding under equal conditions is better than Phantom, both these chassis are improved by pushing the passengers forward and carrying some weight behind them. We are only engineers and not magicians, and must follow the laws of mechanics. The question is one or two lengths? I say two. How much difference? I suggest 9" or 10". This would be suitable for sports open 4 seater with side occasional seats, perhaps about equal to 20HP. chassis. ADD TO ENGINE MOUNTING. If the front feet can be rigid it may help us to make a more robust job of the fixing. It has occurred to me that in the plan we might make our front links at an angle to help the lateral stiffness more easily, thus: Rear or front. Front or rear. The engine could expand lengthways by springing the frame apart, but the frame could not parallelogram so easily, or we could prevent it with smaller stresses in the fixings. Any, or all, or none, of the feet could be vertically flexible. I continue to think the rear flexible, the front rigid. R.{Sir Henry Royce} | ||