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).
Vehicle frame design, stiffness, and component mounting considerations.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 17\1\ Scan108 | |
| Date | 19th February 1934 guessed | |
| -2- (V) Torsional frame oscillation (frame jellying) appears to be impossible as there is nothing to excite the frame. (VI) The front of the frame would be used solely to support the radiator. If it were found undesirable to mount the radiator on the engine, and support front wings, head lamps and bumpers. The appearance of the car would be dead steady. Fidgetting of the bonnet and depreciation of the front wings would be practically eliminated. (VII) This construction enables the engine to be moved right forward, giving increased body room for the same wheel base. (VIII) The avoidance of using a complicated stiff frame would appear especially useful in our case. Bolting spare wheel carriers, body brackets, step irons, wing stays, shock dampers and spring brackets to a box section frame sounds extremely expensive. The electrical wiring systems would be very difficult if housed in the frame. An adverse criticism which is likely to be raised is the anti-roll stiffness. We don't think the front of a Phantom II frame now does much to resist rolling. By raising the front centre mounting it appears that the tendency for the body to roll from the front can be practically eliminated. For a production scheme it would be necessary to have a separate unit gearbox and might be advisable to use a small diameter multi-plate clutch attached to the gearbox, so that the engine could be given enough freedom for parking a car with one wheel on the pavement. Hs{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair}/I.A. Leslie. | ||