Rolls-Royce Archives
         « Prev  Box Series  Next »        

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).
Comments on coachwork parts for the Peregrine Two model, comparing them to the 25HP and J.3 models.

Identifier  ExFiles\Box 1\1\  B001_104 Body-page06
Date  13th February 1932
  
E.{Mr Elliott - Chief Engineer} FROM DA{Bernard Day - Chassis Design}/EV.{Ivan Evernden - coachwork} SECRET. X/OH. DA{Bernard Day - Chassis Design}/EV{Ivan Evernden - coachwork}2/13.2.32.
C. to SG.{Arthur F. Sidgreaves - MD} WOR.{Arthur Wormald - General Works Manager} BY.{R.W. Bailey - Chief Engineer} HS.{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} PEREGRINE TWO. X.4027

We venture to offer the following comments on Pere; largely with reference to parts concerning coachwork which are not exactly capable of being scaled down from J.{Mr Johnson W.M.} 3.

WING STAYS. Since the wheels will be approx: the same dia as 25HP. & J.{Mr Johnson W.M.} 3. and the track is the same the weight of the wings will be the same. We therefore suggest that the 25HP wing stay be used on Pere: 2.

BODY BRACKETS. For a similar reason we suggest that the body brackets be the same as for 25HP. and J.{Mr Johnson W.M.} 3.

SIDE WHEEL CARRIER. The weight of the wheel being approx: the same there seems no reason why there should be any difference between the fundamental parts of the wheel carrier of Pere: 2. and 25HP. & J.{Mr Johnson W.M.} 3., except perhaps for the reduced speed of the car, in which case this could be allowed for by a thinner gauge of tube.

SIDE LEVERS. There is some argument in favour of a lighter gear lever as although the lever is the same length as J.3. and 25HP the effort required to change is less. We think however that one could with advantage use a 25HP. & J.{Mr Johnson W.M.} 3. side brake lever.

LUGGAGE GRID. The luggage grid of J.{Mr Johnson W.M.} 3. which folds into the apron will not scale down in the .8 ratio, in fact, a smaller grid than that on J.{Mr Johnson W.M.} 3. would be unserviceable on any car. The question arises as to whether we can use that same design on Pere:2., and whether weought not to do something less efficient but cheaper to produce. For instance, an apron with an external grid, or an apron which opens out into a platform for luggage somewhat like on the 25HP. Sunbeam, but which is not much good as a grid as it has no guard rail, and is only about 1 ft. or so long. This is a question the writer proposes to take up with Sales.

RADIATOR SHUTTER GEAR & FILLER CAP. We suggest that the radiator shutter slats and mechanism, and also the filler cap, could be the same as J.3. Reduction in width of the radiator is not enough to enable 2 shutters to be removed, therefore we suggest it will be necessary to obtain the reduced width by a greater overlap of the shutters.

FRONT APRON. The design will follow that of 25HP. & J.{Mr Johnson W.M.} 3.

LAMPS. We suggest that the lamps standardised by Lucas bi-focal dippers RB.{R. Bowen}160.SBDS. This points to the same size lamp standard as on 25HP., as these lamps have been used until quite recently on the 25HP.
  
  


Copyright Sustain 2025, All Rights Reserved.    whatever is rightly done, however humble, is noble
An unhandled error has occurred. Reload 🗙