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).
Letter to Mr. E. W. Hives requesting feedback on rubber engine mounting and cast-dash designs.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 55\4\ Scan313 | |
| Date | 15th February 1929 | |
| X7005 OY12- February 15th, 1929. Mr. E.{Mr Elliott - Chief Engineer} W. Hives, Rolls Royce Ltd., Derby, England. cc - Mr. Bailey Mr. A.F. Sidgreaves Dear Mr. Hives: RE RUBBER ENGINE MOUNTING - SECTION 7000 CAST-DASH - SECTION 7130 We should greatly appreciate a word from you on the advantages or otherwise of these two fittings. We have seen several experimental reports, but I have no final impression from which we could decide their urgency. Rubber Engine Mounting Brackets. (1) Does the overhang of 1-1/4" from center of rubber to frame flange not cause the engine to "sag" in the frame due to its own weight? We find the frame members at this point to be exceedingly flexible in torsion and would expect that the weight of the engine would put the upper steel plates of the brackets in compression and cause them perhaps to buckle or break. (2) Is the rear of the engine mounted high to allow for any sag in the mounting bracket? (3) Due to a reduction in the frame-stiffening effect of the rear engine feet, is the tendency to shimmy increased? (4) What are the advantages in silence and smoothness within a closed car, say as compared with the silencing effect of the fabric coupling? Cast Dash. Assuming coachwork with stiff cowl construction well attached (through ample rubber) to the dashboard, is the cast dash an advantage from the point of view of - (1) Noise in the body. (2) Stiffness of the steering column (3) Weight, etc. ? -continued- | ||