Deductions on the weight of coachwork for model 1.B.50, comparing steel versus wood and aluminium construction.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 112\2\ scan0026 | |
| Date | 9th June 1938 | |
| 804 Secret. To Rm. {William Robotham - Chief Engineer} . from Ev. {Ivan Evernden - coachwork} c. By. {R.W. Bailey - Chief Engineer} c. Da. {Bernard Day - Chassis Design} c. Rm {William Robotham - Chief Engineer} /FD. {Frank Dodd - Bodies} Da {Bernard Day - Chassis Design} /Ev. {Ivan Evernden - coachwork} 11/N.9.6.38. Re: Weight of Coachwork of 1.B.50. We have made some deductions from the comparison of actual existing bodies which give us a fair idea of the weight of such items as a division, added length in doors, a boot etc. and we have the weight of running boards. In the appendix we have tried to deduce a reasonable weight for the 1.B.50 body from the weight of the body of 1.B.5. You will see that we say we could expect a weight of 10 3/4 cwts, and not 12 cwts. At 9 cwts, the all-steel B.III body compares unfavorably with the Close Coupled Wraith with division at 10 3/4 cwts, (28-G-VI) and the Four Door Saloon 27-G-VI at 10.5/16 cwts, both of which are constructed of wood and aluminium. It does not compare unfavourably with the first all-steel body of B.56.BN. {W.O. Bentley / Mr Barrington} at 8.9/16 cwts. It would appear that the Park Ward all-steel construction is heavier than the wood and aluminium. One would expect the mono-piece all-steel construction to be lighter than that of either 1.B.5. or 1.B.50. EV. {Ivan Evernden - coachwork} | ||
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).