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).
Tests and disadvantages of Rubtex paint for battery boxes.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 164\2\ img008 | |
| Date | 5th April 1939 | |
| 6021. To By/RD. from Rm{William Robotham - Chief Engineer}/RC.{R. Childs} Rm{William Robotham - Chief Engineer}/RC.{R. Childs}4/MH.{M. Huckerby}5.4.39. RUBTEX PAINT FOR BATTERY BOXES. We are not clear about the commencement of Rubtex paint in connection with battery boxes as the tests were, we believe, initiated by the Drawing Office. It was, we understand, a rubber-base paint and was greyish-white in colour. A quantity was obtained by the D.O. and handed to the fitters who brush-coated, as far as we know, one box. A box coated with this material was handed to us with a request that we should test it. For this purpose it was fitted on 20.G.VI. It appeared to be satisfactory on the car, but after a time ceased to be of official interest as we were informed that, in view of the necessity to reduce costs, all battery boxes would be sprayed with black anti-sulphuric paint. Consequently, tests on all other battery box coatings including ebonite, sprayed lead and Rubtex, were considered unimportant. Car 20.G.VI subsequently went to London, apparently with the box still on. The disadvantages of this material were as follows:- (1) It does not present a surface hard enough to with- stand the abrasion resulting from sliding a battery in and out of a box. (2) It was considered that special spraying plant would have to be obtained for its use, whereas the plant for using anti-sulphuric paint already existed. (3) The use of Rubtex involved extra work in cleaning and preparing the surfaces of the box, with additional cost. (4) The cost of the material was comparatively high. (5) A long period was required for drying off, and possibly plant also. | ||