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).
Reviewing transmission options, comparing split and single propeller shafts for various car models.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 156\4\ scan0109 | |
| Date | 15th November 1939 | |
| SECRET. 1380 To Rm{William Robotham - Chief Engineer}/Gry.{Shadwell Grylls} from Ev.{Ivan Evernden - coachwork} c. Rm.{William Robotham - Chief Engineer} e.{Mr Elliott - Chief Engineer} Rm{William Robotham - Chief Engineer}/FJH.{Fred J. Hardy - Chief Dev. Engineer} Ev.{Ivan Evernden - coachwork}6/15.11.39. Re Transmission. We have been reviewing the transmission for the various cars in the range in the light of the split prop. shaft of B.V. (1) The split prop. shaft is the only solution for the 10ft.10in. and 11ft. 1in. wheelbase models, i.e. Silver Wraith, Silver Phantom and Cresta, due to the length of centre to the frame cross. (2) For all models with the B.V. cross one can use either the present B.V. split prop. shaft or the single prop. shaft with gearbox extension like Wraith III and for which a scheme is completed. Features which would influence the decision are:- (a) Is the split shaft now as satisfactory as the Wraith III scheme ? (b) What is the difference in cost. We have asked Rm{William Robotham - Chief Engineer}/FJH.{Fred J. Hardy - Chief Dev. Engineer} if he would kindly make a rough comparison between B.V. and Wraith III for both of which we believe, figures are now available. (c) Whilst the B.V. divided shaft gives a flat rear floor the single shaft and gearbox extension entails a tunnel. Should we, after selling 500 B.V. with flat floor be able to give up this feature. A single prop. shaft with no gearbox extension, as previously stated, raises the front seats, the steering column and reduces the rear seat leg room, besides destroying the standardised B.V. body. Therefore it seems to be ruled out. | ||