Record of the design reasons for the construction of the Bentley 111 front end frame, comparing it to a Packard suspension.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 99\2\ scan0045 | |
| Date | 2nd September 1937 | |
| B.M. Rm. {William Robotham - Chief Engineer} Rm {William Robotham - Chief Engineer} /Loc. 2008. DA. {Bernard Day - Chassis Design} 9/G.2.9.37. GTRY 427 BENTLEY 111 - FRONT END OF FRAME. We should like to put on record the reason for the present construction at the front end of the Bentley frame. It was specified that it was to be a Packard type suspension, with the following differences :- (1). Separate shock dampers, not part of the suspension construction, but connected to it by links. The object was to use the Gordon-Armstrong type of shock damper with its supposed anti-knock properties, and to avoid the Packard type which can only be serviced by complete replacement. (2). The frame was to be capable of some 4" variation in length at the front, so as to use the same side channels for both Bentley and Phoenix, by cutting off the appropriate length of side channel. This is in contrast to the Packard side channel, which can only suit one wheelbase. As a result :- (1) forced the front end of the frame side channels inwards, to give clearance between the shock damper and the wheel on lock and required a shock damper mounting quite different from Packard. (2) also forced the side channels inward in order not to carry the main road springs too far out into the mechanism of the suspension and pivot, since the front ends of the frame now require to be two straight parallel portions, passing the body of the springs. This in its turn, deprived the inside bearing of the upper triangle of the natural platform provided on the Parkard by the outwardly curved front end of the frame and compelled us to provide a separate platform attached to the frame side and cross members. It also compelled us to provide a bracket for the rebound stop, which comes in much more naturally on the Packard frame. Two supplementary reasons for the adoption of the front cross member as drawn were,(a) it was understood | ||
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).