Tests on the Phantom II chassis regarding the subframe mounting and body 'boom'.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 13\5\ Spare05-page083 | |
| Date | 3rd September 1930 | |
| x7600. To Sg. {Arthur F. Sidgreaves - MD} From Hs. {Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} c. to Wor. {Arthur Wormald - General Works Manager} c. to RV. No.2/W.U.3.9.30. x7380 x7600 LEFT-HAND PHANTOM II CHASSIS+ Replying to Sg {Arthur F. Sidgreaves - MD} 2S/22.9.30. We have carried out tests on the Phantom ll car doing away with the flexible mounting of the subframe, and fixing the subframe solid to the main frame. This is the nearest approach we can get to dispensing with the subframe altogether. All the subframes are built into the body and it would mean destroying the body to take them away. We are quite satisfied that the tests we made represented the conditions which would occur if the subframe was not there at all. The only difference we found with and without the subframe was that there was slightly less body 'boom' when using the subframe mounting. We carried out a test some years ago demonstrating this point. Actually, however, now that we are mounting our engines on rubber pads the difference with a subframe as regards body 'booms' is not so marked as it was at that time. We know that at least two Phantom ll cars have been fitted with bodies without subframes. One was reported on by JLS. some long time ago, in which he said that he thought the car appeared noisier without the subframe. There is another more recent one which was tested at Croalls at Edinburgh, | ||
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).