Braking performance, axle behaviour, road hopping, and the need for improved damping.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 12\5\ 05-page031 | |
| Date | 12th March 1927 | |
| To Hs {Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} /Rm. {William Robotham - Chief Engineer} To DA. {Bernard Day - Chassis Design} from R. {Sir Henry Royce} c. to BJ. WOR. {Arthur Wormald - General Works Manager} BY. {R.W. Bailey - Chief Engineer} X7420 R3/M12.3.27. R11/LG7.3.27. EAC. 7. BRAKING ETC. X.7420 X.5420 X.7240 I can understand various occurrences of sponginess, but not any material loss of motion due to axle turning over, because the centre of the rope is only just above the centre of the axle. Also we had expected less hopping on the road with this type of control than present torque tube. As I always understood that the 20 HP. was good in this respect, and this should be the same spring twist of the brake torque. Perhaps something else is the cause of the want of rigidity. I believe on the axle there are two points - (1) Brake drums which can easily be stiffened up the ring shrunk on - and - (2) the shafts behind the axle leading to the cams might lose much by torsional elasticity. One can understand the car rocking backwards, but all this should not be worse than 20 HP. which seems so much better than torque tube control. I am of the opinion that still more damping is needed especially in recoil. Hs {Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} /Rm. {William Robotham - Chief Engineer} If the above car springs back in coming to rest with the brakes hard on, as we expect may be the case, then this would be less with the positively controlled front axle. For the above anticipated fault it should have several advantages - i.e. smooth running and shunting backwards etc., but our 40/50 has been so much improved since we fit better shock dampers. R. {Sir Henry Royce} | ||
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).