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).
Comparison of 'SS' and standard Phantom engine mountings, focusing on radiator rigidity, vibration, and steering.
| Identifier | WestWitteringFiles\T\2January1929-June1929\ Scan021 | |
| Date | 1st January 1929 | |
| To R.{Sir Henry Royce} from Hs{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair}/Rm.{William Robotham - Chief Engineer} c. to BJ. Wor.{Arthur Wormald - General Works Manager} c. to SG.{Arthur F. Sidgreaves - MD} E.{Mr Elliott - Chief Engineer} c. to DA.{Bernard Day - Chassis Design} BY.{R.W. Bailey - Chief Engineer} 'SS{S. Smith}' ENGINE MOUNTING. 47005 We have now had an opportunity of comparing the 'SS{S. Smith}' (20-EX) with the four torsionally strong engine feet isolated with thin strip rubber, with our standard Phantom (8-EX) having the RR. rubber mounting at the rear. Both cars were fitted with silent tread 6.75 tyres on 21" rims. The three features compared were :- (1) Rigidity of the radiator and front end. (2) Engine vibrations as felt in the car. (3) Steering. (1) RIGIDITY OF THE RADIATOR AND FRONT END. The SS.{S. Smith} in the above condition was entirely free from any radiator movement with front tyre pressures at 35 lbs/ sq.in. except between 62 and 70 m.p.h. At these speeds it was slight but periodic. Under the same conditions the standard closed Phantom selected for comparison had no definite periodic movement of the front end, though the radiator could be observed to shake somewhat momentarily at various speeds with about the same amplitude as the 'SS{S. Smith}'. Taking 18-EX running in France as having 100% radiator movement, we estimate that on 20-EX as arranged for this test the movement has been reduced to 10%. All the tests were necessarily carried out on good roads as we have no bad roads where one can do contd :- | ||