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).
The compromise between road-holding and comfort regarding split and unsplit rear springs.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 80\2\ scan0065 | |
| Date | 9th February 1920 | |
| To Bn.{W.O. Bentley / Mr Barrington} from R.{Sir Henry Royce} Copy to CJ. " " Da.{Bernard Day - Chassis Design} " " Hs.{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} " " Ck.{Mr Clark} X 2628/b. R4/G9.2.20. X.2628. - RE REAR SPRINGS. X.1295. Regarding split and unsplit springs, the proposition is the old one of, speaking generally, if we make the car follow the road, the road can hold the car but with discomfort to the occupants. If we make the car so as to float on the road and not be affected by the road, then the car cannot hold the road, which results in apparent unstability, so like all schemes road springing must be a compromise. My opinion of the compromise is that the split spring is going too far and we shall have to be contented with lateral flexibility of the present unsplit one to enable us to rely on sufficient control of the body. It will now be remembered that the old Lanchester with its springs below the axle did present some difficulties in steering at high speeds, probably from exactly the same cause that the roll of the body and the side flexibility of the narrow springs they used affected the direction in which the car was travelling. Mr. Elliott points out that the back axle also affects the direction due to the side motion of the car carrying the sphere with it, shews an advantage for the older parallel control and for an increase in the torque tube length as we are always striving for. R.{Sir Henry Royce} | ||