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).
Technical analysis and comparison of car suspension systems, including those of Cottin, Lancia, and Ansaldo.
| Identifier | WestWitteringFiles\S\September1928-October1928\ Scan064 | |
| Date | 8th September 1928 guessed | |
| contd :- -2- (1) The very flexible undamped front end. The front of the car can easily be oscillated through four or five inches by taking hold of the bumpers. There is no damping other than interleaf friction which is a minimum because there is only one transverse spring with thick leaves. (2) The very flexible rear springs. (3) The low centre of gravity due to the independent rear wheel suspension. If it were not for this the car would roll badly on corners due to its very flexible springs. As it is the rolling is not alaming though fairly pronounced. It therefore appears to us that this car owes quite a large proportion of its suspension merits to its unconventional and very flexible front springing. It will be remembered that the other two cars that we considered to be exceptionally well sprung are the Lancia and Ansaldo both of which have unconventional front springs but conventional rear springs. Perhaps the most noticeable feature of the Cottin is its freedom from pitching in spite of the fact that it has not a large overhang at the rear, the rear passengers are of course sitting well forward. Summarising the position :- The Cottin suspension is certainly the best for low speed riding that we have tried. It does not seem worth buying a car, however, because we know the principles employed, and the Cottin method of execution are not particularly meritorious and very weighty. Superficially, the type of front springing employed would hardly seem suitable for a car of the Phantom size and speed range, we much prefer the Lancia methods - they are less contd :- | ||