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).
Letter discussing the design and benefits of the Lovejoy Road Spring.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 28\1\ Scan059 | |
| Date | 25th February 1926 | |
| ROLLS-ROYCE OF AMERICA, INC. SPRINGFIELD, MASS. X832 Oy5-E-22526 February 25, 1926. Mr. E.{Mr Elliott - Chief Engineer} W. Hives, Mickleover, near Derby, England. Re Lovejoy Road Spring Dear Hives: If you have room in your office for it you might unfold the enclosed print of the Lovejoy Road spring. I have had this print for 3 weeks or so but have not hitherto appreciated that there was anything of value in the design. A couple of weeks ago I rode in the Hudson equipped with these springs front and rear and I really think he has some points in his design that I did not realize. Certainly no Hudson has ever before ridden like the one he has equipped. You can forget the front rubber shackle. That is quite a separate idea and has nothing to do with the spring design. An ordinary shackle would be just as good. The idea is by combining the flat spring and the cantilever to get: 1. More metal in the spring without excessive lateral flexibility. 2. The thrust of the front wheels, front brakes, or drive (on rear axle) is taken through solid attachments to the frame, not through a pin and bearing. 3. The front and rear axles have what is very nearly a parallel vertical motion which is good for Hotchkiss drives. 4. For front brake jobs he claims less tilt of the axle when braking, for a given flexibility of spring. (I don't quite follow this.) | ||