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).
Leaf spring design, comparing thin vs thick springs, lubrication, and friction issues.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 154a\4\ scan0216 | |
| Date | 1st October 1921 | |
| Contd. -4- Hs {Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} 4/LG7.10.21. ------------ be overcome with thin leaf springs. If we fit thin leaf springs and do not provide gaiters to lubricate them, we are going to get them rusted up solid and are going to get complaints of excess of friction. If we fit thin leaf springs, and gaiters are fitted to lubricate them, we might just as well have thick leaf springs. Our recommendation is that we should strive for the ideal springing - springs with constant friction and friction dampers added so that the amount of friction can be adjusted. Until, however, we reach that ideal, we have got to expect that we shall have a certain percentage of complaints in the springing of the cars which will need special treatment. In some cases it will mean shock absorbers of the 4-stage, 2-stage and single- stage type. In other cases it will means thick leaf springs changed to thin. As regards the thick leaf springs squeaking, we think this should be dealt with as a separate complaint. The squeak- ing can be overcome by the leaves being lubricated. This report has been agreed to by EP. {G. Eric Platford - Chief Quality Engineer} and Hm. {Capt. W. Hallam - Head Repairs} Any points in connection with the 40/50 H.P. Springing, EP. {G. Eric Platford - Chief Quality Engineer} and Hs {Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} could discuss with R. {Sir Henry Royce} when we meet him in Norfolk. Hs. {Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} (upside down text at bottom) R.R. 225A 100 (D) 'S' (H. {Arthur M. Hanbury - Head Complaints} 798. 10-12-20) 'G'. 2947 | ||