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).
Policy on fitting thin lead springs versus shock dampers.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 51\4\ Scan009 | |
| Date | 15th December 1921 | |
| To BJ. from R. {Sir Henry Royce} c. to CJ. c. to EP. {G. Eric Platford - Chief Quality Engineer} c. to HB. {C. E. Harcombe} c. to BY. {R.W. Bailey - Chief Engineer} c. to OY. c. to WOT. X4426 R2/M15.12.21. RE. THIN LEAD SPRINGS OR SHOCK DAMPERS. X.3461. X.4426. X.2628 I do not consider it would be good policy to open out this discussion for the difference in cost of the remaining chassis. U.S.A. Technical staff seem quite satisfied with thin lead springs, and no shock dampers; this is a safe policy if it satisfies the requirements. Hatford shock absorbers are the only ones that can be conveniently fitted; these are not of the progressive order but are capable of easy adjustment, otherwise they would share the fate of others we sent over. My own impression is that we want shock dampers of the progressive order as soon as we can get or make them. In the meantime I am willing to have a certain number of Hartfords fitted to obtained experinece. If we are satisfied then we can ask U.S.A. to test, and confirm. Personally, I do not like too facile adjustments of anything in the hands of the lay-men - it will in 2 out of 3 cases, be found quite wrongly done. R. {Sir Henry Royce} | ||