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).
Road springs, procedures, and a comparison with Ford specifications.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 95\2\ scan0162 | |
| Date | 9th January 1937 | |
| 346 By.{R.W. Bailey - Chief Engineer} from Rm.{William Robotham - Chief Engineer} c. to Hs.{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} c. to RHC.{R. H. Coverley - Production Engineer} Rm{William Robotham - Chief Engineer}2/R.9.1.37. P.III ROAD SPRINGS. Our memo on road springs was inspired by:- (1) A request from production that we might be able to make recommendations that would simplify the handling of road springs. (2) Suggestions from the spring makers themselves that our procedure could with advantage be modified in certain particulars. It was meant to be constructive, as we have unique opportunities of seeing the suspension problem from every practical angle. We have carefully read your By5/G.1.1.37, and it is clear that there are a number of points on which we still do not agree with you. This is unfortunate as it makes the task of administration difficult. Les.{Ivan A. Leslie} has all the details at his finger tips if anyone in your department, at any time, wishes to discuss the matter further with him. Referring to the last paragraph of your memo, there are quite a number of points in the Ford specification which, in our opinion, are superior to our practice on the 25/30 Rolls-Royce. To quote examples, inserted valve seats, welded water jackets to reduce the cylinder block weight and cast steel pistons. This car has its defects, but also some outstanding merits. We deprecate any suggestion that because an article costs less money it necessarily gives less satisfaction to the customer, in fact, in our experience it is surprising how often the reverse is the case. The discussion on proprietary articles will enable both sides of this question to be ventilated. Rm.{William Robotham - Chief Engineer} | ||