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).
Improvement of steering geometry by comparing the 'bump' and 'rebound' characteristics of the Phantom and EAC.7 models.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 17\3\ Scan141 | |
| Date | 1st April 1927 | |
| To Hs.{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} from DA.{Bernard Day - Chassis Design} COPY. X7430. DA{Bernard Day - Chassis Design}3/ML.4.27. EAC.7. STEERING GEOMETRY. X5430 We are working on an arrangement of the EAC.7 steering which will combine the two previous proposals with a view to getting the geometry as perfect as possible. In the meanwhile there are one or two points about steering geometry in general which we should like some further information upon if possible. If we take the Phantom geometry which you like, we find that it gives nearly perfect geometry on the rebound, and poor on the bump. The existing EAC.7. on the other hand is good on the bump and poor on the rebound, and these two features are just about inverted in the two steerings. It would appear from this that the rebound is more important than the bump, and that our previous efforts to make the bump as good as possible were wrong. We wonder if you could confirm this, for instance, could you take a Phantom and put on temporarily a long pendulum lever so as to invert the present geometry, that is, make the bump as perfect as possible, and spoil the rebound? If this then had the same characteristics as the original EAC.7. it would look like confirmation of the impression we have now. With reference to the India geometry we see that that is bad in both directions. The original 20 HP. was also bad in both directions, but there was a small place in the middle where it was comparatively good. To illustrate our meaning we enclose prints of diagrams of the geometry of the Phantom and EAC.7. From contd:- | ||