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).
Summary of customer complaints and technical considerations regarding weak springing on the Phantom II chassis.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 47\2\ Scan365 | |
| Date | 31th October 1930 | |
| Hd.{Mr Hayward/Mr Huddy} Mr. Lldse c. Rm.{William Robotham - Chief Engineer} or OWH e.{Mr Elliott - Chief Engineer} Wor{Arthur Wormald - General Works Manager} RECEIVED 1 NOV 1930 X4117. EP{G. Eric Platford - Chief Quality Engineer}2/H31.10.30. re. CHASSIS TROUBLES AND CUSTOMERS' COMPLAINTS. SPRINGING. As requested, I summarise the position of the above, as discussed and agreed to by us todate (Having regard to investigations made and information received so far from various sources). PHANTOM II. Chief trouble considered due to standard of springing having been too weak. Considered best compromise since chassis and complete cars turned out and complaints dealt with, per present limits of buffer clearances and present standard shock absorber setting, i.e. as good as it has ever been. Should suit the majority of customers, as proved by our present experience of dealing with complaints at Works and Depots. We shall still have the minority of extremes - customers who use their cars for high speed work and those for "parading" driving in Parks etc. Sales must make the above clear in their specification for new chassis, so that BY can instruct suitable springs. The effort of the Experimental Dept. should still be to obtain a type of springing that will accommodate all these conditions, including varying disposition of load. More scope should be given in the final complete car test to check that springing will suit customer, information supplied of customer's requirements and arrangements made for the tester to give an acceptance test to the customer himself. More importance should be given to load disposition on chassis by Sales and Coachbuilders. Avoid rear seats overhanging rear axle and more dead weight at rear. Over 50% of cars delivered (Phantom II) have spare wheel at rear. More accuracy should also be given by Coachbuilders of body weights and extra fittings. We have a number of cases in which the complete car weight is much higher than specified. Accuracy of sub-frame mounting and the spring testing of chassis with sub-frame mounting and with, as far as possible, correct disposition of weight has been recently improved and should result in less complaints. We consider therefore that the excessive expense of this complaint should get less. Since turning out cars CONT'D:- | ||