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).
Letter from the American branch discussing ride quality and suspension issues on the Phantom model.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 43\2\ Scan105 | |
| Date | 6th April 1926 | |
| ROLLS-ROYCE OF AMERICA, INC. SPRINGFIELD, MASS. Y3900 Oy4-E-4626 April 6th, 1926. Mr. E.{Mr Elliott - Chief Engineer} W. Hives, Rolls-Royce, Ltd., Derby, England. Re Phantom springing Dear Hives: Replying to your report Hs{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair}2/LG22.3.26 we can quote your very words: "The agreement we have arrived at.....is that the particular objectionable feature on the Phantom is that between 20 and 30 m.p.h. when travelling on a good average road, the back passengers are continually bouncing on the rear seat." With this we are in agreement 100%. I only regret that we did not give you our complaint succinctly like this when we first wrote on the matter several months ago. Our testing conditions for riding quality are a speed of 20-30 m.p.h. and a fair to good road. Bad roads we are not particularly concerned with as anyone can put shock absorbers on a car, but only the R.R. can offer riding quality. Our own experiences with Silver Ghosts show that a complaint of this nature is invariably traceable to the front suspension and is generally associated with pitching and a tendency to bounce the passengers off the rear seat at higher speeds. With Hartford rear shock absorbers set up tight you can probably eliminate the latter tendency, but only at the expense of making worse the "joggle" at 20-30 m.p.h. We do not feel that any comparison between Phantom and 20 hp. springing is possible or desirable, at least in this country, because of the different size speed and general characteristics of the cars. We have almost no 20 hp. cars in use here. | ||