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 comparing schemes for a 20 HP side steering tube's springs.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 106\3\ scan0143 | |
| Date | 4th February 1927 | |
| Hs{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair}/Rm.{William Robotham - Chief Engineer} X5430 Hs{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair}/Rm{William Robotham - Chief Engineer} 4.2.27. SIDE STEERING TUBE. X5450 We have gone into the question of the relative merits of the various schemes for 20 HP. side steering tube springs in existence. A summary of the schemes (a) which we want to standardise temporarily but DA.{Bernard Day - Chassis Design} dislikes N.sch.2067. (b) the scheme which DA.{Bernard Day - Chassis Design} wishes us to standardise N.sch.2308 is as follows :- We consider that these two schemes will be about equal for the elimination of nibbles and joggles as the load to give .050" ball movement, which is about what we expect from a joggle, is the same in each case. However (a) will have a slight advantage owing to the fact that its puts friction in th ball. For severe road shocks as experienced in England there is no doubt that (b) will give the best results as it gives 60% greater deflection for blows between 150 and 250 lbs. For Continental conditions where really bad roads are taken at high speeds (b) will be definitely very much better than (a) which will come choc-a-bloc under a blow of 250 lbs. We actually experienced the effect of N.sch.2067 (please observe that N.sch.2067 is better than the changeover job in which the movement has been cut down (F.54584) to the very small amount of .150) springs coming choc-a-bloc on 10-G-111 this contd :- | ||