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).
Complaints about Phantom suspension springing, attributing them to stiffer rear springs on U.S. export models.
| Identifier | WestWitteringFiles\O\2April1926-June1926\ Scan040 | |
| Date | 23th April 1926 | |
| To R.{Sir Henry Royce} from Hs.{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} c. to BJ. E.{Mr Elliott - Chief Engineer} c. to RG.{Mr Rowledge} DA.{Bernard Day - Chassis Design} c. to BY.{R.W. Bailey - Chief Engineer} Wor.{Arthur Wormald - General Works Manager} c. to Na.{Mr Nadin} ORIGINAL PHANTOM SUSPENSION. X940 As you suggest, a probable reason why there has been a general complaint of Phantom springing in the U.S. is the fact that the rear springs fitted to the cars which have gone to U.S. are very much stiffer than those used by Springfield. For some considerable time now the max. [strikethrough]strength[/strikethrough] Strength of rear springs used on any Springfield cars is 2000 lbs. They only use three strengths of rear springs - 18,00 1900 and 2000 lbs. It will be seen from the attached list of cars which have gone to the U.S.A., in some cases they have springs 2500 lbs. We are emphatic that it is a waste of time considering the difference caused by the front brake modifications whilst the cars are running with these stiff rear springs. There is no doubt there are a large number of cars running in England which have very stiff rear springs. Except for very rare exceptions, all springing complaints have been overcome by fitting weaker rear springs. We have not a case on record where a complaint has been overcome by fitting weaker front springs only. This applies to either the Silver Ghost or Phantom. We also attach a list which shows the strength of rear springs used on all Phantom chassis. It will be noticed that on the later series, much weaker rear springs were fitted. Hs.{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} | ||