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).
Clarifying specifications for car springs intended for the Australian market.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 72\2\ scan0012 | |
| Date | 18th May 1927 | |
| To DA.{Bernard Day - Chassis Design} from Hs{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair}/Rm.{William Robotham - Chief Engineer} Hs{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair}/Rm{William Robotham - Chief Engineer}2/LG18.5.27. X8990 SPRINGS FOR AUSTRALIA. X8410 X5990 With reference to your DA{Bernard Day - Chassis Design}1/M13.5.27. We regret that our memo. was so confusing. (1) Elucidating the points in question. Since the out-cry against harsh springing all cars have been sprung to a normal deflection of 8" or a normal buffer clearance of 4.150". This practice adds to the general confusion which prevails over suspension, but I find the only way to avoid misunderstanding is to talk of deflection at spring tip and buffer clearance. Personally I think since the normal spring now has 1.5" neg.camber, this should be stated on the drawing instead of .5" as at present. At present when a 2000 lbs. spring is fitted its nomenclature means exactly nothing because it supports 2660 lbs. load in its static position. (2) "The increase of load to bring the axle to the buffers" is the correct expression. Australia already have a 25% increase here on the front and Pt. states it is insufficient. That is one reason why we have aimed at a 50% increase. We have the figures for Pt's own car which he likes, and are doing a number of tests on experimental cars with the proposed springs. So far we believe they will be the best compromise. Hs{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair}/Rm.{William Robotham - Chief Engineer} | ||