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).
Use of thin leaf springs versus shock dampers, and the proposal to test Hartford shock absorbers.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 78\2\ scan0366 | |
| Date | 15th December 1921 | |
| To BJ. from R.{Sir Henry Royce} c. to CJ. c. to EP.{G. Eric Platford - Chief Quality Engineer} c. to HS.{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} c. to BY.{R.W. Bailey - Chief Engineer} c. to OY. c. to Wor.{Arthur Wormald - General Works Manager} X3461 R2/M15.12.21. RE. THIN LEAF SPRINGS OR SHOCK DAMPERS. X.3461. X.4426. X.2628 I do not consider it would be good policy to open out this discussion for the difference in cost of the remaining chassis. U.S.A. Technical staff seem quite satisfied with thin leaf springs, and no shock dampers; this is a safe policy if it satisfies the requirements. Hartford shock absorbers are the only ones that can be conveniently fitted; these are not of the progressive order but are capable of easy adjustment, otherwise they would share the fate of others we sent over. My own impression is that we want shock dampers of the progressive order as soon as we can get or make them. In the meantime I am willing to have a certain number of Hartfords fitted to obtained experinece. If we are satisfied then we can ask U.S.A. to test, and confirm. Personally, I do not like too facile adjustments of anything in the hands of the lay-men - it will in 2 out of 3 cases, be found quite wrongly done. R.{Sir Henry Royce} | ||