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).
Unsatisfactory ride quality in the rear seats of a Phantom model, with suggestions for modifications to springs, dampers, and tyres.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 71\2\ scan0074 | |
| Date | 19th March 1926 | |
| Hs.{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} To BY.{R.W. Bailey - Chief Engineer} EA. } FROM R.{Sir Henry Royce} AT LE CANADELHenry Royce's French residence. X8820 R3/M19.3.26. PHANTOM. UNSATISFACTORY RIDING IN REAR SEATS. X. 8410 X.235 X. 8820 Yesterday I wrote a long memo. on the above subject: today (14.3.26) I telegraphed :- "PHANTOM TEST ON UNSATISFACTORY CAR MORE FLEXIBLE "FRONT AND REAR SPRINGS WITH HYDRAULIC DAMPERS "FRONT AND REAR GENTLE UPWARD BUT POWERFUL TO "PREVENT REBOUND THEN SEMI-BALLOONS. EACH SHOULD "ADD COMFORT THEN REPLACE STANDARD FRONT SPRINGS "ONLY. PUSH LIGHT ENGINE WITH HEAD FOR TURBULENCE". I am not sure that I understand the complaint rightly, but it seems exactly the same as that complained of in 1911 when Mr. Johnson and I went along the north of France - i.e. passenger on rear seat thrown into the air after a piece of bad road. If so, then :- (1) Any improvement to tyres is good @ i.e. more tyre deflection. (2) Any increased initial deflection to road springs - i.e. supposing they are running with less than 5" they will certainly be bad, but if with 7" they ought to be good, providing - (3) The shock dampers are effective to check rebound. In this the one way powerful ones are so good, without harm. Though it may be proved that front springs do affect the running, I feel sure that this definite complaint is not due to the 25% increased stiffness of these springs, but something else. CWB's 10,000 miles car was thought by PN.{Mr Northey} and Boot to be worse than my 7-EX; enormously different: we hadmore running deflection by about 1", semi-balloon tyres, and short chassis. R.{Sir Henry Royce} | ||