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).
Page discussing the pros and cons of cantilever and transverse suspension systems, with an illustration.
Identifier | ExFiles\Box 178\1\ img184 | |
Date | 28th August 1926 | |
- 12 - shocks and, although not so good as the semi-elliptic, presents a very fair resistance to rolling. It obviously saves a considerable amount of weight at the rear end of the frame. One disadvantage of the cantilever frame is that it is usually rather weak at its extremity, A being overhung, and in consequence, not very well suited to carrying luggage or a spare wheel. It should be observed that the rating of a cantilever spring to carry any given load must be double that of a semi-elliptic to carry the same load, that is, a 1000 lb. semi-elliptic would have to be replaced by a 2000 lb. cantilever. One disadvantage of cantilever springs is that they magnify the effect of shackle wear. In spite of their several theoretical drawbacks, some of the best sprung cars on the road to-day are equipped with this type of rear spring, notably, the 20 HP. Sunbeam and Lanchester. In the illustration the cantilever is made to take the driving thrust, in the case of the R-R.{Sir Henry Royce}, the free end of the spring runs on rollers and takes neither the driving thrust nor the torque. (f) Transverse suspensions ------------------------- While this type of suspension is not widely used except on one or two mass produced cars, it appears to have one attribute and that is relative immunity from spring breakage. It of course contd. | ||