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).
Characteristics and performance of special Woodhead front road springs.
| Identifier | WestWitteringFiles\O\January1926-March1926\ Scan140 | |
| Date | 16th March 1926 | |
| TO HS.{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} FROM DA.{Bernard Day - Chassis Design} ORIGINAL DA{Bernard Day - Chassis Design}1/M16.3.26. FRONT ROAD SPRINGS. X8410 V3854 With reference to your HS{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair}2/LG25226., referring to tests on some special Woodhead springs fitted with rebound leaves, on looking further into these we cannot see that they are very different in their effect from leaves in the conventional position, that is to say, they do not seem to act as rebound leaves, but act as leaves carrying the load exactly in the same way that the others do except that they put the clip in tension. As far as we can see the internal friction is also the same. On the conventional spring the load at one end passes through each of the leaves in turn, giving a certain amount of leaf friction, and in the case of this spring the same load passes through each of the leaves, below the main leaf and the load from the springs above - the main leaf, is superposed on the first load thus increasing the pressure per square inch on the lower leaves, but not altering the actual amount of the load. There may be something about the construction that we do not understand, for instance, the spring clips may be tightened up in some way so as to give some increased friction, but we do not infer so from the drawing. It will be noticed that the spring is roughly 7 lbs. heavier than the Firth spring, and this in itself would help to reduce the stress, and might account for some of the improved life. We have not shewn these rebound leaves on our rear springs for EAC. 7. as at the moment we do not exactly see how they work. DA.{Bernard Day - Chassis Design} | ||