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).
Tests of a Bradburn & Wedge rubber mounting scheme to reduce swaying and booming in two different car models.
| Identifier | WestWitteringFiles\R\2October1927-November-1927\ 33 | |
| Date | 22th April 1926 guessed | |
| contd :- -2- than at present. This the Daimler Co. do. This scheme has been criticised from the point of view of swaying. The car, however, was driven at various speeds round corners, but the Committee were not conscious of any undue swaying. HS.{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} says that any increase in swaying can hardly be possible because the body is bolted down rigidly at the back and the possible amount of extra movement in the front is only a fractional part of an inch (somewhat of the magnitude of 15,000th. - 30,000th.) on the rubber bolt. The Committee also tried the new Bradburn & Wedge scheme on two cars. It should be explained that the device consists of a rubber ball carried in a metal socket; five of these are fixed to the chassis on each side and the body is carried on these rubber balls instead of on the chassis. On the first car, which was a 40/50 h.p. which had been in use for about a year, the inventor explained that this car had been sent back to him by the owner with a complaint of booming and he had accordingly fitted up his device, but he did not consider that the results were so good as would be in the case if he built the body in the first instance to be suspended by this device. This car was a very bad boomer and the Committee were of the opinion, that if the device had improved it then it must have been extraordinarily bad before. The Committee were not able to learn anything from this. The second car tried was a 20 HP. enclosed type of Saloon Limousine with a round back. This car was quite satisfactory in every respect, but it had a leather roof and accordingly the Committee were unable to judge how much the lack of booming was due to the device and how much to the leather roof (although they are not aware that leather roofs boom, and are not a cure for booming, but they consider there are less complaints of booming with leather roofs than with wooden roofs) and how much was due to the excellence of that particular chassis. Generally speaking the Committee are of the opinion that it is almost useless trying any device unless a test is made with the same chassis and the same body over exactly similar road conditions with the same driver, with and without the special device. | ||