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).
Vehicle dynamics, engine comparisons with a Stutz, and design questions about Phantom hydraulics and Chrysler engine mounts.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 5\2\ 02-page127 | |
| Date | 1st December 1927 | |
| To OY. from Hs{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair}/Rm.{William Robotham - Chief Engineer} [Handwritten: X5830 X2335 X14326] Hs{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair}/Rml/LG2.12.27. In response to your personal appeal of the 15-th.ult. We have swung a 20 HP. car. The nett result was that we found K² [Handwritten below K²: AS] was = .73 for one of these chassis fitted with a Landaulet body, thus confirming your expectations. The effect of weaker front springs does seem to be a point of dissention and it is hardly worth while arguing about it until we can both sit in the same car and demonstrate the effects to one another. We have got a Stutz car; we are very impressed with the smoothness of the engine, we are also very impressed with the fact that the tappets need adjusting every 3 miles and the camshaft weighs 18 lbs., while the conn. rods weigh 14 ozs., and the pistons are cast iron. We are still learning a lot about engines and crankshafts, and will give you some further information when we have completed our experiments. We should like you to let us have your impressions of hydraulics at the rear of the Phantom. We are beginning to feel that we must have some adjustment if these fittings are to give universal satisfaction. Also can you give us any reason why Chryslers have gone off rubber engine mountings? Hs{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair}/Rm.{William Robotham - Chief Engineer} | ||