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).
Letter from Delco Products Corp. regarding shock absorber settings and adjustments.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 28\1\ Scan175 | |
| Date | 6th November 1932 | |
| X832. (Copy - letter from Delco Products Corp. Nov. 6th) Rolls-Royce of America, Inc., Springfield, Mass. Gentlemen: Attention Mr. A.C. Ross, Purchasing Agent Receipt is acknowledged of your letter of November 3rd, and we are arranging to make shipment to you of a set of shock absorbers built in accordance with your print M-1765. We make this shock absorber with and without an outside adjustment, but we feel that on a car of the class of the Rolls-Royce it might be advisable to use an outside adjustment and we are accordingly sending our samples with this adjustment. Some of our leading customers, such as Cadillac, Pierce-Arrow and Packard, do not use an outside adjustment, but we believe that in your case the individual requirements of your customers could be taken care of by the dealers, and so we recommend the outside adjustment, which costs slightly more than the standard job. You state that your most satisfactory control has been with a resistance of 120# rebound and compression control in front with 100# rebound and 80# compression in the rear. We do not understand how you get sufficient control for your springs with this light a setting. The following resistance is given for both rebound and compression on the 9-1/2" and 12" arms with 20, 40 and 60# relief valve springs: Valves Spring 9-1/2" Arm 12" arm Reb. Comp. Reb. Comp. C 20 200 113 160 89 G 40 400 226 320 178 L 60 600 339 480 267 We might also advise you that the Packard Motor Car Company, who use a very light setting, namely, 3G-G4 front and 3J-G2 rear, have considerable more control than what you recommend, and we call this to your attention for comparative purposes only. We attach hereto the valve chart mentioned in our letter of October 1st, which evidently became detached from this communication. You ask us to send information as to our recommendations on valve setting, and we wish to advise that the up stroke or compression valving on the original setting we sent you was G-4 and not C-4. C-4 would, in our estimation, be altogether too light. (Continued) | ||