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).
Trial and results of fitting independent suspension to a Bentley.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 87\4\ scan0130 | |
| Date | 19th August 1936 | |
| X746 To Sg.{Arthur F. Sidgreaves - MD} & Wor.{Arthur Wormald - General Works Manager} c. to E.{Mr Elliott - Chief Engineer} c. to By.{R.W. Bailey - Chief Engineer} c. to Da.{Bernard Day - Chassis Design} c. to Ev.{Ivan Evernden - coachwork} Hs{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair}/Rm.{William Robotham - Chief Engineer}S/KW.19.8.36. Independent Suspension on the Bentley. For some time we have been anxious to try the Bentley with independent front wheel suspension. That is why we ordered the Citroen torsion rod parts. We have had too much to do getting three new models into production, however, to make much progress with the experiment, also we could not get the parts. We believe that the worst feature on the Bentley at present is its suspension and high speed directional stability on a bad road. The objective, therefore, was to determine what improvement could be made to this worst feature with the minimum disturbance to the rest of the chassis. We did not imagine that independent front wheel suspension could possibly be even reasonably satisfactory without a major alteration to the frame, such as introducing a box section or cruciform member. It was therefore with the greatest interest that we tried the Bentley belonging to Mr. Gordon Armstrong fitted up with his springing. We took the car over the Ashbourne-Buxton road, a stretch which closely approaches Continental conditions in that it normally accentuates all the worst suspension features of the Bentley. We were astonished at the results achieved. From the point of view of the front and rear occupants' comfort, and the directional control of the driver, the car was in an entirely different class to any Bentley we have previously tried fitted with a similar type of body. The frame was to all intents and purposes standard. Subsequent tests shewed that the bumper bar was absolutely necessary to achieve these successful results with a standard frame. We entirely disagree with the view that it is wrong to rely on the damping of the bumper bar to achieve these results. It is just as logical to condemn the Ph.III suspension because it relies on the functioning of the hydraulic shock absorbers. Every six cylinder engine we now make relies for its smooth operation on a crankshaft damper. | ||