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).
Hydraulic shock damper failure, potential design improvements, and terminology.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 29\1\ Scan199 | |
| Date | 25th February 1926 | |
| DA.{Bernard Day - Chassis Design} To HS{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair}/Rm.{William Robotham - Chief Engineer} } FROM R.{Sir Henry Royce} BY.{R.W. Bailey - Chief Engineer} c. to CJ. BJ. E.{Mr Elliott - Chief Engineer} +457 R3/M25.2.26. HYDRAULIC SHOCK DAMPER. X.457 X.235 The failure of the link is not serious. It is possibly due to fracture in rivetting, and could easily be made doubly strong by (1) better material, (2) increase in depth of section round the eye, (3) slightly thicker material, (ought the holes to be drilled and reamed?) Could we say for front axle 40/50., 100 on rebound and 25 on rise? DA{Bernard Day - Chassis Design}/HDY{William Hardy} should work (as quickly as possible) to get these designed suitable for the 40/50 HP. rear axle, and both the 20 HP. axles. Mr. Robotham seems to be working excellently on these and other things, but does not say if car rides better or worse with the hydraulic dampers compared with non-fluid friction dampers. 'Damper' is a better name than 'absorber'. It will not get confused with friction damper because we say 'shock'. It occurred to me that we ought not to want so much damping on rear axle, because we do not have to consider wobbles, therefore exactly the same dampers would do, with longer lever to allow for the greater movement. Perhaps one on a smaller scale would be needed for the 20 HP., say .8 linear dimensions, would result in about .6 of the weight. The weight of ours is very satisfactory. R.{Sir Henry Royce} | ||