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).
Shock absorbers and the springing setup for the Phantom model.
| Identifier | WestWitteringFiles\O\April1926-June1926\ Scan17 | |
| Date | 14th April 1926 | |
| TO HS.{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} BY.{R.W. Bailey - Chief Engineer}) FROM R.{Sir Henry Royce} (Le CanadelHenry Royce's French residence.) ORIGINAL c.c. to EP.{G. Eric Platford - Chief Quality Engineer} CWB. re. PHANTOM SPRINGING. X8410 X4429 X235 I am not sure that we are adding this up correctly. (1) I have received no comments on many suggestions, such as comparison with cars having centre of gravity moved much further back (our 40/50., our 20HP., any other make.) (2) I feel there is much more in shock dampers than has been realised, and that Hartfords are particularly harmful under the conditions of slow running. This type always have been so for 20 yrs, while at high speeds they are quite OK. (3) To meet the American and our town conditions we can only consider the hydraulic type, and of these the RR. and Lovejoy seem the only practical ones, then when a satisfactory riding demonstration is desired why not have these on both axles: don't test or try anything else except to shew how bad they can make a car at slow speeds. (4) Having fitted hydraulic shock dampers see that springs are free from internal friction caused by excessive nip. (5) The only remaining feature (assuming cushions and tyres outside this controversy) is the rating of the front and back springs. I believe our back springs run with about 8" deflection, so if the springs go down uniformly with the load there should be no doubt about these provided they are sufficiently damped hydraulically on rebound only or chiefly. (6) Now we come to the climax, the rating of the front springs. These from memory were running originally with 3½" deflection which brought them flat. Owing to broken springs and poor control over the steering pivots (i.e. during braking and cornering they were not maintained vertical) these springs were stiffened slightly - 12½% - reducing the running deflection to about 3". If this is not what we are doing then we have all been deceived until OY. tells us we are like a 113 X 108 X 110 = 135% stiffer, which could not have escaped HS.{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} EP.{G. Eric Platford - Chief Quality Engineer} and BY's notice in face of these many discussions. Naturally if it is so we ought to put our house in order and not lose our heads. (7) I do not like to agree to flexible front springs and no other control, so if it is proved that the riding is so much benefited by increasing the initial deflection let us carry it further, say to 4½" initial, and see if there is a still greater improvement, then we could make our front springs from more and thinner plates, or of greater length, and fit the best axle control we can. The only good and passable one is that with radius rod under spring. I endeavoured to arrange that this could be fitted without scrapping axle which had (1) | ||