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).
Comparing the performance and features of cars 19-EX and J.3, with a focus on suspension.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 178\3\ img247 | |
| Date | 24th June 1932 | |
| HS.{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} FROM R.{Sir Henry Royce} ORIGINAL R1/M24.6.32. C. to SG.{Arthur F. Sidgreaves - MD} WOR.{Arthur Wormald - General Works Manager} BT.{Capt. J. S. Burt - Engineer} E.{Mr Elliott - Chief Engineer} 19-EX., AND J.{Mr Johnson W.M.} 3. The two cars brought here on the occasion of the visit of HS.{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} and E.{Mr Elliott - Chief Engineer} on the 14th inst., were very good all-round specimens. Naturally J.{Mr Johnson W.M.} 3. had several features to work at, such as the clutch, and intake roar which will naturally be cured with a single carburetter. I was pleased to hear that the shock damper noise could not be attributed to the single valve, but was probably a feature of the leakage orifice, which ought to be fairly easily cured. I hope we are not getting the leak too great, as these flexibly sprung cars seem very unstable even at very moderate speeds, whereas our stiffer specimen Phantom - 19-EX. - gave one great confidence, and I believe much less tendency for seasickness to those who are susceptible. I must say that 19-EX. pleased me better, from the point of view of driver or passenger, than any other 40/50. we have ever made. You assure me however that this stiffer type springing does not find favour when judged as a town carriage, but one feels that the roads in the towns have so vastly improved that conditions may be changing, but I admit that I have little chance of judging this point. All I say is that I hate and detest a sloppy car which comes about from top-heaviness and too-flexible springing. R.{Sir Henry Royce} | ||