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).
Summarizing a report on Lovejoy shock absorbers and comparing them to the R.R. type.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 28\1\ Scan111 | |
| Date | 21th October 1927 | |
| OY10.R.102127 S/W HS{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} X832 October 21, 1927. TO Mr. Nadin Mr. Caswell cc - Mr. Burton Mr. Ainsworth Mr. Beaver Mr. Bagnall Mr. Hives Mr. Bailey FROM Mr. Olley I have just read again a report of Robotham's on Lovejoy Shock Absorbers. I think we should bear in mind a summary of this report as follows: 1. Even at low speeds, the working chamber does not fill up fully because it relies on atmospheric pressure to operate the inlet valve. (The R.{Sir Henry Royce} R.{Sir Henry Royce} shock absorbers shoots the oil forcibly from the high speed valve to the low speed valve and, therefore, may be regarded as "force-feeding" the cylinder. This explains the rapid action of the R.R. shock absorber.) 2. The Lovejoy shock absorber operates for about 80% of the stroke at low speeds and 50% at high speeds. 3. The maximum damping resistance is not effected appreciably by either temperature or speed of operation. 4. GENERAL CONCLUSION: Lovejoy shock absorbers can give soft riding with an appreciable amount of damping for large axle movements, but the action is not positive enough to prevent pitching. Derby believes that the American complaint of pitching will be largely overcome by the adoption of R.R. hydraulics at the rear. This concludes the report, but we can now state from our own experience that the R.R. shock absorbers, front and rear, on MK-S definitely give improved riding quality at speeds above 30 miles an hour, although the riding may be considered somewhat rough at the lower speeds. We also know from the English test that the R.R. shock absorbers at the rear probably give an improvement in helping to prevent high speed wobble. The only thing which is holding us back from using R.R. shock absorbers at the rear is the considerable alteration to the rear ale necessitated by the English installation, coupled with the dropping of the brake actuating shaft on the rear axle. We consider this latter point dangerous as we already scraped the actuating shaft on ice and snow in bad weather and have known them to be damaged. | ||