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).
Comparison of shock absorber designs, detailing the advantages and disadvantages of one type and introducing the R.R. damper.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 178\1\ img167 | |
| Date | 22th June 1926 | |
| - 13 - the suction valve at the base of the chamber allowing oil to flow into the cylinder. When the axle rebounds, the suction valve closes, being non-return, and oil is forced through the two spring loaded valves, first the lightly loaded and then the more heavily loaded, thus checking the rebound progressively. The obvious advantages of this shock absorber are - (1) Its action is large independent of the viscosity of the oil as the valve ports are very large. In any case, however hot it becomes, its efficiency can never fall below a certain minimum load governed by the springs over the valves. (2) It has no joints or glands exposed to oil under pressure. (3) It is easily adjusted by altering the spring strengths, and once adjusted its loading should remain constant. Its main disadvantages are - (1) It relies on suction to fill the pressure chamber. When working very rapidly it is doubtful if the chamber will fill completely. (2) It is single acting. (3) It is very bulky and rather heavy. (ii) The R.R. damper. This has all the advantages of the "Lovejoy" shock damper without its disadvantages for it is double acting, the pressure chamber is forced fed, and its weight is only 2/3 that of the "Lovejoy". The attached sketch illustrates diagrammatically its general principles. contd. | ||