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).
Vehicle performance issues including front wheel wobble, noisy tyres, and body roll.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 47\1\ Scan137 | |
| Date | 12th December 1924 | |
| -- I consider these speeds are not unsatisfactory in view of the conditions, and it is of interest to note that on the final run at maximum speed with cut out open, we were just on the point of developing a really serious front wheel wobble, and had it been possible to drive a mile or so an hour faster, the car would almost certainly have become unmanageable. The tyres fitted are Goodyear cord - 895 x 150, and the pressures at the time were 45 lbs per square inch front and 40 lbs rear. These tyres are exceptionally noisy and hard in riding and I consider we should do everything possible to discourage our customers using them. In connection with the questions under discussion regarding this car, the following points were also noted : (1) The body is definitely slightly boomy and any lowering of the head would, undoubtedly, increase the effect of this on the passengers. (2) There are slight symptoms of a transmission groan. (3) There is a groan from the brake servo. (4) Mrs. Whitburn has complained of the body rolling badly, which she attributes to the height of the body. This is not the cause. The Shock absorbers were too slack. I tightened them up without detriment to the riding qualities of the car, thus stopping the slight rolling which the body had on corners, but owing to the large amount of room when sitting straight behind the front wheel (there is 6" to 8" clearance between one's right hand side and the side of the body) and the smoothness of the leather, one rolls about over the cushions whenever the car's course is changed. In connection with our meeting with Messrs. Barker's representatives on Tuesday last, at which they stated that the height of the head was increased from 50" (which was their original design) to 51" at our request, I have discussed this question with HO. who does not think this was the case, and Barker who points out that the alteration was apparently made by Barkers themselves, as shown in their letter of the 12th December, 1924, - see file herewith. | ||