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).
Complaints about the springing on the Phantom model.
| Identifier | WestWitteringFiles\O\2January1926-March1926\ Scan185 | |
| Date | 22th March 1926 | |
| To R.{Sir Henry Royce} from Hs.{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} c. to CJ. HJ. c. to RO.{C. C. Rose - Export Manager} E.{Mr Elliott - Chief Engineer} c. to DA.{Bernard Day - Chassis Design} BY.{R.W. Bailey - Chief Engineer} c. to CY. Mor. ORIGINAL Hs{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair}2/LG22.3.26. PHANTOM SPRINGING COMPLAINTS. X8410 X5410 We agree that the only way we can arrive at any improvement on the Phantom springing is to get agreement on the particular feature which is causing the complaint. It is impossible to work on a general impression because then so much depends upon the individual and conditions. The springing on 11-EX (Sales 10,000 miles test car) has been praised and cursed alternatively on general impressions. The agreement we have arrived at so far in conjunction with Sales is that the particular objectionable feature on the Phantom is that between 20 and 30 m.p.h. when travelling on a good average road, the back passengers are continually bouncing on the rear seat. It is not necessary for the car to run over a very bad road. There is no suggestion of the passengers hitting the roof. The complaint is that the passengers get an uncomfortable pitch practically the whole time. If we make a general comparison of the Phantom and the 20 HP. springing, it is under the condition we have described above when the Phantom is definitely worse. As this is a condition which we should say the average car runs 50% of the time, it is reasonable to assume that this fault is the chief cause of the complaint. It is definite that the complaint is not a primary oscillation of the rear springs - the period is too quick. contd :- | ||