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).
The effectiveness of hydraulic shock dampers, oil frothing tests, and new Sports Phantom bodies.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 51\4\ Scan136 | |
| Date | 13th January 1928 | |
| To OY. from Hs {Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} /Rn. {Mr Robinson} xii426. Hs {Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} /Rnl/LG13.1.28. HYDRAULIC SHOCK DAMPERS. 7235 Thank you for your personal note of Jan. 2nd. Are you sure that our shock absorbers do get ineffective after a few miles running? Could you conduct a road test, disconnect them and try them by hand? We have never found that the constant cushioning varies appreciably within the temperatures likely to be encountered on the road. We have carried out a great many tests on "oil frothing" because it was a trouble that affected us acutely on the Condor engine. We found that vegetable compound oils such as castor, castrol etc. were very bad for frothing, on the other hand, pure mineral oils would not froth. We have never seen the Compressor Oil that we use in our shock damper frothing even though we frequently run it up to 100°C on our testing rig for prolonged periods. If we had adjustable hydraulics or hydraulics with an increased viscosity factor I don't think that we should ever require additional Hartfords on the front. We only require Hartfords for people who do exceptional things. We are now getting out some closed streamline bodies for the Sports Phantom. I think they will be most attractive. We find the standard closed Stutz will do 68-70 m.p.h. Our Sports closed car will certainly do 85 m.p.h. on the level. It should be a wonderful selling proposition. Na. {Mr Nadin} is pushing that I should bring one over to America soon but the inevitable question of "Who pays" contd :- | ||