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).
Notes on springing troubles and the causes of weak rear springs on the Phantom II chassis.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 16\7\ Scan311 | |
| Date | 1st November 1930 | |
| x7410 To EP.{G. Eric Platford - Chief Quality Engineer} From Hs{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair}/AJL. c. to Hd.{Mr Hayward/Mr Huddy} c. to Hs{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair}/En. c. to Wor.{Arthur Wormald - General Works Manager} c. to G.W.H. Hs{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair}/AJL.3/W.J.1.11.30. X4117 x7410. x5410 NOTES ON SPRINGING TROUBLES. PHANTOM II. The big complaint on this chassis is that the rear springs are too weak. Until recently we have erred on the side of weakness; our policy is to fit springs as flexible as possible (without causing undue hitting on the buffers) and to employ a large amount of damping; this policy has for it's objects - (a) To eliminate uncomfortable riding at low speeds. (b) To keep the height of the car down. (c) The large damping to give good high speed springing and control for which condition flexible road springs are inherently bad. The large crop of complaints of weak springs has for its cause - (a) Springs were slightly too weak initially (an overdose of the "flexible as possible" policy). (b) The initial spring weakness in (a) has in very many cases been made worse by the weight of complete cars exceeding their estimate by anything up to 3 cwts. (c) Cars carrying more weight (luggage and passengers) than was originally estimated. (d). Cars for the Continent have not been sprung stronger than cars which are used solely in England, as was our practice on previous models. (The majority of complaints have come from owners of cars who have used them on Continental roads). The method of dealing with this complaint on cars already in the hands of customers, is to fit stronger rear | ||