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 cost, finish, and design of Phantom II road springs compared to the Phantom I.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 16\7\ Scan208 | |
| Date | 26th November 1929 | |
| X7410. Sg.{Arthur F. Sidgreaves - MD} from R.{Sir Henry Royce} c. Wor.{Arthur Wormald - General Works Manager} c. By.{R.W. Bailey - Chief Engineer} Hs.{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} Da.{Bernard Day - Chassis Design} R1/M26.11.29. PHANTOM II SPRINGS. ------------------- Replying to your 3g11/E25.11.29, there is no reason for road springs being more expensive on Phantom II than Phantom I, except for some extra steel to give less stress - i.e. safer and longer life - but I think the weight is not more than 10% and some recent extra requirements in finish, which may be unnecessary. The somewhat greater length should reduce the cost per unit of weight. I believe if the steel is rolled flat and parallel instead of hollow (as I believe is the practice to give a pleasing appearance of close fitting leaves) there may not be so much need for grinding, at least all the plates perhaps only the top one. The cost should be analysed to find where the money is spent. The expensive items should be reconsidered as to whether they are really needed, and the nett requirements compared with Lemoine (French), and American practice. Then Mr. Wormald should take up the final requirements with Firth's the makers. I should say no plating, and much less grinding, and not much so-called nip (only sufficient to make the thinner plates take their share of the load), well lubricated and fitted with efficient gaiters. My impression is that good springs finished in the ordinary way are all that are necessary. Three quarters of the trouble has been cases of over stiff springs, and one quarter want of lubrication. R.{Sir Henry Royce} | ||