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).
Letter discussing differing opinions on riding quality, sprung-mass calculations, shock absorbers, and aerodynamics between the US and UK branches.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 67a\2\ scan0111 | |
| Date | 9th February 1928 | |
| ROLLS-ROYCE OF AMERICA, INC. SPRINGFIELD, MASS. X8410 OY8.R.2.9.28 February 9th, 1928. Mr. Robotham, Rolls Royce Ltd., Derby, England. Dear Mr. Robotham: RE RIDING QUALITY Many thanks for your note of December 31st re K²/ab = .43 for the Sports Phantom. On your diagram the position of C.G. given apparently is the C.G. of the complete car, and because of the light total weight the C.G. of the sprung-mass will be proportionately rather higher than usual, as compared with the C.G. of the whole car. Will this not affect the distances a and b for the sprung-mass and the ratio K²/ab.? I think our ideas on riding quality will continue to differ until you have checked us up over here personally. Frankly we like (and sell) that "cushy" feeling which you don't like very well in Europe. For instance we don't like the slight harshness produced by dry-friction shock absorbers on the 20 HP, and we find owners disconnecting them and preferring to ride without any shock absorbers. TAIL I wonder whether the tail has any effect on riding quality at speed. One would imagine that, apart from its weight, it might hold the rear of the car steady like the feathers on an arrow, whereas a blunt ended car might be pushed all over the place by air rushing in behind it. It is interesting that in the so-called "stock-car racing" in America, the drivers have insisted on removing the mudguards and running boards because the lifting effect (or some other unexplained wind effect) in the front mudguards have caused unstable steering. (Continued) | ||