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).
Springing history and ride comfort issues of chassis 82-LC and 44-EH.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 67a\2\ scan0122 | |
| Date | 24th April 1928 | |
| W/S CWB c to HS.{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} c to EP.{G. Eric Platford - Chief Quality Engineer} Hm{Capt. W. Hallam - Head Repairs}/NRC{N. R. Chandler}14/MW24.4.28. re CHASSIS 82.LC and 44-EH (Please note not 92.LC) SIR JOHN LATTA. In reply to your CWB1/GM23.4.28, the following shows the history of the springing of both of these cars: 82-LC E.D. Limousine. Weight 52 3/4 cwt. Original Springs. 1200 - 1250 - 2212 - 2320. Fitted March 1926 1150 - 1200 - 1995 - 2086. 44-EH Sedanca. Weight 53 1/4 cwt. Springs. 1150 - 1200 - 1920 - 2026. Normal defelction type F.10612. Both the above rear springs are of the Normal Deflection type F.10612. Despatched from W. 2.2.28. New stiffer rear springs (ex Experimental Dept.) F.77744 2200 and 2332 lbs. We assume the stiffer springs F.77744 are those referred to in the 2nd paragraph of your Memo., and that they are not yet fitted. While not wishing to turn down this experiment, we think it is difficult to see how these stiff and rather heavy springs can make the riding of 82.LC resemble that of 44.EH. The strange part of it is the two cars have so nearly the same springs and are so nearly the same unladen weight, yet one of them is stated to be so much less comfortable than the other. We wonder if there is any material difference in the upholstery, construction of body generally, or conditions under which the two cars are used? We would suggest fitting the existing N/S spring of 82.LC to the O/S and a new N/S of 1900 lbs minus, the spring fitted to the offside being thoroughly well greased (this makes a surprising difference). P.T.O. | ||