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).
Spring suspension characteristics and testing.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 43\3\ Scan044 | |
| Date | 7th February 1927 | |
| To OY. from Hs{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair}/Rm.{William Robotham - Chief Engineer} +4000 Hs{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair}/RmS/LG7.2.27. X7410 X3900 RE. SPRING SUSPENSION. With reference to your letter of the 26th.ult. (a) We were very interested in your remarks on suspension, particularly with regard to 'pitching'. We ourselves came to roughly the same conclusions some little time ago and it is for this reason that we have been endeavouring to carry the spare wheels on the back of the Phantom. However the actual alterations which can be made on the car as at present designed, are very limited. (b) With reference to para.2. of your memo. We of course agree that reverse leaves increase the rating. (c) We have a set of Westinghouse air springs which the makers have kindly provided for test. As far as we can see, these are rather a better job than the Hoffmann. We will let you have the results of the Westinghouse when we have time to test them. (d) With reference to this spring. 8" is now taken as the normal deflection (as stated 1.5" negative camber) 1000 lbs. placed on the end of the cantilever spring would give 8" deflection. This is what is required. Therefore the effective rating of this spring treated as a cantilever is 1000 / 8 = 125 lbs/in. This is only another method of treating a 500 lbs. semi elliptic spring, but conveys a better impression of relative flexibility. Hs{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair}/Rp. | ||