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).
Meeting minutes discussing independent front wheel suspension, engine performance, and bodywork for the Spectre and Phantom models.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 30\1\ Scan108 | |
| Date | 11th February 1935 | |
| (6) Cont'd.{John DeLooze - Company Secretary} -2- Independent Front Wheel Suspension. In discussing types of linkage Hs.{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} said that with their experience up to the moment they rather favoured the Cadillac linkage. Rm.{William Robotham - Chief Engineer} reported on certain difficulties being experienced with independent front suspension and referred particularly to the defect of pitching the back passengers when crossing hump-back bridges of quite small dimensions. He stated that this fault exists on Cadillac as well as SpectreCodename for Phantom III. The question of independent front suspension was discussed at some length and it was generally agreed that the problem has many unknown qualities and requires much pioneer work. As a result it is not possible to say when the system can be passed as satisfactory and be guaranteed free from serious defect. Resulting from the discussion it was decided that it would be a wise precaution to look into the possibility of adopting the Phantom front axle or maybe J.III on the SpectreCodename for Phantom III. It may be advisable to use this known arrangement on the first series of SpectreCodename for Phantom IIIs and so give more time to develop the independent springing. E.{Mr Elliott - Chief Engineer} will have this looked into and report what can be done. RHC.{R. H. Coverley - Production Engineer} reported distortion of cylinder liners due to rubber pressure. E.{Mr Elliott - Chief Engineer} will look into the possibility of applying spring loaded glands. Hs.{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} referred to slow running on SpectreCodename for Phantom III engine and expressed the opinion that this can be considered good enough. Although not as good as Phantom it is better than Cadillac and nobody has complained of this. Wor.{Arthur Wormald - General Works Manager} referred to the question of Phantom II material and production in view of the uncertainty of SpectreCodename for Phantom III. He will consider the position and decide what to recommend. Bodywork was discussed particularly the methods employed in applying bodywork to American cars. | ||