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).
Different lubrication schemes for the Phantom I cantilever spring and trials with American shock absorbers.
| Identifier | WestWitteringFiles\T\2July1929-December1929\ Scan134 | |
| Date | 1st November 1929 | |
| To R.{Sir Henry Royce} From Hs{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair}/Rn.{Mr Robinson} c. Sg.{Arthur F. Sidgreaves - MD} c. Wor.{Arthur Wormald - General Works Manager} E.{Mr Elliott - Chief Engineer} c. Da.{Bernard Day - Chassis Design} Ry. Hs{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair}/3m4/ADL1.11.29. x8410. PHANTOM I SPRINGING We have tried out two schemes of lubricating the cantilever spring in conjunction with the Repair Dept. one scheme from the centre bolt and the other from the ends of the spring. We attach sketches of the respective schemes. We find that we can get the lubrication to the tips of the leaves with less difficulty if we lubricate from the ends instead of from the centre bolt. Unless a great quantity of oil is inserted through the centre bolt a lot of it is lost through gaps in the sides of the leaves on its way to the ends of the spring. Lubrication at two points both close to where the oil is required appears to give the best result, and we should like to standardize this scheme. The centre bolt scheme has the added dis-advantage that with some of the coachwork at present produced, special adaptors are required to enable the grease gun to be applied. We have done a good deal of work using the American type shock absorber and lubricated springs on Phantom I cars, and generally the results are encouraging. We have however, proved that the American type shock absorber by itself does not make a big difference and | ||