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).
Advantages and disadvantages of different springing options for Phantom II and 20 HP models.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 47\2\ Scan268 | |
| Date | 14th May 1930 | |
| X4117 To P. From He/Rn.{Mr Robinson} c. to Bc. Mor. c. to H.{Arthur M. Hanbury - Head Complaints} Da.{Bernard Day - Chassis Design} c. to Ev.{Ivan Evernden - coachwork} Cy. c. to F.H. EP.{G. Eric Platford - Chief Quality Engineer} He/Sal/MJ.14.5.30. X7410 x5410 x7520 x5520 x4117 PHANTOM II AND 20 HP. SPRINGING. With reference to R/H.4.5.30., we agree with the formula "Flexible Springs and Damping" for springing Rolls-Royce cars. We are not at all enthusiastic about the stiffer type road springs we are running on 23-MX.{John H Maddocks - Chief Proving Officer} We think they are only excusable in cases such as that of Sir Henry Segrave, where the driver does not use the car normally in any sense of the word, and insists on having so much damping for fast cornering etc., that the rating of the spring is smothered by the shock absorbers. The advantages the stiffer spring then gives are :- (1) A lower car because the buffer clearance can be reduced. (2) Weight saving. On the set of stiffer springs we have had made up the total reduction in weight is 1/2 cwt. They have the disadvantage that when the supplementary damping is removed the car does not ride nicely and in view of this fact they cannot be considered very desirable. The real question with which we are concerned at present is the suspension of the average large closed Rolls-Royce P.II car. We should like to emphasise that if all cars whereof the 18-EX type with the rear passengers well forward and two spare wheels at the back we should not have very much | ||