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).
Valve holes and standard versus low rating springs for the Phantom II model.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 105\3\ scan0207 | |
| Date | 5th November 1931 | |
| -2- Hd{Mr Hayward/Mr Huddy}/SB.{Mr Bull/Mr Bannister}9/KH.5.11.31.cont'd You will notice that the holes in the valves at both front and rear are greater than that mentioned in your Hs{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair}/RM.{William Robotham - Chief Engineer}8/KT.2.11.31. but this setting has only been used for elderly people and the setting you now recommend may be better for other conditions. (3) PHANTOM II STANDARD SPRINGS. The majority of complaints received are of weak springs coupled with bouncing or pitching. Stronger springs do not completely cure the trouble and in most cases we have increased the rear shock damper loading to 100.lbs up and down. The number of complaints are, however, small compared with the 20/25 HP. and they do not suggest that there is anything seriously wrong with the production setting of 80/85.lbs. At the same time, we do not think that a standard setting of 100.lbs would have any harmful effect and it would tend to reduce complaints of pitching. (4) PHANTOM II LOW RATING SPRINGS. Here again, our experience is too limited to enable us to give you any reliable information in regard to the best shock damper loads. As you have previously requested however, we will try variations of your own recommendations when we have occasion to fit low rating springs, but as already mentioned we try and avoid fitting low rating springs if we can make sufficient improvement by alteration to the shock dampers. Hd.{Mr Hayward/Mr Huddy} | ||