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).
Design issues and potential improvements for hydraulic dampers, comparing a new design to Lovejoy dampers.
| Identifier | WestWitteringFiles\V\October1930-February1931\ Scan126 | |
| Date | 1st December 1930 | |
| HS.{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} BY.{R.W. Bailey - Chief Engineer}) FROM R.{Sir Henry Royce} DA.{Bernard Day - Chassis Design} ) [crossed out] C. to SG.{Arthur F. Sidgreaves - MD} WOR.{Arthur Wormald - General Works Manager} [crossed out] C. to PN.{Mr Northey} EP.{G. Eric Platford - Chief Quality Engineer} [crossed out] re. HYDRAULIC DAMPERS. It is very distressing to hear that Lovejoy dampers are thought to have beaten us. It has been something of a neck and neck race with them, but we have many other things to do. Our new design is also double vertical piston type but I am not sure that there is much in it unless Lovejoys have designed it in some different way to what we are doing. The American RR. Co. is working with luxury in view rather than safety and steadiness at high speeds. Their fast roads may be different to ours, straighter, and less cambered. Perhaps the Lovejoys mentioned in HS{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair}' memo. are arranged for less damping which is an easier job. Probably most of the trouble was with external links, before our spring loaded balls and central oiling. Probably we allow too much oil to escape by our vent. Hancock's experience suggests this. All would be happier with shorter levers because we could get effectiveness with less stress and lower pressures. There are several cars with the Lovejoys mentioned by HS.{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} in England. If we cannot get a sample damper, or drawing, or even illustration, can we get a car with these fitted. It might help our judgment as to whether what we are doing is good, and experimental time in finding a good combination of vents, pressures, feed, oil retaining, lubricating, etc. I am really disappointed at the way this part has been managed. Some of it has escaped my close attention. I do not like the placing and fixing in the frame. WE SHOULD SLOW UP PRODUCTION. It would be better to buy Lovejoys than make or fit RR. bad ones. A new design will go to Derby this week. In the meantime let someone in the Expt. Dept. specialise and work constantly to make the best of the present, and those out. The shorter lever, smaller air vent, and less stroke of ball valves - all seem good. External slacks should have been cured by spring loaded joint and lubrication. Internally they ought not to wear, but I think internal knocks are hydraulic that can be cured by less vent and ball valve. I prefer the rear ones under the frame as on 25HP. but this is handicapping our design as we are obliged to keep the vertical height down to less than 4" because of the road clearance. I prefer this to the awkward position inside the frame, which I did not realise had happened - i.e. through pressure of other work I did not sufficiently criticise, but trusted to those engaged upon the work. R.{Sir Henry Royce} | ||