Having just removed the rear springs from my 1931 RL saloon I have found that they are different!! The nearside is 6 leaves and the offside is 7 leaves. Interestingly, the overall thickness of the springs are the same (the 7 leaf spring has thinner leaves in order to fit in the chassis section), and the length from bush to locating bolt is the same.

I remember reading somewhere that the offside was intended to be slightly higher/stronger to cope with the weight of the driver only but this seems rather an odd arrangement to me. has anybody else had a similar experience?

I had exactly the same findings as you when I stripped mine down.
I would suspect that they have already been changed at some time, I fitted two identical new ones on mine.

Phil

I also found this when I stripped my '28 saloon. Would this have happened at the factory?

A thicker spring was introduced to assist the ‘Driver only’ affect but I think this was in the RP era. It is unlikely that this would have necessitated a spring with more leaves, I would expect a slightly stiffer set would be all that was required and would be difficult to spot when compared with each other.

I assume that the 'non standard' spring is the one with the 7 leaves? And I suppose it is best to replace them as a pair to avoid any 'lop sidedness'?

I have a new pair of rear springs in stock for your car if of any interest.Ian Dunford.

Ian thank you. I will call you

David

I have just been asked to supply a pair of rear springs for a 31 R M saloon for a friend. I pulled out 3 pairs I had from cars I have dismantled. Although all 3 pairs had the requisite 6 leaves an interesting thing was noted. the length of the leaves on the drivers side spring were in all cases longer excepting the main and second longest leaf, comparing them side by side makes this immediately apparent. The springs were pairs as the makers names and dates were stamped into them. As an engineer I am inclined to think that this was done to correct a tendency for the drivers side to droop after a while if the car only was used solo. The heavily cambered, and often rough roads here in New Zealand were also contributary to leaning , the way in which the front spring is fixed does little to resist this tendency-has any one else recorded this fact?

I shall give mine an even closer look!

Hi All,

On the question of rear springs, should the U-bolts be visable from the inside rear floor pan? On my 1931 RM the top of the U-bolts are showing but they look like thy have been this way for some time.

Thanks to you all.

Chris

No, I don't think that the U-bolts should be visible from the inside rear floor pan! They aren't on my Chummy anyway.

David

Is it maybe so that the clamping bolt can be removed and therefore the springs can be removed easily?

Just a thought !

Steve

Thanks David/Steve,

It looks like the floor pan has been formed round the U-bolts. It hasnt been cut neatly and one couldnt withdraw the bolt upwards!
I guess there is no load bearing here. Should the U-bolt just be tight up to the underside of the floorpan?

Thanks

Chris

On my RL there is a hexagonal hole to withdraw the bolt, but no cutaway for the u bolt.
Indeed why should there be?, to remove the spring all you need to do is loosen it.

Well I have just spent last weekend replacing my late Ruby springs. When rebuilding the floor pan several years ago I left a hole for the bolt but not for the U bolt, as it happens I easily removed both springs but had trouble getting one back in due to the U Bolt catching on the end of the top leaf. I over came that by grinding a slope on the end and it slipped straight in.