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).
Letter discussing car ventilation, comparing the pros and cons of sliding roofs versus special ventilators.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 89\4\ scan0003 | |
| Date | 8th December 1936 | |
| TELEPHONE Nos 2234 2235 MOSS 2236 SIDE. 2237 2238 TELEGRAMS: ARNOLD, SEMEAD. ST GEORGE'S HALL, HULME, MANCHESTER,15. December 8th 1936 Messrs. Rolls-Royce Ltd., DERBY. Dear Sirs, For the attention of Mr. Robotham Thank you for your letter. So much depends upon the construction of a body. A body fitted with a sliding roof can naturally be more easily ventilated, but my experience is, that a sliding roof is generally found draughty, and causes a considerable amount of neuritis, neuralgia and rheumatism. I agree it is only under certain conditions that the front seats of any car may become uncomfortable through over-heating, but when such a condition occurs it is seriously detrimental to any car. In other words, the car today should be designed to conform to any of the variable conditions of the English Climate. As you know, the direction of the wind has a material bearing on the heat of a car. One of the large Mercedes Supercharged Cars that I know of, is fitted with two silencers, and it is remarkable how cool the engine keeps. The present 25 Rolls I am driving is fitted, in the front door windows, with the special type of ventilator. Since this was fitted the ventilation of the car has improved considerably. There are no draughts, no stuffy or tired feeling at the end of a day's drive. Although I have a sliding roof I much prefer the type of ventilator named. It would be interesting to know what the experience of drivers, on some of the Alpine Passes in the summertime, would be in a Phantom lll. Yours faithfully, A.{Mr Adams} Seymour Mead (Major) ASM/ECD | ||