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).
From BJ to R. discussing the commercial and technical viability of a grouped instrument scheme.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 15\7\ Scan055 | |
| Date | 28th November 1927 | |
| To R.{Sir Henry Royce} from BJ. Grouped Instrument Scheme. BJ14/E28/11/27 MXXX [text crossed out] In writing this I have a task which I greatly dislike but on which I feel I shall have your forbearance and sympathy. There are certain points in our cars on which I feel I am quite incompetent to form an opinion, namely, the points which are entirely technical and are necessary to make the car run more perfectly, and even though they cost us considerably more, such as carrying the wheel at the back, they are absolutely necessary. The grouped instrument scheme, however, is rather a point which concerns the selling rather than the running of the car. The history briefly is that like many other things the fashion suddenly arose to have the instruments grouped. All the cars seemed to be grouping them and we felt that we might be left in the cold if we did not group ours. During the past two years, however, we have found that all the little cheap cars have been grouping their instruments and it is by no means a mark of distinction to have them grouped but rather an indication that they are mass production or American. For this reason it has become rather more distinguished to have large dials arranged along the scuttle as is our present standard. The grouped instruments are necessarily smaller and not so easy to see. Also we have noticed a tendency for motorists who have grouped instruments to add other instruments in odd places which tends to look unsightly, and we could not prevent our customers from doing this. Generally speaking, therefore, even if the price were the same, we should not feel particularly favorable to having the instruments grouped. But there is a far larger reason than this - when we go into the question of cost, we find the figures are startling and put the scheme entirely out of court. 1. The extra cost of supplying the grouped instrument scheme would be £6.7.5 per chassis, which on 500 Phantom chassis = £3185 per annum. These figures have been carefully checked by Wor.{Arthur Wormald - General Works Manager} and can be depended on as being correct. | ||