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).
Rear passenger seating comfort and layout proposals for a 7-passenger vehicle, comparing different line proposals.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 19\4\ Scan009 | |
| Date | 4th June 1930 guessed | |
| -2- Hence the intention obviously is to slope the rear passenger back more by about 4" while using a slightly shorter seat cushion. I have shown your "dummy-man" in what appears to be the Brewster position, and note that he has approx. 48" from heel to "shoulder-blade" which you say is a good standard for comfort. I think you will agree that a fair criticism of N.Sch.3070 is that the rear passenger is too upright either for comfort or head clearance. (Am drawing on my imagination in showing this cushion and seat-position as I have nothing very definite from America. I think they feel a natural reluctance to do much drawing until they are a little surer of their ground). (5) Line A-A not only fouls the rear spare in its present position as shown, but puts the front of cushion 10½" ahead of axle. I have no particulars of auxiliary seat, but know that America propose to use sliding division glass. Even so there must be I think some considerable crowding for the knees of both middle and rear passengers. As America do not use the T & M tilting division glass (and are not particularly in favor of using it) I think we may assume that the "Extra Long" back line contemplates the use of a straight-dropping division on a 7 passenger which I reckon would throw the middle and rear passengers about 3" further back than N.Sch.3070 which, with another 3" required for Brewster rear seat would give a line like B-B. This construction would also bring the front of rear cushion to a position 4½" ahead of axle centre marked ("Extra Long"). This might be possible with proposed cantilever battery support, but I imagine there would be objections to this on the score of placing the passengers too far behind rear axle for riding comfort. (It would be impossible with such construction to carry more than one spare wheel behind - or two at side. The latter would again tend to destroy riding comfort). (6) I have suggested as a good compromise line C-C shown in full. This brings the front edge of the Brewster cushion on your line 7½" ahead of axle, or 59½" behind steering wheel, giving same space as N.Sch.3070 for leg clearances, etc. The rear passengers are really seated no further back than on N.Sch.3070, but are leaned back a little more. If dropping division glass were needed, it would have to be T & M or some compromise. I think we are not far wrong therefore in saying that C-C represents a line which would satisfy America for all normal requirements, and that it puts the rear passengers where they belong, but in the Brewster "attitude". (7) We are not in favor in New York of building coachwork which has a normal clearance from spare wheel of ½". We consider that normal variations in body-length and wheel position would lead to trouble from fouling. We suggest, therefore, that normal Cont'd.{John DeLooze - Company Secretary} | ||