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).
Conference about misunderstandings between departments regarding chassis alterations.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 69\2\ scan0169 | |
| Date | 22th October 1924 | |
| SECRET X8720 HS{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} To R.{Sir Henry Royce} from CJ. Copy to Wor.{Arthur Wormald - General Works Manager} BY.{R.W. Bailey - Chief Engineer} Hs.{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair}, EP.{G. Eric Platford - Chief Quality Engineer}, PN.{Mr Northey}, CWB. EAC.II CJS/E22/10/24 At a conference held yesterday at which BJ, the writer and Hs.{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} were present, it was endeavoured to ascertain how it was that it was not until a visit made a short time ago by PN{Mr Northey} to Derby that Sales became aware that an alteration had been made in the exhaust system which was considered in the case of open cars to be undesirable. Likewise it was endeavoured to ascertain why the magneto had arrived in a position which in the opinion of Sales might make it very difficult for a chauffeur to regulate it. As regards the latter point Hs.{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} explained that timing of the magneto could be arrived at without removing it by markings but that the manufacturers of the magnetos and the R.R. works would advise that for other adjustment of the magneto it should be removed from the frame. The result of the discussion XXX showed up the fact that chassis had been submitted to Sales in connection with front brakes which had also other novelties, such as exhaust alterations, on them and the fact that the Sales Dept. had made no remarks concerning these had led the Works to believe that they were approved by Sales. As a matter of fact Sales had not understood that the chassis were submitted to them except in connection with brakes and therefore had not paid any attention to other features of the chassis. Eventually CJ said that he had come to the conclusion that the whole of the misunderstanding had arisen from the fundamental error of chassis being submitted to Sales which did not represent in every respect the chassis which it was proposed to produce and to deliver to the public. He suggested that it was necessary that we should revert to the original position whereby it was imagined that the Works had received from a selling organisation, say Smith & Sons, an order to deliver to them certain chassis. Smith & Sons required that, before the sample chassis were submitted, the Works should have arranged that the chassis should undergo certain very stringent trials and that Smith & Sons should be informed of the results of those trials. The main point should be that Smith & Sons should not have sub- | ||