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).
Responsibility for coachwork modifications and suggesting improvements to body construction methods.
| Identifier | WestWitteringFiles\P\July1926-September1926\ Scan003 | |
| Date | 1st July 1926 | |
| TO LHS.{Lord Herbert Scott} (crossed out) FROM R.{Sir Henry Royce} C. to BJ. (crossed out) WOR.{Arthur Wormald - General Works Manager} (crossed out) " DA.{Bernard Day - Chassis Design} (crossed out) HS.{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} " G.{Mr Griffiths - Chief Accountant / Mr Gnapp} (crossed out) ORIGINAL (stamp) 7-EX. - BARKER-BEATONSON ALL-WEATHER USED BY ME IN FRANCE. R1/M1.7.26. X8770 (crossed out) X8830 The amount of money involved in repairing this body need not be seriously considered except on the grounds of whose responsibility it is that the work is wrong. Since the RR. Co. receive no pay for such help and criticism they ought to take no responsibility, and if the coachbuilders are asked to do something with which they do not agree is sound or elegant, they should either not adopt the suggestion, or plainly state in writing that as they do not agree with it they do not accept responsibility. The reason I write this especially is that if we were to take the responsibility we should have to make sure that our suggestions were sound. This would mean a considerable amount of work to lay it out and criticise it on paper, and this we are not prepared to do considering we have so much other work that belongs to our own part of the business. In other words if we really went into the bodywork thoroughly it would require us to have a small specialised staff doing nothing else. We understand the RR. administration have no thought of going so far. I do hope however that the visits of our officers to the coachbuilders may result in our seeing their difficulties and the various methods of construction adopted by them, so that we can help them by better adapting our chassis to their conditions, for instance, it would seem that the 40/50 should have body brackets at the outside of the frame in suitable positions as regards our cross members, so that the runner can rest upon them, and facilitate the easy construction and help to make the removal of the body easier and safer. It is somewhat doubtful to me whether the subframe is worth the extra weight it involves, unless it could be made to take the place of much of the present foundation. A special point of interest that made me visit Barkers' was the failure of the scuttle since they have been detached from the dash. On examining the method of construction it was seen that in many types of bodies, especially those without a fixed wooden roof, the construction of the armature for the scuttle leaves much to be desired, and I cannot see how they will be successful until some drastic modification is adopted; naturally we prefer sheet metal pressings, or forgings from the solid metal instead of the heavy welded iron that we see used in a somewhat inefficient manner, that is, for the greatest efficiency of strength and rigidity weight. I think it would be a good thing if you were to send a copy of this, and EV{Ivan Evernden - coachwork}'s memo., to Mr. Nutt, so that he can see our views on the situation. R.{Sir Henry Royce} | ||