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).
Introduction of new features on the 3½-Litre Bentley and the importance of maintaining brand hierarchy.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 3\4\ 04-page405 | |
| Date | 14th July 1933 | |
| COPY. To Hs.{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} from Sg.{Arthur F. Sidgreaves - MD} Copy to Wor.{Arthur Wormald - General Works Manager} E.{Mr Elliott - Chief Engineer} DA.{Bernard Day - Chassis Design} BY.{R.W. Bailey - Chief Engineer} Bn.{W.O. Bentley / Mr Barrington} EV.{Ivan Evernden - coachwork} re 3½-Litre Bentley. Sg{Arthur F. Sidgreaves - MD}9/E14.7.33. x 3993 I am in receipt of Hs.{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair}1/W.13.7.33. and have noted with interest all you say. I feel, however, there is a very grave danger of the Bentley getting ahead of RR., which is the last thing that we want to happen. Items which are not see do not matter so much but the basic principle should, I think, be that RR. should lead the way with new features and that Bentley should follow where they are appropriate in due course. For instance take Item No.1, Connecting rods with drilled hole for oil instead of oil pipe. If, as I imagine, you are going to introduce this quickly on RR., then it will be OK to introduce it on Bentley. Item 2, Crankshaft larger on the journals - the same remarks do not apply because there are not the same reasons for wanting larger journals on the RR. i.e. the engine speeds are not as high. Item 3, Oil Cooler, if, as you say, we look forward to this being a standard fitting on all our cars at no distant date, then it certainly seems that it ought to start on RR and follow afterwards on Bentley. Item 4, Propeller shaft, hereagain, if the introduction of the type referred to has the advantage of only needing lubrication every 10,000 miles, surely it ought to come along on RR before Bentley. What I really feel is that it is only where we can justify and explain suitably the introduction of new features on the Bentley that are not on RR that they ought to be done. For instance, compression ratio being higher would be quite all right. What I really have in mind is that both the Design and Experimental Department should remember all the time that RR is our main product and that we should never allow the Bentley to get ahead from the point of view of up-to-dateness. I have not gone through all the items in your memo but I think you will appreciate what I have in mind from what is said above. Sg.{Arthur F. Sidgreaves - MD} | ||