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).
Reasons for stagnating sales of the 20/25 car model, addressing issues of body size, power, and price.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 5\2\ 02-page328 | |
| Date | 13th May 1930 | |
| To R.{Sir Henry Royce} From Sg.{Arthur F. Sidgreaves - MD} c. to Wor.{Arthur Wormald - General Works Manager} S. Ds. Hs.{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} BY.{R.W. Bailey - Chief Engineer} C. LHS.{Lord Herbert Scott} X5830. Sg{Arthur F. Sidgreaves - MD}22/E13.5.30. re. Car Work - 20/25. X.5770. X.5830. X.5250. I duly received E1/M28.4.30 in which you refer to the stagnation of sales of the above. I note that you again refer to the question of big bodies because this is a matter which has been with us since the 20 was first introduced in 1923, and I thought it had been made clear on several occasions that, if the fitting of what are referred to as "Big Bodies" were prohibited, the sales of 20/25's would fall to such an extent as to render its manufacture impossible at a saleable price. You refer in particular to the larger bodies spoiling the riding qualities because they push the passengers over the back axle, and I am afraid there must be some misunderstanding on this point because in reality the back passengers are in practically the same position on both types of bodies as it is the front seat that goes back in relation to the steering column and, therefore, the position of the back seat is practically the same in both. The principal "crabs" against sales of the 20 were twofold - lack of power and high price. The former has been overcome by the introduction of the 20/25 and still more so by the recent modifications, but there has hardly been time for these improvements in performance to make themselves felt and recognised sufficiently widely to have any substantial benefit on sales. As regards price the position is that the cost of the 20/25 is steadily mounting what with the addition of central lubrication etc. etc., and it only shows about half the percentage of gross profit on its factory cost as compared with what the 40/50 shows on its factory cost. In your memo. you refer to the ignition on the car being defective, but on making enquiries from the department dealing with complaints I cannot trace that there is any support for the view expressed to you by Mr. Minchin on this point. Mr. Minchin, I know, is not likely to be the purchaser of a 40/50 and is very keen that the 20/25 should resemble the 40/50 as closely as is possible. | ||