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).
Review and critique of coachwork and other features from a recent motor show, with suggestions for future cars.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 117\1\ scan0005 | |
| Date | 5th November 1929 | |
| x4685. TO MR. & SR. FROM E.V. EV{Ivan Evernden - coachwork}2/5.11.29. COPY TO C.O. EHS. C.R. HS.{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} ARISING OUT OF THE SHOW ORIGINAL COACHWORK. It seemed apparent that the quality of fabric coachwork has not progressed much during the past year, and that the coachbuilt body is regaining its hold in the high class market. The bodies on the R-R Chassis were some of, if not the finest in the Show. They were modern, without being vulgar or outré, low without being impossible as carriages. The Park Ward Phantom II on their own stand was the finest family car in the show. Although it looked low and light, it was a maximum body. The Barker exhibits looked heavy and clumsy, whilst the Duresco bathroom finish was unfortunate. One always feels that Barkers spoil their sho cars by trying to do something original. Many of the cars which they produce in the course of the year would be much more suitable for exhibition. The Hooper cars showed little change from previous years. All of their bodies still have the old heavy appearance, which most coachbuilders, even Barkers, have done something to improve. Of our Northern coachbuilders one can only say that what they produced was in many ways too terrible to criticise. In a way on feels that it is a pity that we should have to allot them chassis when there are plenty of other firms who could do much better for us in the matter of coachwork. One realises the difficulty in that they are our agents. The same remarks apply to the Connaught body on a "Twenty". The Windover body on our stand was badly finished in paintwork and interior fittings. As far as the other peoples car were concerned we saw little of striking interest. The bodies on the Isotta Fraschini Chassis had good lines but the taste in the matter of mouldings and colour was not refined in our opinion. The interior finish of the "Fleetwood" Enclosed Drive Limousine on the Lincoln was of interest as no frame was used to house the division glass and there were no wood finishers. One feels that a move on these lines to give a real saloon effect when the division is opened and the general simplification of the interior finish is a good one. We are looking into this with a view to making suggestions for our future cars. BUMPERS. Its is agreed that bumpers are becoming more prevalent. We are approaching "R" with a view to getting his views on a suggestion that we should provide a face on our front dumb-irons to which the front bumper can be attached, so avoiding the awful clamp fittings such as are used by Barkers. DIPPING LAMPS. We have discussed with Mr. Munro the present Barker Dipping Lamps, and are trying to help them to produce a design in which there are no cross-bars in front of the radiator, and no exposed lever gear. We are doing all we can to popularise our three lamp scheme. With reference to our centre lamp, we suggest that whilst | ||