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).
Report from the Coachwork Sub-committee on the behaviour of a Mulliner body on experimental car chassis 19-G-1V.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 102\2\ scan0038 | |
| Date | 4th November 1931 | |
| -> Hs.{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} at W. c. to Sg.{Arthur F. Sidgreaves - MD} c. to WOR.{Arthur Wormald - General Works Manager} c. to E.{Mr Elliott - Chief Engineer} c. to DA.{Bernard Day - Chassis Design} c. to By.{R.W. Bailey - Chief Engineer} c. to G.{Mr Griffiths - Chief Accountant / Mr Gnapp} LID{A. J. Lidsey} X5830. Hn{F. C. Honeyman - Retail orders}10/I/4-11-31. EXPERIMENTAL CAR 19-G-1V. With reference to Hs{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair}/GWH{George W. Hancock - Head Chateauroux}10/MJ14-10-31, Sg.{Arthur F. Sidgreaves - MD} was so impressed with the very favourable report on the behaviour of the cheap body by Mulliner of Birmingham which was mounted on this chassis 19-G-1V that he asked our Coachwork Sub-committee to investigate the matter. The C.S.C. reports as follow:- i. the body is of the metal panelled Weymann type with fabric covered roof and upper parts. The comparative freedom from drumming and rattles of bodies built on this principle have long been recognised and we have persistently brought them to the notice of coach-builders: in fact we are responsible for such coach-builders as Mulliner of Chiswick and Park Ward & Co. taking up the manufacture of metal panelled Weymann bodies. But, unfortunately, there has been a change in the public taste and there has arisen a decided prejudice against Weymann type bodies, so that to-day it is practically impossible to sell such a body and those coachbuilders like Mulliner of Birmingham and Mulliner of Chiswick who in the past specialised in them have been compelled to revert to the manufacture of coachbuilt bodies. We believe that the advantages of the Weymann system have not been altogether lost but that the more progressive coachbuilders are striving to obtain the good features in their own standard productions; ii. unlike the majority of the bodies used by the Experimental Dept., this one was mounted directly on to the chassis instead of on to a sub-frame. It is understood that in the past on some experimental runs trouble has been experienced with the mounting of the sub-frame on to the chassis: in fact we believe that on 18-G1V one of the sub-frame supports actually broke. Trouble with the sub-frame supports would put an undue strain on the body which would consequently compare unfavourably with the Mulliner body mounted directly on to the chassis of 19-G-1V; iii. the usual thing with bodies intended for the Experimental Dept. is for the body, after being built on to the sub-frame, to be transported to W. where, together with the wings and running boards, it is mounted on the OVER | ||