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).
The dynamo control on the 40/50 chassis, addressing overcharging issues and the reasons for not adopting a three-rate charge system.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 62\3\ scan0360 | |
| Date | 15th June 1933 | |
| 86142. PN.{Mr Northey} From Hs{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair}/Wst. c. to Wor.{Arthur Wormald - General Works Manager} c. to C. c. to Cx.{Major Len W. Cox - Advertising Manager} c. to EP.{G. Eric Platford - Chief Quality Engineer} c. to JLE.{J. Lee Evans - Chassis Test Manager} c. to E.{Mr Elliott - Chief Engineer} Hs{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair}/Wst.2/HA.15.6.33. DYNAMO CONTROL 40/50 CHASSIS. Answering your Pn.{Mr Northey}6/WT.13.6.33., we are aware that the 40/50 dynamo control is a less satisfactory scheme from the point of view of overcharging the battery than the standard 20/25. The reasons we have not adopted the three rate charge scheme on the 40/50 are :- (a) A new and larger switchbox would be required as there is insufficient room, with the extra magneto switching on the 40/50, for the accomodation of the extra dynamo control switching. (b) We are anticipating standardizing vibrator control on the 40/50 as soon as we have done sufficient mileage. We could not agree to increasing the existing field resistances on the 40/50 dynamo, as in the Winter, trouble would be experienced (as in the early days with 58-GN) due to the cutting in speed being too late for town running with side and tail lamps on, the battery becoming discharged. Hs{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair}/Wst. | ||