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 opposing the replacement of the magneto ignition with a dual battery system on the Phantom chassis.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 61b\4\ scan0187 | |
| Date | 10th June 1932 | |
| Hs{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair}/Wst To R.{Sir Henry Royce} from Sg.{Arthur F. Sidgreaves - MD} Copy to Mr. Hs{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair}/Wst. E.{Mr Elliott - Chief Engineer} DE. [Struck through] DE. re Magnetos on 40/50 Chassis. Sg{Arthur F. Sidgreaves - MD}10/E10.6.32 X6105 X6098 X6105 [STAMP: RECEIVED 11 JUN 1932] Referring to Hs{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair}/Wst.2/KT.9.6.32 it is quite correct that at the date, i.e. last January, when it was put forward that we should drop the magneto on the Phantom and have dual battery ignition I opposed it. This was chiefly for policy reasons. At that date there was no real question of the magneto giving any trouble. My point really was that with such a small output we must carefully consider every modification from the point of view of what is the customer going to get out of it and what are we going to get out of it. Taking into consideration the smallness of the output there have really been quite a number of modifications which hit us very severely from two points of view, firstly, the scrap of jigs and tools and the expense of making new ones, and equally important is the question of the modifications having the effect of ante-dating all the stock in our hands and in the hands of our agents, which very often results in the Company losing thousands of pounds. I am just making these points clear because we are apt sometimes to lose sight of them. I presume that in any case it would not be right for us to drop the magneto ignition and adopt the double RR battery without submitting it to our usual 10,000 miles test? Sg.{Arthur F. Sidgreaves - MD} | ||