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).
Committee report on the cost of the Goshawk II, an evaluation of a Humber Saloon, and a decision on leaf springs.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 18\6\ Scan261 | |
| Date | 21th February 1921 | |
| -2- Re Cost of Goshawk II. It is difficult for the Works Committee to give anything very definite in the way of cost, because conditions both in labour and material are in a state of flux, but assuming a simpler chassis to make, it is thought that the labour figure for this chassis would be roughly £295, material £375, establishment charges say 133-1/3% on labour, so that we might be able to get somewhere near the figure of £1050. This, of course, is on the assumption that we make at least 2000 a year. Re 15 H.P. Humber Saloon. CJ1/421.2.21:- With regard to the questions asked on page 2 of (a) Manufacturing Cost. The Committee have made an external examination of this chassis and consider that it is quite reasonable to assume that it has been made by Humber at a profit, and they are further of the opinion that it could be made at a profit at our Works, providing the identical chassis were made in similarly large quantities. (b) Improvements required. It is considered to be impossible to "improve" this car to make it worthy of Rolls Royce reputation, as the constructional practices employed are foreign to Rolls Royce, and apart from improvements which would be found necessary at almost every point of detailed design, many of the units of the car would require alteration both as regards their design and arrangement. It must further be remembered that this chassis is not of modern design, so that the whole chassis would necessarily be different when converted to a Rolls Royce product. We have all tried and examined this car, and we are dissatisfied with it; we suggest that it be returned to Sales Dept. for them to consider whether this is a suitable model for them, and if not in what respects modification is required to meet their considered wishes. (c) The answer to (b) dispenses with (c) THICK LEAF SPRINGS IN U.S.A. Reference CJ3/E18.2.21 to R.{Sir Henry Royce} and R2/G23.2.21 to CJ. The Works Committee were informed of this decision and they agreed that it would be better for America to store these thick leaf springs over in the States, and not incur further expense by sending them back to England. | ||