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).
Providing feedback and criticism on a proposed Bentley car body design, discussing the spare wheel placement and luggage accommodation.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 98\2\ scan0021 | |
| Date | 30th September 1937 | |
| SECRET. [Handwritten note: 200B ?] [Handwritten note: L404] S/W. Ev.{Ivan Evernden - coachwork} c. to BY, c. " Da{Bernard Day - Chassis Design} c. " Rm.{William Robotham - Chief Engineer} c. " Rm{William Robotham - Chief Engineer}/PD c. " Hnr Bentley Car 1-B-5. Da{Bernard Day - Chassis Design}/Ev{Ivan Evernden - coachwork}5/W22.9.37 In reply to your memo our criticisms are as follow :- Re design, this we know in general outward appearance resembles what we have had in the past except for the fact that the spare wheel is at the side instead of on the lid{A. J. Lidsey} of the boot. We should have liked to see some change in design, because we feel that in two years' time when this car is likely to be available the design of bodies will have changed to some extent from what is shown in this drawing. We have marked in pencil the outline of a swept panel back such as we are now supplying on the P.III and 25/30 H-S cars, which we believe might be more acceptable in 1939. This swept panel whilst reducing to some extent the size of the luggage boot provides firstly a tray at the back of the rear squab for carrying a certain amount of small articles, which in itself is a great convenience, and will of course be fitted with the folding platform for the heavier luggage, so that the total luggage accommodation would be adequate. Sg{Arthur F. Sidgreaves - MD} takes the view that such a body should be tried, and that it might be interesting and instructive to have one built for these experimental chassis. As to whether you make No. 1 to this design or to the design already shown in P.D.20 we leave to you to decide, having regard to the time which might be lost if we wait while you get out a fresh drawing. If the loss of time would be considerable then we agree to the one shown in P.D.20 being put in hand immediately and No. 2 should take the form we have suggested. If you will let us know by return whether we shall go ahead with the present design or not, we can then confirm to Park Ward's, as we asked them to stand by while this point was decided. The only other point of criticism is that we suggest the platform for carrying luggage should be incorporated in your design P.D.20, although you say in the specification on (contd) | ||