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).
Critique of Mr. de Salamanca's Phantom II, detailing objections to its features and modifications.
| Identifier | WestWitteringFiles\U\2January1930-September1930\ Scan076 | |
| Date | 14th April 1930 | |
| DA.{Bernard Day - Chassis Design} BA/EV.{Ivan Evernden - coachwork}) FROM R.{Sir Henry Royce} E.{Mr Elliott - Chief Engineer} HS.{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} ) (At Le CanadelHenry Royce's French residence.) ORIGINAL. ARRIVED WW. DURING EASTER. R4/M14.4.30. C. SG.{Arthur F. Sidgreaves - MD} WOR.{Arthur Wormald - General Works Manager} BY.{R.W. Bailey - Chief Engineer} PHANTOM 2. Mr. de SALAMANCA'S CAR. RIVIERA CAR - HOOPER SHORT SALOON. Some people might like this, but I think there are one or two things which we object to very definitely. (1) Front splashers fitted with toolboxes makes the car look ugly and heavy and puts weight in wrong place. The wing stays are unsuitable for carrying weight. (2) I am very doubtful if brass can be kept polished, but certainly there is some which would be better left off - dabs along the top of the splashers. (3) Too many colours, not well arranged - (altogether the style is not RR. taste) (4) Something went wrong with the brakes through a pin fouling. This should not be possible, and should be corrected to make it impossible to happen again. (5) Mr. de Salamanca says he altered the auto: advance and the carburetter to give greater acceleration which he claims it did, but unless something was wrong, I should expect that detonations or some other features of roughness were introduced. Such modifications should not be necessary or encouraged because it is dangerous to alter conditions we have spent very many months to find the best combination, as a result of exact tests. For instance, removing the return spring in the relay might spoil the reliability, and in any case it should not alter the advance unless it spoils its action, the rate of advance being dependent on the auto: advance governor springs, and not affected by the relay spring. Also we do not wish the carburetter piston to move more quickly than is found on test to avoid overstrong mixture on pick up, because America and some people think our defect is weakness on pick up. Personally I believe our usual practice has for 20 yrs. been more perfect than anything in existence up to the present, FOR which we have wisely sacrificed something in performance. Phantom 2. has much better distribution than we ever had on Silver Ghost or Phantom 1. However if our practice is defective, or this specimen was not correct standard, then probably Mr. de Salamanca's modifications were a benefit, but most likely they had no effect that could be found on exact comparative tests. Fortunately these matters are not easily upset, there being a range of conditions where the results are practically the same. R.{Sir Henry Royce} | ||