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).
Naming and testing strategy for the Super Sports EAC.10 chassis.
Identifier | ExFiles\Box 12\3\ X704-0084 | |
Date | 16th February 1928 | |
Hs{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} X87770 X7830 To E.{Mr Elliott - Chief Engineer} from BJ. Copy to DA{Bernard Day - Chassis Design}/EV.{Ivan Evernden - coachwork} E.{Mr Elliott - Chief Engineer} BY Hs.{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} G.{Mr Griffiths - Chief Accountant / Mr Gnapp} Sg.{Arthur F. Sidgreaves - MD} BJ11/E16.2.28 re SUPER SPORTS EAC.10. I notice that in DA{Bernard Day - Chassis Design}/EV{Ivan Evernden - coachwork}3/M9.2.28 concerning the above there is a suggestion that a sports saloon should be used for testing this chassis. I have discussed it with C and Sg{Arthur F. Sidgreaves - MD} and attach their opinion on the subject. It certainly does seem desirable that we should eventually test this chassis with the type of body which probably over 90% of our customers use, namely, a heavy closed body. Perhaps you would like to instruct DA{Bernard Day - Chassis Design}/EV{Ivan Evernden - coachwork} on this point? With regard to naming this chassis as mentioned in R1/M10.2.28, in which it is suggested it should be called "Phantom Two", our object in calling it the "Super-sports Model" is specially to avoid any suspicion arising that we are about to produce another standard Phantom chassis as this would be so extremely dangerous, and for that reason the word "Super-Sports" was introduced to put people off the scent, as if they heard that we were producing another chassis they would only consider it was specially for high speed sporting models and not as a standard. Do you not think we should adhere to the name: "Super-Sports"? BJ. Enc. Copy of C1/C13.2.28 | ||