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).
Comparing the longevity, durability, and repair costs of different car batteries.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 54\2\ Scan117 | |
| Date | 1st June 1927 | |
| [Handwritten top right] X4617 [Handwritten top left] EFC {E. Fowler Clarke - Electrical Engineer} [Handwritten top left, diagonal] This may mean that we must have had headlamps compared when I gathered how the batteries compared under To BY. {R.W. Bailey - Chief Engineer} from Hm. {Capt. W. Hallam - Head Repairs} Hm {Capt. W. Hallam - Head Repairs} 16/W1.6.27. [Handwritten] BY10/H31.5.27. 9-6-27 [Handwritten, crossed out] X.4617. tx [Handwritten, underlined] X.4414. Batteries. We have not kept a careful analysis of our actual experience on the Battery position, but in reply to your questions our observations are as follows :- a. {Mr Adams} 40/50HP. Battery decidedly lasts longer than the 20HP. Battery. b. We have formed the impression that the Exide Battery is able to stand up more to abuse than the Peto & Radford, and consider that the Exide is decidedly the better. c. There is a decided difference in the average cost of repairs to the P. & R. {Sir Henry Royce} Battery and the Exide. P. & R. {Sir Henry Royce} are approximately 50% higher in their charges than the Exide people. We have not yet had a lot of experience in the behaviour of the batteries on Phantom cars, and the 40/50HP. referred to in this memo applies more to the Silver Ghost. If you would like us to keep data on the battery question in the future, we shall be pleased to do so. Hm. {Capt. W. Hallam - Head Repairs} | ||