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).
Letter from a battery supplier defending their design choices for Phantom II chassis batteries.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 168b\3\ img057 | |
| Date | 10th April 1930 | |
| X. 7535 ALL COMMUNICATIONS TO BE ADDRESSED TO THE COMPANY THE Chloride ELECTRICAL STORAGE COMPANY LIMITED LONDON OFFICE, 137, VICTORIA STREET, S.W.1 CLIFTON JUNCTION, NR MANCHESTER. TELEPHONES - PENDLETON 481 (6 LINES) TELEGRAMS - CHLORIDIC, PENDLEBURY CODES - BENTLEYS, LIEBERS, A.I. AND A.B.C. (4TH & 5TH EDITIONS) OUR REFERENCE ECM/LJ. Messrs.Rolls-Royce, Ltd., Derby. 10th April, 1930. Dear Sirs, Phantom II Chassis Batteries. In reply to your letter, reference "HFC1/AD," of the 9th instant, we have studied the suggested modifications in design and recognise fully the advantages to be derived by modification. We feel, however, that these are outweighed by objections which are apparent to us, but you naturally would not expect us to criticise a competitor's design. We would like to draw your attention to some exhaustive tests carried out at these Works to establish the superiority of a rigid assembly versus a flexible assembly. These tests showed very conclusively that a rigid assembly withstands severe vibration much more effectively than a flexible assembly. Other tests have shown that a rubber washer under compression from the sealing nut prevents leakage round the terminal posts more effectively than if the rubber washer is not under compression. These points are given to you as arguments in favour of our design, and we do not wish to imply or suggest that the alternative design is not a good one. If you leave the design in our hands we should see no cause for making any modifications. If, however, you have a preference for some other design, and incorporate that | ||