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).
Car development progress, customer complaints, and experimental expenditure.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 148\5\ scan0079 | |
| Date | 11th July 1935 | |
| To Sg.{Arthur F. Sidgreaves - MD} c. to Wor.{Arthur Wormald - General Works Manager} c. to E.{Mr Elliott - Chief Engineer} Hs{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair}/Rm.{William Robotham - Chief Engineer}10/KW.11.7.35. With reference to Sg.{Arthur F. Sidgreaves - MD}12/E.10.7.35. in which it is indicated that the progress we have made on the Bentley in the last 18 months does not justify the expenditure incurred on experimental work. Our own opinion is that during the 15 years we have been connected with the car experimental work, we do not remember previously any period of 18 months where we have standardised so many parts on the chassis which overcome customers' actual complaints. When a model is first introduced there are often one or two obvious things that can easily be put right, and almost inevitably several difficult faults which it may take years to eliminate. As an example, road shocks on the Phantom have been with us since 1925, and the car has passed out of production without the problem being solved. Banging in the silencer on the 20/25, and rattling change speed levers, have been known problems for a similar length of time and have only been solved this year. We say that on the Bentley, which has only been in production 2½ years, we know of no single complaint where we at present have to admit that we cannot satisfy the customer. We have had about 14 serious complaints to deal with in the last 18 months, and a solution to each one has been found. We consider that the solution of customers' complaints is the criterion of development efficiency. In previous years we have altered the car and standardised a lot of new pieces, but in many cases it has been questionable whether the customer has got anything out of it at all. For instance, going from Phantom I to Phantom II, we made a completely new engine, changed the position of the carburetter, fastened the gearbox to the engine, and substituted a Hotchkiss drive for the torque tube. These made an impressive list of new parts fitted, but the Americans, before they went out of business, showed that by persevering with Phantom I they could compete with Phantom II even on suspension, which was the biggest claim made for Phantom II. | ||