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).
Design and demand for the Phantom II revised type luggage carrier and rear apron.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 13\6\ 06-page41 | |
| Date | 12th January 1931 | |
| Hs{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} RECEIVED 14 JAN 1931 X7400 x4551 x7400 To EV{Ivan Evernden - coachwork} from Sg.{Arthur F. Sidgreaves - MD} Copy to Hs.{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} DA{Bernard Day - Chassis Design}/EV.{Ivan Evernden - coachwork} re P.II. Revised type of Luggage Carrier and Rear Apron. Sg{Arthur F. Sidgreaves - MD}3/E12.1.31 Referring to BY4/N.2.1.31 I am sorry to see that N.Sch.3052 will demand so many new dies, and when EV.{Ivan Evernden - coachwork} was up here the other day, we spoke to him about it again with a view to seeing whether it was possible to modify the proposed design so as to permit of the use of some parts of the existing design, but apparently we cannot do so. From our records we know that in the recent Series of P.II chassis 5% left W. without a rear wheel carrier but we do not of course know if 5% had the type 4 luggage grid. I do not know whether you could without much difficulty let me know approximately how many type 4 luggage grids and how many type 2 have been sold since the introduction of P.II type chassis. It rather looks as if we shall have to incur the expense indicated in your memo. as the present No.4 grid is not at all good, but before actually deciding I should like if possible to have the information asked for above. I also have in mind the fact that we are, I think, rapidly approaching an altered state of affairs in which we shall not try to insist on every one carrying wheels at the back. I say this in view of the information Hs.{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} has been giving us about springing arising out of his visit to America etc., and of course, if my anticipations in regard to this are realised, then the demand for No.4 grid will increase - in fact it would become the standard type. As regards the tail lamp I note from your memo. it is not possible to bring this within the chassis, and under the circumstances I think it would be a good idea to adopt your suggestion of having a bracket which would project beyond the lamp and which would be strong enough to stand a light blow. Sg.{Arthur F. Sidgreaves - MD} | ||