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).
Body rattles attributed to the P.2 subframe and defending it against blame for the issues.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 14\8\ Scan250 | |
| Date | 16th June 1930 | |
| X7380 Hs.{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} from Da{Bernard Day - Chassis Design}/Ev.{Ivan Evernden - coachwork} Da{Bernard Day - Chassis Design}/Ev{Ivan Evernden - coachwork}2/M16.6.30. P.2. SUBFRAMES. X.7380 X.7830. C S.C. I am to be told that on Thursday next, at the the use of the body subframe has brought a wave of body rattles throughout all makes of coachwork. The subframe is to be blamed. I know this is not the real cause, and shall put up a defence. It would help considerably if you could give me your experience with the experimental P.2. cars with respect to rattles and subframes. For instance, your remarks on each car and a rough estimate of the mileage covered, and also your general opinion as to the effect of the subframe on rattles. It is also said that the subframe does not cut down the time required by the coachbuilders to finish off a car after receipt of the chassis. It is said that coachbuilders have not found any such saving possible. I would be glad if you could contradict this from your experience of mounting the experimental bodies. These were mounted we believe, even in the worst case, and the car completed with a week. Now that the coachbuilders have had experience there ought to be no mistakes, and ten days ought to prove ample to finish a car. The general impression is likely to be that in view of the cost of the subframe and its weight, the results have not been satisfactory. Will you please reply to me direct to Conduit St as I expect the meeting will be on Thursday. Da{Bernard Day - Chassis Design}/Ev.{Ivan Evernden - coachwork} | ||