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).
Typed memo listing vehicle faults and defending the Experimental Department's critical testing procedures.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 29\3\ Scan119 | |
| Date | 10th January 1924 guessed | |
| contd:- o2o 3. Carburation not as good as 40/50 HP. 4. Bad oil leak from rear end of crankcase. 5. Noisy drive to Magneto. 6. Carburetter suction noisy. 7. The new engine demands new steering. This so far is not as good as the present 40/50 steering. As regards the second paragraph of your memo. I take great exception to this. I think that your remarks are unfair. If the Expl: Dept: are over-careful it is because experience has taught them it is right. We endeavour to carry out the policy laid down by yourself. It would make our job much more easy if we were less critical. We know, however, from experience that when we have done our best, we still find that Sales or our customers point out faults. My position of having to criticise new designs is most difficult when one considers the exceptional circumstances of the designer being away from the Works. No designer enjoys reading reports of limitations or failures of his design. As regards your suggestion that the Expl: Dept: today has not the spirit it had years ago when the engine for the 2,000 miles R.A.C. Trials was produced in a very short time. I took part in that trial and have a very vivid recollection of the entire failure of one of the RR. cars at Pitlochry and also have not forgotten seeing the second RR. car limping round Brooklands Track on 5 cylinders. I should not have considered the engine produced for the 2,000 miles Trials was one of the successes of the Company. Personally, I should use it as an example to show the danger of insufficient time given for contd. | ||