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 discussing the adoption of Smith Windscreen Wipers, detailing past tests, comparisons to the Folberth type, and issues with approval.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 23\3\ Scan120 | |
| Date | 5th November 1927 | |
| Private. Y.1087 S/W. Hs.{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} Sg{Arthur F. Sidgreaves - MD}6/M/5.11.27. Dear Hs{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair}, CWB. has shewn me your recent note about Smith Windscreen Wipers, in which you say that from your experience, you believe they are the best and asking what Sales objections to it were. This came to us very unexpectedly, because the real position is, that we have been trying to get them approved by W. since the Olympia Show of 1925 - i.e. 2 years ago. You will find that on the 28th October, 1925, I wrote to you suggesting that one of these should be tested and this I followed up month by month - and on the 5th January, 1926, wrote and advised you that we had run one 10,000 miles on a Car - 11.EX. - with satisfactory results, and suggested changing from the Folberth. We were very pleased with the Smith because of its silence, the small and neat appearance of the box which had not the disadvantage of obstructing the vision, and more important still, the fact that it continued to operate as long as the road wheels were moving, irrespective of the throttle opening, which has always been at a serious disadvantage with the suction type. We have fitted a good many and as a test, we fitted up two on LHS{Lord Herbert Scott}'s 'Phantom' many months ago, and two on a 'Phantom' which Cx.{Major Len W. Cox - Advertising Manager} uses, and although both have been in use for a very long time, we have never had any trouble. We have, however, never succeeded in obtaining W's approval - in fact, you will find that the opposite is the case. I can only recollect one complaint - and arising out of that, W. condemned the Smith drive. They put forward a special W. designed drive, but the cost of it was considered by us to be too high for use with an article listed by the Smith people at 45/-. - 1 - | ||