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).
10,000-mile car test in France for the 23-EX model.
Identifier | ExFiles\Box 11\3\ 03-page117 | |
Date | 26th May 1930 | |
Wor.{Arthur Wormald - General Works Manager} Sg.{Arthur F. Sidgreaves - MD} c. Hs.{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} x 794 EP{G. Eric Platford - Chief Quality Engineer}12/H26.5.30. re. 23-EX. 10,000 Mile Car Test in France. In being able to try the above car in France, one is certainly able to appreciate the conditions not obtainable during ordinary routine testing in this country. The safe high speed roads with poor road surface, i.e. potholes and uneven cambers, create a different impression from that which one usually experienced. I had already noted GWH{George W. Hancock - Head Chateauroux}'s 5,000 mile report on this car, and can generally confirm this. The following, however, I consider a few important points:- (1). ENGINE. GENERAL RUNNING. One is impressed with the distinct improvement for sweet running especially at higher engine speeds, also quieter exhaust. A boom period on the retard, however, at about 50 - 55 m.p.h. can be picked out. Our experience has been that with open bodied cars these features are not generally troublesome. Even with the cutout open the noise is not objectionable as compared with what it is on the present covered body of the boomy type. I consider that this point should be confirmed by trying out this or similar chassis with the latest type covered body, or the special features fitted to a car with such a body. In trying the car on separate ignitions I had the impression that the magneto ignition was late. (2) STEERING. Joggles at high speed considered distinctly objectionable I was very distressed to find the car in this respect as bad as it was, as I understood it was the last word as regards steering. The controllability of the car at high speeds was also distinctly influenced by the varying cambers of the road, causing the car to wander. I was so concerned about this that I made comparative testswith a standard Phantom II and a standard Phantom I. The Phantom I. was certainly similarly poor and the standard Phantom II was very disappointing but certainly better than the above car. From a Continental point of view I consider this feature is much more serious than I had previously appreciated. CONTD:- | ||