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).
Secret internal memo discussing design feedback and comparisons for the Spectre car model.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 91\1\ scan0022 | |
| Date | 16th July 1935 | |
| ~~To-Gr.{George Ratcliffe}~~ from E.{Mr Elliott - Chief Engineer} Copy to ~~Sg.{Arthur F. Sidgreaves - MD} Wor.{Arthur Wormald - General Works Manager}~~ ~~Hs.{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} Mr.~~ ~~JLG.~~ ~~H.I.V.~~ S E C R E T. x300 E.6/MN.16.7.35. ------------------- Re No.1 SpectreCodename for Phantom III. ------------------- Referring to your memo. Cx.{Major Len W. Cox - Advertising Manager}6/ES.15.7.35, we agree that silence and smoothness are paramount qualities as regards our chassis, and in these respects we are working to a higher standard for SpectreCodename for Phantom III than for Phantom II, this being rendered possible by the inherent differences in design. With regard to the appearance of the car we agree that No.1 SpectreCodename for Phantom III is quite wrong. Actually the body has been mounted higher than the designed position of the car and the suspension is lower in the front than intended, both of which accentuate the faults which you criticise. No.3 SpectreCodename for Phantom III is the authentic model for appearance, Nos.1 and 2 being now out of date. We believe that you have approved of SpectreCodename for Phantom III No.3, but if not we should like to know in what way you think it might be improved. The front wings on this car are definitely higher than on the original spectreCodename for Phantom III. With regard to the front seat comfort I do not think this complies with our standard on any of the spectreCodename for Phantom III bodies that have been built up to date, and I think that Park Wards are to blame for this. The seat appears to be very shallow. I presume your remark refers to the thickness of the cushion of the front seats. I also think it is very shallow from front to rear and that the squabbing for the back is most uncomfortable. It does not appear to be pitched at the correct angle and it does not provide any support at the waist line, causing the body to shut up into an uncomfortable position. With regard to the visibility of the nearside front wing, we have already commented on the front mudguard being raised, but at the same time the bonnet has also been raised. It therefore remains to be seen whether the wing can be seen over the flank of the bonnet. Personally I found no difficulty with regard to this point when driving SpectreCodename for Phantom III 3. E.{Mr Elliott - Chief Engineer} | ||