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).
Comparison of enamelling methods for road wheels between Dunlop and Rolls-Royce.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 74\4\ scan0037 | |
| Date | 25th June 1925 | |
| Wd.{Mr Wood/Mr Whitehead} c. Hs.{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} XCH07 ENAMELLING OF ROAD WHEELS. We have already written to Sales, reference BY4/H.{Arthur M. Hanbury - Head Complaints} 11.6.25. and informed them that there is no appreciable benefit when comparing the new Dunlop method and our method of enamelling wire wheels, as tested out by the scheme of running three wheels of each type on cars running in France. I further pointed out that the maintenance of the enamelling of the rear wheels, as previously stated, is essentially a coachbuilders' trouble and must be dealt with by the coachbuilders by the provision of suitable means of preventing water and sand running along the bottom of the running boards and being thrown off by the wind to impinge on the exposed section of the tyre and hub of the rear wheels. Any difference between our enamelling and the Dunlop Company is microscopic, and I am prepared at the moment to accept the new method of double coating and baking which the Dunlop Company have adopted as the result of our complaints, as giving equally good results as our more expensive method we adopted here. In view of the arrangement originally made in regard to payment for reconditioning, the results show that the Dunlop Company have justified their contentions. This being the case, whilst ours is equally good, it would appear that there is nothing to be said for either method having distinct advantages over the other. Since, however, there was originally trouble with the Dunlop wire wheels which had to be tested out, I consider that the Dunlop Company should pay for reconditioning their set of wheels, whilst we should pay for reconditioning ours. I think this attitude is more than justified by the fact that the Dunlop Company had slipped up very badly on enamelling, and put us in a very awkward position. The enamelling we have tested is not the original enamelling, but an improvement upon same as a result of our complaints. In regard to the artillery wheels, I do not think that we shall gain anything by carrying out this particular experiment any further. It would be of interest if Hs.{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} when he is running a set of Contd. | ||