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).
Trade-offs of using a P. & R. battery, focusing on weight versus capacity and reliability.
| Identifier | WestWitteringFiles\J\November1922\ Scan35 | |
| Date | 18th November 1922 | |
| TO EFC. & PN.{Mr Northey} [EFC. is struck through] c. to CJ. BJ. from RO{C. C. Rose - Export Manager} [struck through] By.{R.W. Bailey - Chief Engineer} EP.{G. Eric Platford - Chief Quality Engineer} Hs.{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} ORIGINAL [stamped] P. & . R.{Sir Henry Royce} BATTERY. It is understood between us, including Mr. Day that we have no objection whatever to the P.&.R. battery, in fact we favour it, but we do not think it is wise to start with a battery of increased capa-city, but rather let us have save some percentage of the weight and make it of the same capacity as we are at present using. I have pointed out from time to time that I am sure it is a question of increased reliability of the battery, combined with a dynamo which cuts in sufficiently low, and an easy means for charging at the garage. [Stamped: REC'D NOV 20 1922] [Handwritten note below] E.F.C, Would you please remind me of the relative values by telling me how much heavier is the P&R battery than the Chloride and how much greater the capacity of the former. My impression is that P&R have endeavoured to produce a better, more lasting and reliable battery rather than a lighter one? P.N. 20/11 22 | ||