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).
Responding to criticism from Jack Barclay and Sclater Booth regarding the B.V. model's design and performance.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 123\2\ scan0033 | |
| Date | 16th July 1940 | |
| To Rm.{William Robotham - Chief Engineer} Ev.{Ivan Evernden - coachwork}1/JH.16.7.40. re Criticism of B.V. Many thanks for the opportunity to hear what Mr. Jack Barclay and Mr. Sclater Booth have to say about the B.V. We would like to make a few brief comments on these reports. Jack Barclay B.34.AW. The complaint of pitching would indicate the wrong relationship between the front and rear suspension rating resulting most certainly we believe by the wrong poundage for the springs. We quite agree with the remarks concerning the lack of room in the rear seats, this being due to Park Wards not making the rear floor or the front seats to our drawings. The B.V. body is not so good looking as the B.II for 2 reasons :- (1) the body is much bigger (2) the lines chosen for the B.V. are those which tend to give a heavy appearance. The relative slopes of bonnet hinge to level top of frame are B.V. 1° 39 minutes, B.II 1° 33 minutes. Fully laden these slopes relative to the ground would be B.V. 1° 31 minutes B.II 1° 6 minutes. In the "car empty" position we estimate that the bonnet top hinge slope of the 2 cars should be approximately equal because of the relatively much softer front springs on B.V. A great weakness in the design of bonnet on B.V. is the ability of the coachbuilders to mount the body high and to pack up the rear bonnet hinge eye on the dashboard. Mr. Ward invariably finds he needs .125 to .25 of packing. Mr. Sclater Booth. We are of the opinion that this gentleman has been driving an American car, and has become converted. His remarks are not altogether consistent paragraph to paragraph. Cont'd.{John DeLooze - Company Secretary} | ||