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).
Three proposed body types for the EAC.10 chassis, to be known as 'SS'.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 68\2\ scan0209 | |
| Date | 23th March 1928 | |
| DA{Bernard Day - Chassis Design}/EV.{Ivan Evernden - coachwork} SG.{Arthur F. Sidgreaves - MD} from R.{Sir Henry Royce} Hs.{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} BY.{R.W. Bailey - Chief Engineer} c. to BJ. Wor.{Arthur Wormald - General Works Manager} PN.{Mr Northey} c. to C. CWB. +8530 R2/M23.3.28. X7770 X.7830 X.8530 CAR BODIES - EAC.10. TO BE KNOWN AS 'SS{S. Smith}' X.8530 My letter suggested 3 different bodies for the 3 chassis of the above type - (1) Sports - preferably closed (fabric type probably). (2) Fixed roof cabriolet de ville of medium dimensions - i.e. 6-seater, as low in seats and roof as reasonably possible, and as light as ever possible, with good appearance. (3) One of Sales demands - specimen for a certain class of customer. (1) and (2) would be - as EAC.7. (my car here) - to WW. ideas, doing all we can to make the whole car the greatest success and pleasure to a reasonable owner. No. (3) shall have WW's help or not, as sales wish, but it should be realised that responsibility without control is impossible. Everybody who has had experience with EAC.7 is extremely pleased with it, especially with the height of seats and roof. We are putting the Company to a lot of expense to get the car floor 1" lower, so that we ought to have at least one of the ordinary useful 6-seater bodies as silent, light, and with minimum wind resistance, as reasonably possible, and I would rather forego No. (1) than abandon No. (2) to the caprice of the coachbuilders designer, or the coarse requirements of an inexperienced buyer. I have suggested that perhaps the body I have here could be transferred, but this is such a good and useful car that it would be a great pity to destroy it. Regarding the fittings, I thought we should use an underframe for (2) and (3), so that the chassis need not go to the coachbuilders, and that (1) would be built as other sports bodies i.e. with sandwiched steel-wood runners to reduce weight to the minimum. Regarding body dimensions, space efficiency should be watched, I have seen several bodies much too clumsy for the useful space available. contd :- | ||