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).
Providing feedback and criticism on a car's performance, covering the engine, seats, and handling.
| Identifier | WestWitteringFiles\T\2July1928-December1928\ Scan006 | |
| Date | 9th July 1928 | |
| B.L. FROM R.{Sir Henry Royce} Copy to WOR.{Arthur Wormald - General Works Manager} HS.{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} ORIGINAL R1/M9.7.28. 14-EX. X7770 X7410 X7830 I quite agree with your criticisms that: (1) The engine has a slight roar. (2) The rear seat is now bad. As used in the south of France I think these were better, but I did not send it to you as the last word in luxury, but as a good car shewing: (a) The better riding qualities of the new distribution of weight. (b) The improved steering, owing to less weight on the front wheels, (especially at slow speed and parking.) (c) The improved acceleration due to engine improvement, and less total weight, although a 6 or 7 seater. (d) Better appearance because lower. Personally I do not like large, very soft seats, even in the rear. (PN.{Mr Northey} is rather an over big chap to judge for average people.) and they have made it wrong now because it is too high for the back, etc. Derby ought not to have attempted it. It would have been much better to send it to Hooper's, who made it, and your London inspector could have passed it to your standard - (let us do so now.) The body also has some noises. The engine roar suggests that the camshaft should be timed later. Really, for my personal driving I prefer the 20HP.. but if I have a driver I like the big one best still. Naturally it depends on many things. EAC. 10. will be still better than this in several ways. The frame is stiffened against torsion more than we have yet had (by engine and 'X' shaped cross member.) R.{Sir Henry Royce} | ||