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).
Issues found during a second test run, including rattles and movement, and comparing the body to an experimental Bentley.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 111\1\ scan0112 | |
| Date | 6th July 1938 | |
| ATR/PC. (2) A.F.Sidgreaves, Esq. lighter appearance to the front of the car and somewhat better side vision, but we shall have to come back to the channels in order to secure support for the front edges of the dropping glasses so as to prevent rattles. We had a second run in the car after the brackets anchoring the scuttle to the chassis had been disconnected, and observed:- (a) relative movement between scuttle and bonnet possibly due to the fact that, unlike the Rolls Royce and the present Bentley, the scuttle was rigidly attached to the chassis dash. (b) rattle in neighbourhood of steering column. In an endeavour to overcome (a) Mr. Bailey intends to try a less flexible mounting for the front of the body. As regards (b), this would appear to be due to the fact that the column is tied to the body. Possibly it may be checked by the proposed stiffening of the front mounting of the body. You will appreciate that both (a) and (b) are matters which concern the chassis. To sum up, I would say our runs in the car did not confirm the disappointment with the body expressed at the meeting, but of course it is too early yet to form definite conclusions, the car having only covered about 200 miles. In conclusion, I would repeat that the body differs from that built for the experimental Bentley 3 chassis (with which your works are satisfied) in the following respects:- (1) Angle runners instead of box section. (2) Light section front pillars. contd... | ||