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).
Summary of communications concerning a customer's defective battery on Chassis No. 20-TW.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 46\3\ Scan112 | |
| Date | 4th November 1922 | |
| COPY. X.604 PRECIS C.A.Hartley Esq. Chassis No. 20-TW delivered 24.1.20 to Messrs. Barkers. 25.5.22. Inspection memo 3118 (H2/TB/25.5.22) reporting that customer complained the battery was defective, and asking for B.J's decision as to whether a new battery should be sent, whilst the defective one was returned to W. and examined. 26.5.22. Wire received from B.J. instructing a new battery to be forwarded to replace defective one. 10.6.22. Memo H2/TB/9.6.22 received enclosing copies of letter from customer dated 8.6.22, also copies of two letters dated 1.6.22 and 8.6.22 from Messrs. H.J. Galliers (Chloride Co's Brighton Agents) to C.A. Hartley Esq. Messrs. Galliers letter stated that they had examined and repaired 2 cells of the faulty battery, and they found that the positive groups were buckled. The cause of the trouble, they stated appeared to be that the cell had been exceedingly hot, and this would probably be caused by over-charging as they understood the generator fitted to the car usually charged at 15 amperes, where-as the normal charging rate for this particular battery was 6 amperes. Before the cells were refitted or a new battery fitted, they suggested that the charging rate be cut down to suit the battery. 16.6.22. We take the matter up with The Chloride Co. re the alleged over-charging of the battery. 17.6.22. The Chloride Co. reply that they are sorry one of their Exide Agents have made such a misleading statement regarding the charging of the Exide batteries, and they will circulate all their Agents on this point, to prevent a repetition. They further state that the rate given on label on the battery is that suitable for re-charging a battery in the garage, but as specified in their booklet No.2009, no harm will be done to the battery if the current is increased to say four times this value for short periods, under running conditions on a car. 29.6.22. We inform customer of The Chloride Co's remarks. 4.11.22. Faulty battery examined at Works by Chloride'Co's representative and E.F.C. and they came to an agree-ment that the cost of repairing the battery be divided equally between ourselves and C.A.Hartley Esq. | ||