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).
List of required modifications and corrections for a car body sent to coachbuilder Park Ward & Co., Ltd.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 12\6\ 06-page110 | |
| Date | 24th August 1934 | |
| - 3 - Messrs. Park Ward & Co., Ltd. 24/8/34. be shewn on examining the full-sized drawing. (10) In one case the body bolt came exactly opposite a vertical bolt through the body bottomside. In future, care should be taken to see that there are no bolts in the bottomside in the vicinity of any of the body bolts. (11) The bolts for the third body brackets came practically under the trimming of the inside of the wheel arches. (12) The bottomside of the body in the vicinity of the front floor is too high. The height of the bottomside should be the same as the height of the front floor on future bodies. Also, the body had not been filled in at the side opposite the sloping front floor, so as to match up with it and prevent hot air and fumes getting into the front compartment. We suggest that on your jig you fit a wooden model of our sheet metal front floorboard, (of which you have a drawing) so that the body may be made to suit them. (13) The filler catch fouled the bracket to which is attached the fixing for the stay belonging to the top lid{A. J. Lidsey} at the back of the body. On future bodies of this type we think it will be necessary to reduce the width of the opening for the luggage space and to provide a separate trap door in the body for access to the petrol filler. (14) Insufficient clearance has been provided between the rear panel and the rear horns of the chassis frame to enable a bumper fixing to be fitted. We shall send you in due course a design for fitting bumpers to the back of the chassis and future bodies will be built to suit it. (15) We had considerable difficulty in adjusting the doors, and in the case of the nearside rear door, we could not get it right; while it was clear at the front top corner at the cantrail, it was foul on the bottom rear corner of the wheel arch. On experimental bodies which would have to be mounted when fully complete, we think the clearances should be more advantageous. generous. (16) The jig in connection with the front wings seems to be slightly in error, as the front edge of the apron did not match up with the | ||