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).
Cost analysis report on the economies of using tools for body production, comparing costs and savings across different production volumes.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 117\2\ scan0204 | |
| Date | 12th February 1940 | |
| Rm.{William Robotham - Chief Engineer}14/MH.{M. Huckerby}12.2.40 - 2 - 2. ECONOMIES EFFECTED DUE TO THE USE OF TOOLS. As we have previously pointed out, the tools only apply to the wings and shell, and the cost of these items in any case represents something less than 25% of the total cost of the body. The actual parts affected by the Motor Panel's tools when made by hand cost £67.17.8d., the tool cost being absorbed in 500 bodies. Therefore, the actual saving due to the tools on the first 500 bodies amounts to £4.14.10d. and for all subsequent bodies, (the whole of the tool cost having been absorbed on the First 500) amounts to £20.10.6d. However, on the first 500 bodies, which are the ones we are talking about, only £4.14.10d. of the total reduction of £155 is due to the Motor Panel's tools. On certain items, now that Ward has got Motor Panel's costs, he is prepared to demonstrate that he could have made the tools himself and produced the parts for a lower figure than by using the Motor Panels organisation. This is a very interesting point. These figures have demonstrated that part of the tooling to the extent of £7,000 in quantities below 500 is barely worth while. In quantities of 1,000 however, it produces a reduction in cost of somewhere about 27% on the parts which the tools affect or 5% on the total body cost. 3. OTHER ECONOMIES EFFECTED ON B.V. Referring back to page 1. We have so far demonstrated that out of a total reduction in cost of £155 between B.11 and B.V bodies, only £4.14.10d. is due to the money spent on tools with Motor Body Panels. On going through Ward's figures it is clear that the remaining economies of £150.5.2. are only possible due to economies effected in (a) Labour. A steady flow of 10 chassis per week, all to be fitted with exactly similar bodies, enables an efficient organisation to be envisaged and also an increase in the amount of semi-skilled labour that can be employed. (b) Material. Ordering material in sets of 500 has a slight effect in cost reduction. The saving is rather greater than might be judged from Page 1. since, on the B.V. body, a number of pieces which used to be made in the factory on B.11 are now bought out in a fabricated condition and so transferred from Labour to material. 4. S U M M A R Y. (a) Spending £7,000 on tools will reduce the price of the body 5% after the first 500 have been made. (b) Putting bodies through in batches of 500 and at a steady rate of 10 per week, will reduce the price of the body almost 40% if Ward's | ||