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).
Differences for production cars regarding rear spring oiling, servo lining, thermostat, and exhaust fittings.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 14\6\ Scan101 | |
| Date | 26th July 1929 | |
| To HY{Tom Haldenby - Plant Engineer}, From MS, C. to OT, C. to EX. X7230 HS.{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair}2/AM7.26.7.29. Handwritten notes: X7770 X7410 X7230 X7370 S.E. CMZ. Replying to TAm7/H.{Arthur M. Hanbury - Head Complaints} 25.7.29. We expect that there will be one or two differences in the production cars from the specification attached to the standardization sheet, because since that car was run, certain modifications have been agreed to. As regards the points mentioned in the above memo. (1) Rear spring Oilings. There is no reason for this not being on the production cars. All the Expl. cars run in France had the springs made with this scheme. We look upon it as most important. We consider it would be a mistake to send any cars away unless this is fitted. (2) We prefer the Cotton-duck lining on the servo in preference to the Halo. Our objection to the Halo is that we found the efficiency of the servo decreased when everything was hot. If the Test Dept. are satisfied that this fault is not manifest on the production cars, we see no reason why we should not complete a certain number of cars with the Halo lining. (3) It has been decided not to fit Thermostat. (4) Exhaust Fittings. The exhaust fittings were altered after the 10,000 mile test. We have run the latest sufficiently far and are satisfied with it. | ||