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).
Rear seat discomfort due to weight distribution, with a comparative analysis of axle weights on various similar limousine models.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 106\1\ scan0363 | |
| Date | 14th September 1935 | |
| S/W....Hd{Mr Hayward/Mr Huddy}/SB{Mr Bull/Mr Bannister} -> c. to Hs.{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} C3/C14.9.35 Re Chassis No. GAF-23..Lady Guthrie. Hd{Mr Hayward/Mr Huddy}/SB{Mr Bull/Mr Bannister}1/HR10.9.35 This is rather disconcerting, more particularly your remark that one of the chief causes of discomfort is bad weight distribution with the rear seat well over the back axle. I should be interested if you would please let me know in what respect this differs from our usual full size Limousine, as, of course, we supply a very large number of these, and from our records this body does not appear to be peculiar. In order to compare the distribution of weight I have had half-a-dozen similar cars by various Coachbuilders taken out and the weights compared on the front axle and rear axle. The list is as follows:- Front Axle Weight. Rear Axle Weight. cwts. qrs.lbs. cwts. qrs. lbs. GAF-23.Hooper (Lady Guthrie). 17 2 14 20 0 7 GAF-24.Park Ward Limousine. 17 2 14 20 2 14 GAF-17.Thrupp & Maberly - Standard. 17 1 7 20 2 14 GAF-48.Thrupp & Maberly Standard. 17 1 0 20 3 0 GAF-41.Barker 17 2 14 20 0 14 GAF-40.Hooper 17 3 0 20 1 21 From this you will see that the variation is very small and therefore one would expect that the remarks you apply to the above car must apply to all similar types of body, and this is our most popular type. The matter of the rear seat we are taking up with the Coachbuilders and hope they may be able to effect some improvement, but we would like to have your further remarks on this question of weight distribution. C. | ||