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).
Criteria and considerations for implementing improvements on the Phantom model.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 69\4\ scan0212 | |
| Date | 8th November 1927 | |
| [Handwritten top left] Hs{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} [Handwritten top center] X8770 To BY from BJ. Improvements to present Phantom. Copy to Wor.{Arthur Wormald - General Works Manager}, Hs.{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair}, C., Sg.{Arthur F. Sidgreaves - MD}, PN.{Mr Northey}, CWB. With reference to BY2/GW/11/27, you will have seen that I have already dealt with most of the items you mention in my memo. to Wor.{Arthur Wormald - General Works Manager} of yesterday, BJ12/E7/11/27. We are all most anxious to include as soon as possible in the standard chassis any points which will be an improvement. In arriving at a decision, however, we have to consider certain points including: 1. Whether the improvement is to overcome a risk of life or serious breakdown, or whether it is an improvement in riding qualities - therefore, to what extent it is imperatively urgent. 2. How far it has been tested in its present form. We all know that one of the strictest points of policy in the Company for many years has been that we must not give our customers anything until we have taken every possible precaution, and especially run it 10,000 miles to ascertain whether under ordinary running conditions it will prove satisfactory. We know from much experience that the bumping test for engines does not always find weaknesses which are found at high speeds on the French roads over long periods. 3. If items are introduced without adequate test, and we are agreed that 10,000 miles is the only adequate practical test, whether it is likely to add to the enormous annual expenditure which we are already bearing in correcting weak points on the present chassis, as set out on our free of charge cards, which at present represent a total liability of [handwritten correction: approx £32,000] on the 40/50 HP and £3,000 [handwritten: (approx)] on the 20 HP. 4. Whether the improvement is worth the money or annual loss. Some improvements are not merely mechanical but solely selling points, such as the arrangement of the dials (a) on the instrument board as they are now, or, (b) in a grouped instrument scheme, and to a lesser extent, the battery in the frame. Taking the items mentioned by you:- 1. Parallel Axle Control. We agree this should be included as soon as possible. 2. Rear Spare Wheel Carrier. This is mentioned in my memo. to Wor.{Arthur Wormald - General Works Manager} of yesterday. We must remember that in running 10,000 miles in France the 20 HP wheel carrier failed, although presumably it had been fairly well tested previously. The amount of testing which the new 40/50 HP spare wheel | ||