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).
Internal discussion on future car development strategy, timelines, risks, and market positioning of new models.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 21\2\ Scan099 | |
| Date | 5th December 1931 | |
| -2- Hs.{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair}1/WJ.5.12.31. Cont'd.{John DeLooze - Company Secretary} (1) We know from experience that whatever promises are made, we shall not get the designs completed for another car for months and months. We also know when those designs are completed there will have to be a number of modifications to the designs before the car is satisfactory. If we attempt a supercharged car, of which we have had no previous experience, then these troubles will be greater. If one takes a really optimistic view based on hope rather than experience, we might have the new supercharged car ready for sale in 18 months. (2) If we take the 'Peregrine' a/c. the promise is a standard 'Peregrine' next May or June. If we supercharge it and alter it, it will mean some delay on that date. As this is a new design of engine with liners, rubbers rings, gears at the back, etc., and with the supercharge it would be punished in a sports car more than any other engine we have made, it would be foolish to expect this car to be ready under twelve months. (3) We believe the Bentley goodwill will have depreciated almost to nothing if we make no announcement for twelve months. In that case it would be better to call it an R.R. rather than attempt to revive the name that is almost forgotten. (4) The fact that we propose making also a Bentley car need not in any way prevent us going ahead with either a small supercharged model or the 'Peregrine'. The car we propose would keep the interest in the Bentley and we believe such a car would increase the value of the name. (5) According to our programme, if we make J.J we shall drop the present 25 HP. because it is thought that the present size is not big enough for a family car. We think, however, that the present size is ideal for an un-supercharged sports car. (6) All existing jigs, tools, and patterns would be used for this car. The parts are all proved and therefore we are taking the minimum risk. (7) If we make an early announcement the public would expect the car to be a cross between an R.R. and a Bentley, and look forward to it having certain R.R. features. This car, different to the R.R. however, would be sold on performance. (8) The only criticisms I believe against the car proposed is that it may be too good. I do not believe any other car which is designed would be as cheap but I feel the car must be good because it will still be a high priced car compared with other makes. | ||