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).
Letter addressing a dispute over the design approval process and responsibility for defects on a Phantom II car body.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 84\1\ scan0334 | |
| Date | 6th November 1934 | |
| Ev.{Ivan Evernden - coachwork} -3- C?/06.11.34 therefore, rather surprising that you should compare these three bodies with the two at Olympia. Re 86-SK...Phantom II. You say: "We think it is a great pity that when the design of this body was submitted to 'S' for approval for Exhibition we were not given an opportunity of criticising it because all of the defects discovered on test we would have foretold before the car was built." The drawing was not submitted to 'S' but the full size working drawing was seen by you, according to Park Ward, and you gave them certain suggestions intended to help to make the car a success; for instance, as to how the tail should be attached to the chassis frame. So that we cannot quite understand how you can now say that it was submitted to 'S' for approval but was not seen by you, the contrary being the case, and I should like to know why we were not warned by you as to the objections. I think we all agreed, as soon as we saw this body at Olympia, that it was an undesirable type. We have, of course, for many years, allowed a certain amount of self-expression to Coachbuilders for their Show cars where something sensational is striven for. These three Show cars must, of course, receive very careful consideration before they are issued, but many alterations can be made in the distribution of weight and the removal of excess items in order to get nearer to our standard. So far as our three stock cars are concerned, however, as mentioned above, there is a limit on the weight and equipment, etc., and we have the right to refuse delivery. C. PS. Since dictating the above I have learned that some suggestions I made to Park Ward on the telephone last week, after a meeting I called of our technical representatives in London, including | ||