Talk:Rolls-Royce Limited

Car images?

Does anyone else find the car images overpowering?! It is difficult to tell that they made aircraft engines as well. Needs a trim down I think. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

It's got even sillier lately, new images have added a raft of whitespace. Is there not a Rolls-Royce car article? This article is about the company (that also made a lot of aero engines). Appears to be out of control. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Luxury?

"When World War I broke out in August 1914 Rolls-Royce (and many others) were taken by surprise. As a manufacturer of luxury cars, the company was immediately vulnerable"

This is the first mention that the cars were considered luxury cars. The first section should mention the fact that the cars were considered luxury cars, and contrast them to other cars of the period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.107.91.105 (talk) 20:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Rolls-Royce cars were never set out to be exclusively luxury cars, although that is how they ended up being percieved. The guiding principle was always quality, in that their cars never allowed cheapness to be a criteria in their design or construction. Put simply, a part or component was chosen/designed so as to be the best (and in the engineering sense, most elegant) possible solution to the problem, and as a result this made the cars much more expensive than many of their contemporaries. This 'quality' guiding principle later transferred to the aero engine side of the company, something that becomes much more important when you have lives dependant on the reliability and usability of an engine.

BTW, Rolls-Royce didn't actually make anything other than the engine/chassis and running gear, and other mechanical components - the bodies and upholstery were made by a company of the customer's choosing, usually a specialised coachwork company like Mulliner's. So the 'luxury' of the visible portions of the car were largely a result of the customer's own choices. For example, a customer buying a Rolls-Royce Silver Ghost could theoretically if/he so wished, have had this put on the RR-supplied chassis instead; Rolls-Royce Armoured Car. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 11:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Merger Proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was merge into Rolls-Royce Limited. -- Mrmatiko (talk) 09:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

---

I propose that the article Rolls-Royce of America be merged into Rolls-Royce Limited because Rolls-Royce of America doesn't seem to be significantly separate from Rolls-Royce Limited to be worthy of its own article. It would also be fairly trivial to incorporate the information contained in the Rolls-Royce of America article into this article as a new section. Mrmatiko (talk) 13:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Check the Phantom IV talk page

Come on. --RThompson82 (talk) 07:01, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Military vehicles

I have been alerted to more stuff that I think should be in this article by finding this 1964 item (while looking for something else)
Rolls-Royce Engine In New B.M.C. 112 mph Saloon. The Times, Wednesday, Aug 19, 1964; pg. 5; Issue 56094 from which I quote:
"MULTI-FUEL ENGINE
. . . On the engine side of the factory production of the "K" range of multi-fuel opposed piston engines is also being expanded. These extremely powerful compact six-cylinder units, which will run on four different kinds of fuel, from 80 octane petrol to paraffin, were introduced 14 months ago as a future replacement for the "B" range of Rolls-Royce engines, which at present power all the wheeled vehicles of the British Army and are in use by 21 governments.
The outstanding advantages of the Rolls-Royce "K" engine are its small number of moving parts and longer working life. It has no valves, springs, rockers, tappets, push-rods, camshaft or cylinder head so servicing can be cut to a minimum."

Elsewhere I have found the statement that more than 30,000 of those "B" type engines have been made so they are noteworthy for Rolls-Royce

I don't know anything of the subject so I can only draw it to some generous person's attention for addition to the article. Eddaido (talk) 21:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

RR engines were also used in the Austin Champ and several others such as the Alvis Saladin, FV432, and similar. Then there's the Rolls-Royce Meteor which was a tank engine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 15:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Bankruptcy due to RB211 or not?

The RB211 page says that the engine was not the cause of bankruptcy but a currency fluctuation was, however this page says that the engine was at fault? Which is true!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.253.64 (talk) 16:17, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

The cause of Rolls going into receivership was the company agreeing to develop the RB211 on a fixed-price contract basis with Lockheed for the engine, an engine which subsequently cost far more to develop than the management had anticipated. So, being unable to pass the increased cost on to the customer, the company would have then been forced to sell each engine to Lockheed at a loss. In addition the management cancelled development of the RB203 and RB207, data from-which would have helped with solving some of the RB211's initial problems normal in the development of any new engine. By 1970 RR had run up considerable debts with no foreseeable way to pay for them.

Other factors also came into play - the fall in the Pound at around this time would also have affected RR's viability - but the real cause was RR's management making an unwise fixed-price deal with Lockheed, and in them then vastly underestimating development costs of the engine. The RR management then compounded the problem by making poor subsequent decisions.

Lockheed were also in financial difficulty at the same time, as the US government had recently reduced an order for Lockheed C-5 Galaxys which also put them (Lockheed) under considerable financial pressure, so they would have been unable to afford to pay any increase in the unit cost of the RB211 anyway. So the fixed-price contract with Rolls for the engine couldn't be re-negotiated, which in other circumstances might have been possible. At the time, there were no other firm applications for the RB211 other than the L-1011 TriStar and so Lockheed was RR's only customer for the engine.

After nationalisation in 1971 Stanley Hooker - who had been with RR initially, and later Bristol Siddeley, and who had by then retired - was brought in to head engine development and he helped bring the RB211 into service. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.215.150 (talk) 10:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Phantom II question

The article for the Rolls-Royce Phantom II lists the Continental version of the car as having a short wheelbase but doesn't say exactly what it was. There are two different lengths given for the Phantom II's wheelbase: 144 inches and 150 inches. I'm not going to automatically assume it was 144, and the section describing the Continental makes it sound like it was probably shorter than that. Does anyone know what it was? (I'm asking the question here because this Talk Page gets a lot more traffic.) --RThompson82 (talk) 08:28, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Pronouncing

[ˌrəʊlzˈrɔɪs] is the English pronunciation, often mistaken with [ˌrəʊlsˈrɔɪs]. Roger Mumok (talk) 06:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC) Roger Mumok

Dependent on regional origin and class of the speaker probably. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:16, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

what I meaned is that in Flander we say [ˌrəʊlsˈrɔɪs] but the English they say [ˌrəʊlzˈrɔɪs] with a Z. This is funny.Roger Mumok (talk) 17:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC) Roger

The Indian King paragraph

I feel that the paragraph about a maharaja being humiliated and then buying several Rolls-Royces in retaliation almost a century ago, a paragraph that was repeatedly added and then removed in the past weeks, is such a small detail in the rich history of Rolls-Royce that it does not merit a place in an encyclopedic article about the brand. Any more thoughts on why this should or should not be included? Mark in wiki (talk) 10:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

'rich history' 'about the brand' you seem to have a POV here. That Rolls Royce is some lofty brand that we need to promote and protect. That's what their corporate marketing website is for. This is an encyclopedia. Ghost of hugh glass (talk) 11:29, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

@Ghost of hugh glass: Consider toning down your rhetoric a bit here. You're veering dangerously close into personal attack territory. I also noticed that you just did an ad hominem attack on him without actually addressing any of his points. Since this is an encyclopedia, could you try addressing the points about how the Indian King is not relevant in the overall history of Rolls Royce? Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 13:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure you know what an ad hominem attack is. Luckily, we have an article on it. I suggest you read it, so as not to incorrectly accuse people of it again in the future. Ghost of hugh glass (talk) 14:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

@Mark in wiki: Just as a thought, you shouldn't be referring to the fact that this incident was over a century ago. Time passed since an event happened doesn't have any effect on its notability. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 13:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I concur this is a minor incident that isn't relevant in a top-level corporate article. It would probably be relevant in the person's bio article, but not here. - BilCat (talk) 18:05, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Hoax / Urban legend

The sources cited for the "The Indian King incident" section contain contradictory information: [1] says that it was Maharaja of Alwar, [2] says that it was Maharaja of Patiala.

On further research, I found that there are tens of conradictory accounts, each claiming involvement of a different noble in the incident:

Maharaja of Bharatpur

• The earliest source that I can find is a 1993 book, which mentions "Maharaja Sawai Mansingh Bharatpur" (never heard of any Bharatpur king by this name). Apparently, he was "used to getting all the attention", and felt insulted when he was "treated as an ordinary customer". So, he purchased three Rolls-Royce cars and started using them as truck pullers with a garbage trailer attached to them.
• This 1996 book (page 301), which claims that the Maharaja of Bharatpur did this after being snubbed by an "overbearing young Rolls Royce salesman".
• A 1997 article (supposedly from TIME) claims that he "bought all the Rolls-Royces in a London showroom and turned them into garbage trucks back home" because he was snubbed by a salesman.
• A 2001 article claims that he threatened to convert his cars into garbage carriers, when Rolls Royce firm delayed sending mechanics to his capital.
• A 2010 article mentions two Maharajas - of Bharatpur and Patiala. It claims that Patiala king actually deployed his cars for garbage collection, and the Maharaja of Bharatpur threatened to do so when he was refused a mechanic.

Maharaja of Alwar

• The earliest mention about the Alwar Maharaja is a one-line tidbit in a 1988 Readers' Digest article (p. 229): It claims that the Maharaja of Alwar converted the cars into garbage trucks because of a dispute with Rolls-Royce "over some modifications to his six automobiles"
• This book claims that the Maharaja did it because he was a nationlist who wanted to snub Churchill. So, he used Rolls-Royce cars, the "great English symbol of imperial capitalism" for garbage dumping.
• This source claims that he did it because the salesman refused to take him on a test drive.

Maharaja of Patiala

• This book claims that it was Bhupinder Singh of Patiala who deployed his old Rolls-Royce cars to pick up garbage in Patiala, because the company did not accept his order for a new car in 1930. It also claims that it was the British rulers who forced Rolls Royce to comply with the Maharaja's request.
• This book claims that a salesman insulted him as "garbage", when he inquired about the price of a car in London. So, he bought "every Rolls Royce that was available in the London area", filled them with garbage, and paraded them throughout London (not India). This incident was supposedly covered by the press.
• This 2014 article claims that two different Maharajas of Patiala did this. Bhupinder Singh did it because of the company's refusal to accept his order for new cars, and another one did it because he was treated badly by a salesman. It also claims that similar incidents happened with the Maharajas of Alwar and Bharatpur -- so, in all, 4 different Indian kings used their Rolls-Royce cars as garbage carriers.

Nizam of Hyderabad

• This book claims it was a Nizam of Hyderabad who converted a single Rolls-Royce car into a garbage dump, after being insulted by a salesman.
• This source claims that Nizam Mukarram Jah "used his Rolls Royce cars pick up garbage across the city"

Nawab of Bahawalpur

This source claims that it was Nawab of Bahawalpur who was insulted by the salesman

Maharaja of Mysore

This one claims that it was Maharaja of Mysore who deployed the cars for "garbage collection in the Mysore palace garden" after being snubbed by a salesman in London. The incident supposedly happened in the 1940s, and the The Times of London "carried a front-page report with a striking photograph of the Rolls full of garbage."

Another unnamed Maharaja

• 2014 mentions that "another maharaja" converted his cars into garbage trucks, because he refused to be subservient to the British and wanted to insult them

Analysis of the photograph

Multiple articles include the the alleged photograph of Rolls Royce being used for sweeping streets of a city variously claimed to be Alwar, Bahawalpur, Hyderabad etc.

However, the clothing of the people in the photograph clearly shows that the photograph is not from an Indian city. I am not very knoweldgeable about vintage cars, but the car in the photograph might not be a Rolls-Royce Silver Ghost at all (all the sources that name the model used for garbage collection mention it as Silver Ghost). Moreover, the image has Hebrew(?) text at the bottom. I can'f tind the original source, but the brooms are in front of the tires, indicating that these probably served a protective function (removing sharp objects and thus, avoiding damage to the tires).

Conclusion

This seems like an urban legend to me. I'm willing to change my opinion if someone produces a decent reliable source (preferably contemporary, since several of the articles claim that Rolls Royce apologized after the English newspapers covered the incident). utcursch | talk 02:38, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

The car with brooms in the photo is not a Rolls-Royce at all. It's an ordinary 1933-34 American Ford. Go.pawel (talk) 12:13, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

The more usual English term for discarded material and items is "refuse" or more commonly "rubbish", and few people either in Britain or India would have used the quoted more commonly American term "garbage".

BTW, the linked photo as the previous poster states is not a Rolls-Royce and is of a left-hand drive car and the Indians, like the British, drive on the left and therefore have right-hand drive cars.

I nearly forgot. Until after WW II (when RR then had their own bodies made by the Pressed Steel Company) Rolls-Royce only supplied the engine, chassis and running gear. The rest of the car was then fitted-out by a specialised coachbuilder to the customer's own specification. What the customer chose was therefore entirely left to the customer's good taste - or lack of it, and was of no concern to Rolls-Royce. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.11.216 (talk • contribs)

Several old Rolls Royce cars can be still found in Hyderabad museums and at Hyderabadis too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:6496:ACDD:F8EF:5B82:6FE1:66DA (talk) 21:01, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

WW1 aero engines

A little research suggests the total Rolls-Royce areo engine production in WW1 was 7398 engines. As something like 100000 Gnome et Rhone engines of various types were built (mostly under license)(*), and around 50000 Hispano-Suiza V8 (the most, I think, of a single design), the statement that Rolls Royce made "around half the engines used by the Allies" cannot be supported.

(* even if one takes out the Gnome engines built under license in Germany, the number built for the allied side far exceeds the number of Rolls-Royce engines) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:589:102:B920:89E8:BAEF:9AD3:13F6 (talk) 22:31, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you will provide citations in support of your statements? (Not another Wikipedia article that would not be acceptable). Eddaido (talk) 11:26, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Definite article

Dear Bilcat. Can you see any difference in meaning between these two phrases: 1. a wikipedia editor Bilcat and 2. the wikipedia editor Bilcat? Regards, Eddaido (talk) 03:59, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

"You can configure your own Rolls Royce here"

The "Motor cars" section reads like it has been copied from promotional material, even includes a link to a car configurator. --Kshade (talk) 23:45, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Get rid of Suhail Al Zarooni photo

It doesn't illustrate anything mentioned in the article, and has nothing to do with the section its in ("1977 Rolls-Royce drops (1971) from its name")

also this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Suhail_Al_Zarooni_(3rd_nomination)

Army Ramped powered lighters & work boats

Royal engineers USED C6TFLM X2 IN RPL vessels & workboats 84.9.83.138 (talk) 17:02, 16 February 2022 (UTC)