# Over weight.



## john56 (Oct 14, 2012)

Just had a phone call off a pal with a 12 month old Auto Trail, he took it to the public weighbridge this week only to find he's over weight, the van was in an empty state as bought from the dealer other than his missis and half a tank of fuel.
He is now having air suspension fitted, 225 rear tyres and re-plated.
If anyone else had told me this i would not have believed them but he has run motorhomes and caravans for near on 40 years.
It makes you think doesn't it !!


----------



## talogon (Aug 12, 2009)

I don't know how the motorhome companies can get away with this.


----------



## rayc (Jun 3, 2008)

john56 said:


> Just had a phone call off a pal with a 12 month old Auto Trail, he took it to the public weighbridge this week only to find he's over weight, the van was in an empty state as bought from the dealer other than his missis and half a tank of fuel.
> He is now having air suspension fitted, 225 rear tyres and re-plated.
> If anyone else had told me this i would not have believed them but he has run motorhomes and caravans for near on 40 years.
> It makes you think doesn't it !!


What was its plated MGW?


----------



## john56 (Oct 14, 2012)

Not sure, im assuming its 3.500Kg


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

Ours was weighed as a part of the _Controle Technique_ (MoT equivalent) yesterday - the figure they quoted at the official test station was 3579kg plus or minus 100kg........

I immediately took it to our local _bascule _(weighbridge) and it recorded 3379kg.........

I must have used a large amount of gasoil driving for 30 minutes......

The maximum mass is 3850kg, the fuel tank is full but all water empty.......

so you pay your money and take your choice........

It does make life much harder to stay legal with that sort of recorded difference.

Dave


----------



## rayc (Jun 3, 2008)

john56 said:


> Not sure, im assuming its 3.500Kg


Not many Autotrails in the current crop with that, most have larger MGW's, more with many at 4250kg


----------



## john56 (Oct 14, 2012)

Could well be, I shall ask him when i see him next.


----------



## tonka (Apr 24, 2006)

Autotrails are not generally known for very poor payloads and as mentioned not many are now 3500kg.. So does he have a downplated model or looked at the figures wrong.
Most models have things like awnings built in and included in the weight.
My 700 is rated at 4250kg, 4mtr recessed awning already in place and I have 730kg of payload..

Maybe he looked at the Fiat plate instead of the upgraded Autotrail plate ??


----------



## seanoo (Mar 31, 2007)

tonka said:


> Autotrails are not generally known for very poor payloads and as mentioned not many are now 3500kg.. So does he have a downplated model or looked at the figures wrong.
> Most models have things like awnings built in and included in the weight.
> My 700 is rated at 4250kg, 4mtr recessed awning already in place and I have 730kg of payload..
> 
> Maybe he looked at the Fiat plate instead of the upgraded Autotrail plate ??


hi steve, my scout had about 100 kgs left on the rear axle when it was completely empty, no water and no people on board. had to have airride and chassis replated to get a useable van. was 3800 now 4200kg. all the best sean


----------



## Wizzo (Dec 3, 2007)

My 2009 Autotrail Apache was 100kg over weight when I bought it. We did have a few clothes and bits and pieces in but certainly not our full travelling gear. It does have a rather heavy looking towbar attached and a satellite dish but apart from that was in standard trim. Should have had 400kg payload but that had mysteriously disappeared. Since replated to 3850 from 3500.

JohnW


----------



## tonka (Apr 24, 2006)

seanoo said:


> hi steve, my scout had about 100 kgs left on the rear axle when it was completely empty, no water and no people on board. had to have airride and chassis replated to get a useable van. was 3800 now 4200kg. all the best sean


Hi Sean.. Yes our 2005 model was the same 3850kg rated and had to upgrade same as you.. The OP did say it was a 12month old van so should be built on the new heavier chassis.
Out of interest, you may know the scout and 700 have same layout but the new scout has less payload as they make it a little longer and fit a fridge/freezer...

Any of the 3500kg vans could be pushing it I guess, dont take long to use up payload...


----------



## Grizzly (May 9, 2005)

Why doesn't somebody DO SOMETHING ?

This is the second thread running with stories of vans that are overweight before they reach the forecourt and of the measures that have to be taken by the buyer.

I suspect the powers-that-be in the authority that deal with this have no idea that the current regulations cause problems to some motorhomers. Dealers clearly know but, while people buy first and moan later, they will not do anything to bring about a change.

I'm no expert on this (!) and am not affected. Surely the time has come to draw the problem to the attention of the authority and to persist with a lobbying campaign until at least the matter is properly examined and the simple changes to plating are implemented.

G


----------



## chasper (Apr 20, 2008)

Maybe the dealers having weighing equipment would go a long way when it came to making a purchase.


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

Grizzly said:


> Why doesn't somebody DO SOMETHING ?
> 
> This is the second thread running with stories of vans that are overweight before they reach the forecourt and of the measures that have to be taken by the buyer.
> 
> ...


Be careful what you wish for.

My advice is to keep it in the industry. Insist on weighing and being satisfied that you have an adequate payload before buying.

If we try to involve other agencies we may well trigger an official campaign to stop us and weigh us. Much easier for the authorities to stamp it out that way than to pay attention to products leaving converters facilities.

Overweight on the road is a legal issue while selling a van not fit for purpose is a trading standards issue. Trading standards won't have the resources to tackle it in a meaningful way whereas VOSA will.

We want the issue to be addressed by the converters, not to trigger lots of prosecutions of owners, Alan.


----------



## 747 (Oct 2, 2009)

WHO is going to do something about it?

Manufacturers give their customers what they want ...... large vans with all mod cons.

VOSA and DVLA will not want to know, it will take an act of Parliament to change anything.

Motorhomers tend to be GLAMpers more than CAMPers these days.


----------



## Grizzly (May 9, 2005)

erneboy said:


> My advice is to keep it in the industry. Insist on weighing and being satisfied that you have an adequate payload before buying.
> 
> .


I agree absolutely Alan. However there are still customers out there, ignorant of matters concerning payload- and why should they be otherwise ? It's reasonable to assume a van is sold fit for purpose after all,- who buy their dream van and only later discover it is not going to be legal if they take even sensible things away with them.

Representations need to be made and discussions go on with anyone who has any practical interest in any way in the subject.

VOSA and the like exist to promote road safety. They must realise that the situation at the moment is against that. However many vans they stop that are overweight they must know that there are thousand out there that are not stopped and owners don't even know that they are overweight legally.

I didn't realise that the French weigh vans as part of a hab check. Does this make any difference to the manufacturers who, if this was the case in UK, would have been made aware by now that their vans were not going to pass.

You're right 747, we do expect to carry everything bar the kitchen sink with us nowadays but that will not change. The answer is surely to look at the payload issue.

Who is going to do this ? Surely that has to be us, the owners.

G


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

Yes G. Us by insisting that any van we are considering buying must be weighed and by not buying vans which can't give us a reasonable payload, Alan.


----------



## goldi (Feb 4, 2009)

Morning folks,

Of course you could ask the dealer to put in the order the payload, then you have it in black and white.


norm


----------



## Grizzly (May 9, 2005)

erneboy said:


> Yes G. Us by insisting that any van we are considering buying must be weighed and by not buying vans which can't give us a reasonable payload, Alan.


But all prospective buyers must be made aware that they need to check payload. MHF members should- if they are interested- pick up on the threads on here but it looks as if it is too late for some by then.

What about others out there ? What can we to do to make them aware ? Ought we to do anything ? It's a circular argument. If we don't make everyone aware of the questions they must ask before they buy they will buy sub-standard vans and manufacturers will continue to make them and dealers to sell them. The buck has to stop somewhere !

G


----------



## rayc (Jun 3, 2008)

The reason that MH's are plated at 3500kg is in most cases is to do with licencing and not chassis limitation.
This is acknowledged by the EU authorities as one of the main thrusts for reducing the complexity of the C1 driving test. They believe that it will help reduce the number of Group B drivers who are driving with overloaded motor homes.


----------



## rayc (Jun 3, 2008)

Grizzly said:


> But all prospective buyers must be made aware that they need to check payload. MHF members should- if they are interested- pick up on the threads on here but it looks as if it is too late for some by then.
> 
> G


This sort of information is what MHF should be all about with and highlighted on the front page. The disappointment for me with MHF is that the forum is filled with floss when it should be concentrating on the core issues of buying and using a MH.


----------



## Grizzly (May 9, 2005)

rayc said:


> The reason that MH's are plated at 3500kg is in most cases is to do with licencing and not chassis limitation.


I didn't realise this until I asked a question last year about re-plating and what exactly it meant.

How possible/ desirable would it be to set motorhomes apart as a separate class and allow them to be driven on a normal licence if they over 3500 kg ?

.


> They believe that it will help reduce the number of Group B drivers who are driving with overloaded motor homes.


Which seems a bit cock-eyed as it would seem to have the opposite effect. Most of those who are overweight are probably not aware of it either. Changes would mean a lot of people who are technically law-breakers now would not be so in the furture- while still maintaining their safety.

I like the floss and would not wish it to go. There's a lot less of the feeling of community that there was when I first joined and a lot more gratuitous sniping which I suspect makes many feel uncomfortable and so leave. We could do more to make potential owners aware however.

G


----------



## rayrecrok (Nov 21, 2008)

Hi.

If anybody wants some extra payload I have loads to spare on my tag axle Hymer B 694G.. :wink:


----------



## Jean-Luc (Jul 21, 2005)

rayc said:


> The reason that MH's are plated at 3500kg is in most cases is to do with licencing and not chassis limitation.
> This is acknowledged by the EU authorities as one of the main thrusts for reducing the complexity of the C1 driving test. They believe that it will help reduce the number of Group B drivers who are driving with overloaded motor homes.


See my post HERE

The Directive includes the passage 
Such an accommodation of existing rules would reduce the risk that drivers drive with overloaded category B vehicles in order to avoid the costs of training and taking the test on C or C1 vehicles, and thus improve road safety

So it's a known issue at EU level


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

The question is what to do about all the post 1997 licence holders who want <3500kg 6 berth vans?


----------



## Mrplodd (Mar 4, 2008)

John

Can you find out what model of Autotrail he has and also what the plated (and actual) weights are/were??

I find it very hard to believe that any MH will be overweight in its empty state. I am aware that some are very close, I had a Hymer B544 on a "P" plate Fiat chassis and that was very close on its rear axle. My last but one MH was an AT Dakota on an (uprated by 350Kg) Sprinter chassis and that was STILL pretty close on rear axle. when I took the towbar off things improved a bit as all of the steelwork weighed in at 65Kg   It also had roof mounted aircon (aftermarket fit) and a solar panel (also aftermarket fit) both of which were on on behind the rear axle.

If you look at some of the Rapido's they have VERY little payload when they leave the factory before ANY extra goodies are added (like an awning  ) 

I am sure that many of the 3500Kg MAM vehicles are produced on chassis that are capable of much higher payloads but the makers need to keep them available to category B only licence holders.


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

rayc said:


> Grizzly said:
> 
> 
> > But all prospective buyers must be made aware that they need to check payload. MHF members should- if they are interested- pick up on the threads on here but it looks as if it is too late for some by then.
> ...


While I can see the sense of highlighting such information, that should initially be done by the dealers - which is where the sale commences and from our experience that is not done every time.

Yes, it should highlighted but if it was on MHF that is too late for most people - they have already BOUGHT the vehicle unaware of the weight problem as you can almost guarantee the dealer will NOT produce a current weighing result.... the dealer once again is failing in their responsibility as honest salesmen and as those "persuading" people to venture into that venture......

If it was on KHF it might be of interest to people ONCE whereas the other material is of interest virtually every day.

Perhaps the dealers who sell the vehicle should face a legal recourse if they have NOT informed the purchaser that a Group C licence is needed......

Dave


----------



## peribro (Sep 6, 2009)

rayc said:


> The disappointment for me with MHF is that the forum is filled with floss when it should be concentrating on the core issues of buying and using a MH.


What does "floss" mean in this context? The only meanings that I can find for it (all from Wikipedia) are:

Something used to clean teeth
Embroidery thread, machine or hand-spun yarn for embroidery
Fairy floss or candyfloss, alternative names for cotton candy
Rousong, i.e. meat floss
Floss, a municipality in the district of Neustadt (Waldnaab) in Bavaria in Germany.


----------



## 747 (Oct 2, 2009)

There was a Mill on the Floss.

I remember reading the book. :wink:


----------



## john56 (Oct 14, 2012)

tonka said:


> Autotrails are not generally known for very poor payloads and as mentioned not many are now 3500kg.. So does he have a downplated model or looked at the figures wrong.
> Most models have things like awnings built in and included in the weight.
> My 700 is rated at 4250kg, 4mtr recessed awning already in place and I have 730kg of payload..
> 
> ...


----------



## john56 (Oct 14, 2012)

Mrplodd said:


> John
> 
> Can you find out what model of Autotrail he has and also what the plated (and actual) weights are/were??
> 
> ...


He is off work tomorrow so hoping to get in touch with him.


----------



## john56 (Oct 14, 2012)

Ok, its an Apache 632, 2011 model, GVW 3650Kg, he was 200Kg over weight on the rear axle.
I unfortunately i didn't state in my original post that he has had a tow bar fitted, apologies for that i didn't have that information at the time but thats never going to put the back axle 200Kg over weight and bear in mind this is a 4 birth van and all the the gear that goes with 4 people, so there is no chance of keeping within the GVW stated. He is going to take it up with Autotrail, i doubt whether he will find a sympathetic ear .


----------



## Dibbles1 (Jul 4, 2013)

It's only thanks to you lot,  that we didn't end up in the same boat as your friend John.

I can't believe how many motorhome manufacturers have such large but flimsy garages, or low weight limits in large garages. Or would surely be over the axle weight if you put anything in some of the garages, or a towbar on the back. To say nothing of putting bikes and bike rack on the back.

And as for the GVW, I was totally shocked by how many supposedly 4 person MH's would go overweight with just the people on board.

There were some we looked at, that if you added the necessary extras they were already loaded with, must have been overweight before they left the showroom.

So thank you once again to everyone of you who steered us in the right direction     

Debbie

PS: Did I say you're worth your weight in gold? But I wouldn't sell any one of you.... well OK maybe one :lol:


----------



## angelaa (Feb 14, 2011)

We looked at the autotrail Navajo and the pay load was only about 220 kg. did put us off.


----------



## Grizzly (May 9, 2005)

Perhaps a simple list in MHF where members could add the payload of the van they own ( pre-additions) as well as any that they have looked at and rejected- ? A list of the mass of extras that are likely to be added bike rack, awning etc would help as well. These are all there on manufacturers websites but, again, it helps to have them accessible altogether.

I know we have this info in the Garage section but this would be easier to see at a glance. It should be accessible to non-subscribers as well and given a tag that ensures it pops up high in a Google search.

G


----------



## wakk44 (Jun 15, 2006)

I would guess that the majority of motorhomes on the road are overweight and breaking the law,that is not to say they are dangerously overweight,it is merely a technicality as the chassis can usually take more than the plated weight.

Converters are concerned with licensing regulations and keeping the MGVW below 3500kg.That won't help anyone who is pulled in for a roadside check and gets a fine and has to jettison some items before continuing on the journey.It's annoying though as it is probably perfectly safe to drive on the road but overweight and breaking the law.

The only way of making sure a motorhome is road legal is to load it up in touring mode,including water,fuel and all items that are normally carried and take it to a weighbridge with everyone on board.

I think every prospective buyer ought to do this but dealers would be reluctant to do it as it would result in a significant dent in their sales.


----------



## bognormike (May 10, 2005)

john56 said:


> Ok, its an Apache 632, 2011 model, GVW 3650Kg, he was 200Kg over weight on the rear axle.
> I unfortunately i didn't state in my original post that he has had a tow bar fitted, apologies for that i didn't have that information at the time but thats never going to put the back axle 200Kg over weight and bear in mind this is a 4 birth van and all the the gear that goes with 4 people, so there is no chance of keeping within the GVW stated. He is going to take it up with Autotrail, i doubt whether he will find a sympathetic ear .


hello John, thanks for coming back. Was he over weight overall, or just on the rear axle? 
Maybe others who have had an upgrade can answer this, if the van is upgraded to 3850 or 4000 (no problem with most, and of course it's over 3500 already!), would the figure for the back axle change in the upgrade?


----------



## peribro (Sep 6, 2009)

bognormike said:


> Maybe others who have had an upgrade can answer this, if the van is upgraded to 3850 or 4000 (no problem with most, and of course it's over 3500 already!), would the figure for the back axle change in the upgrade?


I can't answer about the Apache but on my Autotrail Cherokee (Frontier range), SVTech increased the max gross weight by 200kg and the rear axle by the same amount. I had already fitted Airride suspension that may have been an enabling factor. On my current motorhome SVTech has also increased the max gross weight by 200kg with each of the two rear axles being increased by 100kg. As always a call to SVTech should give an immediate answer about what is and is not possible.


----------



## Charisma (Apr 17, 2008)

According to Autotrails 2012 Brochure the MRO is calculated as:

Mass in Running Order
The mass in running order (MRO) is the unladen weight of a
standard vehicle, but this advertised weight includes 75kg
for a driver and the weight for the diesel assuming the tank
is 90% full and also the weight of the fresh water in the
fresh water tank assuming it is 90% full, it also includes a
weight for two gas bottles and the weight of the gas should
it be 90% full.

The Apache 632 MRO should be 3255Kgs with a maximum authorised weight of 3650Kgs.

Maximum axle loadings are 1850Kgs front and 2000Kgs rear.


----------



## selstrom (May 23, 2005)

Autotrail have a weight calculator on their web site. http://www.auto-trail.co.uk/model/apache/632/weight-calculator

It shows how easy it is to add extras and go over weight.


----------



## john56 (Oct 14, 2012)

bognormike said:


> john56 said:
> 
> 
> > Ok, its an Apache 632, 2011 model, GVW 3650Kg, he was 200Kg over weight on the rear axle.
> ...


Mike, yes he was, spoke to him today, he confirmed that his van is plated at 3500Kg, i posted that it was 3650Kg, due to late night texting i misunderstood him, it was 3650Kg on the weighbridge and he is having it re-plated at 3850Kg which i thought was still a little low but didn't push him on that as he was rather upset.
Sorry i dont know the second part of your question i expect someone on here will be able to answer that.


----------



## Ozzyjohn (Sep 3, 2007)

Charisma said:


> it also includes a weight for two gas bottles and the weight of the gas should it be 90% full.


Slightly OT, but I wonder if that means 90% of the maximum fill of 80%?

Or are we getting some "free" payload because the gas bottles could never be filled to 90%...

Regards,
John


----------



## john56 (Oct 14, 2012)

Charisma said:


> According to Autotrails 2012 Brochure the MRO is calculated as:
> 
> Mass in Running Order
> The mass in running order (MRO) is the unladen weight of a
> ...


2011 model is plated at 3500Kg.


----------



## daimlermg (Jul 3, 2012)

If you guys don’t know the Law is changing for 2014 where all motorhome converters can not have the +/- 5% on the weight as it is now, It becomes + zero and they have to weigh the van at the factory and the weight goes on the certificate of conformity.

I know this because Hymer refused to accept an order for a Exsis i 578 when I said I would reject it if it was more than 80 kgs overweight. They said it would be fine but as the B class was not made to tight weight limit’s so they could not accept orders for them so they would not do it for me.

I now have a 4250 kg motorhome and not the 3500 kg one I wanted.


----------



## anneveronica (Jan 25, 2013)

I think the dealers have a moral responsibility to advise prospective purchasers. Til I read about it on here I had no idea of anything about weight, plated or otherwise. The dealer asked me about my licence and said 'youll be fine!' 
To be honest I dont propose to do anything about it! I just wonder what will happen to any insurance claim in the future.


----------



## TJ101 (Oct 12, 2008)

rayrecrok said:


> Hi.
> 
> If anybody wants some extra payload I have loads to spare on my tag axle Hymer B 694G.. :wink:


Hi Ray

But what weight have you got spare ? you maybe 4300kg already ??

Plus, can only tow a 700 kg trailer

I would love a tag MH, but can not find one with a decent tow weight 
??

Reckon this weight issue is a lot bigger problem that it appears,


----------



## Charisma (Apr 17, 2008)

john56 said:


> Charisma said:
> 
> 
> > According to Autotrails 2012 Brochure the MRO is calculated as:
> ...


Oh sorry.  My 2011 Autotrail is a 2012 model and is plated at 3650. I think that Autotrail did this as the margin was too small previously. Cheaper Road Tax too


----------



## Hatikvah (Nov 22, 2007)

Our Autotrail Cherokee has the payload that it states, unlike the Burstner Salano we had before it and it is a great relief to know that.


----------



## G7UXG (Feb 14, 2011)

Just taken delivery of a new AutoTrail Mohawk, 2013 spec. It's a 3.0 litre with Comfort-Matic. We also have the half-dinette set-up with two extra travelling seats (not that we need them, we just prefer the dinette). AutoTrail's weight calculator page says that its mass in running order is 3500kgs, plus the weight of the options specified, which is an extra 81kgs. That's a total of 3581kgs.

When I took delivery of it I filled it up with fuel and drove it home (about 40 miles), to where I had access to a set of weight plates that I'd borrowed.... put one in front of each wheel and drive onto them.

I put in an almost full gas bottle and filled up the water tank and the motorhome weighed 3500kgs. The front axle weighed 1560kgs (max permitted is 2100kgs) and the rear one weighed 1940kgs (max 2400kgs). The only thing that was missing compared to their mass in running order figure was me (75kgs) and another gas bottle (maybe 25kgs). That would make it 3600kgs. I did have a towbar fitted as well, so subtract the weight of that and I'd be down to about 3570kgs.... pretty much bang on what AutoTrail say it is. The axles are well within tolerances as well.

The certificate of conformity and the V5 registration document list the mass in service as 3575kgs.

That leaves a payload of 675kgs with which to carry a passenger and all the other stuff that we take. My van also has four belted seats and it seems I could easily carry two extra adults within that payload.

Reading through this thread, and certainly from my experience with this and my previous Mohawk, AutoTrail seem to be pretty honest about their weights, unlike some manufacturers!

Buy a van that suits your purposes and isn't going to be overweight when you carry what you want to carry, and make sure you check it out before you buy it. If the dealer isn't happy with that then walk away.

Some peolpe will happily turn a blind eye to the weight issue but when things go wrong and vehicles get involved in extremely serious collisions then the powers that be will look at them VERY closely.

Rightly or wrongly, it's not the dealer that has to answer the questions when things do go wrong. How do they know what you're going to put in it? 

On another note, I think many people would be very surprised at how easily the average family car is overloaded too!

Mike


----------

