# Payload question ( that old chestnut)



## ingram (May 12, 2005)

Having been looking at 'vans again I have also been looking at payload figures.

I don't need to know about possibilities of upgrading plated weights, or checking vans on weighbridges, or taking into account any extras fitted, or even what the manufacturer includes in it's unladen weight figures.

I'd just like to know peoples' opinions of what is a 'reasonably useful payload'.

I know some will have gone into it in depth while some may not have even though about it.

I have looked at stated payloads ranging from under 400kg to over 700kg while most seem to be between 450 and 550.

We travel as a couple. We don't carry bikes or motorcycles or any other very heavy items: just clothing, food, cooking materials, bedding,books and other normal stuff.

I have looked at a van which; taking into account the extras fitted probably has a remaining payload of about 420kg. That seems to me to be a bit near the 'having to be careful' figure, especially as it is quite a large van with a potential for stuffing all the available space with 'things'.

What do the readers think?

Harvey


----------



## Zebedee (Oct 3, 2007)

Hi Harvey

I'm no expert but for what it's worth I would not worry at all with a 420kg payload. Ours is less than that and we do carry bikes, but nothing else particularly heavy. Have yet to go on the weighbridge (so flimsy advice I suppose) but I did as accurate an estimate as possible with the bathroom scales, and a calculator to work out the weight of the fuel and water etc., and I reckon we are well inside the limit.

Not much help, but others will have done it properly so we can both learn.   

Cheers

Zeb


----------



## takeaflight (May 9, 2005)

Hi Harvey

probably not the way to think about things, however I always think about when I come to sell, the bigger the better.

A prospective purchaser may wont to carry bikes etc.

Roy


----------



## teemyob (Nov 22, 2005)

*tonne*

Hello,

we have a ton payload. Would imagine for 2 400-500kG is ideal.

Trev


----------



## sailor (Aug 23, 2005)

Everything with motorhomes is a compromise!

Whilst you can certainly argue that for payload, the bigger the better, on the other hand there are substantial benefits in keeping the MGW down to 3500. Mainly, I guess, on the continent but motorway tolls, speed limits, overtaking restrictions, sometimes which roads you are allowed to drive on, are all much easier under 3500.

And of course under 3500 you do not need a C1 licence. I suspect in years to come - as those of us with inherited C1 licences die off!! - it will become harder to sell vans over 3500.


----------



## strathspey (Oct 30, 2005)

ingram said:


> Having been looking at 'vans again I have also been looking at payload figures.
> 
> Hi Harvey,
> 
> ...


----------



## bognormike (May 10, 2005)

sailor said:


> Everything with motorhomes is a compromise!
> 
> And of course under 3500 you do not need a C1 licence. I suspect in years to come - as those of us with inherited C1 licences die off!! - it will become harder to sell vans over 3500.


you've hit the nail on the head, there, Sailor!  Ours is 3850, but could be downplated to 3500 which would make it more "marketable", but we would end up with only about 300kg of payload, which isn't much when on a decent trip (especially bringing back wine etc 8) ). I suspect there are loads of 'vans on the continent that are nominally under 3500, but travel over the limit for alot of the time! The old problem of OK until you have an accident, and the insurers refuse to pay out 'cos you're over your weight limit! :roll:


----------



## ingram (May 12, 2005)

OK, I'll try again:

"I *don't* need to know about possibilities of upgrading plated weights, or checking vans on weighbridges, or taking into account any extras fitted, or even what the manufacturer includes in it's unladen weight figures.

I'd just like to know peoples' opinions of what is a 'reasonably useful payload'. "

But thanks to Zebedee and Teenyob  

Harvey


----------



## rickwiggans (May 10, 2006)

Hi,

I have a Swift sundance 600. My MIRO is 2889, my MTPL is 3400, giving me a payload of 511. (all Kg).

We travel as a couple, with a fair amount of stuff, including two bikes (I know you don't want to carry them, but it puts my figures in context). Two bikes plus a rack weighs about 30kg.

Weighed, with both of us in the vehicle, with a full fuel, water and gas load, bikes on, and stuff for six weeks, we came in at 3220Kg, which still gives plenty of load available for return trip goodies, like wine! 

So, to answer your query, for us 511Kg is plenty.

Hope this helps,

Rick


----------



## bognormike (May 10, 2005)

Ingram

I would say 400-500kg is fairly useful; but then that's for our use (couple with 2 bikes) - a family with loads of gear, bikes etc would need more.


----------



## Rapide561 (Oct 1, 2005)

*Payloads*

Hi

In respect of payload, please read the small print in the brochure.

Quoting for example the Swift Group brochure re the Kontiki 669.

Mass in running order 4165 KG

Maximum authorised mass - 5000 kg

Payload - 835 kg.

Note - mass in running order includes an allowance of 75kg for the driver, and assumes the gas, water and diesel tanks to be 90% full.

Now look at a Rollerteam motorhome. The figures quoted only include an allowance for fuel and the driver. So, if you travel with a full tank of fresh water - and I do - you need to factor this in to the equation. There could be about 150 kgs to factor in.

http://www.rollerteammotorhomes.co.uk/www/techspec.php?display=chassis&mode=700&cid=5

I wish all manufacturers would quote from the same song sheet.

So, back to your question. My motorhome has a payload of 835 KG after the driver and diesel/water/gas are on board. I weighed the van yesterday and still have about 380 to play with. The van is loaded to the onions. These figures suggest I have about 455 kgs of "gear" on board. Of that, knock off the roof air con weight, satellite dish and tow bar, and I reckon my personal pots, pans, clothes, etc etc take up about 350kg.

I do not travel light however, but I would suspect that a 500 kg payload is adequate.

My previous van had a payload of 491 kg, and I had about 100 kg "slack" to play with. I did not have roof air con fitted though.

Russell


----------



## AlanMo (May 14, 2005)

I'm wondering to what extent this discussion is academic? 

Obviously loads must be kept within limits for safety reasons but have many vans been stopped and checked re payload. Also would insurance and warranty be invalid if van found to be over the limit??


----------



## Rapide561 (Oct 1, 2005)

*Payload*



AlanMo said:


> I'm wondering to what extent this discussion is academic?
> 
> Obviously loads must be kept within limits for safety reasons but have many vans been stopped and checked re payload. Also would insurance and warranty be invalid if van found to be over the limit??


Hi

I have absolutely no idea. I weighed mine for peace of mind. I am shortly adding a scooter rack and scooter - total weight about 130 kg - and so I know I can do this and still be within the total mass. Maybe I am being a bit belt and braces.

Russell


----------



## oldenstar (Nov 9, 2006)

Hi Harvey
My personal view is that if you are looking again at a Panel Van Conversion you need not worry too much about that payload figure. I know there is a large safety factor in the figures quoted for them-after all they are really commercial beasts which get hammered and overloaded on a regular basis.
If, like me, you are looking at a coachbuilt then that is a bit different especially if, like mine, it is on a motorhome specific Fiat chassis. As it happens ours, at just over 6m long, has a payload of about 580kg which should be adequate.
We are like you, just the two of us, no bikes or other energetic equipment, and even on our long French trip fully laden I did not feel we were overloaded in our Tribute, so I would have thought your 420Kg OK.
You are of course right-the Parkinson factor will come in-items WILL be loaded to fill all available space.
My view-if it is a worry for you forget the van-there will always be another along in a minute.
Be very interested to see your choice of replacement van-I know you have been looking for a looong time.
Paul


----------



## ingram (May 12, 2005)

OK thanks for the inputs: I think that 400 plus will do but would prefer a bit more. I have intended to weigh my 'van loaded for a trip, but never got around to it. Or better still to have weighed it empty, then full........ but didn't. It gets 'loaded to the gunnels' but never appears to be sagging...... no idea how much weight we carry but a lot less then before I removed the on-board 4.5kva frame generator <grin> ( due to inability to insert 'smiley ) ......................



oldenstar said:


> Hi Harvey
> Be very interested to see your choice of replacement van-I know you have been looking for a looong time.
> Paul


Paul, it isn't a PVC it *is* a coachbuilt, but the decision is not yet made: it is a lot bigger 'van than I intended to buy and that is a crucial factor: will it's size prevent us from doing the things that we usually do with our 'van? ... at the moment the answer is coming down on the 'yes' side so we are still discussing it on a daily basis: well, it was 'yes' yesterday 

The 'van is a used Lunar.

During the many hours spent crawling over motorhomes in the last four years. I have never found anything to criticise about the build quality of the British built Lunar 'Star' range.... just never found one that 'clicks' but this one does for some reason ............... even though it is *white*.

Harvey


----------



## teemyob (Nov 22, 2005)

*Loads*



AlanMo said:


> I'm wondering to what extent this discussion is academic?
> 
> Obviously loads must be kept within limits for safety reasons but have many vans been stopped and checked re payload. Also would insurance and warranty be invalid if van found to be over the limit??


Every chance of being stopped. Quite often you will see signs saying HGV's keep in left hand lane. Reason, inspection points. There is one at the Junction of A556/A56/M56 at the Lymm roundabout, one of hundreds throughout the uk.

I have seen many a private motorist and motorhomes pulled over in these by the BIB & DOT.

Anything that the Insurers could use as a get out they will.

Trev


----------



## asprn (Feb 10, 2006)

*Re: Loads*



teemyob said:


> AlanMo said:
> 
> 
> > I'm wondering to what extent this discussion is academic?


The full extent, as he's not asking about the legalities - only people's experience of payload. 

My RV weighs in "empty" at 7,300 kgs (includes genny, air cons, masses of internal equipment etc). It's plated to 8,200 kgs, leaving 900 kgs payload.

Dougie.


----------



## geraldandannie (Jun 4, 2006)

ingram said:


> <grin> ( due to inability to insert 'smiley )


Hi, Harvey

A little off topic, but have you checked :: your profile ::, and ensured

*Always enable Smilies:* is ticked "yes"?

Maybe you don't want smilies? 

Gerald


----------



## ingram (May 12, 2005)

geraldandannie said:


> Hi, Harvey
> 
> A little off topic, but have you checked
> 
> ...


It is the fact that one cannot go back and 'insert' smilies earlier in the written text: attempting to do so will always put the smily at the end of the text where it is not wanted like now 

Harvey


----------



## sallytrafic (Jan 17, 2006)

no it doesn't or rather because I have a an apple I have to put smilies in manually so I go to the top of this page press 'Smilies List'   see :evil: the :BIG: code required and enter it so :agrue:

I will now pepper this with smiles


----------



## geraldandannie (Jun 4, 2006)

ingram said:


> It is the fact that one cannot go back and 'insert' smilies earlier in the written text: attempting to do so will always put the smily at the end of the text where it is not wanted like now


Ahah. True. I normally cut the text of the smilie and paste it back in where I want it. Or sometimes, I just type the text straight in colon wink colon :wink:

Gerald


----------



## asprn (Feb 10, 2006)

ingram said:


> It is the fact that one cannot go back and 'insert' smilies earlier in the written text: attempting to do so will always put the smily at the end of the text where it is not wanted like now


Just cut 'n paste to where you want it to go. It is a little annoying that it doesn't drop it on the cursor position, but it's easily sortable.

Dougie.


----------

