# Payloads - and many especially newbies unaware of probs



## carol

PAYLOAD

A loaded question....A friend of mine (and MHF subscribed member) is having problems with his base vehicle, it looks like it may have been supplied with the wrong chassis gearing...and is now in its 4th week with Mercedes.......that is the reason behind this poll, and also the fact that - especially newbies - who have perhaps joined AFTER buying a motorhome, only to discover they have payload problems.... Would you please just take a few minutes to answer and contribute.



What do you think?


My friend is considering writing to MMM as he is so angry at the situation he is in....and it isn't as if he purchased a CI or a cheaper model, his is a Le Voyageur...top end manufacturer and at virtually a 100k..... and he is not sure who is to blame....

Please feel free to leave any comments below..

I shall kick off 

My Hymer 2001 - when purchased it had been downplated to 3.5, although all paperword was provided for me to uprate it if I so wished. We didn't and we didn't weigh it. When I bought it, I didn't know enough about it, but on both here and the motorhome-list it started to be aired and I did think perhaps we should have done it....

We bought, as many know a new Rapido this year, and due to all the posts I had read, when we were ordering it, I totalled up the chassis at 3.8 - added the auto box, and all extras, and realised that it would still not be any good, so we then opted for the Heavy (Maxi) chassis, for our peace of mind - and we are OK, having been and had it checked.

How many of you probably didn't know before you bought....

I think it is about time, something is done about it. Who should be responsible. I am unhappy about the fact that spare wheels are no longer being supplied, and those of us who think they are essential have added them.....many can't they don't have the payload...

Personally, until such time as it becomes law, I think everyone buying a motorhome new/used should ask the dealer to get a weighbridge certificate to prove what payload you have...go with them, make sure it is your vehicle that is being weighed with a full tank etc.....

Carol

Edited..... just realised you can't answer each...so instead, using the above questions - can you put your answers in a message please.... We need a poll where you can answer more than one question....


----------



## cronkle

"and it isn't as if he purchased a CI or a cheaper model,".

mine is a 'cheaper model' but I would still expect to be told what the payload is. Being cheaper there are fewer materials go into my vehicle and so we have a handsome 850 kg overall but as there is a large overhang I have to be careful of the lever effect.

Payload is a commonly discussed topic on the various forums these days .


ps I don't understand what you mean by chassis gearing.


----------



## DABurleigh

Have you been to a weighbridge anc had yours checked 
YES

Were you overweight 
NO

Did you do anything about it 
NO

Do you think it should be the Dealer/Manufacturers responsibility to 
check it when selling 
NO - Caveat Emptor

Do you think it should be COMPULSORY for them to provide Certificate on both new/used 
NO - but obviously the vehicle should comply with the declared spec

Did you buy yours without knowing what payload you had 
NO

Do you know your payload for front/rear/overall 
YES (if you mean axle limits, though front minimum is a devil)

Dave


----------



## peedee

Carol,
To some extent I can empathise with you. Trouble is very few purchasers appreciate the weight of every day items required and even fewer understand or take the trouble to find out what is included in the unladened weight. I also think manufacturers for cheapness are getting away with using lightweight chassis when they should be using a heavier chassis for what they a building on it. The result is the poor unsuspecting buyer is left with a miserable payload which he finds out when it is too late.

I have just been through an exercise of weighing my contents so I have a very good understanding of what an everyday payload can weigh and how anyone can get away with only a 300Kgm or even a 500Kgm one I do not know. I would suggest 80 percent of motorhomes are overweight.

peedee


----------



## Grizzly

Yes, we have been to two weighbridges - one VOSA who did axle weights and the other, local tip, who did gross weight.

No, we were well underweight , but we are pretty mean with what we take and don't have things like extra batteries or satellite systems. We included fuel and water and were loaded up each time for a long trip to Europe.

I do think that the current system is a minefield and needs sorting somehow. I imagine most first time buyers buy -say- a 6 berth motorhome- and assume that it has a sufficient payload to carry everything that 6 people will need and a bit over. This should include water and gas.

It ought to be made very clear - eg with the blurb on the windscreen at the point of sale- that it is permitted to carry x kg in this van, not including passengers. This is a joint responsibilty of the manufacturer and the dealer.

With the second van we bought we were very aware of what to look for in the way of payload. Not so sure we weren't lucky in the first one and it just happened to have a bigger payload than we needed. 

We know what the payload of all parts of the current van are and how to load it so that the weight is in the correct places.

We saw one van on the A1(M) that had enough behind the rear axle to make the overhang almost touch the road. I do wonder how many people who add more and more extras and then carry vast numbers of boxes of wine home understand that the van has a maximum weight allowance !

Given the fact that an overweight vehicle in Europe could be stopped and prevented from continuing until it had off loaded the extra then it is something that everyone should be wary of - not only for the sake of safety.

Just re-read the above and it all sounds a bit pi - but that's how it is folks !

G


----------



## Guest

what sort of poll is this? You can only select one question.
e.g. Have you been to a weigh bridge? YES
Were you overweight? NO
Did you do anything about it? YES - increase/uprate suspension.
Dealer responsible? YES but you should ask the question.
Do you know your payload etc.? YES

We don't need a poll, we need a survey if this is the sort of info you need.

Tco


----------



## Bubblehead

Have you been to a weighbridge anc had yours checked 
No, but we need to do it 

Were you overweight 
I dont think so

Did you do anything about it 
Not yet

Do you think it should be the Dealer/Manufacturers responsibility to 
check it when selling 
Yes, but without liability to dealer. It should be a guide

Do you think it should be COMPULSORY for them to provide Certificate on both new/used 
Yes

Did you buy yours without knowing what payload you had 
I had a reasonable idea, but only realised it didnt include any of the extras we had fitted

Do you know your payload for front/rear/overall 
No

I want to get a tow bar fitted but I dont know what the maximum tow weight is, this should be clearly satated as well.

Andy


----------



## framptoncottrell

Hi, Carol.

With all your advice before we bought, the first thing I did after getting the Murvi home was to fill the diesel and the fresh water tanks and get it weighed. I had about 200kgs to spare, which meant that with Mrs Roy, her sister, my brother-in-law and any grey water we would be overweight, unless I dumped some of the water.

Tomorrow I'm off to TVAC to get the rear suspension upgraded and the van replated to 3500kgs from 3300kgs.

I don't blame Murvi because their brochures and paperwork are quite clear - my Murvi is loaded (overloaded?) with toys, some of them heavy, and I expected to have to do something.

I paid £4 to get the van weighed - front, rear and total - so it was a small investment. When I've had the last two toys fitted, I'll get it reweighed and then I will be able to show any DVLA road checks that I am legal, and can prove it.

Best wishes, and are you going to the NEC again this October? I'll be there on either the Thursday or the Friday; haven't decided yet.

Dr (musical, not medical) Roy


----------



## peejay

Hi Carol;

Have you been to a weighbridge anc had yours checked - Yes

Were you overweight - no

Did you do anything about it - Didn't need to

Do you think it should be the Dealer/Manufacturers responsibility to check it when selling - See below

Do you think it should be COMPULSORY for them to provide Certificate on both new/used - Don't manufacturers alreay provide a MIRO (+/- 5%) weight in their brochures?

Did you buy yours without knowing what payload you had - No (maxi chassis)

Do you know your payload for front/rear/overall - Yes

An appropriate link for you......

http://www.motorhomefacts.com/ftopicp-231206.html#231206

pete


----------



## javea

Have you been to a weighbridge anc had yours checked
YES

Were you overweight
YES

Did you do anything about it
YES - S V TECH REPLATED

Do you think it should be the Dealer/Manufacturers responsibility to
check it when selling
YES

Do you think it should be COMPULSORY for them to provide Certificate on both new/used
YES

Did you buy yours without knowing what payload you had
NO - BUT Hymer apparently don't include lots of items such as bed, fridge etc. etc.

Do you know your payload for front/rear/overall
YES


----------



## teemyob

*Gearing*

Hello there,

I have answered your poll.

However, with regard to "chassis gearing" I believe you are refering to final drive. If this is the case, then your Friend is not alone in the issue with the ratio. I know of three owners who have an issue with Mercedes and Dodge Sprinters where the final drive is causing an issue with the Auto Gearbox.

The problem seems Converter Blames Manufacturer (Mercedes) they in-turn are putting some blame back to the converter.

Hope you get it sorted.

Trev.


----------



## Grizzly

Slightly off topic but can someone please explain to me what " upgrading" the chassis actually means ? In another topic someone mentioned doing it over the phone using a credit card.

That sounds as if the actual chassis _ could _ safely carry more weight than it is actually licenced for and it is only a question of legality not actual physical re-building or strengthening. Is this right ?

G


----------



## teemyob

*Chassis*



Grizzly said:


> Slightly off topic but can someone please explain to me what " upgrading" the chassis actually means ? In another topic someone mentioned doing it over the phone using a credit card.
> 
> That sounds as if the actual chassis _ could _ safely carry more weight than it is actually licenced for and it is only a question of legality not actual physical re-building or strengthening. Is this right ?
> 
> G


Hello,

Yes, some chassis are already downgraded and according to vin can be re-plated. IE 3500kG's to 3880 kG's.

Trev.


----------



## UncleNorm

Hi Carol!  

In response to your request for information on payloads, I offer the following:

Have you been to a weighbridge and had yours checked _____YES, WITHIN 20 MINUTES OF HANDOVER

Were you overweight _____NOWHERE NEAR (620kg)

Did you do anything about it _____LEARNT WHAT MY PAYLOAD WAS

Do you think it should be the Dealer/Manufacturer's responsibility to check it when selling? _____YES, TO COMPLY WITH SALE OF GOODS ACT, FIT FOR PURPOSE

Do you think it should be COMPULSORY for them to provide Certificate on both new/used? _____YES

Did you buy yours without knowing what payload you had? _____NO

Do you know your payload for front/rear/overall? _____YES


 :wink:


----------



## Rapide561

*Weight*

Have you been to a weighbridge and had yours checked - Yes - I visit the weigh bridge on an "ad hoc" basic to ensure I am operating my motorhome safely and legally.

Were you overweight - No.

Did you do anything about it - not applicable.

Do you think it should be the Dealer/Manufacturers responsibility to check it when selling - manufacturers do state weights and so on in their brochures, but due to the fact that some manufacturers quote the mass in running order to include water and so on, whilst others do not, the figures should be checked by the buyer.

Do you think it should be COMPULSORY for them to provide Certificate on both new/used - YES - but buyer beware.

Did you buy yours without knowing what payload you had - no - I read the brochure and on one motorhome - a Swift 665 - I had the payload increased.

Do you know your payload for front/rear/overall - yes for any van I have owned.

Russell

Good thread Carol.


----------



## Vennwood

As I mentioned on MHF some time ago I got caught out with our last MH and once I had it weighed and found I was overweight - seriously overweight. In my defence (as well as stupidity, ignorance and naievity) I simply assumed that anyone that built a big MH would naturally give you plenty of payload.- wrong....
I think that where most folks go wrong (and I mean newcomers to MH'ing) they don't take into account all the factory fitted options and very often when taking delivery they assume (in my case) that if the manual says 500kgs then thats what you have to fill with all your holiday gear. Things like Auto gearbox, cab and roof aircon, Awnings, additional batteries, on board gennies and Sat dishes are never taken off the basic payload figures.

All that said it seems very silly (and I'm thinking of myself in this case) that we are prepared to spend £20K, £40K or £100K on a MH and spend enormous amounts of time getting the right layout but forgetting to check the real payload available. 

I do think it should be industry practice to provide payload certificates on BOTH NEW and USED MH's as part of the handover pack. Maybe this is a new service that our fellow dealers could offer?

I'm with Peedee here I bet a large % of us are overloaded but don't/can't do anything about it.

Pete

EDIT: Just thinking about this - I guess that dealers will not volunteer to supply payload certificates because they will already know that there is so little payload available that it would make it more difficult to sell.


----------



## carol

cronkle said:


> "and it isn't as if he purchased a CI or a cheaper model,".
> 
> mine is a 'cheaper model' but I would still expect to be told what the payload is. Being cheaper there are fewer materials go into my vehicle and so we have a handsome 850 kg overall but as there is a large overhang I have to be careful of the lever effect.
> 
> Payload is a commonly discussed topic on the various forums these days .
> 
> ps I don't understand what you mean by chassis gearing.


cronkle - I didn't mean to offend anyone, I am sorry if I have given that impression - but knowing me I shall dig deeper..... I would have expected a high-end manufacturer would have had these problems solved, but obviously not.

Carol


----------



## carol

peedee said:


> Carol,
> To some extent I can empathise with you. Trouble is very few purchasers appreciate the weight of every day items required and even fewer understand or take the trouble to find out what is included in the unladened weight. I also think manufacturers for cheapness are getting away with using lightweight chassis when they should be using a heavier chassis for what they a building on it. The result is the poor unsuspecting buyer is left with a miserable payload which he finds out when it is too late.
> 
> I have just been through an exercise of weighing my contents so I have a very good understanding of what an everyday payload can weigh and how anyone can get away with only a 300Kgm or even a 500Kgm one I do not know. I would suggest 80 percent of motorhomes are overweight.
> 
> peedee


peedee - it isn't my motorhome with the problem, but I am trying to highlight a problem that perhaps some people reading are unaware of and need to take closer attention to.

But I do agree with you

Carol


----------



## carol

tco said:


> what sort of poll is this? You can only select one question.
> e.g. Have you been to a weigh bridge? YES
> Were you overweight? NO
> Did you do anything about it? YES - increase/uprate suspension.
> Dealer responsible? YES but you should ask the question.
> Do you know your payload etc.? YES
> 
> We don't need a poll, we need a survey if this is the sort of info you need.
> 
> Tco


tco - I agree....I have put in the web suggestions that perhaps Dave could find an alternative survey.... I didn't realise until I had posted it. Hence the edit at the end.

Carol


----------



## bodgerco

I am that soldier!

Carol introduced this subject after a discussion which we had offlist. Just to clarify the position. First the van was not £100K but that isn't the issue because this problem is the same across all prices.

Essentially our van is a standard sprinter 2007 wth the 2.2L/150BHP engine , Auto gearbox and a 3880KG chassis. 

When we drove away from the dealer I drove very very very carefully but when we reached our own local roads I became aware of a judder which appeared to happen because the Autobox changed up too early. In the higher gear there appeared to be insufficient power. ( at this point let me say I am not technical so slight deviation from technical purity must be accepted). The following day I emailed the dealer and described the judder and his best advice was to 'give it more welly'. I did , and it helped , but it didn't solve the problem. I emailed again and this time I was told , and this was later confirmed by the Merc handbook, that the engine / gearbox adjusts to your driving style - over a period undefined. Most people guessed at a few thousand miles so I was prepared to be patient. 

This is, of course, a leisure vehicle, and as such I don't drive it every day but each time I drove it I was well aare of the issue. A subsequent conversation with someone more lknowledgeable dismissed the 'learning' process by saying that would happen in the driving home - so if this is true I have a real problem.

I returned the vehicle to the dealer who drove it and witnessed the judder but dismissed it with ' some are like this'. I was still unhappy so took it to my local Merc garage. Their analysis was that there was nothing actually wrong with the vehicle. Again I returned to the dealer knowing it was his responsibility to get this sorted. He drove it ( different man) and acknowledged the judder was more evident than he would expect and agreed to take it to their local Merc garage. Again, the second dealer confirmed that the vehicle was 'to spec'.

I now spoke to Mercedes direct who subsequently asked my local dealer to have the van back again. They analysed a second time - again it tested goos BUT they commented that it might be it's weight that was the problem. I took it to the weighbridge and it was within the plated level so that didn't explain the problem BUT it was frighteningly close to being overweight.

This bothered me because the 'normal' build of this model is on the 3500KG chassis but the quoted payload was not adequate in my view so I specified an upgarde to 3880KG believing I would have oodles of payload to take the wife and dog away with me as well so I was surprised that it was so close to the limit.

I have subsequently found that most vans , not just of this marque, but also of other marques are supplied at 3500KG knowlingly allowing the drivers to drive overweight. In UK we are aware of the fact that over 3500KG there are problems when you reach age 70. In Germany I understand that above 3500KG you need an HGV license so it is not surprising that the manufacturers plate at 3500KG but it is OUR responsibility as customers to be diligent. 

I am still not convinced that the manufacturer's quoted payload is accurate but in my view my dealer should have warned me that with the added extras I could be close. Fortunately I am still 'in spec' but it is my view that a dealer should issue a weighbridge certificate for EVERY vehicle which leaves his forecourt.

Of course this would kill the industry so as a result there is - in my view - a conspiracy of silence to allow the unsuspecting to drive overweight vans. I know that the vehicle inspectorate in both UK and France at least are now paying much more attention to the issue of overloading and it won't be long before someone is stopped and they simply will not be able to remove enough weight to get under the limit.

Finally my problem of the judder? well Merc are saying that the problem can be solved by changing the rear axle ratio and that will happen tomorrow. I will have a report tomorrow from Mercedes which points the finger at the manufacturer for specifying a van with the wrong axle ratio in the first place.

I have a log of every event, email, phone call etc relating to this and other issues but the legal advice is not helpful and indicates that in order to get anything like a refund, action needs to be taken in 6-8 weeks. The fact is I don't want a legal fight I simply want my van back and working without a judder.


----------



## cronkle

Carol

Mine _is _a 'cheaper model' but I would _still_ expect to be told what the payload is. More expensive models do have more insulation and various other 'goodies' packed into them and so will have less spare payload on a given chassis.

For me it is usually the rear axle weight that is an issue, particularly as the more 'budget' the van the shorter the wheel-base and hence the tendency to larger rear overhangs.

At one of the shows a few years ago I went round asking what the weigh-bridge reading for the back axle would be for the vans as they stood for the show ie empty, so that I could do the calculations for fitting a scooter rack. Most salespeople either did not know the answer or did not understand the question.

One said that he did not know but he would find out and could I give him my phone number which I did and wrote the request off as a bit of salesman speak. He was the only one to do this. I received a phone call from him about three weeks later with information on the van I was interested in.

He was from Swift. He had taken a 'dry' van (no water or other camping stuff 
on board) to a weigh bridge and weighed both axles separately and then combined. That impressed me.


----------



## 110868

Have you been to a weighbridge and had yours checked ...........No
Were you overweight 
Did you do anything about it 
Do you think it should be the Dealer/Manufacturers responsibility to check it when selling ............Yes
Do you think it should be COMPULSORY for them to provide Certificate on both new/used ...........Yes
Did you buy yours without knowing what payload you had ..........Yes
Do you know your payload for front/rear/overall ..........No

I knew nothing about weights and payloads when I bought my MH, and still don't. When we spend (for me) big bucks, we tend to assume that the vehicle we buy from a reputable dealer is 'fit for purpose'.

I have a 2700cc Merc Auto Autotrail Cheyenne which is rated at 3500 kg.

Thank you for raising this question.


----------



## carol

framptoncottrell said:


> Hi, Carol.
> 
> With all your advice before we bought, the first thing I did after getting the Murvi home was to fill the diesel and the fresh water tanks and get it weighed. I had about 200kgs to spare, which meant that with Mrs Roy, her sister, my brother-in-law and any grey water we would be overweight, unless I dumped some of the water.
> 
> Tomorrow I'm off to TVAC to get the rear suspension upgraded and the van replated to 3500kgs from 3300kgs.
> 
> I don't blame Murvi because their brochures and paperwork are quite clear - my Murvi is loaded (overloaded?) with toys, some of them heavy, and I expected to have to do something.
> 
> I paid £4 to get the van weighed - front, rear and total - so it was a small investment. When I've had the last two toys fitted, I'll get it reweighed and then I will be able to show any DVLA road checks that I am legal, and can prove it.
> 
> Best wishes, and are you going to the NEC again this October? I'll be there on either the Thursday or the Friday; haven't decided yet.
> 
> Dr (musical, not medical) Roy


Hi Roy

No we are off to France Sept 2nd until end of October, so missing this one, altho we met during the February NEC.... glad to hear that you are getting it replated, and hope all goes well.

Carol


----------



## carol

Grizzly said:


> Slightly off topic but can someone please explain to me what " upgrading" the chassis actually means ? In another topic someone mentioned doing it over the phone using a credit card.
> 
> That sounds as if the actual chassis _ could _ safely carry more weight than it is actually licenced for and it is only a question of legality not actual physical re-building or strengthening. Is this right ?
> 
> G


Grizzly..... now our Merc was on a 3.8 chassis, but the German owner downplated to to 3.5 - for many reasons, not least speed, and to do with tolls and their driving licenses....

Now in that case it is possible to get it replated to 3.8 for the reason that it was on a 3.8 chassis.

Other chassis are able to be uprated to a higher rate, in some cases they have to change things like tyres and other technical bits, but as I understand it, not ALL CHASSIS are able to be uprated...

Carol


----------



## carol

*Re: Weight*



Rapide561 said:


> Have you been to a weighbridge and had yours checked - Yes - I visit the weigh bridge on an "ad hoc" basic to ensure I am operating my motorhome safely and legally.
> 
> Were you overweight - No.
> 
> Did you do anything about it - not applicable.
> 
> Do you think it should be the Dealer/Manufacturers responsibility to check it when selling - manufacturers do state weights and so on in their brochures, but due to the fact that some manufacturers quote the mass in running order to include water and so on, whilst others do not, the figures should be checked by the buyer.
> 
> Do you think it should be COMPULSORY for them to provide Certificate on both new/used - YES - but buyer beware.
> 
> Did you buy yours without knowing what payload you had - no - I read the brochure and on one motorhome - a Swift 665 - I had the payload increased.
> 
> Do you know your payload for front/rear/overall - yes for any van I have owned.
> 
> Russell
> 
> Good thread Carol.


Russell - exactly my point, brochures are a +/- 5% - so do not show YOUR weights.... and because some manufacturers skimp on things, and then for instance at the NEC OR other outdoor shows, ADD things, like sat, satnav, awnings, cruise, airbags, ALL these things ARE EXTRA to that payload listed.........but many people DO NOT REALISE it....they aren't told this fact,

Do you recall the Daily Telegraph article one weekend a few years ago, when a 6-berth Swift Kontiki couldn't even take 6 people WITHOUT their luggage, as there was insufficient payload, and that was 2 adults and 4 kids.......

We expect the brochure figure to apply to OUR motorhome, forgetting about all these extras which are NOT on the base vehicle....

Carol


----------



## carol

Vennwood said:


> As I mentioned on MHF some time ago I got caught out with our last MH and once I had it weighed and found I was overweight - seriously overweight. In my defence (as well as stupidity, ignorance and naievity) I simply assumed that anyone that built a big MH would naturally give you plenty of payload.- wrong....
> I think that where most folks go wrong (and I mean newcomers to MH'ing) they don't take into account all the factory fitted options and very often when taking delivery they assume (in my case) that if the manual says 500kgs then thats what you have to fill with all your holiday gear. Things like Auto gearbox, cab and roof aircon, Awnings, additional batteries, on board gennies and Sat dishes are never taken off the basic payload figures.
> 
> All that said it seems very silly (and I'm thinking of myself in this case) that we are prepared to spend £20K, £40K or £100K on a MH and spend enormous amounts of time getting the right layout but forgetting to check the real payload available.
> 
> I do think it should be industry practice to provide payload certificates on BOTH NEW and USED MH's as part of the handover pack. Maybe this is a new service that our fellow dealers could offer?
> 
> I'm with Peedee here I bet a large % of us are overloaded but don't/can't do anything about it.
> 
> Pete
> 
> EDIT: Just thinking about this - I guess that dealers will not volunteer to supply payload certificates because they will already know that there is so little payload available that it would make it more difficult to sell.


Pete - exactly why I started this thread..... you and many of us... were buying something without realising the problems of payload....you learned the hard way.... but because of this forum, and the mh-list, I became aware of this fact, and I would like ALL NEWCOMERS TO READ THIS and at least be forewarned..... at least then you can do something about it.

I still think they should be made compulsory.......or at least when bargaining to buy - the buyer should request one as part of the offer.... BEFORE parting with a deposit...

Carol


----------



## Grizzly

carol said:


> Other chassis are able to be uprated to a higher rate, in some cases they have to change things like tyres and other technical bits, but as I understand it, not ALL CHASSIS are able to be uprated...
> Carol


Thanks Carol (and Trev earlier)

So, as I understand it, most ( not all) chassis are _physically _ able to carry more than they are _ legally _ licenced for - ? There should not therefore be a _ safety_ issue with most of them but they are legally overloaded. Re-plating involves no more than checking that the driver is licenced to drive a heavier vehicle and screwing a metal plate with a higher gross mass onto the vehicle.

Is that right ?

G


----------



## Vennwood

Hi Carol,

I'm in full agreement about the compulsory payload certificate. I thought about it perhaps being voluntary but that wouldn't work as I said in my edit.

Keep up the good work - it certainly cost me a small fortune having to change what I thought was the perfect MH

Pete


----------



## sallytrafic

Yes 

No 

Didn't need to 

Yes

Yes

No

Yes


----------



## cronkle

I do think that there is a danger that the idea of payload can be oversimplified. One figure that reads 'payload' would be quite difficult to establish as the weight that can be carried by each make of van will depend on where the load is placed.

If. for instance, the van has an overall weight limit of 3500kgs and empty weighs 3000kgs this does not mean that it can necessarily carry 500kgs of load. As we all know due to the leverage effect weight carried behind the rear axle puts more force (or whatever the correct term is) on to the back axle. So. the 500kgs carried in the rear of a van will all go onto one axle and will also be multiplied by the leverage effect to be considerably more if that axle is weighed. When weighed the van may be within it's overall permitted weight but the rear axle limit could be seriously exceeded. It would take a great deal of care for that load to be spread equally between the axles. If you see what I mean. 

So, what figure would your certification give. My suggestion would be that it would need to give three figures and these would be:
1. the overall weight of the vehicle
2. the weight standing on the front axle
3 the weight standing on the back axle.

then you would need to set a standard as to what would be included in the load-the driver? half a tank of fuel? etc etc.

Then the owner will have more of an idea what effect how they load the van will have on how legal and safe they are.

I hope I've explained myself clearly enough.


----------



## CliveMott

*CONFUSING POLL*

I need to tick several of the boxes but it only lets me tick one!

Perhaps the poll needs to be re-structured?

C.


----------



## framptoncottrell

When we were looking for a van, there was one of the German marques - I think it was Hymer, but it may have been Hobby - which had a configurator on its web site. As you added optional extras, it not only calculated the extra cost but also the additional weight so that you could see how much you were eating into the payload.

Now *that* is a very good idea for all manufacturers.

Incidentally, Cronkle, there is a EU standard load for a motorhome's GVW. It certainly includes the driver, a full tank of fuel, gas bottle, some water in the fresh water tank (I forget how much, but that may also have to be full, as well), all fluids needed to operate the base vehicle (oil, windscreen washer, brakes, coolant). It doesn't include passengers, luggage, or non-standard additions. This ensures that the GVWs of all motorhomes are strictly comparable.

Dr (musical, not medical) Roy


----------



## teensvan

Hi.

When we were looking for our first van which is the one we still have there were two main factors we looked for 

(1) A large living space.

(2) A payload over 1000Kg. This was the hard bit.

Our van has a payload of 1250Kg and the first time we took it to be weighed we were up to 4840Kg without our motorbike so we had to make some changes. We found that clothes make up a great deal of forgotten weight along with books maps laptop cameras chargers hookup cable and all the other little bits stored somewhere. Every last thing needs to be weighed before it goes in the van.

steve & ann. -------------- teensvan.


----------



## peedee

As someone who has exactly the problems Cronkle describes, I am 100 percent in agreement with him. Unladen weight on its own is pretty meaningless, you do need to know what the unladen weights are of both front and rear before you buy and what that unladen weight includes. Whilst as Roy points out there is a standard, I don't think it is compulsory? 

I supposedly have a 700Kgm payload but achieving this without overloading the rear axle is dam nigh impossible! I certainly did not know this or the axle limits when I bought it although I did pay attention to overall payload and van size knowing I had one or two heavier items to carry over and above what your average owner does and I had to get it in my driveway. In my view a payload of anything less than 700kgm for even a couple, is impractical if you want to stay above the law.

In hind sight, I believe my model would have been better built on a 4 ton Mercedes chassis and not an upgraded 3.5ton one or I would have been better off payload wise with having the model on a Fiat base. 

peedee


----------



## cronkle

As I understand it the things that are included in the weight of a vehicle are only an industry standard; I believe one is half a tank of water.

If certification of weights were to be made compulsory I would think that such a formula would have to be up for much further consultation before the various regulators could make it mandatory. 

The amount of water is a good example for the need for this as many a time, on this and other forums, we read how individuals prefer to travel with empty tanks. I would suggest that knowing the weight with water would not be just the simple calculation of removing 1kg per litre because of the load positioning issue.

Similarly the same problem comes up about gas bottles now that there are light weight bottles and fixed tanks available.

Why include these weights in the first place? I can understand full fuel tanks, engine radiator and sump but the weight of a standardised driver? 8O 

My view is that the better manufacturers will start giving more information when they realise that it is what the 'punters' want. Making it mandatory would be far too complicated and bureaucratic.


----------



## peedee

peedee said:


> In hind sight, I believe my model would have been better built on a 4 ton Mercedes chassis and not an upgraded 3.5ton one or I would have been better off payload wise with having the model on a Fiat base.
> 
> peedee


I should have added that if unladen axle weights had been given I would have been better able to see which suited my needs.

peedee


----------



## sallytrafic

The trouble is that without standardisation every manufacturer would spin their results to show their strengths not their weaknesses.

Water is a good example I know I would consider travelling with an empty tank if my tank was at the back of a large overhang instead of low down in the exact middle of the front and back axles.


----------



## peedee

cronkle said:


> My view is that the better manufacturers will start giving more information when they realise that it is what the 'punters' want. Making it mandatory would be far too complicated and bureaucratic.


I have still got the 2001 Autotrail brochure which I used when I purchased my Mohican. I have just looked at it and it is quite clear about weights and payloads, it even gives weights of options making it quite clear these will reduce payload if fitted but does not give unladen axle weights.



peedee said:


> In hind sight, I believe my model would have been better built on a 4 ton Mercedes chassis and not an upgraded 3.5ton one or I would have been better off payload wise with having the model on a Fiat base....... I should have added that if unladen axle weights had been given I would have been better able to see which suited my needs.


The Fiat chassis had a better payload by 50Kgms. Being front wheel drive this was probably on the rear axle, but for my requirements may have been underpowered.

peedee


----------



## Don_Madge

Hi Peedee,

At the Malvern show a friend asked me to look at a panel van conversion and give an opinion on layouts payloads etc.

We were sitting in a van and a salesman asked if he could help. I asked what the MAM (Maximum Authorised Mass) was, he did not know and he did not know what MAM meant.

I asked about payload and he replied it's 2.2 on the Ford Transit. At the time we were sitting in a Citroen. 8O 

I asked out the VIN plate once again a blank look. 8O The salesman then left.

It was totally unbelievable he had no product knowledge at all. I can only assume he was drafted in for the show and given no training at all.

I later found out that they had sold a couple of panel vans over the weekend.

Don


----------



## peedee

I have also met salesmen like that Don, its a problem and not all brochures are like the one I refer to. Indeed, I am not even sure the current Autotrail brochure is as explicit as the 2001 one but I doubt if even the best salesmen would know the unladen axle weights. I standby what Cronkle says, they do need to be published.

peedee


----------



## Pixelpusher

I'm not sure where this poll is going. I don't really think its going to help new owners because in my opinion the biggest issue is understanding all the terminology in the handbook. In addition you need to understand what you do or do not need to include in the mass you add for personal possessions....e.g Full tank of fuel, how much water, consideration of driver/passenger weight etc.

Maybe it would help if someone could spell all this out....

What do you mean by Payload?
What is MIRO? ( and not just the acronym)
What is Maximum Technically Permissible Laden Mass?
What is Maximum User Payload?

I'm already confused by folks who aren't happy with a 300 or 500Kg load. I can't even conceive having this much personal load!!! Where does it all come from? 


Colin


----------



## Grizzly

Pixelpusher said:


> I
> I'm already confused by folks who aren't happy with a 300 or 500Kg load. I can't even conceive having this much personal load!!! Where does it all come from?


Colin...by the time you add bikes, bike rack, books, food and drink, TV and aerials, cutlery, crockery, clothes, guide books and maps, shoes, Remoska, pots and pans, microwave ovens, awnings and safari rooms, generator, roof air con, step ladders, awning mats, chairs etc it is all too easy to see why 300-500kg is not enough for some people.

It's too easy to fall into the trap of saying "well, it doesn't weigh much...."

How many people specify extras to be added to their new van before they
even drive it away from the dealer ?

G


----------



## Don_Madge

Pixelpusher said:


> I'm not sure where this poll is going. I don't really think its going to help new owners because in my opinion the biggest issue is understanding all the terminology in the handbook. In addition you need to understand what you do or do not need to include in the mass you add for personal possessions....e.g Full tank of fuel, how much water, consideration of driver/passenger weight etc.
> 
> Maybe it would help if someone could spell all this out....
> 
> What do you mean by Payload?
> What is MIRO? ( and not just the acronym)
> What is Maximum Technically Permissible Laden Mass?
> What is Maximum User Payload?
> 
> I'm already confused by folks who aren't happy with a 300 or 500Kg load. I can't even conceive having this much personal load!!! Where does it all come from?
> 
> Colin


Hi Colin,

The FAQ's on UKMoterhomes HERE will answer nearly all the questions relating to motorhomes.

Don


----------



## Grizzly

Apologies...quoted instead of edited.

G


----------



## Wizzo

Have you been to a weighbridge and had yours checked - Yes
Were you overweight - No. Pleasantly surprised in actual fact
Did you do anything about it - n/a
Do you think it should be the Dealer/Manufacturers responsibility to check it when selling - No. I am not sure that I would trust some of them to do it right!
Do you think it should be COMPULSORY for them to provide Certificate on both new/used - No but a guide based on manufacturer's figures would be useful
Did you buy yours without knowing what payload you had - Foolishly yes, but fortunate in that it worked out OK. It's only since buying the motorhome and reading on the forum and internet about the lever effect that I have come to appreciate what a minefield it can be.
Do you know your payload for front/rear/overall -Yes. When it was weighed it was in full travel mode with both of us in it and full fuel and water tanks. Had both axles and overall weight checked. Probably one of the best fivers I have ever spent.

I think that most motorhome owners are blissfully unaware of the potential problems and pitfalls and as has been said even the quoted payload may be virtually impossible to achieve as some of this will be available on the front axle and it is not easy to shift enough weight forward to enable you to load up the rear.

JohnW


----------



## Pixelpusher

I knew that would be the answer and everyone to his/her own but it just amazes me what people carry. 

I think the User Payload in my case is about 190Kg which is more than enough for us.

Colin


----------



## cronkle

Pixelpusher said:


> I'm not sure where this poll is going. I don't really think its going to help new owners because in my opinion the biggest issue is understanding all the terminology in the handbook. In addition you need to understand what you do or do not need to include in the mass you add for personal possessions....e.g Full tank of fuel, how much water, consideration of driver/passenger weight etc.
> 
> Maybe it would help if someone could spell all this out....
> 
> What do you mean by Payload?
> What is MIRO? ( and not just the acronym)
> What is Maximum Technically Permissible Laden Mass?
> What is Maximum User Payload?
> 
> I'm already confused by folks who aren't happy with a 300 or 500Kg load. I can't even conceive having this much personal load!!! Where does it all come from?
> 
> Colin


I would accept your point. There are too many acronyms and definitions knocking about.

The information that needs to be defined is:

The total weight that the vehicle is allowed to be. (on VIN plate)
The weight that it is 'dry' (yet to be simply defined)

The total weight that each axle is allowed to carry.(on vin plate)
The weight that it is 'dry'.

For the purpose of loading equipment and luggage those are the only weights that are needed.

They are also the weights that are needed so that you know what speed limits apply to you both here and abroad.


----------



## Pixelpusher

The Swift handbook seems to be fairly straightfoward in this respect.

It gives you.... 

Maximum weight the vehicle should not exceed. (MTPLM - Maximum Technically Permissible Laden Mass)

The weight it leaves the factory - including driver and 90% fuel/fresh water/gas. The MIRO - Mass in Running Order.

The difference between the two is what you can then stuff into it.

Colin


----------



## Don_Madge

framptoncottrell said:


> Incidentally, Cronkle, there is a EU standard load for a motorhome's GVW. It certainly includes the driver, a full tank of fuel, gas bottle, some water in the fresh water tank (I forget how much, but that may also have to be full, as well), all fluids needed to operate the base vehicle (oil, windscreen washer, brakes, coolant). It doesn't include passengers, luggage, or non-standard additions. This ensures that the GVWs of all motorhomes are strictly comparable.
> 
> Dr (musical, not medical) Roy


Hi Roy,

Unfortunately not all manufacturers stick to the EU standard as some motorhomes would have a published payload of less then 200kg not a lot if your winter away for 4/5 months.

When we had to downsize to 3500kg 5 years ago we were looking at low profiles and at the time we could not find one with a reasonable payload. We finished up with a panel van conversion.

Don


----------



## Grizzly

Pixelpusher said:


> I knew that would be the answer and everyone to his/her own but it just amazes me what people carry.
> Colin


We watched a caravan unload at Clumber the other day ! A smallish car, medium sized van, 5 big adults, a heavy awning and 2 side extension, 5 large sized loungers, carpets, small outside fridge, 2 tables, huge TV, dog, several crates of beer, big gas BBQ and trolley, 2 windbreaks and a bike !

We went out at lunchtime not long after they unloaded and they were still pitching camp when we got back for supper.

That is real overloading !

G


----------



## Grizzly

Pixelpusher said:


> The difference between the two is what you can then stuff into it.
> Colin


Or attach to it. I'm sure not many take into account the awning, bike rack, satellite dish, air con unit, extra leisure battery, solar panel etc that they ask the dealer to fit. Add all those on and you might finish off having to travel in a bikini.

G


----------



## peedee

cronkle said:


> [
> 
> The total weight that each axle is allowed to carry.(on vin plate)
> The weight that it is 'dry'.


I would like to see this qualified even more to the actual unladen weight of the motorhome on each axle. Someone wanting to fully load a garage or fit a towbar with a scooter rack on would want to know rear axle payload! VIN plate info is only that of the chassis manufacturer.

Pixel, 
Even if I removed all of the 80/85kgm of esential equipment for a disable person, there is still no way I would like to manage with 190Kgms.

peedee


----------



## cronkle

peedee said:


> cronkle said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> The total weight that each axle is allowed to carry.(on vin plate)
> The weight that it is 'dry'.
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to see this qualified even more to the actual unladen weight of the motorhome on each axle. Smeone wanting to fully load a garage or fit a towbar with a scooter rack on would want to know rear axle payload! VIN plate info is only that of the chassis manufacturer.
> 
> Pixel,
> Even if I removed all of the 80/85kgm of esential equipment for a disable person, there is still no way I would like to manage with 190Kgms.
> 
> peedee
Click to expand...

We would agree you there PeeDee. The unladen weight of the axle is what I meant when I said 'dry'. Sorry that I did not make myself clearer. That's the problem with this subject-too much conflicting terminology or is that me just trying to disguise my poor communication skills.


----------



## carol

Vennwood said:


> Hi Carol,
> 
> I'm in full agreement about the compulsory payload certificate. I thought about it perhaps being voluntary but that wouldn't work as I said in my edit.
> 
> Keep up the good work - it certainly cost me a small fortune having to change what I thought was the perfect MH
> 
> Pete


Pete - I think that is the problem, as new motorhome owners, you do expect the vehicle to be adequate to take the number of people for which it has seats and beds...plus their luggage...and extras.... if not.... well you should at least be alerted to it, but as you say, the Dealers are not going to do this are they, so if we can make enough noise and get someone interested in this as well to make it part and parcel of the sale.

It would only need to be a proper weighbridge certificate - with the mh details on it for front, read and overall weights.... and the date should be within a recent period of say one or two months..

It would save a lot of people, you included, from either buying a vehicle which is actually useless to them, or finding to get what they want, paying for the uprated chassis, that is of course IF it can be uprated...

Grizzly, no not all chassis can be....some are already at their limits.

It gets technical, so I won't go there, (not being a techie...)

Carol


----------



## carol

cronkle said:


> I do think that there is a danger that the idea of payload can be oversimplified. One figure that reads 'payload' would be quite difficult to establish as the weight that can be carried by each make of van will depend on where the load is placed.
> 
> If. for instance, the van has an overall weight limit of 3500kgs and empty weighs 3000kgs this does not mean that it can necessarily carry 500kgs of load. As we all know due to the leverage effect weight carried behind the rear axle puts more force (or whatever the correct term is) on to the back axle. So. the 500kgs carried in the rear of a van will all go onto one axle and will also be multiplied by the leverage effect to be considerably more if that axle is weighed. When weighed the van may be within it's overall permitted weight but the rear axle limit could be seriously exceeded. It would take a great deal of care for that load to be spread equally between the axles. If you see what I mean.
> 
> So, what figure would your certification give. My suggestion would be that it would need to give three figures and these would be:
> 1. the overall weight of the vehicle
> 2. the weight standing on the front axle
> 3 the weight standing on the back axle.
> 
> then you would need to set a standard as to what would be included in the load-the driver? half a tank of fuel? etc etc.
> 
> Then the owner will have more of an idea what effect how they load the van will have on how legal and safe they are.
> 
> I hope I've explained myself clearly enough.


Cronkle you make an excellent point - overall payloads are not really any use.....but I suppose as far as the manufacturers' are concerned, then that is all they are able to provide .....

WE do need a standard set of what is included, but I thought that was now done?

Carol


----------



## carol

*Re: CONFUSING POLL*



CliveMott said:


> I need to tick several of the boxes but it only lets me tick one!
> 
> Perhaps the poll needs to be re-structured?
> 
> C.


Clive I agree with you, but when I set it up I didn't realise that....and I can't find a SURVEY bit....if you know how, would you like to do it for me..... otherwise it will have to be just hoping people with fill it in ....I have asked Dave if there is a bit he could add.

Incidentally, as an MMM Consultant, do you think this is something worth raising in the magazine?

Carol


----------



## carol

peedee said:


> As someone who has exactly the problems Cronkle describes, I am 100 percent in agreement with him. Unladen weight on its own is pretty meaningless, you do need to know what the unladen weights are of both front and rear before you buy and what that unladen weight includes. Whilst as Roy points out there is a standard, I don't think it is compulsory?
> 
> I supposedly have a 700Kgm payload but achieving this without overloading the rear axle is dam nigh impossible! I certainly did not know this or the axle limits when I bought it although I did pay attention to overall payload and van size knowing I had one or two heavier items to carry over and above what your average owner does and I had to get it in my driveway. In my view a payload of anything less than 700kgm for even a couple, is impractical if you want to stay above the law.
> 
> In hind sight, I believe my model would have been better built on a 4 ton Mercedes chassis and not an upgraded 3.5ton one or I would have been better off payload wise with having the model on a Fiat base.
> 
> peedee


peedee - that is the problem isn't it, you at least were looking for a HUGE payload, and yes, you carry extras, most of us hope we won't need, but even being forearmed with your knowledge, it just shows how difficult it is to get within the limit....

I don't think we realise how heavy things like our maps, books, small odds and ends we just put in actually weigh (yes I know a lot of you have weighed them all) but the majority of you won't know. I admit I don't know how heavy what I take is, as it varies, but I know they are heavy - but we also had most of that with us when we were weighed....

The other thing, at the time I didn't think about, we had a gas tank fitted, now we could have had it fitted where it would have given us problems, and because at that time we were hoping to fit the carrier for a spare wheel, we had it fitted towards the front, not the rear where they had intended to fit it, in our case, that has left us with an excellent allowance in our rear half garage - yes there is a limit to the weight to be carried there anyway, but the rear axle has loads of spare weight there.

Carol


----------



## cronkle

carol said:


> cronkle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do think that there is a danger that the idea of payload can be oversimplified. One figure that reads 'payload' would be quite difficult to establish as the weight that can be carried by each make of van will depend on where the load is placed.
> 
> If. for instance, the van has an overall weight limit of 3500kgs and empty weighs 3000kgs this does not mean that it can necessarily carry 500kgs of load. As we all know due to the leverage effect weight carried behind the rear axle puts more force (or whatever the correct term is) on to the back axle. So. the 500kgs carried in the rear of a van will all go onto one axle and will also be multiplied by the leverage effect to be considerably more if that axle is weighed. When weighed the van may be within it's overall permitted weight but the rear axle limit could be seriously exceeded. It would take a great deal of care for that load to be spread equally between the axles. If you see what I mean.
> 
> So, what figure would your certification give. My suggestion would be that it would need to give three figures and these would be:
> 1. the overall weight of the vehicle
> 2. the weight standing on the front axle
> 3 the weight standing on the back axle.
> 
> then you would need to set a standard as to what would be included in the load-the driver? half a tank of fuel? etc etc.
> 
> Then the owner will have more of an idea what effect how they load the van will have on how legal and safe they are.
> 
> I hope I've explained myself clearly enough.
> 
> 
> 
> Cronkle you make an excellent point - overall payloads are not really any use.....but I suppose as far as the manufacturers' are concerned, then that is all they are able to provide .....
> 
> WE do need a standard set of what is included, but I thought that was now done?
> 
> Carol
Click to expand...

Carol

They are able to provide this info. They only have to go to a weigh-bridge and take two additional measurements when they are there. They go there to find the unladen weight anyway. After all, how many new models do they produce each year and it is probably less time consuming than having pictures taken for their brochures. Certainly cheaper.


----------



## carol

Wizzo said:


> It's only since buying the motorhome and reading on the forum and internet about the lever effect that I have come to appreciate what a minefield it can be.
> Do you know your payload for front/rear/overall -Yes. When it was weighed it was in full travel mode with both of us in it and full fuel and water tanks. Had both axles and overall weight checked. Probably one of the best fivers I have ever spent JohnW


Well you were lucky and I am pleased...



Wizzo said:


> I think that most motorhome owners are blissfully unaware of the potential problems and pitfalls and as has been said even the quoted payload may be virtually impossible to achieve as some of this will be available on the front axle and it is not easy to shift enough weight forward to enable you to load up the rear.
> 
> JohnW


John I think this is the crux - it is a minefield and a lot of people either ignore it, or do weigh

Where is it going someone said - I am just interested in what people think about it and whether they think a compulsory certificate would at least help them to know the actual loads of their chosen motorhome.

peedee - the Rapido brochure and the old Hymer one I had (and passed to the new owner) show the figures, including the additional add-ons, but of course, not things like gas tanks, and Thatcham Cat 1 alarms, but they do a reasonable job of showing it, but no one pointed out to me when we ordered that perhaps we needed to think about a maxi chassis....it was ONLY due to reading on here that I had become aware of the importance...like others I ASSUMED it must be ok to add things...yes naive perhaps, but if this highlights it for others, even one, it will have helped.

I would like to say thank you to all who have contributed to it

Carol


----------



## carol

cronkle said:


> Carol
> 
> They are able to provide this info. They only have to go to a weigh-bridge and take two additional measurements when they are there. They go there to find the unladen weight anyway. After all, how many new models do they produce each year and it is probably less time consuming than having pictures taken for their brochures. Certainly cheaper.


Cronkle - I was parked in 2004 in Ronda next to an English couple who we got talking to, and they had a huge problem with their chassis, even empty it was overweight....and they were in conflict with their dealer/manufacturer, it had been back to the factory to try to find out why..... it was a Rimor Superbrig..... of course, I don't know the end result - wish I did.

Carol


----------



## cronkle

carol said:


> cronkle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Carol
> 
> They are able to provide this info. They only have to go to a weigh-bridge and take two additional measurements when they are there. They go there to find the unladen weight anyway. After all, how many new models do they produce each year and it is probably less time consuming than having pictures taken for their brochures. Certainly cheaper.
> 
> 
> 
> Cronkle - I was parked in 2004 in Ronda next to an English couple who we got talking to, and they had a huge problem with their chassis, even empty it was overweight....and they were in conflict with their dealer/manufacturer, it had been back to the factory to try to find out why..... it was a Rimor Superbrig..... of course, I don't know the end result - wish I did.
> 
> Carol
Click to expand...

Yeah, this is one of those issues that has been rumbling around for a number of years now. In pre MHF days I remember this topic being knocked around on the Motorhome List and I gained a lot of knowledge from that.
Ah, nostalgia.

I wonder if Swift are following this thread and what they make of the ideas that have been put forward. They could impress us yet again 8)


----------



## Don_Madge

*Re: CONFUSING POLL*



carol said:


> Incidentally, as an MMM Consultant, do you think this is something worth raising in the magazine?
> 
> Carol


Hi Carol,

MMM list the payload in the buyers guide but until all the manufacturers sing from the same hymn sheet the listing is meaningless.

Don


----------



## peedee

carol said:


> peedee - that is the problem isn't it, you at least were looking for a HUGE payload, and yes, you carry extras, most of us hope we won't need, but even being forearmed with your knowledge, it just shows how difficult it is to get within the limit....
> 
> I don't think we realise how heavy things like our maps, books, small odds and ends we just put in actually weigh (yes I know a lot of you have weighed them all) but the majority of you won't know.
> Carol


I think your right Carol, the little items and the extras soon add up. I weighed everything I was likely to put put in it some years ago and put it into a spread sheet so it was easy to adjust gross weight to suit the trip. Even then it still crept up on me because my latest trip to the weighbridge showed I was considerably overweight on the back axle. I am now in the process of going through the van from back to front having a good clear out rechecking item weights and moving what I can forward where there is 200Kgms to spare. (refer to >this post<)

I disagree about 700Kgm being HUGE though Carol. I lost a good 100Kgm on extras I had fitted or were not included in the MIRO before I even took delivery. Wind out awning alone came to 43Kgms, passenger swivel seat 25Kgm, roof rack and ladder 20Kgms, top box 12Kgms, and I put a nudge/tow bar on, 35Kgm, added an extra 85APH battery 17Kgm, hook up cable 3Kgms, gas bottles 2x13Kg 58Kgms, and I haven't even put in any cooking ware, crockery, cutlery, linen, food,drink or clothing etc yet. Easily another +100Kgms Throw in leveling blocks, a BBQ, a couple of reclining chairs, a ground sheet, a few tools, spares etc. Oh, and not forgetting a passenger and it all adds up frighteningly fast.

peedee


----------



## sallytrafic

The thing to avoid is once you have your van adding stuff incrementally without thought. Everything in or on my van has to 'pull its weight'  and is regularly reviewed.

Its a bit like mission creep (a military expression). You have success (spare capacity at the weighbridge) Then keep changing things thereafter (adding weight) without re-examining your original goal. (being within the MAM).


----------



## suffolkian

We are probably going to look the dummies here. We have had our mh for 12 months now, and have loved every aspect of it, being previous tuggers this is our first motorhome, never really giving much thought to payloads as we generally travel light. Over the 12 months we have had fitted extras that we wanted such as awning and satellite system. 

We decided to use the motorhome more for travels to Europe and are going on a planned trip back to the cote d'azur next month, so....we decided once again to have a towbar fitted, easy lifter hydraulic scooter rack and have also bought a 125cc chinese scooter weighing in at 102kg.

We booked the van into a reputable firm after looking at recommendations from this site for the towbar and scooter rack last month. As many have said on here, they were great on the day, job done and nice people.

The following day we had to take the scooter to VOSA in Norwich to have it checked as Ipswich DVLA in their wisdom would not accept the European certificate as it was completed in china not Europe! Long and short of it, after the bike was cleared we put it on the motorhome for the first time. There was a VOSA vehicle check going on that day and we were pulled over. End result:-

40kg overweight, but the main problem rear axle has a limit of 2000kg, and with the rack and scooter on it was 160kg overweight!! Bugger! We were issued with a prohibition order and the van impounded until we were cleared within the weights. We had to take it all off and travel home without either, returning with a van to pick up the rack and scooter. 

Whilst we now appreciate we were at fault, being very naive, verging on the stupid! we do think on having giving the axle weights and GVW to the firm who fitted the towbar and rack with details of the scooter, the firm should have known that this wasn't going to be near the permissible axle weights, but it was still fitted.

End result is that we have a towbar, a demountable hydraulic scooter rack and a brand new scooter at a total of around £1,700 that is useless for the purpose we intended, without even one day of use in any of it! Bugger again!

We have sent off details to another reputable firm to see if the rear axle weight can be upgraded, but we're not holding our breath. 

The options are - we either flog the lot - somehow manage to upgrade the rear axle without too much expense - or........trade our van in for a new van with integral garage. (Looking very closely this time at axle weights!!!)

There you go

Ian & Steve, feeling like Dumb and Dumber!


----------



## Grizzly

suffolkian said:


> End result is that we have a towbar, a demountable hydraulic scooter rack and a brand new scooter at a total of around £1,700 that is useless for the purpose we intended, without even one day of use in any of it! Bugger again!


Ouch ! Well done you for sharing this with us. I suspect there is a strong sense of " there but for the grace of God " going round the readers of MHF this very minute.

G


----------



## peejay

suffolkian said:


> We booked the van into a reputable firm after looking at recommendations from this site for the towbar and scooter rack last month. As many have said on here, they were great on the day....
> 
> Whilst we now appreciate we were at fault, being very naive, verging on the stupid! we do think on having giving the axle weights and GVW to the firm who fitted the towbar and rack with details of the scooter, the firm should have known that this wasn't going to be near the permissible axle weights, but it was still fitted.


Hi Ian & Steve and thanks for posting this honest report.

Although they are probably under no obligation to inform you and the responsibility is ultimately yours at the end of the day, the fact that you supplied all the weights and figures before purchase leads me to believe that this can hardly be what you generously term as a 'reputable' company if they knowingly sold you and fitted the product with the information supplied.

Who were they?

pete


----------



## DABurleigh

Ian & Steve,

I am sorry to hear of your predicament but I'm sure your candid account will help others avoid the same.

Reading between the lines it sounds like Watling-Engineers. If so, they do have the weights calculator on their website:
http://www.watling-towbars.co.uk/motorbike_scooter_carrier.html
"*Overloading your vehicle can be dangerous. Please use our motorhome axle loads form to check that you are within your safe limits. Click here for more details"
http://www.watling-towbars.co.uk/motorhome_axle_loads.html

Or, of course, you could have followed the prior advice given on MHF:
http://www.motorhomefacts.com/ftopic-39924-0-days0-orderasc-.html
but I accept it is easy to be wise after the event.

Dave

EDIT - See 4 posts below; it was NOT Watling Engineers, whom a number of MHF members recommend simply as past customers, but someone else.


----------



## peedee

suffolkian said:


> End result is that we have a towbar, a demountable hydraulic scooter rack and a brand new scooter at a total of around £1,700 that is useless for the purpose we intended, without even one day of use in any of it! Bugger again!
> Ian & Steve, feeling like Dumb and Dumber!


Yes thanks for owning up Ian and Steve. I know its not much consolation but I do know of someone who did exactly what you did so you are definitely not alone. His solution was to sell the motorhome, towbar and rack, and scooter as separate items. He of course lost money but did recover some.

peedee


----------



## Rapide561

*Re: CONFUSING POLL*



Don Madge said:


> carol said:
> 
> 
> 
> Incidentally, as an MMM Consultant, do you think this is something worth raising in the magazine?
> 
> Carol
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Carol,
> 
> MMM list the payload in the buyers guide but until all the manufacturers sing from the same hymn sheet the listing is meaningless.
> 
> Don
Click to expand...

Hi

I totally agree with you, there, Don.

Here is an example. I am looking at a back issue of "Practical Motorhome" magazine and the comparison of the Kontiki 669 and the Autotrail 840D. Both vans are tag axle, island bed models - so fairly similar in style etc.

The Kontiki has a payload of 835kg, whilst the Autotrail has a payload of 1216 kg. WOW - what a difference. Let's all rush out to buy an Autotrail. However the article goes on to say that the Kontiki's payload is AFTER the fresh water tank is 90% full where as the Autotrail's payload figure is based on an empty water tank.

As so say Don, all manufacturers should be singing from the same song sheet.

In my mind, the manucurers should offer information as follows.

1) Unladen weight of the motorhome - ie - showroom condition, no water in the boiler or fresh tank, no gas cylinders, no diesel in tank etc.

2) Mass in running order - this includes water/diesel/gas at 90% capacity and an allowance of 75kg for the driver.

3) Maximum authorised mass - ie absolute maximum the vehicle can weigh when filled with clutter and people, water, diesel etc.

If all manufacturers quoted the same information, then this would surely be a step in the right direction.

Russell

I have just looked at the Autotrail website and the unladen van for the 840 is shown as 3816kg vice a total maximum of 5000kg, thus giving a payload of 1184kg.

The Swift website shows the Kontiki 669 as a mass in running order (see note (2) above) of 4165kg vice a 5000kg maximum - so 835kg to play with.

I can't even work out the figures on the Lunar website.


----------



## Rapide561

*Scooter*

Hi

Re the scooter. I was very concerned at having a scooter on a rear rack - even though I had a tag axle motorhome. To this end, I sold the van and am (still) on the lookout for the perfect "garage" model.

Russell


----------



## suffolkian

Thanks Pete, Grizzly, Dave & Peedee for your comments. We're still the dummies - but wiser after the event.

Dave - no it wasn't Watling-Engineers who fitted the towbar and rack, and we wouldn't want members to think it was. 

In fairness as has been said previously, ultimately we were the ones at fault and it wouldn't serve any purpose to name the firm. They have been recommended and we would still recommend them for their work, just disappointed they didn't think to suggest to us with their knowledge that what we asked them to do was impractical and a waste of time and money. 

If this helps someone else from making the same costly mistake then at least it helps someone - and perhaps in hindsight we should have read many more threads on here with regards to payloads.

Hey ho......We might be allowed to leave the corner of the room shortly and take our hands off our heads!

Onwards and Upwards.........with guidance!

Steve & Ian


----------



## suffolkian

Hi Russell - Ditto

We went to see and were impressed with the garage model of your previous motorhome - the 679 instead of the 669, very impressed with the look, finish and layout of it 

cheers

Steve & Ian


----------



## cronkle

Suffolkian,

That's a b****r of a situation for you. 8O 

Given your experience what information about weights would you be looking for if you buy a new van? You have had good reason to think about this issue and from the way you have presented your situation I think we (certainly I) would respect and value your opinion.


----------



## carol

suffolkian said:


> We are probably going to look the dummies here.
> 
> Ian & Steve, feeling like Dumb and Dumber!


Ian & Steve - you are not dumb, you are like a lot of us, we rely on others to inform us if we are doing/buying something that is unsuitable....personally I would go back to whoever fitted it and complain....and see if you can get your money back, if you told them your rear axle weights, scooter weights etc.,

At least you found out before getting abroad and perhaps being caught again in a check, where you would have been in a far stickier situation and from what I have read, an instant fine....

The more we can publicise the situation, hopefully another person will read the thread, and it may make them stop and think, will the payload be enough for what I want..... and will the bits I want, scooters/bikes actually be able to go where I plan to fit them....

I think we all need to learn to do RESEARCH... trouble is we aren't always good at understand what we find.....

Carol


----------



## Grizzly

I understand the idea of caveat emptor but, I wonder how many people have ever had a motorhome dealer point out to them that the bike rack, awning, air con unit, spare battery and all that they are negotiating for will all have to come off their payload.

Pigs would fly first I bet !

G


----------



## suffolkian

Hi cronkle

We're all different, For us we always intended to buy a mh and make use of it for many years. If we can srape together enough to upgrade (especially after only a year) then for us with our requirements for the extras plus scooter - we will look for a mh with integral garage as near to the rear axle as possible, minimum GVW 4000kg probably 5000kg, garage with minimum payload of 150kg, carefully look at the rear axle limit - look for a minimum of 850kg available payload from dry weight and double check all payload weights for ourselves.

Hope this helps

Ian & Steve, possibly...no definately skinter than we were before!


----------



## peedee

Steve and Ian,
Just a thought, is it any good thinking about towing the scooter on a trailer. 
Would that shift enough weight off your back end to make it legal and it might be the cheapest option for you?

peedee


----------



## suffolkian

could do Peedee, we thought about it, but not happy with that as a long term solution. If we could possibly afford to change then so be it, if this rear axle upgrade enquiry doesn't bear fruit.

cheers

Steve & Ian


----------



## UncleNorm

Hi Steve and Ian. Good evening all!

I'm feeling rather annoyed, on behalf of Ian and Steve. It annoys the hell out of me when professionals carry out a job, for which they would have been well paid, knowing that all is not well. Yet it did not need to be like that! :evil: 

Whilst in the USA in March, Auntie Sandra and I took our son's car to have a cycle rack mounted on the hatch. The salesman was very friendly and helpful and started fitting the rack. This involved webbing straps which hooked over the edges of the hatch. Sadly, the straps put great strain on the plastic spoiler which carried the high-level brake light. 

So what did the salesman do? He stopped the fitting and stated clearly that he was not happy with what he was doing. (Still awake Steve/Ian?)

He returned the rack to the shop and told us he had made arrangements for the car to have a tow 'hitch' fitted. This has a 2" square female socket to receive a number of structures with a matching 2" male socket. Cost about £110. Done the next morning at another shop.

We then went back to the same cycle shop where we were met by the same salesman who had a 3-bike rack already assembled laying on his shoulder! :lol: 

Within minutes, 2" square sockets had been engaged, all bolts tightened, everyone happy and a cycle shop about to gain much publicity by word of mouth!!

Why can't we have some of that CUSTOMER SERVICE in this country? :? 

I'm still feeling annoyed! :evil:

Apologies! I went off topic. Now, back to payloads...


----------



## peedee

Getting back to the subject of payloads and as this thread was especially for newbies. The National Caravan Council produce a leaflet for guidance >here< They are not very generous with their allowances, especially on beer wine and groceries.  but it illustrates the point.

peedee


----------



## carol

Peedee - I think that motorhome dealers, should all have a supply of these at their place of business, as newcomers, and indeed Duncan and I when we first started out in 1990 never even thought about that, and it wasn't until the internet came along and with the birth of the motorhome list around 7 years ago, that I even heard about it.....yes we were naive ourselves once....but in today's world people can't afford to be.... and it is a huge shame that suffolkian has come late to the problem, and I expect there are others, who do not wish to actually write that they have, for one reason or another....

Carol

As a PS - I wonder if it would be a good idea if one of the mods were to contact the NCC and ask if it would be possible to arrange to make a copy available on the downloads.....worth a call/email I would have thought, you would have to attribute it to them, but that wouldn't be a problem, would it?


----------



## suffolkian

Our sorry tale about being overweight (motorhome - not us personally) is there for all to see on page 5. The major factor for being over the limit was solely the extra weight of our recently fitted towbar and scooter plus rack

We pursued the option of having the van replated but this is not a viable option. Whereas SVTech could easily get our gross weight limit up to 3850kg there was little that could be done to upgrade the rear axle limit. Well I say little could be done, in reality there were lots of things that could be done (new brakes, wheels etc.) all at a huge cost - more likely to be thousands rather than hundreds.

We have considered all our options and have decided to upgrade to a larger motorhome (Kon Tiki 679 with integeral garage). The end result is still costing us a fortune but we do get a much better m/h and peace of mind that we will be well within our payload allowance.

So if anyone wants a "used once, genuine reason for sale" Easy Lifter hydraulic motorcycle rack please see the classified ads for details.


----------



## bobandjane

Hi Ian and Steve, sorry to read all about your problems, I was just looking back through some PM's when I invited you round to see my scooter rack, one was this: 

Re: Maximum weight of scooter and carrier? 


From: bobandjane (Online) 
To: suffolkian 
Posted: 2008-02-12, 08:31:18 
Subject: Re: Maximum weight of scooter and carrier? 

ok thats fine we are here most of the time so wait to here from you. the thing is to keep it light and you really dont want a 50cc if you take a passenger anyway speak soon bob and jane. ( The magic words) Keep it Light.

I knew what we had to do to keep it legal, our rack was 2" box section straight on the chassi and Aluminum channel and we were just legal, I don't know how they can sell those scooter racks , because they know you are going to be over weight I bet even with a 50cc on one. I think they should guide you in the right direction, after all they are 'the experts', so you give them the details of axle weight and scooter weight and over hang ect, and they tell you if it's possible, we know people that have had a towbar fitted to tow a car, and have had to take things out of the van because they have no payload left, they never thought about the towbar of being over 40kg.


We have sold our scooter, but as said about putting the scooter on a trailer, we thought about that when we had 2 scooters, but thought it would be a bit of a bind draging one around, so decided against it, so it then got worse we have gone the car on a A Frame route, taken it away twice in the UK, and it has worked out well and been really handy to have with us, but we go to France on Thursday so we will see how we get on over there. 

Good Luck in the future Bob.


----------



## suffolkian

Bobandjane

We did get your pm and thank you. Unfortunately we 'lost' the message and couldn't remember your username. We had thought of coming to see you as you live nearby, but alas we went ahead in ignorance and learnt the hard (expensive) way. Our new van has an integral garage and we have been assured that the Kon Tiki is man enough for the job.

Thanks again


----------



## DABurleigh

"we have been assured that the Kon Tiki is man enogh for the job."

By whom, Ian & Steve? Hopefully not merely an assurance by a commission based salesman!

I hope you have done the sums this time as advised the first time. What is the closest you estimate you will now get to any of minimum front axle, maximum rear axle or payload?

I note someone is selling one with under 5000 miles at nearly a £15,000 loss:
> Kontiki 679 <

Dave


----------

