# payload is 220kg enough?



## HARRYH (May 18, 2005)

We put an order on a new Swift Sundance 530LP. It looked in every way what we wanted, compact, 100bhp, two berth plenty of cupboard space, side facing seat that we thought might be ok for occasional use etc. 
The one thing that never occurred to me was to to check the payload.
I assumed that space would equal capacity.
Looking through a list of Motorhome specification it stud out that the Sundance and its clones had the lowest payloads.
Speaking to Swift they confirmed that the design is only to travel with a maximum of two persons the other seats are for social stationary use only.and make up the bed.
Accepting that, is 220kg still enough to keep a motorhome a pleasure?
Id like to may be able to add an awning, two bikes,a microwave,carry a reasonable amount of cloths and food for two for a months trip, all with out watching water and other load weights all the time.
Ill get the scales and calculator out but its a point to watch on buying.
Id like the Sundance but will that payload prove a problem?


----------



## des (Aug 13, 2005)

I think you've answered your own question. The payload may have to include the weight of passengers, in which case 220kg is a major problem. You need to know what is included/excluded to be sure, but i doubt you will be able to stay legal.

good luck!

des


----------



## ralph-dot (May 10, 2005)

In old money that's 36.6 stone, me and Dot weigh at least 24 stone, that would only leave room for one more person the same as us, so imagine you will have about one persons weight left. Would one person weight be the same as an awning, two bikes, a microwave, carrying a reasonable amount of cloths and food for two for a months trip, I doubt it.

Ralph


----------



## Rapide561 (Oct 1, 2005)

*Payload*

Hi

You are left with 220 kg after the driver is on board and the fluid levels (gas, water and diesel) are at 90%.

Your travelling companion will weigh about 70kg, 10 kg for a microwave, 10 kg for a TV.

I would try to get a better payload, but looking at the Swift website, it may not be possible with that van.

Just for comparison, look at the www.explorer-group.co.uk website and look at the Avantgarde range.

Russell


----------



## 96962 (Dec 16, 2005)

You might want to look at getting it re-plated/fitted with air rides by a specialist company who are able to uprate the payload provided the chassis will take it. That might give you an extra 200-300kg

Tim


----------



## Suenliam (Mar 22, 2006)

Hi Harryh - I seem to remember admiring a Sundance a couple of years ago to the extent that we were seriously considering buying one (think it was a 590RL?). The sales man we talked to suggested we upgrade the payload - reinforced chassis - without being quized about what we would carry! So I think the answer you might not want is confirmed


----------



## teensvan (May 9, 2005)

Hi.

With a small payload always travel with all water tanks empty. Take just five liters of water in a bottle, and fill up on site. A pint of water weighs one pound and a quarter. A litre of water weights one kilo. 

steve & ann. ----- teensvan.


----------



## 88838 (May 9, 2005)

Harry - you should never assume, the maunfacturers are in it to make money and the buyers are looking for as much glitter as possible, result is a 'small' van with no spare capacity, they should put them onto the 'right' base model in the first place - except then it would cost more ..

8)


----------



## takeaflight (May 9, 2005)

To answer you question IMHO yes payload will be a problem cancel now be easier and probably cheeper than when you come to sell it in a few months time.

While salesman have a job to do I wonder how some can sleep at night, I had one to-day have the cheek to ask for a £500 refunderable deposit without me even seeing the van in the flesh !

Guess where from ?

*Hymer UK*

Sh*t I doubt whether I would leave a £500 dep if I agreed to buy the thing.


----------



## cobaltkoala (Sep 11, 2006)

*Is 700kg+ enough?*

We have to admit when we made our purchasing decision the issue of payload did not even enter our head. Its one of those things that you only consider when you are actually packing up.
We were very lucky in that our van has a 700kg+ payload but even with that we are always wary as to how much we can carry. Needlessly at this stage we are sure.

If we had 220kg I am sure we would be whittling balsa wood microwave, carving a polystyrene TV and packing Dehydrated water.

Concurring with other in that an early change would be better than a costly later one will not help but hey opinions are just that 'opinions,


----------



## pneumatician (May 1, 2005)

*Payload*

With our last Van we were well inside max payload but bust the rear axle limit wide open.
Seem to recall mail on this site from a couple that purchased a five berth that had insufficient payload to take their three kids.

I reckon all Motor Vehicle Salesmen are on Ovaltine or whatever the bus driver takes in the TV Ad.

Steve


----------



## Arizona (May 9, 2005)

Hi

Check to see if the chassis can be upgraded in the factory to increase your payload. W've up graded our Hobby and the additional cost wasn't major. Although one of the salesman said"I wouldn't worry about that sure they'll never stop a tag axle!!" It's the legality I worry about in particular it's more the safety.

If you can't upgrade maybe you should reconsider before it's too late. 

The average bottle of wine weighs 1.280 K! :roll: 

regards

Arizona


----------



## Sagedog (Jun 28, 2005)

Have sent you a PM but you may want to reconsider that particular model.


----------



## sallytrafic (Jan 17, 2006)

Mind you I met a man in a romahome (which had a 700Kg payload!!!!!! showing that small vehicles needn't mean small payloads) who wouldn't have needed 220Kg. He cooked fresh each day washed his underthings each day. He had ripped out his fridge (when it failed) and replaced it with stowage for a portapotty there was just him and a Jack Russell he wore a tracksuit and trainers he had binos but apart from that his only posessions seemed to be a set of camping saucepans a mug and a knife fork and spoon and a walkman. Oh yes he also had a spice rack but it only held cardboard boxes.

Talk about uncluttered we were carrying around 100kg of rubbish in comparison.

Regards Frank


----------



## asprn (Feb 10, 2006)

*Re: Is 700kg+ enough?*



cobaltkoala said:


> If we had 220kg I am sure we would be whittling balsa wood microwave, carving a polystyrene TV and packing Dehydrated water.


Dehydrated water! Hadn't heard that one - made me laugh. 

Dougie.


----------



## asprn (Feb 10, 2006)

Arizona said:


> The average bottle of wine weighs 1.280 K! :roll:


Thing to do then is to drink it before moving off.......

Dougie.


----------



## 101368 (Oct 12, 2006)

asprn said:


> Arizona said:
> 
> 
> > The average bottle of wine weighs 1.280 K! :roll:
> ...


Fortunately this appears to be illegal under most of the worlds legal systems.


----------



## asprn (Feb 10, 2006)

emgee said:


> Fortunately this appears to be illegal under most of the worlds legal systems.


*JOKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKE *


----------



## 101368 (Oct 12, 2006)

asprn said:


> emgee said:
> 
> 
> > Fortunately this appears to be illegal under most of the worlds legal systems.
> ...


Humourous reply.


----------



## RichardnGill (Aug 31, 2006)

You could alway blow the tyres up with helium! That should help it a bit.

Richard...


----------



## Rapide561 (Oct 1, 2005)

*Payload*

Hi

I found our own figures in my diary...

On the weighbridge, the van, plus full tank of diesel, full tank of water, gas cylinders full, boiler full, satellite dish, microwave oven

Total = 3520 kg.

Same weighbridge, as above, with me and Oscar in

Total = 3635KG

Maximum authorised mass of my van = 4000 kg, meaning I could only load up with 365 kg.

Weighed again, after loading all our clothes, books, CDs, bedding, towels etc, plus the towbar, TV, crockery, you name it, iron, vacuum cleaner, ironing board

Total 3910 kg

Weighed again at a different weigh bridge, came in at 3920 kg.

This means my clutter weighed about 275 kg.

With a 220 kg payload, less about 70 kg for the weight of your travelling companion, gives you about 150 to play with. You could however, as suggested, run with the fresh water tank empty.

For short trips, it would probably be ok, but for a long trip with things like an iron etc, I think you need a better payload.

Russell


----------



## 88838 (May 9, 2005)

sallytrafic said:


> Mind you I met a man in a romahome (which had a 700Kg payload!!!!!! showing that small vehicles needn't mean small payloads) who wouldn't have needed 220Kg. He cooked fresh each day washed his underthings each day. He had ripped out his fridge (when it failed) and replaced it with stowage for a portapotty there was just him and a Jack Russell he wore a tracksuit and trainers he had binos but apart from that his only posessions seemed to be a set of camping saucepans a mug and a knife fork and spoon and a walkman. Oh yes he also had a spice rack but it only held cardboard boxes.
> 
> Talk about uncluttered we were carrying around 100kg of rubbish in comparison.
> 
> Regards Frank


didn't mean small conversion but small base vehicle, eg they start with a SWB when MWB or LWB would be more appropriate - but cost more with no immendiately apparent benefit - 'cos it doesn't look any different unless you check the degree of overhang.
Sounds like Mr Romahome is a man after my own heart 

8)


----------



## krull (Jul 22, 2006)

I know more responsible members will shoot me down (please be gentle!) but i personally don't give a stuff about payload or minor overloads.

I use my van responsibly. It is a 4 berth and there are two of us. I don't do microwaves, electric kettles and heaters. I make sure nothing is doubled up. No scooter on the back, no massive BBQ. 

Consequently there should not be a problem so I assume there is not. Head in the sand. As long as I dont exceed the 3500kg pivot then I am not concerned (to do this I would have to be 200kg over)

Lets face facts, you are very likely to be weighed by the authorities. If you are, dump the fresh and waste waters, pay the fine and off you go. If you have an accident, I cant imagine the authorities craning the van onto a low-loader then again onto a weighbridge unless you give them cause for concern.

Is your van more likely to have an accident if overloaded, if only marginally? I doubt it. Especially as most people who have them re-plated do no other work to strengthen the van. Sticking a plate with a higher number on does not make it inherently safer.

Sorry to be so blunt folks, but I think that if you use your van responsibly, you should not have to worry about payload. By all means call me an ostrich, but I am no different to 95% of the m/h owning populous.

I shall now go and hide under a stone..... :?


----------



## asprn (Feb 10, 2006)

krull,

I've no difficulty personally with your view if there is no tangible safety issue. I think also the chances of being weighed are marginal, so if that's your choice, you may well get away with it - and many do.

The big issue though is whether or not you invalidate your insurance. If your van was weighed in the event of an accident and showed as being over, you may well find yourself in the sticky stuff. Why not ring your insurers anonymously and ask them what the position would be in that scenario?

Dougie.


----------



## Rapide561 (Oct 1, 2005)

*Payload*

Hi

I was very concerned with payload as you can probably tell from the above post. What really concerned me, was "could the chassis cope if I overloaded it"? Would a wheel fall off or something? I know, sounds crazy and I guess for anything to actually happen, I would have had to have been well overloaded.

Logic was telling me about how crucial it is to load a ship or a plane. I know physics and science are involved there, but you get my drift.

Russell


----------



## krull (Jul 22, 2006)

asprn said:


> krull,
> 
> I've no difficulty personally with your view if there is no tangible safety issue. I think also the chances of being weighed are marginal, so if that's your choice, you may well get away with it - and many do.
> 
> ...


I can see your concern, and insurance invalidity does concern me. Minutiie of the law does not. One thing that might be of interest is that when insured with NFU, there are two categories of m/h: under or over 3500kg. They are not interested in model or make. And they are competitive.

Chris


----------



## HARRYH (May 18, 2005)

*220kg payload*

Thanks for all you replies & advice.
Im still confused and find it incredible that motorhomes are sold with more berths than legal seats or pay loads that don't allow the proper use of the specification.
My new MH order is on hold until I sort both the pay load and seat use .
It seems that after September of this year all side seated,U-shaped, 
L-shaped, lounge MHs will legally only be able to carry driver & one other. 
A dinette layout will be the only legally compliant, making it almost impossible to get an under 20ft MH coachbuilt with day seats for 4 and optional two single beds for two touring.
Or do you out there know something Iv missed ?


----------



## Rapide561 (Oct 1, 2005)

*Van*

Hi

Have a look at the www.explorer-group.co.uk website.

They have a five bereth motorhome with a dinette and a side seat. It is technically five berth. JUst a thought.

Russell


----------



## olley (May 1, 2005)

Arizona said:


> The average bottle of wine weighs 1.280 K! :roll:
> 
> Arizona


Trust the Irish to know the weight to 3 decimal places.  

Olley


----------



## Wiggy (May 22, 2005)

Hi HarryH

To answer your question is 220kg enough payload - I would say without a doubt NO

Can you cancel your order?

Flexibility is in my view one of the main reasons to own a motorhome giving a choice of where to stay and how to travel - this you don't have with a 220kg payload!

You say you want to add many accessories - well they will all add up weight wise

Myself I would not own a motorhome with less than 800kg payload with I would suggest for 2 people a minimum payload of 500kg

Sorry 8O


----------



## wakk44 (Jun 15, 2006)

*Re: 220kg payload*



HARRYH said:


> Thanks for all you replies & advice.
> Im still confused and find it incredible that motorhomes are sold with more berths than legal seats or pay loads that don't allow the proper use of the specification.
> My new MH order is on hold until I sort both the pay load and seat use .
> It seems that after September of this year all side seated,U-shaped,
> ...


I think this new law regarding belted passengers will only apply only to new vehicles built after that date and not be applied retrospectively to existing models

Steve and Sharon


----------



## sallytrafic (Jan 17, 2006)

*Re: 220kg payload*



wakk44 said:


> HARRYH said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for all you replies & advice.
> ...


Can someone steer me to this new law with a link?

Regards Frank


----------



## wakk44 (Jun 15, 2006)

*Re: 220kg payload*



sallytrafic said:


> wakk44 said:
> 
> 
> > HARRYH said:
> ...


Hi Frank,

here's an excerpt from www.ukmotorhomes.net.

_There is currently no legal requirement to have seat belts fitted to side-facing seats or seats that make up the accommodation area in motor caravans. 
Regulation 46 of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986: as amended states motor caravans first used on or after 1st April 1982 but before 1 October 1988 shall be equipped with anchorage points for the driver's seat and specified passenger seat (if any); and for motor caravans first used on or after 1st October 1988 shall be equipped with anchorage points for the driver's seat and any forward-facing front seat. 
You can download a copy of the SI at http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2001/20011043.htm.
However, this does not preclude manufacturers fitting seat belts to forward facing or rearward facing seats within the accommodation area if they wish to do so. 
Where seat belts are fitted they must be worn.

Following our request for clarification on the carrying of passengers in unbelted seats, we received this further reply:

... seats in the rear of a campervan/motorhome do not, at present, require seatbelts (whether forward, rearward or sideways facing) and it is not illegal to carry unrestrained passengers in them while travelling, providing the vehicle is not overloaded. It is not something we would recommend, however.

Although current seat belt wearing regulations do not currently prohibit carrying more passengers in vehicles than there are seat belts available, the police may prosecute drivers for carrying passengers in a manner that may injure someone. 
We would advise that no-one should be carried in any unbelted seat in the rear of a motorhome.

A recent Directive (2005/40/EC) on the installation of seat belts requires that from 20 October 2007 new vehicles will have to have seat belts fitted on all seats except those seats intended solely for use when the vehicle is stationary.

Where seat belts are fitted, from May 2009, the seat belt wearing Directive will prevent more passengers being carried than there are seat belts in the rear of vehicles.

The new requirements will mean that from May 2009, in any vehicle of whatever age, where seat belts are fitted in the rear, more passengers may not be carried in the rear than there are seat belts available.

The critical points are that for owners of older motorhomes, it will not become illegal to carry passengers in the rear, provided that no seatbelts are fitted to any seats behind the driver and front passenger seats. Owners of any motorhome that has belts fitted to any seat in the rear will need to be aware that, from May 2009, it will be illegal to carry passengers in any unbelted seats.

The advisability of carrying unrestrained passengers is another matter, to quote the DfT spokesman:

'... the police can already act where people in the rear of any vehicle are considered to be carried in a dangerous manner because they are unrestrained. [Owners] should beware of unbelted passengers. In a crash, they can injure others in the vehicle ...'. _

Steve and Sharon


----------

