4250kg imminent?

[Jofang]

I picked up the text below today from www.camping-car.org, which is dated 21st December 2024. The original text is in French.

The format of the three-part pink driving license was inconvenient and specific to France and some European countries. The new format called credit card is therefore closer to the format of the national identity card and other useful cards (health card, blue card, etc.). The new format is supplemented with various security features including watermark photography and page background. Its falsification therefore becomes much more difficult.

The new credit card format is also much less sensitive to handling accidents: rain, tearing, creasing, etc.

Finally, this format and its content are now officially recognized in all countries of the European Union and many EU partner countries (Norway for example).

But it is above all the fact of finally being able to officially drive vehicles with a GVW of 4250 kg with a B license that interests motorhome drivers. We are still far from the 7 to 8 tons authorized in most states in the United States and Canada. But it is a significant step towards the generalization of new vehicles with greater usability.

 

[enark]

Madly if you hold cat D, you can drove a 19 ton bus(with56 passengers), but not a MH over 3.5 t? If you passed cat B after 1997.

 

[Widge]

Madly if you hold cat D, you can drove a 19 ton bus(with56 passengers), but not a MH over 3.5 t? If you passed cat B after 1997.

I agree, that one is a bit mad.

 

[Jonno1103]

[

Not sure how a change of fuel can result in negligible NOx without reduction systems. I thought NOx formation is due to the fact that 80% of the air sucked into an engine is nitrogen, with only 20% being the oxygen required to burn the fuel. This nitrogen is then subjected to high temperatures and pressures, the latter especially in diesel engines, which run at very high compression ratios compared to petrol engines, leading to greater NOx formation in diesel than petrol powered vehicles. I can't see how a change in fuel can do much to reduce that.
[/QUOTE]

It's not diesel. It's Hydrotreated Vegetable Oil. It doesn't produce nitrogen dioxide, NO2, bad... only nitric oxide, NO. good...

Yes, most nitric oxide combines with ozone and is negated but the problem is that nitric oxide also creates nitrogen dioxide when combined with the air polutants we already have caused by burning fossil fuels, refining, welding, modern manufacturing processes etc.

The planet is in a phase of carbon inbalance, any Geologist will tell you that... we didn't cause it but we're not exactly helping it. We need to understand the rock we live on and understand that even extinct ancient volcanoes which haven't erupted for 2.5 million years still emit a lot of CO2 along with the 400 still currently active.

Questions are, does HVO produce far less polutants than diesel during production and use - yes. Does HVO produce less CO2 that petrol during production and use - yes, hugely so. Does HVO produce less overall polutants the the manufacture of EV batteries - yes.

 

[fred_jb]

Not sure how a change of fuel can result in negligible NOx without reduction systems. I thought NOx formation is due to the fact that 80% of the air sucked into an engine is nitrogen, with only 20% being the oxygen required to burn the fuel. This nitrogen is then subjected to high temperatures and pressures, the latter especially in diesel engines, which run at very high compression ratios compared to petrol engines, leading to greater NOx formation in diesel than petrol powered vehicles. I can't see how a change in fuel can do much to reduce that.

It's not diesel. It's Hydrotreated Vegetable Oil. It doesn't produce nitrogen dioxide, NO2, bad... only nitric oxide, NO. good...

Yes, most nitric oxide combines with ozone and is negated but the problem is that nitric oxide also creates nitrogen dioxide when combined with the air polutants we already have caused by burning fossil fuels, refining, welding, modern manufacturing processes etc.

The planet is in a phase of carbon inbalance, any Geologist will tell you that... we didn't cause it but we're not exactly helping it. We need to understand the rock we live on and understand that even extinct ancient volcanoes which haven't erupted for 2.5 million years still emit a lot of CO2 along with the 400 still currently active.

Questions are, does HVO produce far less polutants than diesel during production and use - yes. Does HVO produce less CO2 that petrol during production and use - yes, hugely so. Does HVO produce less overall polutants the the manufacture of EV batteries - yes.
[/QUOTE]

Do you have any sources for those assertions? I would love it to be true, but I can only find references to NOx reductions of up to 27% with one paper quoting a real world test result of a 7.5% reduction. Also the majority of any reduction in CO2 is not due to significantly cleaner burning of the fuel itself but by an assumption that it is produced from renewable organic resources. I have seen a figure of 90% reduction quoted online, but this is discounting the actual CO2 emissions from burning this fuel on the basis that replacements of those organic resources will reabsorb some of this CO2 from the atmosphere so it is a net figure not an actual measure of direct reductions in emissions. I also doubt this takes full account of the CO2 cost in growing and processing these organic materials, so I am sceptical that a net reduction of 90% of CO2 is acheivable in the real world.

This also ignores the fact, as as been happening to some extent already, that land badly needed for food production is instead being taken over for production of biomass for fuel crops, for example ethanol to add to petrol. I don't think that creating the volume of synthetic fuel needed to replace all fossil fuels or even just diesel, in this way will be practical. I would think using nuclear power and excess wind and solar power to convert CO2 from the atmosphere and hydrogen from water into synthetic fuel might be a more promising approach in the long term, in conjunction with demand reduction measures such as making the cost of air travel reflect the damage to the environment. At the moment cheap fares and airline profits are based on not covering the true cost of these activities.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[VXman]

Everyone to their own ideas, but personally, with the general standard of driving these days, the last thing would want, would be to allow people to drive anything that large without tuition.

That's part of my point really. It's not about weight - it's about side. A friend of mine has a 6 metre camper van rated to 4250. My 7.5 metre/2.3 wide motorhome was 3500 when I bought it. Which is bigger and more difficult to drive? The rules make no sense.

Similar to France making you put Angle mort stickets on a 6 metre 4250 van but not on 7.5 metre 3500 van. Makes no sense.

 

[PaulW2]

That's part of my point really. It's not about weight - it's about side. A friend of mine has a 6 metre camper van rated to 4250. My 7.5 metre/2.3 wide motorhome was 3500 when I bought it. Which is bigger and more difficult to drive? The rules make no sense.

Similar to France making you put Angle mort stickets on a 6 metre 4250 van but not on 7.5 metre 3500 van. Makes no sense.

It does make sense, though. Size correlates reasonably well with weight for most vehicles, especially given the crude < 3.5 and >3.5 categories. And for many road traffic purposes weight matters most.

 

[gus-lopez]

So medicals every 5 years from 55 for a C1?

Surprisingly, completely different from ours.

Here in spain it is medical every 10 years from initial licence until age 70 .If you have C1 then it is every 5 years.

We had no problem with a LWB MAN TGE (N1 category) to get 'Motor Caravan' an

Raul would like to know how as he couldn't get his one changed?

This has zero FAME, the additive in Biodiesel, zero sulphur, no PM's negligable NOx all without reduction systems such as DPF's or gas recirculation.

Always fascinates me how Scania can comply with emissions regulations witha 16,35litre V8 that has 770hp & uses no DPF nor any type of EGR just diesel fluid injected in to the exhaust at the final point? & is fully compatible with either diesel or HVO?

Really? - well if true that is a nonsense and just complicates the system. I would suggest that the UK don't follow and implement their own system but that would surely be a disaster!

Yes ,as said . that is the reality

[

Not sure how a change of fuel can result in negligible NOx without reduction systems. I thought NOx formation is due to the fact that 80% of the air sucked into an engine is nitrogen, with only 20% being the oxygen required to burn the fuel. This nitrogen is then subjected to high temperatures and pressures, the latter especially in diesel engines, which run at very high compression ratios compared to petrol engines, leading to greater NOx formation in diesel than petrol powered vehicles. I can't see how a change in fuel can do much to reduce that.
[/QUOTE]
as above. If Scania can do without why do cars & vans have all these complicated systems?

 

[fred_jb]

Here in spain it is medical every 10 years from initial licence until age 70 .If you have C1 then it is every 5 years.

Raul would like to know how as he couldn't get his one changed?

Always fascinates me how Scania can comply with emissions regulations witha 16,35litre V8 that has 770hp & uses no DPF nor any type of EGR just diesel fluid injected in to the exhaust at the final point? & is fully compatible with either diesel or HVO?

Yes ,as said . that is the reality

Not sure how a change of fuel can result in negligible NOx without reduction systems. I thought NOx formation is due to the fact that 80% of the air sucked into an engine is nitrogen, with only 20% being the oxygen required to burn the fuel. This nitrogen is then subjected to high temperatures and pressures, the latter especially in diesel engines, which run at very high compression ratios compared to petrol engines, leading to greater NOx formation in diesel than petrol powered vehicles. I can't see how a change in fuel can do much to reduce that.

as above. If Scania can do without why do cars & vans have all these complicated systems?
[/QUOTE]
I could be wrong, but I suspect that the emissions regulations for trucks are not as stringent as those for cars? No car manufacturer is going to fit all the current emissions reducing tech to their vehicles if it wasn't the only, or at least the most economical way to meet Euro6, etc.

 

[fred_jb]

Regarding the argument over weight versus emissions output as a basis for taxation, then I think emissions wins every time. Most roads are built to take commercial vehicles and 5 tonne or even 8 tonne motorhomes are not going to cause significantly accelerated wear. On the other hand the more weight you are hauling around, the more fuel you will burn, and the more emissions you will produce. The two things tend to correlate anyway, but although we can live with worn out roads we will struggle with a worn out and increasingly uninhabitable environment!

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[fred_jb]

As an illustration of that argument I recently watched a video where a biker who I think was a MAG (Motorcycle Action Group) rep was moaning about unfair road tax for motorcycles. He was concentrating very much on the argument that bikes are lighter and do less damage to the roads, so should pay less. Like many people he seems to be stuck in the past where Road Tax as it was then called was in theory levied in order to fund the maintenance of the road network. Those days have long gone, and although VED, Vehicle Excise Duty, is a complete mess of inconsistancy, it is no longer, if it ever was, hypothecated for road maintenance.

He didn't have much to say about fuel consumption/emissions, which except for very low capacity bikes and mopeds, are not brilliant for bikes. I have had quite a few bikes, from 1250 BMWs to the 660cc Triumph I have now, and for which I have kept full records of fuel consumption. Most of these bikes have averaged not much better than 50 mpg in normal touring use, mainly in Europe, a figure which is easily equalled or bettered by many cars, even though they are much heavier. I think the issue is that bikes are very inefficient aerodynamically and at anything above about 50 mph much of the fairly similar amounts of fuel they are burning is just used to produce the power needed to overcome fairly similar amounts of drag. Despite being a biker myself, I would argue that bikes should not be cheaper than cars with similar emissions figures.

 

[Nigel P]

Personally I think this is the only safe way to go. Buy/keep something that can be plated at 3500kg but can be/has been up-plated (ideally to 4250kg). You can then slim down if you have to (To the point where the real risk is having to empty your water tank if pulled over and made to visit a weighbridge) but load up with plenty of wine bottles and fromages etc if you still have the C1 and have up-plated.

P.S. If overweight on a B licence and plated to 3500kg does that risk points on your licence? If so that is a relevant consideration.

EDIT: To answer my own question it looks like the real risk is a fine. You would have to be seriously overweight to risk points or even, worst case scenario, a ban:

DVSA (VOSA) - Excess Weight Offences - Patterson Law

Overloading of a vehicle is governed by VOSA who impose strict penalties on drivers carrying excess weight for their vehicle, overweight van penalties, vehicle overloading. CU50 driving offences carry 3 penalty points. Have you been wrongly accused? We can help defend your driving licence

www.pattersonlaw.co.uk

You might wish to add the slight inconvenience of having the vehicle seized for driving otherwise than in accordance with a licence! Could be a long walk home.

 

[BikerGraham]

As an illustration of that argument I recently watched a video where a biker who I think was a MAG (Motorcycle Action Group) rep was moaning about unfair road tax for motorcycles. He was concentrating very much on the argument that bikes are lighter and do less damage to the roads, so should pay less. Like many people he seems to be stuck in the past where Road Tax as it was then called was in theory levied in order to fund the maintenance of the road network. Those days have long gone, and although VED, Vehicle Excise Duty, is a complete mess of inconsistancy, it is no longer, if it ever was, hypothecated for road maintenance.

He didn't have much to say about fuel consumption/emissions, which except for very low capacity bikes and mopeds, are not brilliant for bikes. I have had quite a few bikes, from 1250 BMWs to the 660cc Triumph I have now, and for which I have kept full records of fuel consumption. Most of these bikes have averaged not much better than 50 mpg in normal touring use, mainly in Europe, a figure which is easily equalled or bettered by many cars, even though they are much heavier. I think the issue is that bikes are very inefficient aerodynamically and at anything above about 50 mph much of the fairly similar amounts of fuel they are burning is just used to produce the power needed to overcome fairly similar amounts of drag. Despite being a biker myself, I would argue that bikes should not be cheaper than cars with similar emissions figures.

True, but it needs to be fair too

I generally get around 62 mpg on my R1250RT and pay £111 VED. Even in full touring mode I mange around 56 mpg

My neighbour has an I10 and gets 50 mpg and pays £20 VED. Some versions have paid £0 VED.

 

[Coolcats]

With even budget Motorhomes now at £70K to £80K is a couple of hundred quid a year really going to worry most people.

Possibly people loose their minds over CAMC pricing

 

[PaulW2]

The tax exists to raise revenue in a manner that nudges our behaviour. So whatever the nanny state wants you to do will be incentivised.

For now it's small low emission cars, with a plan for tightening the screws over time.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[fred_jb]

True, but it needs to be fair too

I generally get around 62 mpg on my R1250RT and pay £111 VED. Even in full touring mode I mange around 56 mpg

My neighbour has an I10 and gets 50 mpg and pays £20 VED. Some versions have paid £0 VED.

For a few years my wife had a Fiat 500 with the mad TwinAir 2 cylinder 900cc engine. This qualified for £0 per year VED. Don't know how as it only averaged about 38 mpg during our ownership. It was a hoot to drive though!

 

[PaulW2]

As an illustration of that argument I recently watched a video where a biker who I think was a MAG (Motorcycle Action Group) rep was moaning about unfair road tax for motorcycles. He was concentrating very much on the argument that bikes are lighter and do less damage to the roads, so should pay less. Like many people he seems to be stuck in the past where Road Tax as it was then called was in theory levied in order to fund the maintenance of the road network. Those days have long gone, and although VED, Vehicle Excise Duty, is a complete mess of inconsistancy, it is no longer, if it ever was, hypothecated for road maintenance.

He didn't have much to say about fuel consumption/emissions, which except for very low capacity bikes and mopeds, are not brilliant for bikes. I have had quite a few bikes, from 1250 BMWs to the 660cc Triumph I have now, and for which I have kept full records of fuel consumption. Most of these bikes have averaged not much better than 50 mpg in normal touring use, mainly in Europe, a figure which is easily equalled or bettered by many cars, even though they are much heavier. I think the issue is that bikes are very inefficient aerodynamically and at anything above about 50 mph much of the fairly similar amounts of fuel they are burning is just used to produce the power needed to overcome fairly similar amounts of drag. Despite being a biker myself, I would argue that bikes should not be cheaper than cars with similar emissions figures.

There is another argument too, similar to the one for cigarette or alcohol tax.

Per mile travelled one is, I think, about 30 times more likely to be killed on a bike than in a car. And the injury stats would be similarly inflated. So there could be an argument that it is a way of taking in more tax to offset the additional cost to the NHS and others.

 

[fred_jb]

There is another argument too, similar to the one for cigarette or alcohol tax.

Per mile travelled one is, I think, about 30 times more likely to be killed on a bike than in a car. And the injury stats would be similarly inflated. So there could be an argument that it is a way of taking in more tax to offset the additional cost to the NHS and others.

Oh well, that won't be a significant problem for that much longer due to the rapidly aging demographic of bikers! Numbers will be rapidly dwindling over the next decade or two, whether by natural or unnatural causes! I do however generally agree that people should be responsible for the costs they voluntarily impose on the enviroment, for example though air travel. There is an argument for things like drinking and smoking being heavily taxed too due to their direct costs on society as a whole. Nobody has to smoke or drink to excess - it is a self imposed health risk, at least until it becomes an addiction! Getting injured riding bikes is a little more tenuous a link in my opinion. If you are going to penalise that as risky behaviour what about people getting injured playing sports, mountain climbing, or cycling - all risky behaviours.

 

[nicholsong]

There is another argument too, similar to the one for cigarette or alcohol tax.

Per mile travelled one is, I think, about 30 times more likely to be killed on a bike than in a car. And the injury stats would be similarly inflated. So there could be an argument that it is a way of taking in more tax to offset the additional cost to the NHS and others.

If biker is killed only cost to NHS is death certificate and transport to mortuary.

Saving is no pension payouts.


Happy Christmas!

 

[poppycamper]

For a few years my wife had a Fiat 500 with the mad TwinAir 2 cylinder 900cc engine. This qualified for £0 per year VED. Don't know how as it only averaged about 38 mpg during our ownership. It was a hoot to drive though!

Mrs Poppycampers Fiat Panda 4X4 ( 45+ MPH ish) can't go into the center of Glasgow.... or any other City Zone for that matter.... However our 4100kg motorhome ( circa 28MPG ) can..
How does that work.????

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Coolcats]

(and the incorrect American spelling of 'arse'),

Curiosity got the better of me of course you are correct it is not an American spelling or origin apparently Arse is a Gemanic word who knew!

 

[rod_vw]

We had no problem with a LWB MAN TGE (N1 category) to get 'Motor Caravan' an

Reply to Raul , I have posted on the Crafter TGE Forum how I did this.

 

[Guigsy]

Mrs Poppycampers Fiat Panda 4X4 ( 45+ MPH ish) can't go into the center of Glasgow.... or any other City Zone for that matter.... However our 4100kg motorhome ( circa 28MPG ) can..
How does that work.????

Because the van has several layers of emissions controls to minimise pollution.

The van kicks out a lot of CO2, but that doesn't affect local air quality. Clean air zones are about local air quality, not climate change. They are different things.

 

[PaulW2]

Oh well, that won't be a significant problem for that much longer due to the rapidly aging demographic of bikers! Numbers will be rapidly dwindling over the next decade or two, whether by natural or unnatural causes! I do however generally agree that people should be responsible for the costs they voluntarily impose on the enviroment, for example though air travel. There is an argument for things like drinking and smoking being heavily taxed too due to their direct costs on society as a whole. Nobody has to smoke or drink to excess - it is a self imposed health risk, at least until it becomes an addiction! Getting injured riding bikes is a little more tenuous a link in my opinion. If you are going to penalise that as risky behaviour what about people getting injured playing sports, mountain climbing, or cycling - all risky behaviours.

Those things are presently in the wild unregulated zone within which people can just do ... what they like. Beyond Rachel Reeves' command. I feel a Dylan song coming on...

 

[PaulW2]

If biker is killed only cost to NHS is death certificate and transport to mortuary.

Saving is no pension payouts.


Happy Christmas!

Oh, this means some work, doesn't it?

Some of the key variables may be:

1. Average age of casualties, projected future tax revenue during their working lifetimes, dependants who may require state support.
2. Ratio of injured to deaths. Say 20:1? And the NHS costs associated with the injuries.
3. Police and court time.

Happy Christmas!

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[dash300]

If biker is killed only cost to NHS is death certificate and transport to mortuary.

Saving is no pension payouts.


Happy Christmas!

Costs elsewhere for every fatal RTA investigation however would be in the region of £1m!

 

[gus-lopez]

as above. If Scania can do without why do cars & vans have all these complicated systems?

I could be wrong, but I suspect that the emissions regulations for trucks are not as stringent as those for cars? No car manufacturer is going to fit all the current emissions reducing tech to their vehicles if it wasn't the only, or at least the most economical way to meet Euro6, etc.
[/QUOTE]
Exactly the same , euro 6.Only exceptions to the legislation is planes & ships.Scania do it by extremely high compression ratios which basically incinerates everything in the combustion chamber.

Nobody has to smoke or drink to excess - it is a self imposed health risk, at least until it becomes an addiction!

You need to add in taxation on the excessive eating patients over loading most hospitals.

 

[Raul]

Reply to Raul , I have posted on the Crafter TGE Forum how I did this.

Thank you for the Link. I looked at your photos , and we are in similar situation, but van with windows. Since then, 2019, we added a window, awning rail, bike rack and other few bits inside. I will re submit the aplication in the new year, after we come back from our first jaunt out.

 

[enark]

“You need to add in taxation on the excessive eating patients over loading most hospitals”

100% agree, if people cant be arsed to look after themselves, why should the tax payer pick up the tab?

Diabetes mainly due to obesity is probably the biggest risk to the NHS

 

[swemmy666]

“You need to add in taxation on the excessive eating patients over loading most hospitals”

100% agree, if people cant be arsed to look after themselves, why should the tax payer pick up the tab?

Diabetes mainly due to obesity is probably the biggest risk to the NHS

If yuo want to whinge about it, include those that are currently clogging up A&E with covid and flu, perfectly good vaccines were available

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Barriesimpson]

Oh well, that won't be a significant problem for that much longer due to the rapidly aging demographic of bikers! Numbers will be rapidly dwindling over the next decade or two, whether by natural or unnatural causes! I do however generally agree that people should be responsible for the costs they voluntarily impose on the enviroment, for example though air travel. There is an argument for things like drinking and smoking being heavily taxed too due to their direct costs on society as a whole. Nobody has to smoke or drink to excess - it is a self imposed health risk, at least until it becomes an addiction! Getting injured riding bikes is a little more tenuous a link in my opinion. If you are going to penalise that as risky behaviour what about people getting injured playing sports, mountain climbing, or cycling - all risky behaviours.

It's all or nothing. You cannot single out smoking and drinking. Everybody has the right to do what they enjoy.