Itsy bitsy teenie weenie payloads

[Lenny HB]

Yes weighing it will be interesting, or perhaps alarming.

On my current Hymer the difference between the 3015 mass and 3281 technical mass ties in with the 266 weight of extras, as listed in the brochure.

That is because Hymer nearly always get it right unlike other manufacturers.

 

[GWAYGWAY]

I put my Hymer across the weight cells at the show and they gave ma certificate at 3648kg which is 32 kilos under the old weight limit before I upgraded to 4200kg max. the van was FULL of water and 3/4 full fuel with everything we needed plus the generator just in case.
It would have been legal at 3680 but the extra bit on top make a good buffer except we were very close to the rear axle limit and it is impossible to load the front one which is so light as to be silly. Bad design to have a rear weighted vehicle because of the short wheelbase and huge overhanging body. A 620 version would have been a better choice with the longer wheelbase , base chassis sprinters it seems and always heavy on the back and light on the front. No room to put the gas at the front as there is no room under the chassis there.

 

[tonyidle]

There are some manufacturers who are making an effort to reduce construction weights and perhaps that is where the future lies

Unfortunately there is a limit below which conversion quality will suffer (IMO they've reached it already) and base vehicles are, if anything, getting heavier due to safety legislation.

 

[Lenny HB]

I put my Hymer across the weight cells at the show and they gave ma certificate at 3648kg which is 32 kilos under the old weight limit before I upgraded to 4200kg max. the van was FULL of water and 3/4 full fuel with everything we needed plus the generator just in case.

Does that mean without full tanks & the genny you may just be able to run at 3500 which you wanted to do?
Also what about an underslung gas tank further forward of the where the gas bottles are now.

 

[Parrot Face]

Adria Matrix Supreme 670dc . Took it straight to weighbridge from dealers (brand new). Weighed in at 3180 with about 20L of fuel in, no water, one full gas bottle and both driver and passenger not included. At allowed 3500 that gives us 320kg.

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

 

[Pausim]

Bad design to have a rear weighted vehicle

I put some of this down to being rear wheel drive, the rear axle is heavy. Perhaps the new fwd Sprinter is better balanced.

 

[Pausim]

Adria Matrix Supreme 670dc . Took it straight to weighbridge from dealers (brand new). Weighed in at 3180 with about 20L of fuel in, no water, one full gas bottle and both driver and passenger not included. At allowed 3500 that gives us 320kg.

Plating a 7.5 metre long and 2.3 metre wide motorhome at 3500kg seems a bit optimistic to me.

 

[Lenny HB]

Adria Matrix Supreme 670dc . Took it straight to weighbridge from dealers (brand new). Weighed in at 3180 with about 20L of fuel in, no water, one full gas bottle and both driver and passenger not included. At allowed 3500 that gives us 320kg.

By the time you have added 2 people, 2nd gas bottle, fuel, water, and everything else you need you will be well over 3500.

 

[Nirvanauk]

Adria Matrix Supreme 670dc . Took it straight to weighbridge from dealers (brand new). Weighed in at 3180 with about 20L of fuel in, no water, one full gas bottle and both driver and passenger not included. At allowed 3500 that gives us 320kg.

Now add a load of fuel, water, yourselves , bikes, food, clothing, see we’re im coming from.....

 

[Lenny HB]

I put some of this down to being rear wheel drive, the rear axle is heavy. Perhaps the new fwd Sprinter is better balanced.

Not necessarily, our last Hymer on a Fiat we we always on the limit on the rear axle. Water tank and gas bottles were behind the rear axle.

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

 

[Blue Knight]

Plating a 7.5 metre long and 2.3 metre wide motorhome at 3500kg seems a bit optimistic to me.

I would whole heartedly agree with that comment

I spent dozens of hours trawling the various brochures of the converters and in general my conclusions just reflect what everyone already knows for new vans registered at 3.5T:

1. Vans > 6.5m long have healthy payloads for two people and in most cases can handle 4 people as long as careful consideration is given to the loading list. The only downside is the practicality of having 4 people in such a small confined living space. Vans of this length and nature can handle international touring with relative ease (for 2 people ideally).

2. Vans > 7m can usually accommodate two people in relative comfort (equipment, fuel, gas and water) but a third and fourth passenger is a stretch for most. This type of van relies a bit more on sites, water stops and corner shops over the >6.5m category.

3. Vans > 7.5m barely manage to accommodate two people and in many instances they surpass the 3.5T limit once a passenger and a few equipment options is added. Vans of this length are totally unusable for expeditionary touring and instead they rely on sites and corner shops for their life support. IMO these vans are better suited for the 'weekend warrior' who wishes to use them for a night away on a C&MC site instead of renting a B&B or hotel.

4. A sigificant number of vans which fall within the >7.5m class (serial-3) should not be advertised as being 3.5T compliant.

5. The large garage concept on most bigger vans is a huge white elephant IMO; i.e. they have lots of space but they can't even accommodate a sausage because of the lack of available payload. In some instances the small addition of a few bits n' bobs in garages will often overload the rear axle/tyres while making the vans potentially dangerous to drive in fast moving traffic.

6. Payload aside, the dealers and the converters don't seem to give a crap about the safety of their clients or else they would be designing vans which can operate safely within the legal design parameters of the chassis, axles, tyres and brakes etc.

 

[Pausim]

The large garage concept on most bigger vans is a huge white elephant IMO

Perhaps they are there to accommodate a large helium gas bag, would this help? Hydrogen is lighter than air I think, would hydrogen fuel solve weight and emissions problems?

 

[nicholsong]

[QUOTE="Blue Knight, post: 3317496, member: 49879"


6. Payload aside, the dealers and the converters don't seem to give a crap about the safety of their clients or else they would be designing vans which can operate safely within the legal design parameters of the chassis, axles, tyres and brakes etc.[/QUOTE]

Andrew

You have made some valid points, but I do not agree with point 6 above, because nearly all the base vehicles used have approval at 3850kg or above, and have all those features to meet the safety requirements at those weights.

Up to those weights it is not a safety issue, but the drivers' licences. It is the Maketing Depts. of the converter(or dealer) which are putting those weights into the brochures - and then lying about the payload and capabilities at those restricted weights.

Geoff

 

[Blue Knight]

You have made some valid points, but I do not agree with point 6 above, because nearly all the base vehicles used have approval at 3850kg or above, and have all those features to meet the safety requirements at those weights.

Up to those weights it is not a safety issue, but the drivers' licences. It is the Maketing Depts. of the converter(or dealer) which are putting those weights into the brochures - and then lying about the payload and capabilities at those restricted weights.

Geoff

Geoff,

I'm going to stick by my guns on this one and reiterate the point that IMO the various converters do not give two hoots about the safety of their punters. They are primarily focused on delivering a 3.5T unit to as many people as they can in the interests of their profits and market share.

The majority of vans that I have so far listed in my many thread entries are based entirely on the light 35L chassis so, in theory, the maximum weight option is 3.8T albeit all of the manufacturers remain so deadly keen to advertise them at 3.5T for obvious reasons.

There's also a smoke and mirrors issue here inasmuch as most of the manufacturers are producing factory fresh vans which are already close to their rear axle weights, before the addition of a second person, therfore; my question to the technical & safety folk on this forum is that are these vans really fit for the purpose they were intended when supplied in this guise.

I'm also keen to highlight the point about the degradation of the base vehicle components once they reach a few years old. We already know that a fully loaded Fiat Camper Chassis (35L) can suffer from flattened suspension after only 6-months of usage, as a big fat motorhome, so what happens to the rest of the chassis components; suspension, running gear, brakes, bushes and joint structures after 3, 5 or 10 years of bobbing around the roads

If for example I had a 5-year old van which had a maximum MTPLM of 3.8T then from my perspective there's no way on this earth that I would assume that it's safety margin was still 3.8T after 5 years of being used as a motorhome - not a chance! The bits will be worn and the safety margins, if ever there were any, would be compromised and reduced against what was declared in the original spec sheet. These vans are just poshed-up Asda and Sainburys trucks with a short user life so the bits are not designed to last the life of a camper; again IMO.

The C1 license is a huge issue for the ageing population of motorhomers but it still doesn't give the motorhome manufacturers the right to play with people's lives.

All the best,

Andrew

 

[Pausim]

The C1 license is a hige issue for the ageing population

It is probably an even bigger issue for younger drivers wanting to take up motorhoming. We ageing motorhomers only need a medical, they have to take expensive and time consuming lessons and test.

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

 

[Cheshirecat57]

That must have been a hell of a big RV.

Should be a criminal offense for salesmen to give miss information on payload.

It is

 

[Lenny HB]

@Blue Knight, Andrew as you enjoy ferreting out all this info you might like to look into front axle loading on PVC's. I know a few years ago there were a quite a few PVC's running on limit of the front axle particularly the ones on the 3300 kg chassis.

 

[Lenny HB]

It is

Any further info?

 

[nicholsong]

Andrew

I was taking upthe point you made here

'they would be designing vans which can operate safely within the legal design parameters of the chassis, axles, tyres and brakes etc.'

And merely pointing out that the design parameters are based on 3850kg, not 3500kg.

I do not know whether the parameters take account of deterioration over 5 years, but maybe the MOT takes care of that.

Geoff

 

[G-RMPS]

There are vans on a 3850 chassis too that are still not fit for purpose. And I don’t mean they are a little short of Lenny’s ton payload. I mean they are 4-place but couldn’t legally accommodate 4 people even with minimal clothing/bedding etc.

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

 

[Cheshirecat57]

Any further info?

It is a criminal offence to mis-represent anything that you are selling, particularly but not exclusively a motor vehicle

There is also an argument that the duty of care of a professional (hmm) selling a motorhome requires them to identify and satisfy the needs of the retail customer
ergo
If the customer has 3 fat kids and wants to tow a spaceship behind, its up to the salesperson to find that out under "demands and needs " legislation

 

[Pausim]

and wants to tow a spaceship behind

But officer I weighed it before leaving and it was weightless.

 

[gus-lopez]

Adria Matrix Supreme 670dc . Took it straight to weighbridge from dealers (brand new). Weighed in at 3180 with about 20L of fuel in, no water, one full gas bottle and both driver and passenger not included. At allowed 3500 that gives us 320kg.

just fill with water & diesel & you are down to 150kgs

 

[Lenny HB]

And I don’t mean they are a little short of Lenny’s ton payload

Ton? I'll have you know I have over 1350 kg payload.

 

[Blue Knight]

@Blue Knight, Andrew as you enjoy ferreting out all this info you might like to look into front axle loading on PVC's. I know a few years ago there were a quite a few PVC's running on limit of the front axle particularly the ones on the 3300 kg chassis.

I'm thinking of taking up golf Lenny so you may need to volunteer for that job

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

 

[Lenny HB]

I'm thinking of taking up golf Lenny so you may need to volunteer for that job

I'm to sensible to do that, hence I bought a van with a realistic payload.

 

[Btg]

Had 6 motorhomes now never bother how much weight I carry fuel water bikes full of food n wine beer just enjoy it ,it’s just like a caravan don’t overload it too much at the back you no if your overweight by the way it drives go on holiday n enjoy that’s what it’s for ,,

 

[Cheshirecat57]

Interesting attitude, I suppose you could cover the speedo as well and just go as fast as you want...

 

[Podney]

Had 6 motorhomes now never bother how much weight I carry fuel water bikes full of food n wine beer just enjoy it ,it’s just like a caravan don’t overload it too much at the back you no if your overweight by the way it drives go on holiday n enjoy that’s what it’s for ,,

An interesting attitude,and probably not uncommon. However there is such a thing called the law. The law about vehicle weight is made as part of road safety. Do you blatantly ignore other road safety laws,such as speed limits,drink driving etc.?

 

[Podney]

Interesting attitude, I suppose you could cover the speedo as well and just go as fast as you want...

“Great minds”...........but you beat me to it.

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