Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Boatybob

User Payload

Recommended Posts

That I also understand but would you not agree that in theory it would be perfectly possible to have a 1565kg MTPLM on a 1500kg axle with a 75kg noseweight.

 

My point being that if people run loaded to their van's MTPLM and with 75kg noseweight they are not running at their axles limit, even if they've upgraded the MTPLM. Maybe, as so many seem to run overloaded, it's a good thing they actually have some 'spare' axle load.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys, I think you are both saying the same thing. I think it's called semantics ;)

 

UK manufacturers also give the buyer the option of higher rated MTPLM, it's called a plate upgrade, but confined to the limit of the chassis/axle. On some models this is not a lot, on others, like my Pursuit, it is considerable, but that's because Bailey are marketing my van as light, but it is actually built on the same chassis as an equivalent Pegasus or Unicorn.

It looks to me, that manufacturers merely rate the maximum upgrade plated MTPLM, at or below (for other structural reasons) the actual axle limit. The noseweight allowance is merely extra latitude/tolerance, call it what you will.

 

So in the UK you get the best of both worlds, to suit either your demand or licence restriction.

The only time it becomes a problem is when the unsuspecting caravanner wants their "cake and eat it", usually when they don't understand the light van they were seduced by, is only light by virtue of a marketing ruse that means they don't have a payload.

 

It actually gets more ridiculous still when marketing their lightest ranges, when "options" that you actually can't de-specify are also not included in the MIRO, so the NCC/EU payload gets added to an artificially low MIRO, and the poor punter gets even less payload still.

 

Funny old game.

Edited by kilham5
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That I also understand but would you not agree that in theory it would be perfectly possible to have a 1565kg MTPLM on a 1500kg axle with a 75kg noseweight.

 

My point being that if people run loaded to their van's MTPLM and with 75kg noseweight they are not running at their axles limit, even if they've upgraded the MTPLM. Maybe, as so many seem to run overloaded, it's a good thing they actually have some 'spare' axle load.

 

The regulation is quite clear that this isn't allowed.

 

2. 1. The sum of the technically permissible maximum mass on the axles shall not be less than the technically permissible maximum laden mass of the vehicle.

 

How would you propose to ensure that your noseweight stayed at or above the 75kg figure in all dynamic conditions.

 

When manufacturers set the MTPLM figure they also have to fine the Mass distribution, this is often shown as say 25 -100 kg on the nose (in some conditions it's 0-100) , so as you need to show this range on the nose (because you can't guarantee it) it also has to be shown as an addition to the distribution on the axles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone I know,is a gov. weights and measure inspecter,also a RV owner who does w/e rallying.

After much pressure from other campers he got permission from his employer to take very professional weighing equipment to a rally.

He discovered that over eighty per cent of all motor homes and caravans he weighed were over there payload limit,many were over axle limits,especially motor home rear axles,!

Luckily he did not report any as he was off duty,but something is wrong with the whole business IMO.

He told me virtually nobody showed any real concern. just carry on was the general consensus,

I am not condoning or condemning,just quoting what he quoted to me!

Makes you think!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pheasant :goodpost: . As we seem to be 60kg over our 1800kg MTPLM, if we were pulled by VSA, I'd simply offer to put >60kg in the car. Seems fair enough to me as I could always plead ignorance ;) . No doubt someone will say "well why don't you do this anyway"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The regulation is quite clear that this isn't allowed.

 

2. 1. The sum of the technically permissible maximum mass on the axles shall not be less than the technically permissible maximum laden mass of the vehicle.

 

How would you propose to ensure that your noseweight stayed at or above the 75kg figure in all dynamic conditions.

 

When manufacturers set the MTPLM figure they also have to fine the Mass distribution, this is often shown as say 25 -100 kg on the nose (in some conditions it's 0-100) , so as you need to show this range on the nose (because you can't guarantee it) it also has to be shown as an addition to the distribution on the axles.

 

Thanks for correcting me, Towtug, but isn't the jockey wheel considered as one of the axles as it is shown as axle 0 on the weight plate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That I also understand but would you not agree that in theory it would be perfectly possible to have a 1565kg MTPLM on a 1500kg axle with a 75kg noseweight.

 

My point being that if people run loaded to their van's MTPLM and with 75kg noseweight they are not running at their axles limit, even if they've upgraded the MTPLM. Maybe, as so many seem to run overloaded, it's a good thing they actually have some 'spare' axle load.

 

Our axles are shown on the plate as 1000kg each and I'd love to run at the max permissible. That would then give us 490kg payload which is approaching what my dream 'van (Inos) has (500kg) :wub: .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand what the regs say, but isn't it logical that if the axle is specced for, say, 1500kg and you load to 1500kg but put 75kg through the hitch you're actually loading the axle to just 1425kg. In effect the ma ufacturer could fit a 1425kg axle, if there was such a thing and it would never be overstretched.

 

As to the variability of forces on the hitch and constantly altering noseweight whilst driving, surely the hitch and everything else is specced to handle such variability anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pheasant :goodpost: . As we seem to be 60kg over our 1800kg MTPLM, if we were pulled by VSA, I'd simply offer to put >60kg in the car. Seems fair enough to me as I could always plead ignorance ;) . No doubt someone will say "well why don't you do this anyway"?

So would I pebble,but you would be very surprised how little spare capacity most cars/small four by fours even, have now if they are under say three years old.

Many people are under an illusion if they think,van up to max,oh just plonk it into a already loaded car,I include myself here,I am very limited both in car 2014, and van 2016, I have had to make lots of sacrifices to stay legal. Dave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst I see the argument SDG is making surely the simple fact is that the MTPLM is the maximum weight at which the caravan or motorhome can be legally taken on the road! :unsure:

 

All the references to axle weights, nose weights and the rest are irrelevant if you want to stay withing the law.

 

Caravans come with a MTPLM and yes, some if not all may be increased and if that's the case the revised MTPLM is the legal weight.

 

I would dearly love to feel able to add around 95kg to my payload but I simply can't if I want to stay within the law - can I?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Pebble

How do you get it to be so heavy 1860kg? Ours is around 1750kg (ex weighbridge) and that includes the under bed air con!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bubble2015, on 14 Sept 2016 - 8:18 PM, said:

Hi Pebble

How do you get it to be so heavy 1860kg? Ours is around 1750kg (ex weighbridge) and that includes the under bed air con!

 

Good question. I thought it would be 1700-1750kg max. We have clothes on board for every eventuality lol, food (we've cut back on tins since having the MH), mover (25kg?), three cooking pans, halogen oven and TBH, not a lot else. Even the 10 or so caravan/MH magazines are put in the car! There are a few other items which, IMO, don't stack up to much but maybe every little doesn't help. One 10kg Safefill bottle up front with some waste pipe and not a lot under the bed. Aquaroll, wastemaster, chairs, locks etc. (bulky or heavy) travel in the car. We spend 3-4 weeks in the 'van at anyone time on a seasonal pitch so maybe it's time to look very, very closely at what we actually need to lug around when touring.

 

The weighbridge figure came a result of i) car + 'van and ii) car on its own. The car weight looks ok as we had it weighed on its own when we bought it a few months ago.

Edited by Pebble

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Thanks for correcting me, Towtug, but isn't the jockey wheel considered as one of the axles as it is shown as axle 0 on the weight plate?

I hadn't thought of it that way, axle 0 is the coupler though so you might have a point. I have a Tech committee meeting next week I'll ask. I like giving them something to think about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I reckon you could easily be carrying 100 to 150kg over limit. A small bag of clothes pushes 20kg (each). Towels and toiletries another 10 to 15kg. Ditto bedding. Fridge and food basics another 15kg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand all that you've posted Lutz but is there a logical safety reason why a van with say a 1500kg axle can't be loaded to, say, 1490kg with a further nominal 75kg on the nose?

Manufacturers don't stipulate MTPLM's because vans don't behave above that weight, it's purely a marketing exercise. As shown by upgrades the real limiting factor is axle specification and, in theory with the noseweight being borne elsewhere the axle load never comes near its designated limit.

Firstly the rule is the un-hitched mass must be less than the MTPLM. If you have an accident and are overweight, try that argument with the insurance company. ..

 

From a logical point of view, the caravan is subject to all kinds of forces as it's pulled along and bounces over the roads.

 

Loading an extra 75kg in the main van would exaggerate these forces.

 

I'm sure there's plenty of margin of error in all the figures before things go wrong but if they do and the local police are weighing your van you'd better make sure it's less than MTPLM.

 

Or hope it's totalled and the contents are strewn over the carriageway!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Pebble

We have always used this weighbridge -

Oakland International Ltd, Seafield Lane, Beoley, Redditch, Worcs, B98 9DB

- which one do you use?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hadn't thought of it that way, axle 0 is the coupler though so you might have a point. I have a Tech committee meeting next week I'll ask. I like giving them something to think about.

Lutz. It just struck me that the definitions in Two different regulations are slightly different. The definition of an axle in the Mass and Dimensions reg, clearly defines it as a device for supporting the wheels, whereas the Statutory Plates directive gives the axles and coupling points consecutive numbers, numbering back from 0 being the coupling and the first axle 1 etc. So it doesn't actually call the coupling point an axle, it is just sort of implies it.

Firstly the rule is the un-hitched mass must be less than the MTPLM. If you have an accident and are overweight, try that argument with the insurance company. ..

 

From a logical point of view, the caravan is subject to all kinds of forces as it's pulled along and bounces over the roads.

 

Loading an extra 75kg in the main van would exaggerate these forces.

 

I'm sure there's plenty of margin of error in all the figures before things go wrong but if they do and the local police are weighing your van you'd better make sure it's less than MTPLM.

 

Or hope it's totalled and the contents are strewn over the carriageway!!!

What is the unhitched mass, MRO, Actual Mass, MTPLM Towable Mass?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But all of that doesn't alter the fact that a van loaded to 1500kg that puts 75kg of that through the hitch is only putting 1425kg through the axle. If the axle is rated to cope with 1500kg it is always running 75kg under the load it was built to handle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But all of that doesn't alter the fact that a van loaded to 1500kg that puts 75kg of that through the hitch is only putting 1425kg through the axle. If the axle is rated to cope with 1500kg it is always running 75kg under the load it was built to handle.

That is looking at the axle design load which is different to the trailer design load?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bubble2015, on 14 Sept 2016 - 10:15 PM, said:

Hi Pebble

We have always used this weighbridge -

Oakland International Ltd, Seafield Lane, Beoley, Redditch, Worcs, B98 9DB

- which one do you use?

 

We use a busy, large agricultural feed supplier near Brecon. HGVs are in and out roughly one every 5 minutes at peak times, so the weighbridge gets plenty of use. They're not a public weighbridge and are only supposed to weigh vehicles that collect and drop off farm feed. They won't issue an official ticket but they give us a printout for free.

Edited by Pebble

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lutz. It just struck me that the definitions in Two different regulations are slightly different. The definition of an axle in the Mass and Dimensions reg, clearly defines it as a device for supporting the wheels, whereas the Statutory Plates directive gives the axles and coupling points consecutive numbers, numbering back from 0 being the coupling and the first axle 1 etc. So it doesn't actually call the coupling point an axle, it is just sort of implies it.

What is the unhitched mass, MRO, Actual Mass, MTPLM Towable Mass?

In my terminology, the un-hitched mass is the weight of the caravan after de-coupling from the car and leaving it on the weighbridge.

 

If whilst traveling and weights are questioned, in terms of the trailer (caravan) the ONLY thing that matters is that it's weight when removed from the car is less than the MTPLM figure on the official plate.

 

The train weight (mass of the caravan plus car plus people) also has to be less than the maximum loaded weight of the car plus the MTPLM of the caravan. Usually though the biggest weight issue seems to be keeping the van below MTPLM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my terminology, the un-hitched mass is the weight of the caravan after de-coupling from the car and leaving it on the weighbridge.

 

If whilst traveling and weights are questioned, in terms of the trailer (caravan) the ONLY thing that matters is that it's weight when removed from the car is less than the MTPLM figure on the official plate.

 

The train weight (mass of the caravan plus car plus people) also has to be less than the maximum loaded weight of the car plus the MTPLM of the caravan. Usually though the biggest weight issue seems to be keeping the van below MTPLM.

 

Correct, except that when the caravan is hitched, the train weight is the maximum loaded weight of the car plus the axle load of the caravan, not its MTPLM, because the noseweight portion of its MTPLM is already taken care of in the maximum loaded weight of the car.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lutz. It just struck me that the definitions in Two different regulations are slightly different. The definition of an axle in the Mass and Dimensions reg, clearly defines it as a device for supporting the wheels, whereas the Statutory Plates directive gives the axles and coupling points consecutive numbers, numbering back from 0 being the coupling and the first axle 1 etc. So it doesn't actually call the coupling point an axle, it is just sort of implies it.

 

A definition is not worth calling a definition if it can be interpreted in two different ways, At best it could be called a convention, thus allowing 'unconventional interpretations', too.

 

It's just like kerbweight. The term is often used as is if it were identical to 'mass in service' or 'MIRO' whereas UK Construction and Use Regulations are quite clear that does not include the driver nor an only 90% full fuel tank.

 

'kerbside weight' is, quote:

 

the weight of a vehicle when it carries—

(a) in the case of a motor vehicle,

(i) no person; and

(ii)a full supply of fuel in its tank, an adequate supply of other liquids incidental to its propulsion and no load other than the loose tools and equipment with which it is normally equipped;

(b ) in the case of a trailer, no person and is otherwise unladen.

 

The problem is that 'kerb side weight' or 'kerbweight' is not documented anywhere.

Edited by Lutz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The multitude of "definitions" of the weight of a vehicle is a farce. Until the end of 1972, the UK's Construction & Use regulations were absolute within the UK. Since then the UK's C&U have been changed to incorporate Common Market, EEC, EC and EU directives and regulations.

 

Whatever one's views on (discussion of this topic closed), one of the advantages of EU membership SHOULD have been standardisation of terms & definitions - what we have is a failure in one of the fundamental aims of the original Common Market.

 

I can remember in the '80/90s that Vauxhall changed all the kerbweights from full tank of fuel but no driver to 90% fuel with driver AND included a reference note in the sales brochures to the specific EEC/EC Directives requiring the change - why don't these Directives still apply to all brands?

Edited by Black Grouse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The multitude of "definitions" of the weight of a vehicle is a farce. Until the end of 1972, the UK's Construction & Use regulations were absolute within the UK. Since then the UK's C&U have been changed to incorporate Common Market, EEC, EC and EU directives and regulations.

 

Whatever one's views on (discussion of this topic closed), one of the advantages of EU membership SHOULD have been standardisation of terms & definitions - what we have is a failure in one of the fundamental aims of the original Common Market.

 

I can remember in the '80/90s that Vauxhall changed all the kerbweights from full tank of fuel but no driver to 90% fuel with driver AND included a reference note in the sales brochures to the specific EEC/EC Directives requiring the change - why don't these Directives still apply to all brands?

 

The trouble is that people don't stick to definitions that are quite clearly documented, but jumble up terms as they see fit.

 

If Vauxhall changed all the kerbweights from a full tank of fuel but no driver to 90% fuel with driver, then strictly speaking, they are no longer sticking to the definition of kerbweight. The EC/EEC Directives talk about 'mass in running order' and recently 'actual mass of the vehicle', but never mention the term kerbweight.

 

It's not the legislator that's at fault, neither in the UK nor in the EU, although things are not made easier by not having older UK Construction and Use Regulations replaced rather than amended, resulting in two different terms being used in the same piece of later legislation where it includes older references.

Edited by Lutz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...