Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Wellys and Mac

My Weights, an insight

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Today I brought my caravan home from its seasonal pitch via an axle weigh facility. It's a government body so it will be as legally accurate as required.

 

I've reconfigured our travelling payload by buying a full awning, adding the largest Mont Blanc top box on the market to the car, it's very old so cant remember the actual size, but its bigger than the roof of our Insignia estate car.

 

So firstly the legal weights.

Car.

Mass in service 2275 kg.

Max S load (nose load) 85 kg.

 

Caravan.

MTPLM 1550.

 

Actual weights caravan attached.

Car.

Mass 2090kg

 

Caravan

Mass at axle 0, nose weight 83kg

Mass at axle 1,  1510kg

 

The caravan could be argued is overloaded as the sum is above the MTPLM of the vehicle, but well under the plated axle weight.

 

My main point is to show the user payload of the caravan is so poor in use, we up-plated the caravan from new, without that can you imagine how many caravans, especially those with cycle carriers and children's additions are overloaded.

 

Should the relevant body's be pushing for greater flexibility on this issue from the manufacturers?

 

I know it's been discussed but I thought I would share some actual figures.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Wellys and Mac
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Wellys and Mac said:

Should the relevant body's be pushing for greater flexibility on this issue from the manufacturers?

 

There is no "relevant" body - as major site operators both the CC and C&CC are members of the NCC, the caravan trade body, but they aren't there to represent the interests of their members - that would be a conflict of interest.

 

Vehicles sold in Europe have relatively low noseweight limits compared to otherwise identical vehicles sold in Australia and North America where users demand 10% of "MTPLM" minimum AND tow right up to their towing limits, eg 3500kg for a SUV - so until the European market demands change, nothing will happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess there is a typo with your "Mass in service 2275kg"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Ern said:

I guess there is a typo with your "Mass in service 2275kg"

 

GVW but we all know what OP meant

 

Very interesting indeed, I am tempted to try this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
39 minutes ago, Ern said:

I guess there is a typo with your "Mass in service 

Yes sorry,  wrong line as description, but correct weight. rushing lots to do today, cleaning caravan and packing,  away tonight.

 

Car

Max permissible  mass  2275kg.

 

:wub:

Edited by Wellys and Mac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We all know that caravans have pathetically low pay load allowance, and putting the heavy stuff in the car is the usual way to avoid overloading the caravan. if there is sufficient space in the car wouldn't it be better to use that space and keep the CofG lower? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you check the maximum loading for the roof of your car?  On our Jeep the maximum load for the car roof  is just under 70kg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, Durbanite said:

Did you check the maximum loading for the roof of your car?  On our Jeep the maximum load for the car roof  is just under 70kg.

The top box is for the full awning fabric only  so not much weight in real terms, oh a small alloy step ladder, 3 steps.

 

The steel frame, rock pegs, storm kit etc are in the car.

I replaced our porch awning and at the time addressed my concerns that car didn't have enough weight in relation to the caravan.

The old awning 13kg and rock pegs lived in the caravan when towing. 

From the figures that was a mistake on my part.

 

Anyway, coffee break, then back to the cleaning!

25 minutes ago, Ern said:

We all know that caravans have pathetically low pay load allowance, and putting the heavy stuff in the car is the usual way to avoid overloading the caravan. if there is sufficient space in the car wouldn't it be better to use that space and keep the CofG lower? 

We have an estate car and fold the seats down, this now allows the full awning frame to be carried with little breakdown of the poles.

 

There is very little equipment in the caravan. Enough for two people the only extra extra we may carry is a Kojak.

 

But

 

I removed the caravan spare wheel and carrier, carpets long ago, as when we bought it new, it was obvious payload would be an issue 

Edited by Wellys and Mac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I too think that the payload is too low and when looking at what some folk unload from their 'vans ,  some are dangerously over weight.  We have seen 2 electric bikes  (30kg x 2 )coming out of a 'van, plus the fact that they have a motor mover (35kg ). Lots of people on here say that they don't ditch the water on board (12kg) before travelling. Some of the large awnings  (18 kg)are a huge weight and they carry it in the 'van. When we see families unload all the kiddies bikes and scooters.

30+30+35+12+18= 125 and with a payload of 155 that leaves just 30 kg for the rest. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

So the next stage of packing the outfit for going away are personal effects.

We have 3 huge holdalls, we use one each for clothes and personally effects, and one for food and drink.

On this trip we are shopping on arrival, so holdall 3 is not being used.

I have now weighed both holdalls, 

 

Holdall 1, 12.6 kg

Holdall 2, 19.0 kg

 

Adding in the weight of Michelle, the dog and fabric cage our all up weights are,

 

Car including nose weight 2196kg

Caravan.................................... 1510kg

Combination weight............ 3706kg

 

And remember that's for 2 adults only.

 

Note the loaded car to loaded caravan ratio is now,  I believe to be a healthier, 69%.

Edited by Wellys and Mac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Black Grouse said:

 

There is no "relevant" body - as major site operators both the CC and C&CC are members of the NCC, the caravan trade body, but they aren't there to represent the interests of their members - that would be a conflict of interest.

 

 

I can't speak for the C&CC but the CC are adamant that they are NOT members of the NCC and I suspect the C&CC isn't either. The CC certainly engages with the NCC, but doesn't fund it  Both Clubs seek to influence the industry but there are a number of drivers that pressure manufacturer's to keep payloads low. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Steamdrivenandy said:

 

I can't speak for the C&CC but the cc are adamant that they are NOT members of the NCC and I suspect the C&CC isn't either. The cc certainly engages with the NCC, but doesn't fund it  Both Clubs seek to influence the industry but there are a number of drivers that pressure manufacturer's to keep payloads low. 

 

cc used to be members.

 

What are the drivers that pressure UK manufacturers to keep payloads low but don't have the same effect on mainland European manufacturers? I'd suggest the pressures on UK manufacturers are self-imposed!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Black Grouse said:

 

What are the drivers that pressure UK manufacturers to keep payloads low but don't have the same effect on mainland European manufacturers? I'd suggest the pressures on UK manufacturers are self-imposed!

 

I believe the main difference between the UK and the European markets is the preference of UK customers to purchase ex stock rather than having their caravan (or car) built to specification. In order to cater for those who have an issue with the limitations imposed by a Category B licence or wish to abide by the 85% weight ratio recommendation, the caravan manufacturers are forced to offer products with restricted payload margins. Of course, that applies on the Continent too, but for those customers who don't have any such issues, they also offer the same caravan with an alternative heavier duty axle.

Years ago that would have meant larger stocks of different chassis versions at the caravan manufacturer to suit demand for more than one variant of the same model, but in this day and age of electronic scheduling of components for the production line, it doesn't really matter how many different versions are built. The components are supplied to the manufacturer in the same sequence as they are assembled on the line. Consequently, stocks are not increased and no additional costs are involved. It appears that UK caravan manufacturers are not aware of this or show little interest in applying it. On the other hand it also accounts for the fact that price lists for caravans of Continental manufacturer, including all the available factory fitted options, tend to be as long as your arm. The same, by the way, applies to cars, too. The price list for my BMW was a 56 page booklet.

 

Edited by Lutz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I have a simple observation.

 

The VIP version of our Coachman Pastiche has a MTPLM 100kg greater.

 

Now I cant imagine to offer the VIP axle on a Pastiche variant would cause  too many issues.

 

In fact there are threads on here regarding Down-plating, so what exactly would the increase in weight (Miro), the knock on effect of payload , MTPLM, and cost be to fit +100kg capacity axle, then down plate to the now MTPLM of a Pastiche? 

I'm guessing marginal.

 

Seems daft this isnt happening, or at least offered.

I feel a few emails coming along.

 

The maths on my axle as loaded gives a figure of 2.58% operating to its capacity, CONSTANTLY.

 

Edited by Wellys and Mac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Wellys and Mac said:

I have a simple observation.

 

The VIP version of our Coachman Pastiche has a MTPLM 100kg greater.

 

Now I cant imagine to offer the VIP axle on a Pastiche variant would cause  too many issues.

 

In fact there are threads on here regarding Down-plating, so what exactly would the increase in weight (Miro), the knock on effect of payload , MTPLM, and cost be to fit +100kg capacity axle then down plate to the now MTPLM of a Pastiche? 

I'm guessing marginal.

 

Seems daft this isnt happening, or at least offered.

 

There is little point in downplating because it means that the caravan has a heavier duty and consequently more expensive axle than is absolutely required. A downplated caravan would therefore cost the same as its non-downplated counterpart. That means that the customer is not getting any cost benefit for downplating and the manufacturer is making extra profit selling something that's really not required.

 

Don't forget that as soon as two or more MTPLM versions of the same caravan are offered, the manufacturer must have them all type approved. If his first type approval application covers a range of weights, great, but at a later date additional costs are involved to have an amendment of the original type approval issued.

 

Edited by Lutz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm given to understand that there is an EU Reg. that sets out a minimum payload calculation for caravans and the NCC minimum calculation, that their members must adhere too, gives a tad more than the EU Reg. The trouble is that because UK caravan maker's marketing people believe that UK buyers want the lightest van possible, they have pushed and pushed designers to get weights down. And then they've promoted the sale of their vans based on low weight, which has reinforced the customers desire for low weights and so it goes round in a continuous circle.

 

In a world where an increasing number of potential caravanners have 'B only' licences, where they're limited in what weight they can pull, where weight means higher fuel consumption and environmental concerns are receiving more and more focus, it would be very hard to reverse the emphasis on low weight, both in marketing and political terms.   

 

I've always felt that the NCC have missed a trick in not adjusting their minimum weight formula as the popularity of weighty motor movers has grown. The formula was initiated when hardly anyone had a mover fitted, but now, it seems, most vans have them. The NCC formula should acknowledge that and add, say 30kg to their calculation, citing road safety as a justification as I suspect many, many vans are running overloaded because with a mover fitted the owners can't get the load below MTPLM.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Wellys and Mac said:

Today I brought my caravan home from its seasonal pitch via an axle weigh facility. It's a government body so it will be as legally accurate as required.

 

I've reconfigured our travelling payload by buying a full awning, adding the largest Mont Blanc top box on the market to the car, it's very old so cant remember the actual size, but its bigger than the roof of our Insignia estate car.

 

So firstly the legal weights.

Car.

Mass in service 2275 kg.

Max S load (nose load) 85 kg.

 

Caravan.

MTPLM 1550.

 

Actual weights caravan attached.

Car.

Mass 2090kg

 

Caravan

Mass at axle 0, nose weight 83kg

Mass at axle 1,  1510kg

 

The caravan could be argued is overloaded as the sum is above the MTPLM of the vehicle, but well under the plated axle weight.

 

My main point is to show the user payload of the caravan is so poor in use, we up-plated the caravan from new, without that can you imagine how many caravans, especially those with cycle carriers and children's additions are overloaded.

 

Should the relevant body's be pushing for greater flexibility on this issue from the manufacturers?

 

I know it's been discussed but I thought I would share some actual figures.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Caravan is overloaded  +43 kg no argument ?

 

 

Dave

Edited by CommanderDave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Black Grouse said:

 

cc used to be members.

 

What are the drivers that pressure UK manufacturers to keep payloads low but don't have the same effect on mainland European manufacturers? I'd suggest the pressures on UK manufacturers are self-imposed!

 

Probably the 85% recommendation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Manufacturers could add a poverty version of their ranges - No gas system needing heavy gas bottles. No , carpets, microwave ovens, gas ovens, gas rings, heavy solar panels. Fit integrated motor movers, batteries and light weight solar panels as standard. Alde heating without gas system. Include an integrated alarm system with no annual subscription costs. An all electric caravan for the majority of customers who never go off grid. A small induction hob in the kitchen perhaps. A decent personal belongings payload.

A considerably reduced cost and selling price. The minority who want the bells and whistles can buy the bells and whistles version.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Ern said:

Manufacturers could add a poverty version of their ranges - No gas system needing heavy gas bottles. No , carpets, microwave ovens, gas ovens, gas rings, heavy solar panels. Fit integrated motor movers, batteries and light weight solar panels as standard. Alde heating without gas system. Include an integrated alarm system with no annual subscription costs. An all electric caravan for the majority of customers who never go off grid. A small induction hob in the kitchen perhaps. A decent personal belongings payload.

A considerably reduced cost and selling price. The minority who want the bells and whistles can buy the bells and whistles version.

 

Bailey tried a version of this a few years ago in the Bailey Orion Evo.

 

Came without provision for a battery,no solar panel or microwave,simple heating,

 

Only lasted a year,I think one of the problems was that even on such a "spartan" van people wanted a mover but there wasn't provision for a battery to run it.

 

If people won't buy such vans manufacturers won't build them.

 

Ian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not leave it all to the customer to decide?

I wouldn't go without gas even though I rarely go off grid. I would also want carpets and a microwave oven, but if my caravan were lighter I could do without a battery and motor mover. Don't need Alde heating either nor a solar panel, so my preferences and prioities are somewhat different to those of Ern. Surely that shows there's a case for a building brick philosophy on the part of the manufacturers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The manufacturers can get the specification wrong - fully comprehensive but wrong, poverty spec but wrong. All manufacturers currently follow each other like sheep and even have NCC to help them stay strictly within the norm.

I think if they could get a simplified version with a really good payload to the market, it would succeed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Ern said:

Manufacturers could add a poverty version of their ranges - No gas system needing heavy gas bottles. No , carpets, microwave ovens, gas ovens, gas rings, heavy solar panels. Fit integrated motor movers, batteries and light weight solar panels as standard. Alde heating without gas system. Include an integrated alarm system with no annual subscription costs. An all electric caravan for the majority of customers who never go off grid. A small induction hob in the kitchen perhaps. A decent personal belongings payload.

A considerably reduced cost and selling price. The minority who want the bells and whistles can buy the bells and whistles version.

 

I can see a reduction in the numbers of expensive caravans and an increase in family vans, they will have to be under 1400kg to be comfortable towed by a car with a GVW of 2100kg to fit within the B-license.  Looking at the entry level for a number of brands this is perfectly achievable with gas, dual fuel etc but no drinks cabinets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh well!!!

 

No drinks cabinet?

 

How positively antedeluvian.

 

That would end my vanning.

 

Heh Heh.

 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


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



×
×
  • Create New...