Jump to content

Poor payload on new Buccaneers


Recommended Posts

I have just read a review in the Camping and Caravanning magazine of the new Buccaneer Bermuda. Elddis is now part of Hymer. 
This  caravan has a MTPLM of 1990 kg, a nose weight of 150kg and a pay load of 159kg. 
This means that it needs almost a tank to pull it with such a huge nose weight but more importantly, once you have fitted 2 motor movers you have about 100kg payload. 
I have a 2003 Hymer Nova, MTPLM is 1700kg but, most importantly it has a payload of 350kg and a nose weight of 85kg so my Auto Santa Fe tows it easily. 
With  a final payload of about 100kg this Buccaneer is almost certain to be overloaded.  Until recently I travelled to Spain in the winter for up to 12 weeks and took a twin tub washing machine, electric oven and everything sometimes including the kitchen sink and, when I weighed the caravan loaded I was using about 200kg of my payload. If this Elddis caravan did the same thing it would be seriously overloaded. 
when will British manufacturers and Caravan Magazine editors get it into their heads that these low payloads are not only useless but also dangerous yet NO mention is ever made of this problem in reviews. 

  • I agree completely 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 69
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

ALL British caravans have payloads that are far to low for realistic touring over anything but a long weekend.   The manufacturers work to the arbitrary calculations put in place by the Nati

But how a trade body can encourage its members to actively confuse their customers with two contradicting MTPLM's on the same caravan is a mystery to me. It's simply a cost cutting exercise to make ca

I have just read a review in the Camping and Caravanning magazine of the new Buccaneer Bermuda. Elddis is now part of Hymer.  This  caravan has a MTPLM of 1990 kg, a nose weight of 150kg and a pay l

I read the same article last night and aside from the odd side-appearance (no front side window on the near-side) the mean pay-load was incredible.  I suspect a few will go for a weight upgrade (IF one is available) but I think that magazine reviews should state the MTPLM and also the maximum possible upgrade allowance.

 

  • I agree completely 1

2018 Volvo V90 and 2018 Swift Sprite Quattro EB

Link to post
Share on other sites

Couldn’t agree more.  Stupidity on public display.  Caused by stupid advice and regulations.  

  • I agree completely 1

Kia KX 3 auto / Bailey Alicanto Grande Estoril and Swift Challenger 570 (2010 model Not towed - used as a static)
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You have overlooked the options list that, if taken up will also impact more than marginally on that residual 100kgs, all weights that can't be shed to the towcar.

Leather upholstery, bike rack plus the bikes, better mattress, Teleco satellite dish and Truma AC.

 

Though there is a free weight upgrade plate, however, I can't find if that brings the extra few hundred kgs needed.

 

I suspect it boils down to catering for a market that simply are not interested in such fundamental matters? The lack of info in the specification of  the weight upgrades rather supports that being how they see their market.

 

Edited by JTQ
typo
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

we all know the pay load is MTPLM  minus MIRO but I have just come across  the payload formula, which is  10L + 10N + 50kg

L stands for the length in metres of the van’s exterior excluding the A-frame, and N the number of berths. Each is multiplied by 10, added together and added to 50 for the number of kilos.

  The article gave the calculations , said it was an EU thing but never  gave any further explanation as to the why's and wherefores

Link to post
Share on other sites

(10 x 6.9) + (10 x 4) + 50 =  159.  Added to the MIRO of 1464kgs gives a MTPLM of 1623 kgs which is near enough to the factory quoted MTPLM of 1624 kgs for ours. 

Edited by GaryB1969
Mis-read post

2018 Volvo V90 and 2018 Swift Sprite Quattro EB

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, joanie said:

we all know the pay load is MTPLM  minus MIRO but I have just come across  the payload formula, which is  10L + 10N + 50kg

L stands for the length in metres of the van’s exterior excluding the A-frame, and N the number of berths. Each is multiplied by 10, added together and added to 50 for the number of kilos.

  The article gave the calculations , said it was an EU thing but never  gave any further explanation as to the why's and wherefores

Well, it works for ours (without the upgrade).

Ern

Link to post
Share on other sites

ALL British caravans have payloads that are far to low for realistic touring over anything but a long weekend.

 

The manufacturers work to the arbitrary calculations put in place by the National Caravan Council which is geared to selling as many units as possible based on car weights.  The lower the weight of the caravan the more cars fall into the category which will be able to tow it.

 

The Caravan Clubs are also to blame in that they never challenge the manufacturers over anything let alone payloads.

  • I agree completely 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

The nose weight is far too high for most vehicles and that is before you load the gas and other things in the front locker so getting it down safely to sensible levels looks near impossible. Looked at the Elddis website and it looks like you can only upgrade the MTPLM by 10 Kg so is it worth it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

We have all participated in the many threads about this but, What would be a sensible payload? For our little Swift Challemger 2 berth the miserly 131Kg should be about 250Kg. We upgraded it to 173Kg (which happens to be the 1350Kg plated maxiumum of the axle too). If the axle was 1450Kg and the MTPLM 1427Kg, we would be well satisfied. Furthermore, we would be able to fit 2 bikes and a rack on the back which it is designed for. Recently we had to buy a new axle and I was sorely tempted to upgrade as a safety measure, however the legal limit for the caravan would not have allowed the extra weight anyway so I didnt bother. (Tyres would have been ok).

Edited by Ern

Ern

Link to post
Share on other sites

The easier option of course is to find a site you love which includes storage all year and pull out to your favourite pitch (At No Charge) and then who needs to worry about payloads! :) then we just tour with the kuga from a base we love simples..lol

Edited by Gatewaya89
Missed from original post
  • I disagree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The miserable payload of the Buccaneer range was the reason we discounted it when looking for our new van. Other than that it was quite attractive. Add a quad motor mover, fixed roof mounted wind out sun canopy and air con as we wanted and the remaining payload is pitiful. How does anyone manage? Any meaningful use must result in overloading or very inconvenient regular transfer of chattels between car and van (assuming you have the space in your tow vehicle).

Our eventual choice, the Knaus Starclass starts with a much more reasonable 355kg payload. 

Life is not a rehearsal . . .:)

Porsche Cayenne S Diesel & Knaus StarClass 695. Previously Audi S4 Avant & Elddis Super Sirocco

Link to post
Share on other sites

While the UK is encouraged to keep the maximum weight below the kerbweight of the tow vehicle and customers want more "bells & whistles" in the caravan this same argument will go round & round.  In some countries this isn't followed and higher payloads are the norm'.

2018 Volvo V90 and 2018 Swift Sprite Quattro EB

Link to post
Share on other sites

Coachman may be a little more generous than some because our van comes with a standard payload of 156kg versus the 'recommended' (10 x 5.8) + (10 x 4) + 50 = 148kg, a whole 8kg more than the minimum!

 

We got the upgraded MTPLM of 1700kg (from 1655kg) because the solar panel was fitted but then the MIRO went from the standard 1499kg to (from memory) 1507kg giving me 193kg payload to play with.

 

If it had been an option I'd have had the van built on an 1800kg axle/chassis.

Lives near Cheltenham, drives a Jaguar XF-S Sportbrake (2018) towing a Coachman VIP575 (2018).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had many discussions with manufacturers on this payload thing.  They all claim that vans plated to a better payload would not sell because, in no particular order.

a.  Caravan Club advice re 85%

b.  Salesmen insisting that they could not sell them

c.  We the Public are not bright enough to know that it is not what the van could hypothetically carry, but what it is actually carrying that matters.

 

Result - manufacturers build down to the regulation advice.  We the dis-satisfied customers ( virtually all uk makes are the same )  are left with no options.  Vans in use that are heavily over loaded in some cases ( We've all seen them ) 

Talk about shooting themselves in the foot.  Had it have been an option or just made that way, I've no doubt that we would have paid a little extra for say a 300 - 350 Kgs pay load on the Estoril.  Then we could have fitted the Satellite dish and air con we wanted as well as an extra 100 w solar.  The reason they are not on the tin tent is nothing to do with finance, or what my car can tow.    It is poor weight allowance.  Lost sales for the industry.  If you wrote it up as a script no one would believe it.  

  • I agree completely 2

Kia KX 3 auto / Bailey Alicanto Grande Estoril and Swift Challenger 570 (2010 model Not towed - used as a static)
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Vanning Man said:

The manufacturers work to the arbitrary calculations put in place by the National Caravan Council which is geared to selling as many units as possible based on car weights.  The lower the weight of the caravan the more cars fall into the category which will be able to tow it.

 

 

I wouldn't have too much of an issue with them doing that if only they would offer/make available a decent payload upgrade possible for those who’s cars have the capability of towing at the higher weight. At present you are lucky to be able to squeeze an additional 50kg on some caravans. 

 

A 4 berth, 1500kg caravan with a payload of 155kg before you add in a motor mover and battery is not really fit for purpose, so many (most?) run overloaded. 

 

Motorhomes are no better, I looked at a six berth French make MH some years ago at the show. Payload was just over 300kg, excluding any wind out awning, Second leisure battery, bike rack, air con etc you might want fitted from new.

 

Apparently as an owner you would be expected to convey 4 of the six occupants in another vehicle and then all meet up on site. That was according to the idiot/moron/dipstick salesman on the stand.

 

I didn’t buy one ;)

  • Like 1

Experience is an awful teacher who ends up sending you simply horrifying bills

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, joanie said:

we all know the pay load is MTPLM  minus MIRO but I have just come across  the payload formula, which is  10L + 10N + 50kg

L stands for the length in metres of the van’s exterior excluding the A-frame, and N the number of berths. Each is multiplied by 10, added together and added to 50 for the number of kilos.

  The article gave the calculations , said it was an EU thing but never  gave any further explanation as to the why's and wherefores

 

That formula only serves to specify a minimum payload and it's only an industry standard, not a legal thing.  For reasons best known only to themselves, the NCC persist in publishing an MTPLM based on the formula, thereby adding to the confusion. There is absolutely nothing to stop a manufacturer from offering a payload well in excess of the calculated value.

  • Like 1
  • I agree completely 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lutz said:

 

That formula only serves to specify a minimum payload and it's only an industry standard, not a legal thing.  For reasons best known only to themselves, the NCC persist in publishing an MTPLM based on the formula, thereby adding to the confusion. There is absolutely nothing to stop a manufacturer from offering a payload well in excess of the calculated value.

 

...yes indeed but that would then lose them a sale for a knowledgeable person whose car cannot make that combination.

  • I do not understand 1

Sam :beardy:   RR Sport HSE Dynamic towing Swift Elegance Grande 845

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SamD said:

 

...yes indeed but that would then lose them a sale for a knowledgeable person whose car cannot make that combination.

 

If a caravan leaves the factory with a specified MTPLM of say 1300kg and a payload of 150kg then anything that can legally tow anything up to 1300 kg can tow it.

 

However if the manufacturer offers an upgrade on that caravan to say 1500kg someone with a car with THAT towing capacity can purchase a caravan with a decent payload of 1500 - 1300 = 200kg plus the original payload of 150 giving them an (upgraded) payload of 350kg 

 

Whats not to like?  Small car owner can buy it with 150kg payload, large car owner can buy the same caravan and have it upgraded so they have 350kg payload. Same caravan, different MTPLM. 

 

That’s what you can do now, it’s just that the upgrades are measly!

 

I was able to “gain” another 55kg on my new caravan when I bought it

 

My car plus the caravans original  MTPLM had a gross plated weight of 3495kg, so my son, who doesn’t have B+E could legally drive it.

 

Now it’s upgraded the gross plated weight is 3550kg so son with B+E cannot drive it. Identical caravan, different payloads ! 

  • Like 1

Experience is an awful teacher who ends up sending you simply horrifying bills

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mr Plodd said:

 

I was able to “gain” another 55kg on my new caravan when I bought it

 

 

'Upgrades' as low as that aren't true upgrades. They just bring the figure on the label by the door in line with the MTPLM on the statutory plate that was there all the time. A true upgrade always involves a technical change, usually a different axle.

  • Like 1
  • I agree completely 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Lutz said:

 

That formula only serves to specify a minimum payload and it's only an industry standard, not a legal thing.  For reasons best known only to themselves, the NCC persist in publishing an MTPLM based on the formula, thereby adding to the confusion. There is absolutely nothing to stop a manufacturer from offering a payload well in excess of the calculated value.

NCC guidlines (or whatever they call their specifications) include what they have agreed with their members. It is a Trade Body representing its members.

  • I agree completely 1

Ern

Link to post
Share on other sites

The number of people who will be dissuaded from buying a particular van because the payload is mean will be a lot less than the number who wouldn't buy the same van if plated higher because their vehicle isn't then legally capable. The manufacturers, rightly or wrongly, are playing the weight game to make their vans available to the widest possible audience, irrespective of whether it makes any real sense or ultimately results in many users actually ending up towing overweight.

Any sensible person realises that the pathetic payload available on some vans will result in 'illegal' overloading. The hope is that the overloading isn't also technically dangerous.

  • Like 1

Life is not a rehearsal . . .:)

Porsche Cayenne S Diesel & Knaus StarClass 695. Previously Audi S4 Avant & Elddis Super Sirocco

Link to post
Share on other sites

For a number of years the models we fancied were coming in at a circa 160kg payload with no chance of an upgrade which prevented us from changing as we already had 260kg with the then current model.

 

During 2019 a couple of the models we liked got plated to 2000kg MTPLM which gave us the payload we required.

 

Then we changed.

Stay safe - Griff.  :ph34r:

Wheels at the front - Discovery 4. Wheels at the back - Bessacarr 845.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For starters 150kg is MAX nose weight. Plenty of people towing Bucs with lower capacity cars and simply balance the books and 

150kg is NOT before you add the gas. 

 We had the FREE upgrade on our Buc max is now2000kg and we tow with a Nissan Navara but plenty of vehicles out there do a great job.  It is a luxury van with all the kit underfloor heat ep self levelling etc. It isn't supposed to be light it's luxury and twin axle. We simply have In the van what we need spread sensibly and food and wine clothes for the hols awning and anything heavy goes in the car. Wonderful caravan and we are v pleased .it tows like a dream. The Baracuda is worst because you get aTV built in, 32" so you have to make allowances .

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Ern said:

NCC guidlines (or whatever they call their specifications) include what they have agreed with their members. It is a Trade Body representing its members.

 

But how a trade body can encourage its members to actively confuse their customers with two contradicting MTPLM's on the same caravan is a mystery to me. It's simply a cost cutting exercise to make caravans more attractive to a wider market by giving people the impression that they can tow their caravan with a lighter car without having to make any technical changes.

  • I agree completely 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...