Jump to content

Poor payload on new Buccaneers


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Mr Plodd said:First up is must be auto, quiet, and very comfortable so a “commercial” type vehicle fails due to  manual transmission (can you get an auto Navara?) and stiff rear leaf spring suspension alone.  

 

 


 

I fully appreciate pick ups are not for everyone & I’m not trying to “convert” you but they have come on a long way in recent years 

 

in an earlier post you said you have driven Navara’s? 
well it must have been a long time ago as they have had coil springs all round since 2014 & been available as an auto for as long as I can remember ( not even sure manual is an option now.) 

 

my personal preference is the Ranger & I’m on my 4th now, & find them incredibly comfortable for everyday use, very practical for our hobby & an excellent tow vehicle, 

 

we too have a Bermuda on order & whilst disappointed with the small payload we are fortunate that we can load the bed up on the Ranger with all the heavy items & keep the caravan as light as possible 

  • Like 1
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

Having looked at the loading allowance on other top of the range caravans quite a few have similar ones. Possibly as their MTPLM is lower they have more leeway to upgrade but it is something you need to look at and if people looked at the inadequate figures and went for the makes that had better ones the problem would solve itself. 

I would not accept having to move everything into the car when towing even if it had the room.

  • I agree completely 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Wildwood said:

Having looked at the loading allowance on other top of the range caravans quite a few have similar ones. Possibly as their MTPLM is lower they have more leeway to upgrade but it is something you need to look at and if people looked at the inadequate figures and went for the makes that had better ones the problem would solve itself. 

I would not accept having to move everything into the car when towing even if it had the room.

The whole industry is based around these pathetic payloads and the concept of keeping the MTPLM as low as possible. For some reason virtually all caravans are fitted with an axle that severely limits permissible upgrades. If they really must have the lowest possible MTPLM at point of sale why not at least fit an axle that allows a decent upgrade, even if it means changing the tyres?

Edited by Stevan
  • I agree completely 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

No matter what the MTPLM is, the manufacturer almost always has the opportunity to upgrade if he thinks the effort is worth it and he sees potential profit in doing so. Proprietary single axle chassis for caravans are available up to 2000kg and twins go to 3500kg. There is no reason why, for example, a 1500kg caravan should not be offered with a 2000kg upgrade. Even if the manufacturer doesn't, AL-KO do offer factory conversions to such levels, but they aren't exactly cheap because a conversion will obviously involve greater costs than if the upgrade is done right from the start during initial build.

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Lutz said:

. There is no reason why, for example, a 1500kg caravan should not be offered with a 2000kg upgrade. 

 

An entirely reasonable suggestion but,........

 

A “heavier” axle would cost a bit more so eat into the manufacturers profit margin, unless he increases the caravans cost, and of course that might make it uncompetitive compared to a rivals offering that doesn’t offer the possibility of a weight upgrade.

 

Then of course don’t lose sight of the fact that many caravan owners don’t have a clue about weights, either their caravans, their cars or the combination of both.

 

I am convinced there are many over 3500kg MTPLM motorhomes running around being driven by category B licence holders. No-one under 41 can have Grandfather rights so must take (and pass !) the B+E test.

 

Modern MH’s tend to suffer from exactly the same paucity of payload that caravans do solely because of the licence restrictions that kick in at the dreaded 3500kg :unsure:

 

Sadly I cannot see things changing until (or if) consumers start saying “I’m not buying that caravan because the payload is not enough” All it needs is one manufacturer to start offering a decent payload upgrade to those who want it  (I.e. 200kg + not a measly 50kg)  and the rest will have to follow suit, or lose sales. 

 

I am not holding my breath as I will probably turn purple and die! 

Edited by Mr Plodd

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

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

No matter what the MTPLM is, the manufacturer almost always has the opportunity to upgrade if he thinks the effort is worth it and he sees potential profit in doing so. Proprietary single axle chassis for caravans are available up to 2000kg and twins go to 3500kg. There is no reason why, for example, a 1500kg caravan should not be offered with a 2000kg upgrade. Even if the manufacturer doesn't, AL-KO do offer factory conversions to such levels, but they aren't exactly cheap because a conversion will obviously involve greater costs than if the upgrade is done right from the start during initial build.

Agreed, but if they build a van with an unladen weight of (say) 1300 Kg and really must give it an MTPLM of around 1450Kg why build it on a 1500Kg axle thereby limiting the upgrade to about 50Kg, when for negligible extra cost, if any they could build it on a 1600Kg or even 1700Kg chassis and be able to offer a really useful payload upgrade?

2 minutes ago, Mr Plodd said:

 

An entirely reasonable suggestion but,........

 

A “heavier” axle would cost a bit more so eat into the manufacturers profit margin, unless he increases the caravans cost, and of course that might make it uncompetitive compared to a rivals offering that doesn’t offer the possibility of a weight upgrade.

 

Then of course don’t lose sight of the fact that many caravan owners don’t have a clue about weights, either their caravans, their cars or the combination of both.

 

I am convinced there are many over 3500kg MTPLM motorhomes running around being driven by category B licence holders. No-one under 41 can have Grandfather rights so must take (and pass !) the B+E test.

 

Modern MH’s tend to suffer from exactly the same paucity of payload that caravans do solely because of the licence restrictions that kick in at the dreaded 3500kg :unsure:

 

Sadly I cannot see things changing until (or if) consumers start saying “I’m not buying that caravan because the payload is not enough” All it needs is one manufacturer to start offering a decent payload upgrade to those who want it  (I.e. 200kg + not a measly 50kg)  and the rest will have to follow suit, or lose sales. 

 

I am not holding my breath as I will probably turn purple and die! 

But does a (say) 1700Kg chassis actually cost more than a 1500Kg chassis if the only difference is harder rubber in the axle?

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

Agreed, but if they build a van with an unladen weight of (say) 1300 Kg and really must give it an MTPLM of around 1450Kg why build it on a 1500Kg axle thereby limiting the upgrade to about 50Kg, when for negligible extra cost, if any they could build it on a 1600Kg or even 1700Kg chassis and be able to offer a really useful payload upgrade?

But does a (say) 1700Kg chassis actually cost more than a 1500Kg chassis if the only difference is harder rubber in the axle?

 

Good points but to really make this topic go round in circles, if you last point were true, why would AL-KO bother with a 1500?!

Edited by SamD

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

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

 

Good points but to really make this topic go round in circles, if you last point were true, why would AL-KO bother with a 1500?!

That is the  $64,000 question, but it would be useful for caravans with an unladen weight of around 1,000Kg.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Stevan said:

 

But does a (say) 1700Kg chassis actually cost more than a 1500Kg chassis if the only difference is harder rubber in the axle?

 

Almost certainly not,  in the same way that if you want a car with auto transmission you are charged at least £1000 more than a manual. Does an auto box actually cost £1000 more that a manual gearbox to produce Don’t forget if you have an auto that’s a manual gearbox the manufacturer doesn’t have to fit/pay for, yet they still charge a huge premium.

 

AL-KO doubtless do the same with axle costs. 

 

Me? I would be happy to pay a bit more if a caravan was offered with the option of a “heavier” axle this giving me an increased payload.

 

Now that can’t be too difficult for the manufacturer to factor into its production line can it? It’s not as if caravans are ex stock is it? Most have something in the region of a 4-6 months lead in time from order to delivery :angry:

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO it is evident that for whatever reason many of our caravanning colleagues don't care.

 

Some by nature simply care less,  for some it is beyond their ability to understand and some are genuinely naive.

 

The latter assumes this lovely big box trailer will accommodate all that comes with  family activities associated and promoted with caravanning.

A family of two adults and two growing kids leaning on their bikes, the van with rooftop AC, full awning, carpeting,  dining furniture, BBQ plus other recreational clutter as a backdrop, and the dog sitting there; we all know the image. It is hardly surprising we see vans on site emulating this.

Those of us that have ever weighed what we put in the van know it's challenging with four,  just to carry the basics.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SamD said:

 

Elegance Grande 845

 

Ahh, the theoretical MIRO on our Bessacarr 845 which is based on the Elegance Grande is 1745kg giving us 255kg but we have a few extras I think like the Alde Flow and other bits of bling eating into its payload.

Stay safe - Griff.  :ph34r:

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bailey are, in my view, VERY naughty as their MIRO doesn’t include a leisure battery, yet their instructions clear state “This caravan should not be operated with a battery”

 

So that’s at least 25kg of the paltry 155kg payload gone before you start on anything else like a mover (30kg?)

 

Thats why I stumped up for  50kg upgrade to basically cancel out the weight of the battery/mover. What use is 100kg on a 4 berth (others please note the spelling, it’s not “births”) caravan? 

  • I disagree 1

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Mr Plodd said:

 “This caravan should not be operated with a battery”

 

No battery? - Don't think I would consider one of these ;):D

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
25 minutes ago, Mr Plodd said:

Thats why I stumped up for  50kg upgrade to basically cancel out the weight of the battery/mover. What use is 100kg on a 4 berth (others please note the spelling, it’s not “births”) caravan? 

 

Spelling depends on when the design was conceived!

  • Haha 1

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

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

No battery? - Don't think I would consider one of these ;):D

 

Autocorrect/predictive text :angry: 

43 minutes ago, SamD said:

 

Spelling depends on when the design was conceived!

 

Very good ! 

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

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

But does a (say) 1700Kg chassis actually cost more than a 1500Kg chassis if the only difference is harder rubber in the axle?

 

I would imagine that a 1700kg chassis has beefier brakes, too, not to mention tyres with a higher load index.

 

I'm sure that anyone who really wants that 1500kg but with a 1700kg chassis is going to be willing to pay a couple of hundred pounds for such an upgrade.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Mr Plodd said:

Sadly I cannot see things changing until (or if) consumers start saying “I’m not buying that caravan because the payload is not enough”

I agree with you and that's exactly in effect what I did. Seriously considered a Buccaneer but the pitiful payload deterred me. We attended an Elddis factory open day and I think I actually laughed out loud when a salesman pointed out I could get a 10kg plate upgrade!

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

We load the Nav and don't care about payload and love our Buc, BUT has anyone considered that no matter how heavy the more you load the van the more stresses are applied to its structure etc leaks ? Hides head under parapet re caravans should be built to cope?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Jezzerb said:

We load the Nav and don't care about payload and love our Buc, BUT has anyone considered that no matter how heavy the more you load the van the more stresses are applied to its structure etc leaks ? Hides head under parapet re caravans should be built to cope?

 

Based on that hypothesis, large heavy twin axle caravans should be more susceptible to leaks, etc, than small two berth caravans. I don't think that there are any figures to support such a theory. Besides, a designer would be cutting things a bit fine if a caravan body couldn't cope with, say, a 10 to 20% chassis upgrade without springing a leak somewhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a thought. Not mad on Top Gear but did anyone see the Lambo Urus and Audi RS6towing a Swift Basecamp or was it Knaus sport thing at over 100mph!

Edited by Jezzerb
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...