Jump to content

Maximising payload


Wingco
 Share

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

 

Just getting the new Bailey Adamo 69-4 ready for its first trip on Sunday and, following on from similar exercises with caravans, I've been stripping out unnecessary weight - all 21.7 Kgs of it - in order to maximise payload:

 

Carpet, 8.5 Kg
Lower bunk sides and retaining boards, 10.5 Kg
Ladder, 1.6 Kg
Lower bed infil cushions, 1.1 Kg

 

The moho is sold as a 4 berth and we are only 2 old codgers, so the 4 berth capability is now safely stored in the loft. I've also added to the MRO by stowing a spare wheel in the garage, 25Kg. I refuse to rely on a "blow in the bag" tyre repair kit, but I'll retain the 12v tyre inflation pump.

 

Crikey, changing over to this new moho has been quite a task, as the layout is totally different from our previous Advance 635; we knew what had to go in, but we didn't know where. A few photos of where we've put things will undoubtedly help when we come to pack up and return home.
 

Edited by Wingco
Typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you have gas cylinders and are only going away on a short trip, think about just taking one. A 6kg lasts us for a couple of years and a quick shake every month tells you when its getting near empty and most campsites sell cylinders so the chance of being without gas is fairly slim and you get an extra 13kg to play with.

 

I've got nothing to do on this hot afternoon

but to settle down and write you a line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must agree with leaving stuff at home if it's not going to be used. You may think I have over done it just a trifle (LOL) but it's always been an obsession of mine:

mains cable (12 lb)

jack (6) (too dangerous to use anyway!)

folding table (22lb)

wheel carrier (14lb)

bunk, ladder, curtain (23lb)

microwave (22lb)

carpets (23lb)

That's 104lb + many minor items.

 

It all adds up to a lot more potentialy useful payload.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Beware of simply weighing the stuff that you have removed and subtracting the sum from the published MIRO to arrive at a new, lower figure. That published MIRO need not correspond to the unladen weight of your particular caravan. The actual weight is often higher than the published MIRO. This is because MIRO is the weight of the caravan that the manufacturer submitted for type approval, not your particular caravan.

To be safe, there's no way round putting the caravan on a weighbridge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Motorhome payload is a similar issue to that of touring caravans, except that you do not have the option to carry some heavier items in a towcar.

My advice for your Bailey Adamo 69-4 is simple. Totally empty the motorhome of everything that is not screwed down, then fill the fuel tank to the maximum (because at some point you will do this with a full load onboard) and get the MH weighed on a calibrated weighbridge. This will give you a base weight from which you can then work.

Once home, weigh absolutely everything you put into the MH, including yourself and any passengers and keep a written record of it all. Also include any later additions such as a top box, bike rack etc. This will then allow you to juggle what you carry in addition to the essentials, in the full knowledge that you are under the maximum permitted weight.

Gordon

Fourwinds Hurricane 31D Motorhome. Also MGTF135 1. 8i Roadster (fun) & Volvo V70 3.2Ltr LPG (everyday car)
Unless otherwise stated, my posts will be my personal thoughts and have the same standing as any other member of Caravan and Motorhome Talk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another twist is which axle carries the weight, not overlooking with overhangs, any added weight there gets multiplied on the rear axle.

 

 MHs like the Bailey Adamo 69-4 , with its long overhang, provided with garage, really has the potential to get into such problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Imagine this Scenario: the actual MIRO is 200kg more than published thus reducing payload by same amount. Moho owner loads up on basis of published MIRO and resulting payload which is not exceeded (even though MTPLM/mass in service/kerb weight inadvertently is). Gets stopped by keen police, taken to weighbridge and fined. Would the driver have a claim against the manufacturer for publishing misleading data? At what point does the manufacturer have a liability/responsibility for publishing at best misleading, and at worst downright incorrect information?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Flatcoat888 said:

Imagine this Scenario: the actual MIRO is 200kg more than published thus reducing payload by same amount. Moho owner loads up on basis of published MIRO and resulting payload which is not exceeded (even though MTPLM/mass in service/kerb weight inadvertently is). Gets stopped by keen police, taken to weighbridge and fined. Would the driver have a claim against the manufacturer for publishing misleading data? At what point does the manufacturer have a liability/responsibility for publishing at best misleading, and at worst downright incorrect information?

 

No, the MIRO quoted by the manufacturer applies only to the vehicle that the manufacturer submitted for type approval. It does not apply to the actual vehicle in question. It is unfortunate that that is the way it is. One simply cannot rely on a published MIRO figure. I have heard of differences of up to 150kg between MIRO and actual weight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The savvy buyer, one once "bitten", can agree a contractual maximum as delivered weight, on a build order.

Or if an existing forecourt offer have it weighed pre purchase. There are portable pads/mats for just that weighing purpose.

If they will not play, it tells you everything you need to know about placing an order with them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Lutz said:

 

No, the MIRO quoted by the manufacturer applies only to the vehicle that the manufacturer submitted for type approval. It does not apply to the actual vehicle in question. It is unfortunate that that is the way it is. One simply cannot rely on a published MIRO figure. I have heard of differences of up to 150kg between MIRO and actual weight.

I know that you keep telling us about type approval, but to be honest for the ordinary man in the street, we can only go by the information supplied with the van, which are the figures on the weight plate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, joanie said:

I know that you keep telling us about type approval, but to be honest for the ordinary man in the street, we can only go by the information supplied with the van, which are the figures on the weight plate. 

 

It is indeed unfortunate that the NCC do not point out what MIRO actually is on their consumer information label. It gives the customer a false impression. However, as it's not a legal weight plate, but only a consumer information label, there is no way that the law has any grounds to intervene.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, joanie said:

I know that you keep telling us about type approval, but to be honest for the ordinary man in the street, we can only go by the information supplied with the van, which are the figures on the weight plate. 

 

MIRO isn't a weight that's legally required on a VIN plate, only the weight limit numbers are required ie MTPLM, noseweight and axle limit limits. Some UK manufacturers put the MIRO figure on as extra information, some don't, but it is no substitute for weighing the individual van. Manufacturers cover themselves by including a phrase to the effect that there can be a tolerance of +/- 5% or even 10%.

I've got nothing to do on this hot afternoon

but to settle down and write you a line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Meanwhile back in the real world and As joanie says above, whatever the legal position is, in practice the vast majority of caravaners interpret MIRO as having a similar legal status to Mass in service. 

 

Another aspect of caravanning that needs a consumer lobbying organisation forming to seek change and improvement in the industry. Maybe Something that might be called ‘Caravan and Motorhome Club’ or similar. Pity one doesn’t exist...... 

Edited by Flatcoat888
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The weights issued by the manufacturer are next to useless & cannot be relied upon. It's way past time that each 'van/MH was actually weighed after manufacturer & the ACTUAL weight entered on the plate.  Thus we all would have a legal base to work on. This process can hardly be beyond their capabilities surely (but then again making a consistently fit-for-purpose product apparently already is).

 

It doubtless comes under the reasoning that wheels do not need balancing since it's not their problem if they come lose (with the noted exception of responsibly acting Bailey). Can it be that cost rules OK (except when it comes to useless gimmicks)? What a poor state of affairs & a major let-down of customers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before changing to a caravan for many years we had Autotrail motorhomes. Every single one they produce is weighed as it comes off the production line and that weight is recorded against its production number (and that’s on the second stage converters plate) A quick phone call was all it ever took to get that precise information. So it can be done if the Will is there! 

Experience is something you acquire after you have an urgent need for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Flatcoat888 said:

Meanwhile back in the real world and As joanie says above, whatever the legal position is, in practice the vast majority of caravaners interpret MIRO as having a similar legal status to Mass in service. 

 

Another aspect of caravanning that needs a consumer lobbying organisation forming to seek change and improvement in the industry. Maybe Something that might be called ‘Caravan and Motorhome Club’ or similar. Pity one doesn’t exist...... 

 

MIRO does have a legal status. It is the same as mass in service. Why the V5c calls it mass in service when the legal term is MIRO is beyond me.

 

1 hour ago, micktheshed said:

The weights issued by the manufacturer are next to useless & cannot be relied upon. It's way past time that each 'van/MH was actually weighed after manufacturer & the ACTUAL weight entered on the plate.  Thus we all would have a legal base to work on. This process can hardly be beyond their capabilities surely (but then again making a consistently fit-for-purpose product apparently already is).

 

 

The actual weight (albeit calculated rather than actually weighed) is documented as item 13.2 in the type approval Certificate of Conformity. The trouble is that UK customers are seldom provided with that document.

 

The manufacturers are not to blame for not showing the actual weight on the consumer information label by the door. It's the NCC that has decided in its infinite wisdom to display the MIRO rather than the actual weight, probably to give the impression that the payload is greater than it actually is.

Edited by Lutz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I will rephrase, the vast majority of caravaners believe the MIRO is the true weight, and not a work of fiction based on some distant truth. As illustrated above, There is nothing to stop the manufacturers taking matters into there own hands and showing ‘actual’ weight as opposed to something only vaguely representing reality. 

Edited by Flatcoat888
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Flatcoat888 said:

I will rephrase, the vast majority of caravaners believe the MIRO is the true weight, and not a work of fiction based on some distant truth. As illustrated above, There is nothing to stop the manufacturers taking matters into there own hands and showing ‘actual’ weight as opposed to something only vaguely representing reality. 

 

They could, but although the label by the door is applied by the manufacturer, it is, in fact, an NCC label and they decide what it displays, not the manufacturer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The brochures without exception quote "payloads", though in the small print will be a caveat, negating the quoted value.

 

It is this that IMO the vast majority  of buyers take, not surprisingly, as the "payload", even if they also can't get a handle on the full implications of what is or is not included, nor what real life "stuff" actually weighs.

 

Sadly, I think the industry likes it this way, the normal buyer effectively blind to the real limits.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The NCC is the UK leisure vehicle trade association and I suspect its senior staff are either seconded from or ex-caravan manufacturer employees and it's committees made up of representatives from those same companies. So what the NCC publishes as regulations for its members to follow will have been agreed by those companies. So suggesting that the NCC force the companies to act in a certain way, overlooks the fact that the companies will have contributed to the process of agreeing those regulations.  

I've got nothing to do on this hot afternoon

but to settle down and write you a line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Steamdrivenandy said:

The NCC is the UK leisure vehicle trade association and I suspect its senior staff are either seconded from or ex-caravan manufacturer employees and it's committees made up of representatives from those same companies. So what the NCC publishes as regulations for its members to follow will have been agreed by those companies. So suggesting that the NCC force the companies to act in a certain way, overlooks the fact that the companies will have contributed to the process of agreeing those regulations.  

 

I fully agree with you, but it does mean that a manufacturer that is a member of the NCC cannot deviate from their practice of displaying MIRO rather than actual weight on the label by the door. I assume that such a change would have to be agreed jointly and we all know how difficult it is to get all parties to agree on common procedures.

 

It does make things a bit more difficult for the manufacturers, too, because it would mean that a specific label would have to printed for each caravan/motorhome leaving the production line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And a word on my specialist subject Eriba Touring caravans. 

 

The other day I came across an ad for a brand new Triton 420 in stock and for sale at Highbridge.

 

A Triton 420 has a listed empty weight of 841kg and a MIRO of 880kg, the 39kg difference being an allowance for gas cylinders, water and bits and pieces on board.  

 

To this particular 420 had been added:

GT Pack (42kg) Smooth silver sides instead of dimpled white, stone guards, alloys, door flyscreen, waste bin, sink cover, 2 bits bags, 2 reading lamps, external storage flap.

MTPLM upgrade from 1000 to 1300kg (10kg)

Spare wheel & bracket (22kg)

Wind-out awning (28kg)

Carpet (12kg)

Multi-function bed option (5kg) with central chest and freestanding table

Sprung rear bench cushions (10kg)

Shower equipment (3kg)

Truma Ultraheat (2kg)

Autonomy Pack (30kg) battery and charger

Gas and mains electric 10l boiler (8kg)

30l freshwater tank (6kg)

Total 178kg

 

So if the MIRO was correct that Triton now weighed 1058kg, 58kg more than its original MTPLM, before even a teaspoon was loaded. No wonder it was upgraded.

 

With 30kg for a mover you've got 1088kg and with our fairly abstemious 110kg personal payload you're running at 1,199kg with a 1300kg MTPLM.  But I wonder how many inexperienced new buyers still think it weighs 880kg and they've got 420kg payload to play with?

 

And the price? 

 

From the basic £19,800, that 420 is priced at £27,115. £7,300 (37%) more than the basic van.

I've got nothing to do on this hot afternoon

but to settle down and write you a line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Lutz said:

 

I fully agree with you, but it does mean that a manufacturer that is a member of the NCC cannot deviate from their practice of displaying MIRO rather than actual weight on the label by the door. I assume that such a change would have to be agreed jointly and we all know how difficult it is to get all parties to agree on common procedures.

 

It does make things a bit more difficult for the manufacturers, too, because it would mean that a specific label would have to printed for each caravan/motorhome leaving the production line.

From the 7th September last year the C of C must contain the actual weight relevant to the specific Variant and Version.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, Towtug said:

From the 7th September last year the C of C must contain the actual weight relevant to the specific Variant and Version.

 

Can you help me understand what that really means please?

"Actual" IMO has no ambiguity, but is it really the "specific van's weight" that goes on the C o C, or not the actual weight but a weight of a sample of that build of van?

 

 

Edited by JTQ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, JTQ said:

 

Can you help me understand what that really means please?

"Actual" IMO has no ambiguity, but is it really the "specific van's weight" that goes on the C o C, or not the actual weight but a weight of a sample of that build of van?

 

 

 

I came across something like this on the CofC of our Skoda Scala we purchased last June.

 

The brochure states:

Minimum kerbweight (with driver) 1245kg to 1334kg 

Minimum kerbweight (without driver) 1170kg to 1259kg

for both the SE and SEL versions of our spec car and the SEL has substantially more kit fitted, so presumably weighs more. Arguably I'd rather have the kerbweights of each model rather than wasting part of a brochure page just removing 75kg for the driver from each weight.

 

That aside, the CofC says the car's 'actual mass' is 1293kg, so somewhere in the middle of the driver inclusive range, but 34kg more than the maximum without a driver.  But is it the actual mass of that particular vehicle as it came off the line with or without 75kg for a driver? Or is it a computer calculated mass based on the individual spec.? Ours is an SEL and top of that range with just one optional extra, the full black glass rear hatch, does that account for an extra 34kg, it's surely not that heavy compared to a standard part metal hatch?  Most cars now have a host of cost options which must render the standard brochure weights as almost meaningless, unless the quote a range from the bare bones standard car, to the full fat, everything possible fitted, but who decides what to fit to make up that top weight and what does it consist of? You can see a bare BMW 5 Series weighing, say 2 tonnes, but a fully dressed one with the same engine and drivetrain weighing 3 tonnes. That's a 50% difference on extras. Where are the boundaries, what are the definitions?  

I've got nothing to do on this hot afternoon

but to settle down and write you a line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...