Advice needed on weight

[tsmith59]

I purchased a 2004 fiat ducato motorhome earlier in the year. There is an alko plate under the bonnet that states maximum weight is 3850kg. A fiat plate that says 3500kg. A svtech sticker that says 3500kg. And also a national caravan council certificate from lunar that states 3850kg. My initial thought after some research was that the vehicle was down plated by svtech to 3500kg. However I have contacted them and they say their paperwork suggests they haven't. The log book has no weight so no information there. Just wondering if anyone can tell me what I should do. It isn't a practical payload at 3500kg but would it be difficult to up plate to 3850kg? If it isn't that already?

[davidmac]

Hi, Have you taxed it ? If the tax is £165 it will be registered at the higher weight, if the tax is £225 or thereabouts your weight will be 3500kg

Regards David

If you send SvTech a photo of your plate they might sort out the problem, they did for me with a previous motorhome I had.

[tsmith59]

Yes. I've taxed it. £270 a year. If that means it is 3500kg how difficult is it to change that?

[Keithl]

What is the 'Taxation class' shown on page 2 of your V5C?

 

Keith.

[stevec176]

Don't forget that you'll need a C1 licence if you drive a vehicle over 3500kg, do you have one?

[tsmith59]

Taxation class says Private Light Goods Vehicle

[tsmith59]

Yes have a C1 and HGV Licence.

[Keithl]

tsmith59 - 2020-09-15 9:26 PM

 

Taxation class says Private Light Goods Vehicle

 

Then it is in the under 3,500 kg Light Goods Vehicle class and you do not require your C1 to drive it.

 

Keith.

[Keithl]

tsmith59 - 2020-09-15 9:17 PM

 

Yes. I've taxed it. £270 a year. If that means it is 3500kg how difficult is it to change that?

As you have all the paperwork relating to 3,850 kg it should be a simple matter of applying to DVLA to get the previous downplating reversed.

 

Keith.

[Hans]

The AL-Ko plate under your bonnet 3850 means you have their chassis. Lucky man you are to have this..

 

[david lloyd]

So, you should have no difficulty in increasing the MTPLM to 3850kg but, as a HGV licence holder, you will probably appreciate that just increasing the overall weight may not necessarily give you an extra 350 kg of useable payload as it may still be that you will very quickly reach the weight limit on one or other of the axles - usually the rear axle. The weight plate (and any replacement that SVTech provide in the future) will have the axle weights on and you will need to take the vehicle in full running order (fully loaded, diesel, water tank with as much water as you intend to carry, all passengers, bikes, food etc. Etc. and have the vehicle and both axles weighed separately on a public weighbridge. You could well find that even though you have increased the MTPLM to 3850kg your fully loaded van may exceed the rear axle weight limit before you get to 3850kg.

 

David

[Derek Uzzell]

I’m guessing that tsmith59’s 2004 motorhome is a Lunar “Roadstar” model, though - if that is correct - I would have thought that operating it at a 3500kg weight (rather than 3850kg) would be very questionable.

 

As the Lunar carries a SVTech 3500kg sticker, logically it was ‘downplated’ at some stage, presumbly for driving-licence reasons. This could have happened a long time ago, so SVTech’s paperwork might well not record it.

 

As the motorhome started life with a 3850kg overall weight (and the original 3850kg Lunar ‘plate’ is still present) it OUGHT to be possible to return it to that weight straightforwardly without going back through a SVTech-type process. But that would depend on the DVLA’s attitude and how carefully tsmith59 was when getting in touch with the DVLA.

 

(Hans is a fan of AL-KO chassis, but it needs highlighting that failing to follow that company’s advice on lubrication of the rear-axle plain bearings can result in a massive repair bill. So it would be wise for tsmith59 to confirm (if that’s possible) that lubrication has been regularly carried out.)

 

 

[tsmith59]

Yes the motorhome is a Lunar Roadstar and as suggested is impractical at 3500kg. The rear axle has been lubricated regularly and well maintained. I was hoping up plating would be a paper exercise and no modifications would be required as the original weight was 3850kg.

[stevemc67]

Just discovered I have 2 weight plates in the engine bay. The standard Fiat showing 3650 and an AL-KO showing 3700. Interestingly my V5 shows revenue weight as 3500 and I’m taxed at the PLG rate. So, the question is, if I was pulled over by the DVSA for a spot check and was found to be 100 kgs under the 3500 limit are they then likely to check my C1 entitlement being as the lowest plated weight is 3650?!! Not an issue as I have C1 and my insurance does not have weight / dimension restriction. I guess the bottom line is which weight takes precedence and under what circumstances; 3500, 3650 or 3700?

[Derek Uzzell]

tsmith59

 

Up-plating should be a ‘paper exercise’ (remove the 3500kg SVTech sticker, get the DVLA to alter the VED class from Private/Light Goods to Private HGV) - it’s really whether you want to bother doing it on the cheap yourself or would prefer to pay to pay to have the process middle-managed..

 

SVTech is often used for managing down-plating/up-plating, but you might try contacting JR Consultancy who could well be less expensive. The latter firm was referred to in this 2019 forum thread.

 

https://forums.outandaboutlive.co.uk/forums/Motorhomes/Motorhome-Matters/Revenue-weight-puzzle/52381/

 

I’ve just had my van replated to 4050kg. It was based on a fiat Light chassis and sold to me at 3500kg capacity. The payload was decimated by Special Edition spec. I could have had it at 3650kg by paperwork only but I fitted different tyres and auxiliary air bags on the rear. I was advised by JR Consultancy (01359 250808/ 01244 544598. I paid him about £180 for the appropriate documentation. I pay less road tax in U.K. but more in tolls in France. Speed limits on the continent are also affected as my van is now registered as a ‘Private HGV’

[Derek Uzzell]

stevemc67 - 2020-09-22 9:25 AM

 

Just discovered I have 2 weight plates in the engine bay. The standard Fiat showing 3650 and an AL-KO showing 3700. Interestingly my V5 shows revenue weight as 3500 and I’m taxed at the PLG rate. So, the question is, if I was pulled over by the DVSA for a spot check and was found to be 100 kgs under the 3500 limit are they then likely to check my C1 entitlement being as the lowest plated weight is 3650?!! Not an issue as I have C1 and my insurance does not have weight / dimension restriction. I guess the bottom line is which weight takes precedence and under what circumstances; 3500, 3650 or 3700?

 

Your Swift motorhome will have been built in 3 stages -

 

1 - Fiat chassis stage

 

2 - AL-KO chassis add-on stage

 

3 - Swift conversion stage

 

It’s the weight on the STAGE 3 ‘data-plate’ (ie the plate attached to your motorhome by Swift) that overrides the respective 3650kg and 3700kh weights on the Fiat and AL-KO plates.

 

So if the Swift plate has 3500kg maximum overall weight on it, the PLG VED class of your motorhome is correct. But if the Swift plate has a maximum overall weight on it that exceeds 3500kg, the PLG VED class of your motorhome is wrong and should be Privste/HGV.

 

If you load your motorhome beyond the maximum overall weight on the Swift data-plate, the offence would relate to overloading. That you happen to have a C1 driving licence entitlement would not change this.

 

Swift Champagne 694 models generally seem to be advertised with a 3500kg weight maximum.

 

https://www.outandaboutlive.co.uk/motorhomes/reviews/motorhomes/details/motorhome-review-swift-champagne-694-motorhome/989295

 

https://www.somersetmotorhomecentre.co.uk/showroom/coach-built/swift-champagne-694/

 

It’s a substantial vehicle to operate at 3500kg, so care would be needed not to overload.

[stevemc67]

Derek, many thanks for your considered concise response. I’ll now go and have a rummage around and see if I can find the Swift plate. It ain’t in the engine bay where the other 2 are or on any of the door pillars or cills!

 

[Robinhood]

From the current owner's manual......

 

the Swift manufacturers plate

situated on the bulkhead directly behind

the front driver/ passenger seat

 

Worth a look!

[colin]

If you haven't done it already a trip to weighbridge to check overall weight and each axle would be a good thing IMO, 542kg of payload looks very optimistic, plus at 7.41m long and what looks like a 'light' chassis the rear axle may be a problem.

[stevemc67]

Eureka! Thanks Robinhhod. It’s on the drivers side bulkhead hidden behind the upholstery and confirms 3500. Now to consider making contact with SV Tech re. Possible uprate. I’m pretty sure there was a dealer option to go to 3650 at first registration for this particular model.

[Brian Kirby]

Before you do that, I'd follow Colin's advice and take the van to a weighbridge and get its overall weight, plus the load on each axle. Make sure you know what state of load the van is in when you take it. Personally, I do this twice. Once when the van is empty except for the jack and basic tools, but with the fuel tank full. So, no food, clothing, bedding, water (fresh or waste), empty toilet cassette, and no gas/cylinders. You will then know your starting point for loading.

 

Water weighs in at 1kg per litre, so the capacity of your fresh water tank in litres will give its weight in kg. UK gas cylinders should have their tare weight indicated, which is the weight of the empty cylinder. The weight by which they are sold (i.e. 13kg) is the net weight of the gas in a full cylinder. So tare plus cylinder capacity = the weight of a full cylinder.

 

I think I'm thinking what Colin is thinking, which is that with a van of that size on the light chassis, with its 2 tonne rear axle load limit, plus what looks to be a quite substantial rear overhang, the rear axle will hit its load limit well before the van exceeds its MAM. To rectify that you'll need to do more than re-plate it. This may explain why a previous owner (apparently) had the van up-plated to 3,850kg, and also why it seems to have been sold (and re-registered with DVLA) at 3,500kg. It may be that the previous owner found it didn't work any better at 3,850 and rather than maintain his C1 entitlement post 75, decided to sell the van in favour of one that would be more practical.

 

Did you buy from a dealer? They should have spotted, and rectified, the anomaly of the conflicting SVTech plate.

 

The SV Tech 3,850kg MAM is easy to explain. It is the sum of the maximum permissible standard front and rear axe loads (1,850kg and 2,000kg respectively). The vehicle cannot realistically be used at these loads, as it is virtually impossible to achieve such precise loading in real world conditions. As one uses a van the weight is continually being redistributed within it. That is why the manufacturers would generally use 3,650kg as their higher MAM for the light chassis - it keeps 200kg in reserve to allow for the fact that under normal use a van will hit either the front, or rear, axle limit before its MAM is reached.

 

The AlKo chassis plate at 3,700kgMAM is following similar logic, but permits an extra 50kg while still being restricted by the same maximum axle load limits.

 

If, after visiting a weighbridge, you find that the difference between 3,500kg and the weight of the van as weighed, or the axle load allowances at front and rear, point to an insufficient payload (overall or on either axle) for practical use, you will have two choices. 1, to seek to reject the van as unfit for its intended purpose, or 2, to seek to increase either or both axle loads (as necessary) to arrive at a usable payload. Having an AlKo rear axle, where the axle load limit is likely to be the limiting factor, this may get expensive, depending on what is actually dictating the load limit at the rear.

 

The AlKo rear axle will probably have a separate plate somewhere on the axle tube, which may itself be higher than 2,000kg. If so, the rear axle load limit will most probably be limited by the tyres fitted, and could possibly be raised by fitting higher rated tyres. However, doing this would, IMO, require the acquiescence of AlKo. If you know the AlKo chassis type fitted you could contact AlKo UK to see if they can advise what the practical limitations are.

 

But, do bear in mind that all the running gear on the van is that applicable to a light commercial van sold for use at a maximum laden weight of 3,500kg, and that no re-plating exercise will, for example, uprate the original brakes or clutch etc. In effect, you are proposing to take a 16 year old vehicle beyond the limits its original design contemplated, by using at least some of its engineering safety factors. I'm not trying to put you off, and if you are comfortable doing this I have no axe to grind. :-)

 

But, I'd definitely make that weighbridge visit before spending money on a re-plating exercise that may not give you anything like the advantages I suspect you are hoping for. Then, make sure you're aware of all the potential pitfalls, and that they can be satisfactorily resolved at a cost you are comfortable to meet, before taking any further steps. Just my opinion, of course, and others will doubtless disagree! :-D

[Robinhood]

It may be me Brian, but it seems to me you are conflating weights and configurations from two separate posters/questions on this thread.

 

The basic advice is correct, however. It is worthwhile checking how much margin is currently available, fully loaded, on the rear axle before pursuing an upgrade to MAM, since that margin on the rear axle may well constrain the practical use of any additional plated weight.

 

As for the Swift Champagne - the Al-Ko wheelbase on the 694 is reasonably long, so the overhang, though big, is not entirely excessive. Swift specs indicate that it is/was available in at least one configuration with a MAM of 3700kg, so, subject to the above caveat, it is probably worthwhile pursuing an upgrade, subject to all the other constraints, if the OP is concerned about payload. With a previous stage 3700kg (Al-Ko) plate on board, it should be a paper exercise.

[Brian Kirby]

Robinhood - 2020-09-22 4:27 PM

 

It may be me Brian, but it seems to me you are conflating weights and configurations from two separate posters/questions on this thread.

 

The basic advice is correct, however. It is worthwhile checking how much margin is currently available, fully loaded, on the rear axle before pursuing an upgrade to MAM, since that margin on the rear axle may well constrain the practical use of any additional plated weight.

 

As for the Swift Champagne - the Al-Ko wheelbase on the 694 is reasonably long, so the overhang, though big, is not entirely excessive. Swift specs indicate that it is/was available in at least one configuration with a MAM of 3700kg, so, subject to the above caveat, it is probably worthwhile pursuing an upgrade, subject to all the other constraints, if the OP is concerned about payload. With a previous stage 3700kg (Al-Ko) plate on board, it should be a paper exercise.

Apologies to all, it seems you're right Bob. It started at 3,850kg and was then downplated to 3,500kg by SVTech. However, I don't think tsmith59's van is a Swift Champagne. That is stevemc67's 2019 van. I'm not sure tsmith59 has actually confirmed which model his Swift is, only that it is a 2004 Swift Roadstar. I looked at the examples I could find of Roadstars from that period (not many!) and most seemed to have quite long overhangs. However, it would be helpful if the actual model could be confirmed, as much of my post is based on assumptions (mine and others!).

 

The real question in my mind is whether there would be any sensible gain from plating back up to 3,850kg if the van is as long as some seemed to have identified, as that 2,000kg rear axle limit would, I suspect, be quite difficult/costly to increase. But, if the van is shorter than assumed, and the overhang is also reasonable, then a worthwhile gain should easily be achieved by verifying that the SVTech plate is genuine, and then dealing with the uprating direct with DVLA.

[Robinhood]

You're confusing me even more ;-)

 

The other vehicle is a Lunar Roadstar.

 

Given its vintage (2004), and the fact that it has an original Al-Ko plate at 3850kg, I strongly suspect that the underpinnings originated from the Maxi chassis (I can find contemporaneous reviews that support the fact that some of the larger models did) and I think (fading memory) the rear axle limit on these was 2120kg (for the standard chassis, I wouldn't expect the Al-Ko to be less).

 

That would reduce the concern about (re) up-plating a bit.

 

The OP can confirm that situation from the Al-Ko plate, and the existence of 16" wheels would confirm the Maxi parentage (for that vintage, though one can't rely on such now).

[stevemc67]

Sorry! Probably me causing the confusion. I just dropped in on an “advice needed on weight” thread this morning. To clarify, my query related to different weight plates (3 in total now) on my 2019 Swift Champagne 694.