Bailey motorhomes advice and 760 Approach SE

[Barryd999]

Going to look at a 760SE Approach next week

 

I know from a previous thread on here from a member who sent me all their figures that this van on a 3850kg chassis is capable of taking the Armitage scooter rack and a small scooter and can legally stay within the permitted weights (just) so I am keen to try one as a replacement for our aging Kontiki.

 

So I am after some advice on either this model or Bailey in general. Some tell me there were issues on some models with leaks and some recalls. I believe this model has the Alu-tech shell (2012 model) but there is still timber in the floors to look out for.

 

will be looking at it on Tuesday all being well.

 

Any thoughts or tips?

[Steve928]

Bailey floors are a composite of upper plywood, expanded polystyrene insulation and a lower GRP skin, all with softwood framing.

The wall panels sit on top of the plywood upper surface of the floor with bolts going upwards through the outer floor frame into threaded inserts in the walls (although occasionally they miss or cross-thread so a self-tapping coach screw is used instead, alongside the now-vacant bolt hole).

The one crucial difference between the SE range and later models is that on the SE the outer wall skin did not extend downwards over the floor - only the seal of the skirts to the walls prevents water running down the outside of the walls and into the floor. On all later models water getting behind the skirts will (should) run off the downward extension of the outer wall skin and fall to ground. Still not ideal but a big improvement.

 

Personally this one aspect would put me off the SE range.

Picture attached of rotten SE outer floor frame exposed by removing the skirt panel.

 

 

[Brian Kirby]

Steve928 - 2022-05-07 11:37 AM................................

The one crucial difference between the SE range and later models is that on the SE the outer wall skin did not extend downwards over the floor - only the seal of the skirts to the walls prevents water running down the outside of the walls and into the floor. ..............................

 

Personally this one aspect would put me off the SE range.

Picture attached of rotten SE outer floor frame exposed by removing the skirt panel.

 

One picture is worth a thousand words! It isn't just water running from the walls that will attack that joint, is is also the water and spray blasting up from the wheels when driving on a wet road. From Steve's description of the construction, it is the main structural frames on the edges if the floor panel that are exposed to wetting and eventual rot, leaving the wall panel to floor fixings prone to consequent corrosion and loosening as the edge frames (I'm bound to say inevitably!) deteriorate.

 

In addition, from the picture, there is a minimal contact area between the top edge of the skirt and the bottom edge of the wall panel along the floor/wall joint. That leaves scope for only a minimal skirt to wall panel seal which, taking account of the thermal expansion and flexibility of plastics, seems highly liable to fail allowing run off water to by-pass the skirt.

 

Probing from below with (say) an electrical screwdriver for soft spots won't detect any due to the GRP skin, so the condition of the exposed floor edge can only be assessed by removing the skirts.

 

Might the seller be willing to remove all the skirts for inspection before you buy, on the basis that if the floor edges are soft you don't buy and he gets to re-fix the skirts, and if they prove sound and dry you buy and re-fix the skirts? No? What a wimp!! :-)

[Barryd999]

Oh blooming heck! :(

 

I got excited about this van as they boasted about how it was damp proof I seem to remember when it came out. It was a member on here in 2019 that put me onto it because of its capability to fit a scooter and rack. He still has it. Ten years now I think so presumably it's not disintegrated. It's a dilemma as it's basically that model or an even lesser known swift esprit or bessaccar 496 highline.

 

Dunno what to do now. I doubt the dealer will want to pull it apart Brian. Are you saying a hab check won't pick this up?

[Steve928]

If it were me and I was keen to go ahead then I'd work my way around the periphery of the floor inside the van, lifting the vinyl and checking for clean, dry plywood both visually and with a damp meter. There'll be places where furniture or wiring/plumbing make this difficult to impossible but be as thorough as you can. If the plywood is good all around the van (pay particular attention around the wheel arches) then you can be reasonably sure that all is OK.

Then, having purchased the van, run a fine bead of RV61 all around the skirts and mouldings and check that no water runs down the inside of them. About road spray you can do very little; on my (later model) Bailey I injected water seal (the clear silicone-based stuff that's sold for brickwork etc.) up around the floor/wall joint from below using a pressure sprayer every year- perhaps it helped.

[Keithl]

Barry,

 

Ask the dealer to put it up on a ramp so you can inspect the edges of the floor from underneath (assuming they have a workshop big enough!). If it's damp on top it will almost certainly be damp down below is my way of thinking.

 

Keith.

[Brian Kirby]

Barryd999 - 2022-05-07 3:28 PM

Oh blooming heck! :(

I got excited about this van as they boasted about how it was damp proof I seem to remember when it came out. It was a member on here in 2019 that put me onto it because of its capability to fit a scooter and rack. He still has it. Ten years now I think so presumably it's not disintegrated. It's a dilemma as it's basically that model or an even lesser known swift esprit or bessaccar 496 highline.

 

Dunno what to do now. I doubt the dealer will want to pull it apart Brian. Are you saying a hab check won't pick this up?

Sorry to be the Jeremiah Barry! :-) Just my opinion (and I wasn't being entirely serious about getting the dealer to remove the skirts, honest! :-)).

 

Depending on how well the skirt to side (and presumably rear) wall joints have retained functional seals, and if it hasn't had extensive use in wet conditions, it may well be OK. The problem is, given the construction, how can you know? If it could be put up on a hoist and a damp meter applied to the exposed floor panel edges it should be possible to test for damp, but all that would tell you is whether the wood is damp. If it were also possible to get a probe of some sort onto the panel edges and give them a dig it should reveal more about the condition of the timber, but the access for that looks restricted due to the "tumble home" on the base of the skirt moulding and the minimal clearance between that and the u/s of the floor panel.

 

The van should have been built using Bailey's "Alu-Tech" construction system (introduced 2009) that should have meant the virtual elimination of timber. It rather seems that no-one told whoever was making the floor panels! Having gone to such lengths to get wood out of walls and roof, it seems borderline perverse to have retained a timber floor structure. Yet, from Steve's post, it seems to be exactly what they did.

 

Have a trawl on the net for Alu-Tech. There are some references to assembly quality control problems at Bailey's factory from around 2010. Also some references to spongy floors. I've no idea if they persist. But then, all van/caravan manufacturers seems to have their "off days" and dissatisfied customers.

 

At least you are forewarned. Good luck whatever you decide.

[Barryd999]

Thanks. Its put me right off to be honest.

 

I wasnt broadcasting where it was as there are so few for sale but I may as well now. Its this one at Lytham st Annes at Motor Lands https://www.motorlands.co.uk/vehicle-details/used-bailey-approach-760-se-peugeot-boxer-2-2-hdi-for-sale-in-preston-lancashire-u168/

 

There is a video here of the van from a review by Practical motorhome. There wont be many place to poke around inside thats for sure and with my dodgy knees and not to mention dodgy knowledge Im really going to be limited as to what I can do myself. I bet they will have ramps though. Big dealership I think.

 

 

If I discount that it basically leaves me with the Swift Esprit 496 / Bessaccar 496 which I just missed out on but I think they were only made in 2014 (The highline) model and even less seems to be known about them but they have a massive 960kg payload and on the 4250kg Alko chassis. For all I know they might have similar construction issues. There is nothing else.

 

 

[Alibaba]

I knew they had had problems but didn't realise that they could still be showing up after so long Barfs, (yes) Back to the Approach would be my move I think, I know you've spent a good while on this now, but there must be more than two vans that would suit you.

 

But you would think that van manufacturers would by now have started using recycled plastics and welding/gluing them together and doing away with manky plywood and such, built in obsolescence on a massive scale and we fall for it, and pay for it.

[Solwaybuggier]

We had a 2013 Approach 740 SE from new - we had major issues with delamination which lead to it going back to Bailey for repairs after about 2 years. It spread across most of the rear of the van. We got rid of the van before the 6 year water ingress warranty expired (the original 10 year warranty had reverted to a chargeable option before we bought) and the experience would have put us off buying another Bailey. But I know there are lots of people who have been very happy with theirs.

 

The other issue with Baileys was width - makes them feel very spacious inside, but you do have to be aware of it on the road.

[Steve928]

Brian Kirby - 2022-05-07 6:02 PM

The van should have been built using Bailey's "Alu-Tech" construction system (introduced 2009) that should have meant the virtual elimination of timber. It rather seems that no-one told whoever was making the floor panels!

 

Apparently (from the horse's mouth, Bailey themselves) the phrase 'Alu-Tech' refers only to the aluminium extrusions and clamping system used at the wall-wall and wall-roof joints rather than the entire construction..

[Derek Uzzell]

This 2015 forum tread discussed damp in the floor of Bailey motorhomes.

 

https://forums.outandaboutlive.co.uk/forums/Motorhomes/Motorhome-Matters/Damp-in-our-2-year-old-Bailey-Approach-SE/37493/

 

I believe these models (even those with a 3850kg GVW) were built on a 'light' Peugeot Boxer/AL-KO chassis and I recall Steve928 (when he owned a Bailey) complaining about lack of suspension travel at the rear and a consequential harsh ride.

 

https://forums.outandaboutlive.co.uk/forums/Motorhomes/Motorhome-Matters/I-don-t-like-my-Al-Ko-chassis/38523/

 

An Approach 760 SE has a significant rear overhang and, if there's minimal rear suspension travel in 'normal' use, hanging a scooter off the back would inevitably make matters worse.

 

 

[Barryd999]

Derek Uzzell - 2022-05-08 8:16 AM

 

This 2015 forum tread discussed damp in the floor of Bailey motorhomes.

 

https://forums.outandaboutlive.co.uk/forums/Motorhomes/Motorhome-Matters/Damp-in-our-2-year-old-Bailey-Approach-SE/37493/

 

I believe these models (even those with a 3850kg GVW) were built on a 'light' Peugeot Boxer/AL-KO chassis and I recall Steve928 (when he owned a Bailey) complaining about lack of suspension travel at the rear and a consequential harsh ride.

 

https://forums.outandaboutlive.co.uk/forums/Motorhomes/Motorhome-Matters/I-don-t-like-my-Al-Ko-chassis/38523/

 

An Approach 760 SE has a significant rear overhang and, if there's minimal rear suspension travel in 'normal' use, hanging a scooter off the back would inevitably make matters worse.

 

 

It was a post in this thread that put me onto the Bailey. Near the bottom "Solarhomer"

https://forums.outandaboutlive.co.uk/forums/Motorhomes/Motorhome-Matters/Scooter-Racks-Payload/37623/31/

 

We have been in touch by email and he sent me his weights spreadsheet and all the calculations and he was spot on with them. He also says it drives fine. This is why I got excited about this van because finally I had the holy grail. Someone who had actually done all the maths thoroughly and not only fitted a rack and scooter legally but carries a scooter 30kg heavier than mine. I disagree about the overhang as its one of the shortest on a coach built since our Kontiki 640 and this is key which is why despite decent payloads on many vans I avoid anything that is not on the extended Alko chassis.

 

I do wonder if I am overthinking it all though. I wrote off the later Kontikis even on the 4250kg chassis as on paper they dont have as much payload as my current 3400kg 640 but I think they changed the way Payload was calculated sometime after my van was manufactured. How can a 1996 Kontiki on a 3400kg max load chassis have 690 kg of payload when a more modern Kontiki on a 4000 or 4250kg chassis only have about 500kg? I do know Armitage have fitted many racks to modern Kontikis though. Finding someone who has done the maths? Impossible.

 

As for the Bailey, it sounds like a ticking time bomb now, even if it does not have damp right now what can be done to prevent it in the future? I think I would need proof of comprehensive floor checks and possible upgrades or modifications to prevent this floor damp down the line.

 

760 overhang below. Ideal for a rack I would say.

 

EDIT: No idea why the forum is not displaying that image. Link here https://i.postimg.cc/0jBrr62c/approach-760.jpg

[Brian Kirby]

Derek Uzzell - 2022-05-08 8:16 AM

 

This 2015 forum tread discussed damp in the floor of Bailey motorhomes.

 

https://forums.outandaboutlive.co.uk/forums/Motorhomes/Motorhome-Matters/Damp-in-our-2-year-old-Bailey-Approach-SE/37493/

 

I believe these models (even those with a 3850kg GVW) were built on a 'light' Peugeot Boxer/AL-KO chassis and I recall Steve928 (when he owned a Bailey) complaining about lack of suspension travel at the rear and a consequential harsh ride.

 

https://forums.outandaboutlive.co.uk/forums/Motorhomes/Motorhome-Matters/I-don-t-like-my-Al-Ko-chassis/38523/

 

An Approach 760 SE has a significant rear overhang and, if there's minimal rear suspension travel in 'normal' use, hanging a scooter off the back would inevitably make matters worse.

I didn't look at the rear overhang but, having done so, yes, it is substantial. Coupled with the comment regarding the AlKo chassis being the "light" variety, I see four further reasons to reject.

 

First, the overhang ( especially when augmented by a scooter rack) will exacerbate the rear axle load (which will, despite the 3,850kg MAM, remain at the standard "light chassis" 2,000kg), meaning, on a van of that size, that with scooter + rack it will almost certainly have rear axle load problems. Unless further chassis enhancements have been made (not easy with the AlKo chassis), the 3,850kg MAM is merely the sum of the max. 1,850kg front axle load, plus the max. 2,000kg rear axle load - a load state that cannot, under any normal loading regime, be attained. In short, on a "light" chassis, a MAM of 3,850, is a deception.

 

Second, the AlKo chassis is deliberately built "light", as one of its objects is weight saving. This means that it has little structural reserve and therefore should only be adapted via AlKo approved additions. This is not just a warranty issue (long since expired by now) but also a structural integrity consideration. Ideally AlKo technical should be consulted before any interventions on the chassis.

 

Third, the AlKo chassis tend to sit closer to the ground than the SEVEL chassis, which with the overhang and the necessary attached rack there would be a greatly enhanced risk of grounding, at least the rack, exacerbated by the added rear suspension compression of scooter + rack load.

 

Fourth, with a relatively lightly constructed van on the "light" chassis of that period (15" wheels, with tyres, brakes and suspension designed around 3.500 kg MAM), plus scooter and rack, plus the overhang, plus the bulbous "Luton", I suspect directional stability would be compromised by its inherent "tail wagging dog" load distribution, leading to poor f.w.d. traction, and an uncomfortable degree of cross-wind, and road irregularity, sensitivity.

[Steve928]

The 760 was built on the 4700mm wheelbase chassis (as were the later 750 and 765) which, as Barry says, does give a notably short overhang. This chassis (with a 598mm longer wheelbase than the same size 740 & 745 models) comes with an increased risk of 'beaching' between the axles of the ultra-low Al-Ko chassis on hump-back bridges etc. though, of course.

 

[Brian Kirby]

Barryd999 - 2022-05-08 11:23 AM...................................

EDIT: No idea why the forum is not displaying that image. Link here https://i.postimg.cc/0jBrr62c/approach-760.jpg

That is what I couldn't find, a "square on" picture of the van from which the overhang can reasonably be assessed.

 

From that picture, the overhang appears to be about 40% of wheelbase. Add a scooter rack and that will be nearer 50% of wheelbase which, from memory, is the legal maximum.

 

Don't wish to cause any offence, but are you sure about your permissible axle loads and your actual, fully laden, axle loads, at a weighbridge with rack and scooter in place? On the face of it I agree with your implication that your present 3,400kg KonTiki should be well over its MAM when fully laden. Has it had any chassis mods you aren't aware of? Are all the load plates the originals?

 

What usually happens with manufacturers' payload calculations is that the published versions are based on plated MAM minus a theoretical occupancy load, with fresh water and gas reserves at a percentage (not always consistent between makes!) of their full capacity.

 

What I've always done is to take the van empty as supplied to a weighbridge and get it weighed, including the actual axle loads in that state, with me off the load platform. I then go back with the van fully laden, (including full water, full fuel, and full gas cylinders, plus Carole and me, and with all food, clothing, liquids, i.e. the lot!) on board and see what that yields. I then know the "true" "working" payload (MAM - weight 1), and what margin remains (MAM - weight 2).

[Barryd999]

A few things to point out Brian. I would dispute what you say about the Bailey. I have been communicating at length with an owner who has had his ten years with a rack on. He sent me as I said a comprehensive spreadsheet that was used in conjunction with the excel spreadsheet sent to him by Armitage Trailers to work out if he could take the rack and Scooter. He is well within the limits. I also have been talking to Armitage and they say the Bailey is ideal as the chassis extensions go right to the back of the van and are rated to take 150kg which is more than enough to take their new lightweight chassis mounted folding rack and a scooter up to 130kg (ours is 100kg).

 

I did the same maths for our van when I got it in 2008. We did have an axle issue down the line a few years after but I believe that was down to previous owners and myself not being aware of the requirement to annually grease the rear Alko axle with both wheels off the ground. I had the rear axle replaced and its been greased regularly ever since. The Bailey looks from the side very similar to my Kontiki in terms of where the wheels are and a very short overhang. The overhang IMO is crucial. Coach built vans on the standard chassis have massive overhangs and whatever the payload they just look wrong to me to put a rack on.

 

The proof here is in the user experience. We have a ten year Bailey owner and a fourteen year Kontiki 640 owner (myself) where both have legally fitted a scooter and rack without problems. People told me there would be handling issues etc. There are absolutely none whatsoever bike on or off, exactly the same and I put that down to the extended Alko Chassis.

 

The question here is not if the Bailey is up to carrying a scooter, it clearly is, its whether as a van its one to avoid. I am of course as ever open to suggestions of other vans that are capable of carrying a scooter that also have a rear lounge. I am even considering a PVC if I can find a 3 or 4 berth one with the capabilities of carrying the bike on a rack.

[Barryd999]

Here's a bit of a curve ball. We have long pondered if we would get away with a PVC. Autotrail do an Expedition 3 or 4 berth with a rear lounge and almost the same layout albeit crammed in as our Kontiki. Its a Kontiki for the "Borrowers". (lol) Now it could drive me bonkers but heres the thing. You can get a brand new one for about £44k which is about the top end of the vans I have been looking at which are eight to ten years old with questionable damp issues.

 

The payload on one of these seems about standard for a PVC at around 500+kg but virtually no overhang. Of course storage space will be massively restricted which on the one hand will be a PIA but on the other it will help with payload. I believe they have a 25 litre underslung LPG tank which is great as long as there is a way to incorporate a 6kg Calor backup

 

https://www.auto-trail.co.uk/expedition-67

 

What do you reckon? I know there are people on here and on FACTS that have carried scooters on PVCs so it must be possible.

[Brian Kirby]

Experience counts! :-) I'm not trying to put you off the Bailey, Barry, only to highlight some of the potential issues. If you're happy with the calcs, then it seems my misgivings are not borne out by experience. My only remaining reservation would be whether the calcs are backed up by actual weighbridge confirmation when fully laden. If they are, the only remaining potential issue is rot in the floor.

 

On the Expedition PVC, the downside I can see is that none are currently offered on the "maxi" chassis, which IMO, would be ideal if carrying a scooter (and on my own experience, even if not!). Nick Fisher (Euroserve) likened the on the road characteristics of the "light" chassis as being akin to those of a shopping trolley when compared to those of the "heavy" chassis. Our Knaus is on the heavy, and I have to say I agree with him. It rides irregularities with less fuss, and generally feels more "planted", compared to previous experiences with the light. Counter intuitively, the ride is also better.

 

On PVC's in general, the market is full of them, new and used, and your biggest problem is likely to be navigating what is available and what might suit your needs!

 

The only other issue is likely to be the extent to which the layout demands access via the rear doors (gas lockers, for example are frequently at the rear, and often only suited to small or single cylinders). Scooters or bikes on racks will obstruct access via the rear doors. There are a few hinged racks (e.g Busbiker) but I've no idea whether that would take the weight of a scooter.

 

Beware of gas tanks, as present indications are that autogas will be a casualty of the move from fossil fuels. (There is a recent forum string on current difficulties with finding autogas.)

 

Our 6.0M Knaus PVC is plated at 3,500kg, and in fully laden touring trim has axle loads of 1,760kg front (2.100kg max) and 1,660kg rear (2,400kg max) giving an actual laden weight of 3,420kg (MAM 3,500kg). So only 80 kg spare. Unladen (i.e. as delivered, but with full fuel tank: not the legal definition nor the MIRO definition) it is 2,900kg, giving a legally usable payload of 600kg. That is why I was puzzled that your much larger van on a 3,400kg chassis with scooter and rack remained within its axle and max loads. I guess we must just take more stuff than you do! :-D

[Barryd999]

Brian Kirby - 2022-05-08 7:04 PM

 

Experience counts! :-) I'm not trying to put you off the Bailey, Barry, only to highlight some of the potential issues. If you're happy with the calcs, then it seems my misgivings are not borne out by experience. My only remaining reservation would be whether the calcs are backed up by actual weighbridge confirmation when fully laden. If they are, the only remaining potential issue is rot in the floor.

 

On the Expedition PVC, the downside I can see is that none are currently offered on the "maxi" chassis, which IMO, would be ideal if carrying a scooter (and on my own experience, even if not!). Nick Fisher (Euroserve) likened the on the road characteristics of the "light" chassis as being akin to those of a shopping trolley when compared to those of the "heavy" chassis. Our Knaus is on the heavy, and I have to say I agree with him. It rides irregularities with less fuss, and generally feels more "planted", compared to previous experiences with the light. Counter intuitively, the ride is also better.

 

On PVC's in general, the market is full of them, new and used, and your biggest problem is likely to be navigating what is available and what might suit your needs!

 

The only other issue is likely to be the extent to which the layout demands access via the rear doors (gas lockers, for example are frequently at the rear, and often only suited to small or single cylinders). Scooters or bikes on racks will obstruct access via the rear doors. There are a few hinged racks (e.g Busbiker) but I've no idea whether that would take the weight of a scooter.

 

Beware of gas tanks, as present indications are that autogas will be a casualty of the move from fossil fuels. (There is a recent forum string on current difficulties with finding autogas.)

 

Our 6.0M Knaus PVC is plated at 3,500kg, and in fully laden touring trim has axle loads of 1,760kg front (2.100kg max) and 1,660kg rear (2,400kg max) giving an actual laden weight of 3,420kg (MAM 3,500kg). So only 80 kg spare. Unladen (i.e. as delivered, but with full fuel tank: not the legal definition nor the MIRO definition) it is 2,900kg, giving a legally usable payload of 600kg. That is why I was puzzled that your much larger van on a 3,400kg chassis with scooter and rack remained within its axle and max loads. I guess we must just take more stuff than you do! :-D

 

Yes on his spreadsheet he has scans of the two weighbridge tickets before and after with the bike on, him and his wife and all their gear. He even lists every item. I dont know what they do with these vans but some of the 4250kg payload vans like the heavier and later Kontikis have less available payload than some like the Bailey and mine on the lighter chassis. I think the later Kontiki was less than 500kg. We visited that one a few years back if you remember.

 

Ill maybe give this chap a call tomorrow and discuss it further with him but having someone thats done it and their feedback is really useful. No reply as yet from the dealer selling the Bailey. I would have thought by tomorrow if they dont reply to my questions raised in this thread then perhaps ill give it a swerve. I have the original sums I did for my van somewhere from back in 2008. I dare say at times we will have been over the limits I guess but not by much. I remember us getting pulled over at the Swiss border in 2009 and directed to a weighbridge. I still have the ticket they gave me with the weight on in the glove box. I think it was 3460kg and I had just filled the Luton with several cases of german beer. (lol)

 

I think the Autotrail Expedition 67 is on the 3500kg Fiat Ducato chassis but not sure what the front and rear limits will be. Do you know and if need be can it be replated to 3850kg with a bit more on the back? The key thing is balance though and thats why I like our set up with a luton cab. I am no lightweight and I stick the Kayak and two folding bikes up front up in the Luton. It counteracts the weight on the back perfectly. My worry with a PVC or say an A Class even would be all the weight ends up midships or at the back.

[Brian Kirby]

Barryd999 - 2022-05-08 9:26 PM...................................

I think the Autotrail Expedition 67 is on the 3500kg Fiat Ducato chassis but not sure what the front and rear limits will be. Do you know and if need be can it be replated to 3850kg with a bit more on the back? The key thing is balance though and thats why I like our set up with a luton cab. I am no lightweight and I stick the Kayak and two folding bikes up front up in the Luton. It counteracts the weight on the back perfectly. My worry with a PVC or say an A Class even would be all the weight ends up midships or at the back.

I spent a bit of time at "Kon-Tiki school" this morning, and my head is still spinning! Seems it was first introduced as a model in about 1999, and is till going. Over the past 30 odd years it has had more variants than the 'flu virus, mostly identified by a number with a letter suffix, many of which were on sale concurrently, and quite a few of which spanned several variants of the SEVEL chassis. Bearing in mind that the year of first registration is not necessarily the year of production, it's a bit like hunting for hen's teeth! :-)

 

What I can say is that our 2005 Burstner on a "standard" 3,400kg Fiat Ducato platform cab base, had a max front axle load of 1,750kg, and rear axle max of 1,900kg.

 

Our 2013 Hymer Exsis-i was on a Fiat Ducato/AlKo "light" chassis, with 3,500kg MAM, and front axle max of 1,850kg and rear (AlKo) max of 2,000 kg (which, AFAIK, was the same as the standard Fiat chassis rear axle max). The front springs were replaced as standard by Hymer with Goldschmitt springs having the same load capacity as the Fiat springs, but are a bit longer to counter the van's otherwise "nose down" stance.

 

Can/could the AutoTrail Expedition 67 be up-plated? Simple answer yes - but not of you wanted to maintain the warranty in force! Would it be worthwhile up-plating it? It would depend on what is expected from so doing. Very simply, given the current front and rear axle maxima and the willingness of SvTech or whoever to do so, it could possibly be up-plated as a desk exercise to 3,850kg. However, neither the max load on the front or rear axles would be enhanced in the process. To gain extra rear axle capacity it would be necessary to uprate the rear suspension by adding air-assistance (probably best), or a supplementary spring leaf, or a supplementary coil spring in lieu of the existing synthetic rubber spring assister that many mistake for a bump stop. You may also need to uprate the rear tyres for the extra load, which, (assuming you carried a spare in lieu of a bottle of gunk against punctures) creates a problem for the spare, or to uprate all tyres including spare, or a restriction on max driving speed with an odd sized tyre fitted.

 

However, you'd still have a van on the "light" chassis running gear, brakes, and final drive ratios. So, given the option, I'd be more inclined to go for a down-plated "heavy" chassis that comes as standard with higher front and rear axle loads, larger brakes, enhanced running gear, and, if you opt for a spare, the correct tyres all round, so giving you reserves and which, if you're happy to go over 3,500 kg can be plated (I think) at up to 4.0 tonnes. I'm puzzled that AT aren't offering the "maxi" chassis on the 6.36 metre long vans, as I thought I'd read that all 6.36 long vans actually come on the maxi chassis even if plated at 3,500kg. However, Fiat's Ducato configurator has either been re-designed, or is playing up, as it doesn't want to offer that option.

 

Try PM'ing "Robinhood" as he's well into the technicalities, and until fairly recently had a 6.36 long PVC including, I think, a Busbiker (actually, I think, AlKo made) rack - though only for e-bikes.

[Barryd999]

Thanks Brian. I think the Kontiki has been going since the 80s! Unless you meant 1989 not 1999. Mine is a 1996 variant.

 

So Maxi chassis is best then. Someone sent me this today https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/185398903176?hash=item2b2aa2c188:g:8mwAAOSwe4NiEibU#vi-desc-maincntr Too many things put me off but it must be easily capable of carrying a bike. Twin wheels at the back.

 

I spoke to the dealer regarding the Bailey this morning and he says they are aware of the issues with damp from the dodgy skirts and is going to dig out its history and email it to me. He also says any issues like this are checked and repairs done if necessary and there is a six month warranty. I suppose its a question of can the van be fettled in such a way that its not going to become an issue down the line.

[Brian Kirby]

Could well be since the 80's! :-)

 

Re maxi, I was dubious that the ride would be harsh but, compared to all the previous vans we've had, all of roughly similar size (the Hymer was a bot 6.75 metres long, all the others about 6.0 metres) all 3,500kg, all about the same actual laden weight, all running at tyre pressures suited to axle loads, the maxi is, as Nick suggested it would be, a better drive. Slightly larger wheels (16" rather than 15"), firm rather than harsh (I think due to better damping) relatively unaffected by "tramlines", ditto surface irregularities on the outside of bends, ditto crosswinds, very easy to "crawl" in traffic due to lower final drive ratio, ditto low speed control over uneven surfaces, almost rattle free due to more rigid all steel bodyshell. Its not a magic carpet ride, you still know its a van, but it just feels more sure-footed: a bit like a well tied down sports car suspension rather than an overloaded estate car! :-)

 

You'd need to see and drive the IVECO to be sure, but it looks very well executed. Shotts is in Scotland, about 17 miles east of Glasgow, not far off the A71. So M6/A74(M)/M74 to Junc 8 (SP Kilmarnock/Edinburgh) and left onto A71 toward Edinburgh! Don't forget your cheque book!!

 

If it's as good as it looks, and if you think it might suit you, what's (time and fuel apart) to lose? As it was purpose built, if the builder is still trading, you'd probably be able to get any alterations done at a fair price as well. Scooter up ramp and into van? All you'd need are adequate tie downs inside, to stop it joining you in the front every time you brake!

[Barryd999]

Brian Kirby - 2022-05-09 3:48 PM

 

Could well be since the 80's! :-)

 

Re maxi, I was dubious that the ride would be harsh but, compared to all the previous vans we've had, all of roughly similar size (the Hymer was a bot 6.75 metres long, all the others about 6.0 metres) all 3,500kg, all about the same actual laden weight, all running at tyre pressures suited to axle loads, the maxi is, as Nick suggested it would be, a better drive. Slightly larger wheels (16" rather than 15"), firm rather than harsh (I think due to better damping) relatively unaffected by "tramlines", ditto surface irregularities on the outside of bends, ditto crosswinds, very easy to "crawl" in traffic due to lower final drive ratio, ditto low speed control over uneven surfaces, almost rattle free due to more rigid all steel bodyshell. Its not a magic carpet ride, you still know its a van, but it just feels more sure-footed: a bit like a well tied down sports car suspension rather than an overloaded estate car! :-)

 

You'd need to see and drive the IVECO to be sure, but it looks very well executed. Shotts is in Scotland, about 17 miles east of Glasgow, not far off the A71. So M6/A74(M)/M74 to Junc 8 (SP Kilmarnock/Edinburgh) and left onto A71 toward Edinburgh! Don't forget your cheque book!!

 

If it's as good as it looks, and if you think it might suit you, what's (time and fuel apart) to lose? As it was purpose built, if the builder is still trading, you'd probably be able to get any alterations done at a fair price as well. Scooter up ramp and into van? All you'd need are adequate tie downs inside, to stop it joining you in the front every time you brake!

 

Thanks Brian. I think the Bailey is on 16" wheels isnt it? That Iveco I would still want to put a rack on. I really wouldnt want the bike in the van so it would turn into a bit of a project really. I just assumed it would be on a heavier chassis with twin wheels at the back. Its just not as simple as going to look at it with a cheque book. You are back to asking for weight checks, chassis info, photographs, forwarding the info to Armitage trailers etc and thats assuming you have a seller who is prepared to help and they seldom are. Say I go and buy it and discover its just not suitable to put the bike on the back we are stuffed which is why the Bailey appeals as I know it can be done.

 

I have put appeals out on here and other forums asking for people to tell me what they have successfully put scooters on but with very limited success.

[Brian Kirby]

True, though I'd be surprised if the IVECO doesn't have some pretty robust standard in-built tow bracket attachments. I'd imagine Armitage would know, or could easily find out. The seller may have details of the converter so may be happy to pass them on.

 

I gain the impression that the Ratcliffe ramp may be attached to the towbar attachment points as it is about the right width. I think the base is, actually, an IVECO Daily mini-bus rather than an Irisbus, apparently of about 2012 vintage but, depending on the original owner and from the relatively low mileage for its year, possibly originally owned by a private school or similar.

 

You could probably flog the ramp if it is unwanted, as I'd imagine the fixing points will have remained unaltered on the current facelifted Dailys. However, the reg plate (59) suggests a 2009 registration, which doesn't quite seem to gel. May also suggest the price is a bit of a "punt"!