Robinhood Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 ...or does anyone else find this article (and particulalrly the headline), rather misleading? https://www.outandaboutlive.co.uk/motorhomes/news/european-rule-changes-means-more-motorhome-payload Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malc d Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 Yep. See what you mean. Seems to me the total payload doesn't increase - you just choose between carrying water OR equipment. No change there then ? ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brock Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 The heading is simply wrong and discredits what should have been a factually accurate article. The Google translation of my 2013 Hymer brochure says, "Mass in running order in accordance with EN 1646-2, including basic equipment ... filled water tank in driving position with 20 litres." The drain plug on my fresh water tank has an option to be set at 20l with anything in excess of this draining out. It can also be set to allow for anything level up to the maximum tank size. As Hymer have been doing this since at least 2013, it does question whether the following comment is right, "As the manufacturer would be required to install a second drain tap set at the level of any figure other than empty, the reality is that a motorhome will either be specified with full tanks or empty tanks". That said, I read the article thanks to Robinhood and if people buy other than Hymer motorhomes, is probably factually correct. I wouldn't expect the author to have an in-depth knowledge of every motorhome manufactured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HymerVan Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 No it is not just you. In my view if you disregard the conventions and the terminology about the expression of "unladen" weight and the maximum weight which the vehicle is allowed to be you still finish up with exactly the same maximum weight which will often be 3.5 tonnes or may be more. The vehicle leaving the production line will have weight added by fuel, water , passengers accessories luggage food and whatever. Irrespective of how the basic unladen weight is calculated the maximum weight does not change and consequently the available payload does not change. What has changed is what I would call the theoretical payload. If anything the change is dangerous because it draws attention away from the issue of matching payload and users needs in the real world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek Uzzell Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 For some years it’s been commonplace with Continental-built motorhomes to specify the vehicle’s water-carrying capacity using two figures. One figure relates to the total capacity of the vehicle’s fresh-water tank, while the other (lower) figure indicates how much water can be carried while the vehicle is being driven and still comply with the formula used to define how many adults can legally be transported in the motorhome. The latter stipulation won’t much matter in the UK, but it does matter in some countries (eg. France) that use that type of formula. When ‘two figure’ capacity-data are provided the lower figure may be as little as 20 litres and (as Brock says) the motorhome converter may fit some means of draining the tank to that level. But a zero capacity has never been used, as travelling with a fully drained down fresh-water tank would be an unrealistic expectation and, very likely, would require the motorhome’s water system to be ‘bled’ each time before the system could be used. It’s much more sensible to include the weight of a full tank of fresh-water in the Mass in Running Order calculation (as Elddis has apparently done in the past) and leave the choice of how much water is carried to the customer. If it is felt that motorhome buyers may be unable to comprehend that driving a motorhome with, say, 40 litres of water in a 120-litre-capacity tank would ’save’ 80kg of weight, a compulsory small booklet on basic arithmetic could be provided with the vehicle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 Just from experience gained reading posts on this forum, it is plain to me that a lot of first time motorhomers (and some more experienced ones to boot!) have little understanding of what payload is, how it is calculated, and why it matters. Causing additional confusion by proposing that the weight of water carried in tanks needs to be calculated, or that additional equipment can be carried at the expense of some of the water, seems to me unhelpful in the extreme, and highly liable to fool some into travelling overloaded. Our van has the usual Hymer nonsense about dumping all save 20 litres when travelling, which I a) completely ignore (I fill), and b) have always regarded as seeking unjustified market advantage over those who declare the MIRO with full tanks (or more often 90% full tanks). Is one supposed to fill on arrival at any location (or only when the tank runs dry with the consequences Derek mentions), and then drain back to 20 litres on exit? Is this not completely unnecessary wastage of water - and time? The previous system always struck me as barmy, with its stipulation that the MIRO should be calculated with gas (often without stipulating how many cylinders, of what capacity, or of what construction), fuel and water all at 90% full (and how is anyone expected to know?). This is just worse. Whatever the statistical likelihood, surely the only safe assumption is that at some point all reserves will be 100% full. The difference between that and MAM should then be the basis on which payload should be declared. At least that is clear. It is what I do when assessing the suitability of vans, and is the main reason I opted to have ours uprated to 3.7 tonnes by Hymer. As used, it flirts with the standard 3.5 tonne limit, so I've a 200kg margin, which leaves me comfortable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robinhood Posted October 28, 2015 Author Share Posted October 28, 2015 ...my concern was the one that Malc picked up on. To me, the headline implies at first pass that there is some change to regulations that has increased the possible overall carrying capacity of a vehicle. Payload is, of course, a rather moot term, and if used in one of the ways often quoted (e.g. MAM less MIRO) then the "payload" figure that results may well now increase, but my concern was that the headline might lead people to believe they can add more overall load than they could previously, rather ran reflect "the robbing from Peter to pay Paul". In reality, the story simply covers the fact that UK practice is simply being aligned with that which has been common on the continent for some time; the weight figures (particularly MIRO) may now be represented differently, but no-one can legally carry any more than they could previously (when the published figures were on a different basis). I don't think the headline serves to put across that point. (Incidentally, I'm with Brian in that I think it would be far safer and sensible to derive an MIRO figure using the maximum possible water load, but of course, this would make some of the marginally quoted current values of "payload" look even more absurd). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteH Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 Hi Maybe too simplistic. But regardless of what is being carried, be it water or wine!. People or swine? The bottom line is the maximum Gross (in old money) As measured ready to roll with occupants on a certified weighbridge?. Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 Robinhood - 2015-10-28 7:11 PM....................... but of course, this would make some of the marginally quoted current values of "payload" look even more absurd). Which, IMHO, they are! :-D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Collings Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 I am with Pete H Its only when you buy that paylod is significant and even then a very flexible figure. All that will ever be checked is GVW and axle loads and everyone should take their motorcaravan a weighbridge once in a while as vans like people tend to put on weight if they eat too much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brock Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 At least Hymer's brochures give a clear indication of how it calculates weight. My current plated 13 BClass 504 was quoted in the brochure as weighing 2,900kg. A better built 05 plated Hymer 504 was quoted in the brochure as weighing 2,940kg. So did the 504 lose 40kg of weight in the eight years? The answer is no. The 2013 model weighs more; the 2005 weight included 120l of water plus two full gas bottles, the 2013 model includes just 20l of water and full aluminium gas bottles. Therefore, the latter model is over 60kg heavier. And that's before we start adding in the chassis upgrades for safety and easy driving. So despite Hymer's much heralded weight loss programme, the 504 has put on much more weight than I have in the last 8 years. But I have not been misled. Hymer's brochures have been very clear. It's nothing new. Back in the 90's, we had Swift Royales and Chelston gave us the MIRO and payload figures which meant if we took our two children and their bikes, we couldn't carry anywhere near full water tanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flicka Posted November 5, 2015 Share Posted November 5, 2015 But just what exactly is the 20litres. Is it 20 litres in total (all fresh water inclusive) or 20litre in the water tank + the contents of the water heater(i.e. another c10litres) If 20 litres IN TOTAL, I humbly suggest the Euro Norm organisation & the manufacturers readdress the definition or maybe they hadn't thought it through in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 20 litres in fresh water tank + water heater contents. Achieved by a two stage drain valve, first stage reduces f/w tank level to (claimed) 20 litres, second stage dumps the lot. Intended as sufficient for travel purposes, which is where payload consideration come in. Implication is to brim on arrival, and reduce to 20 litres at departure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Drew Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 Our new 2016 Benimar Mileo 202 has a mass in running order with 50 litres of fresh water but no tap to drain to this level only one to empty or rely on the fairly inaccurate digital level indicator. :-S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brock Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 I've never used the 20l setting, Brian, although I know it is there and you can feel it as you open/close the drain plug. We've used a 25l container to fill our Hymer water tanks for over 15 years because access is so easy and apart from the liftingcarrying, it's quicker thanking a hose. Steve, if you can fill the water tank from inside, try using a measured container if need be. For filling with a container from the external filling point, we would use a plastic pop bottle with a hole cut in as a funnel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tracker Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 No it's not just you! Logic would suggest to me that if someone designs and constructs a self contained machine capable, as so many advertise them to be, of being lived in for more than the occasional night then said machine should be capable of carrying full containers of everything needed to support a comfortable life and to be able to travel where there are perhaps no regular or convenient facilities to replenish - as well as having a proper weight allowance for the occupants to be able to sustain comfortable travel and touring. How hard can it be!!! But it might well cost more to achieve and would Joe Public be happy to pay the extra costs for peace of mind when many of them will never use the vehicle to it's full potential I wonder? Having been caught out once by all the hassle of buying a van whose maker was 'economical with the truth' about payload it won't happen to me again. Perhaps if buyers could become as aware of payload requirements and limitations as they are about all the other fancy gizmos that take away payload makers might be forced to become more focussed on better design and construction as opposed to adding more tech and reducing weight? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donna miller Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 Payload is payload! it doesn't matter whether you calculate it with a full tank of water or an empty one, it all counts towards your gross. In good old fashioned terms you get a gross weight and a tare weight. the tare weight is your empty vehicle with everything you would normally expect to carry, take that from the gross vehicle weight and you get payload. I've just spent all week delivering driver cpc modules to LGV drivers, now some of them were not the brightest sparks but even they worked it out in the end. On a different subject, Personally I think drivers of any vehicle of 3500kg or over should take periodic training regardless of whether they drive vocationally or for recreation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tracker Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 donna miller - 2015-11-06 7:31 PM Payload is payload! it doesn't matter whether you calculate it with a full tank of water or an empty one, it all counts towards your gross. On a different subject, Personally I think drivers of any vehicle of 3500kg or over should take periodic training regardless of whether they drive vocationally or for recreation. I don't think calculating payload is the main issue here Donna - but the lack of adequate payload certainly is as is manufacturers lack of info and integrity at juggling the weights to exagerate the available payload, one might even say deliberately mislead if one were being unkind? Regarding training I think that you are right but it would be good to see it done on an advisory basis at a reasonable cost so that only the truly dangerous were suspended with everyone else just getting guidance on the finer points. It needs to apply across the EU as some of the motorhome driving, especially in France has to be seen to be believed! I passed my car driving test in 1962 and in spite of driving pretty much anything non HGV/PSV (pretty much incident free) ever since I have never had any further instruction or testing - not even from prospective employers years ago other than a quick drive round the block so maybe it is time - before I hit something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donna miller Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 Periodic training (driver cpc) came into force back in 2009 and applies to anyone who has a C1/D1 or above licence who drives in the course of their work (Exemptions do apply) . I really don't think it will be that long before the EU extend it to 'Non commercial' C1/D1 licence holders especially since those with 'aquired rights' are starting to have those rights removed and entitlements for different vehicles are being tightened. The trouble is, these things are 'snuck' in by the back door by beaurocrats and before you know it, even old farts like (most) of the people on here discover that their entitlement to drive up to 7500kgs on a standard licence has been withdrawn long before their 70th Birthday and to drive even a 3500kgs van requires additional training, and the worst thing is, it's never widely advertised until it's too late. You probably know that anyone with a vocational licence has to have a medical every 5 years to renew their licence and that it's valid until you are 70, well now that same licence has to be renewed every 5 years even if you pass your LGV/PSV test at any level at age 21, admittedly they don't have to have a full medical until 45 but still have to sign medical declarations every 5 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tracker Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 I've always thought it strange that a driving license to propel a lethal machine is valid for so many years without retest or top up training revison - 54 years and counting in my case! The amazing thing to me is not how many crashes there are on our roads by why there are so few given the basic lack of ability, perception and courtesy of so many drivers - young and old, new and experienced - to read the road ahead, consider other road users and pedestrians, and generally drive in a civilised manner. Rant over! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donna miller Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 Tracker - 2015-11-07 11:00 AM I've always thought it strange that a driving license to propel a lethal machine is valid for so many years without retest or top up training revison - 54 years and counting in my case! The amazing thing to me is not how many crashes there are on our roads by why there are so few given the basic lack of ability, perception and courtesy of so many drivers - young and old, new and experienced - to read the road ahead, consider other road users and pedestrians, and generally drive in a civilised manner. Rant over! Not a rant, just common sense, Makes a change from the " I've been driving for 50 years, I don't need any training/re-test" brigade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.