Milenco levellers

[flicka]

Hi Bigal

I would be writing to Milenco stating the Levellers are "Unfit for Purpose" against their advertising statement & claiming a full refund.

 

Personnally I am still not convinced by their postings on this thread & as I stated earlier I will Not be buying them.

 

If they really care about Customer feedback, why are they so reluctant to demonstrate how the levellers SHOULD BE USED, at the Shows. Their earlier dismissive attitude & statement that they are already committed to other things, does not promote confidence in the Company's ability / product.

 

However if you still wish to keep your set of Levellers, before modifying them (& not knowing the full consequence of doing so) why not wait for their demo Video when their website is updated.

[Derek Uzzell]

bigal - 2010-08-07 8:49 PM

 

Mel B - 2010-08-06 8:21 PM

 

I wonder what would happen if someone took Milenco's word and put their motorhome on the levellers, didn't apply the handbrake or put it in gear because of the implied stability of the vehicle on the levellers, and the statement that chocks are not required, and then it rolled off and caused injury or damage etc ... anyone remember the American 'cruise control' case .....

 

Whilst I appreciate Milenco coming on here to give their views on their product which, as has been said, is a quality item, you simply cannot get away from the fact that the wording/claim is very misleading. Simply by removing the claim that chocks are unnecessary from the advertising etc, the situation will be resolved! :-S

As the person who raised the original post on this subject I totally agree with you MelB and stress that the problem was due to the levellers not fulfilling the claims made by Milenco in their advertising that they "eliminate the need for chocks". My specific need, and the reason I bought the Quattros in the first place, was for the vehicle to remain on the levellers whilst I swivelled the driver's seat. I had experienced problems with the Sprintshift gearbox after leaving the vehicle "in gear" on my previous levellers, hence the attraction of the qualities claimed by Milenco for their levellers. There is no doubt that the Quattros are sustantially constructed but they do not fulfil the claim made in the advertising and on the packaging with regard to "eliminating the need for chocks". I now intend to modify the Quattros in the manner described in an earlier post by someone else in an effort to overcome this problem. My intention in raising this subject was to prevent other motorhomers from making the same mistake as I had in buying them un-tried. :-S B-)

 

I don't believe sawing off the 'lips' on a Quattro (to flatten the 'pockets') will make any difference as far as retaining the motorhome 'chock-less' on the leveller is concerned. Plainly, removing the lips will mean there will be no pointy lips to dig into the tyre tread - something that has worried a few people - but, with the rear lip of each pocket amputated, there's even more opportunity for the vehicle to run off the leveller.

 

Back in May I said”

 

“I don't believe it's practicable to design a 'tall' single-piece leveller that will hold an 'un-tethered' motorhome securely throughout the leveller's full height range and in every camping situation that might be reasonably anticipated, without the leveller ending up unacceptably long.”

 

and

 

“If you want strong heavyweight levellers that offer unusually high lift, then the Quattros are a good choice. But, if you want no-chocks/no handbrake/no gear-selection levellers, then the Quattros are going to disappoint.”

 

I see no reason to alter those views.

 

[Brian Kirby]

From my little experiments with geometry, I'd say Derek is spot on!  The more you cut away the peaks of the pockets, the closer the Quattros will approximate to a smooth ramp, and the less they will be liable to retain the wheel without rolling.

One of the alternative designs, such as the Froli large adjustable type, that cups the wheel, might work better for the same amount of lift, and also looks more compact to carry/store.

[bigal]

flicka - 2010-08-07 9:24 PM

 

Hi Bigal

I would be writing to Milenco stating the Levellers are "Unfit for Purpose" against their advertising statement & claiming a full refund.

 

Personnally I am still not convinced by their postings on this thread & as I stated earlier I will Not be buying them.

 

If they really care about Customer feedback, why are they so reluctant to demonstrate how the levellers SHOULD BE USED, at the Shows. Their earlier dismissive attitude & statement that they are already committed to other things, does not promote confidence in the Company's ability / product.

 

However if you still wish to keep your set of Levellers, before modifying them (& not knowing the full consequence of doing so) why not wait for their demo Video when their website is updated.

Thanks for that Flicka, all good advice but I have already contacted Milenco by email twice and been told "we are satisfied with the product and see no reason to alter the advertising", dismissive attitude? I leave you to judge. Just to clarify my own position in this matter I have served many years as an Automotive Engineer and lectured for 11 years in the subject before retiring at age 65 in 2000. Much of that time was spent on HGVs and trailers up to 40 tons gross weight and I value informed opinion and new products that have been well thought out, just the same as the next man. What I do object to is being mis-led when spending my hard earned money, however, I have already modified the levellers to remove the "pointy bits", as Brian has said, in a way that allows my chocks to hold the vehicle in position. I accept that this may have been a little premature but you can only bang your head against a wall for so long before you get a headache. The subject has received a good airing and my original intention of notifying other motorhomers of the perceived problems has been achieved. Thank you Derek and everybody else for your input, Regards and Best Wishes to you all, :-S B-)

[Mel B]

It would be interesting to know what Trading Standards had to say about this .... but I don't intend to buy a pair of the levellers to find out!

[Derek Uzzell]

Mel B - 2010-08-08 1:24 PM

 

It would be interesting to know what Trading Standards had to say about this ....

 

 

I agree, though I’d be amazed if anyone makes the effort to approach Trading Standards about this.

 

As users of the Quattros generally seem pleased with the product except for the ‘no chocks needed’ advertising claim, I still think it would be prudent for Milenco to remove or clarify that statement when their website is modified.

[ips]

Have been following this thread but I am now a bit lost and cant be bothered re-reading. So can someone clarify

....

Do the mfrs claim that you dont need chocks or..

You dont need chocks or handbrake or leave in gear ?

[bigal]

ips - 2010-08-09 11:30 AM

 

Have been following this thread but I am now a bit lost and cant be bothered re-reading. So can someone clarify

....

Do the mfrs claim that you dont need chocks or..

You dont need chocks or handbrake or leave in gear ?[/quote Hi Ips, to clarify the main issue, Milenco claim in their advert that these levellers "pocket and support the wheel at every height, therefore ELIMINATING the need for chocks". On the packaging the claim is "wheel is pocketed at every height, NO NEED for chocks". No mention is made of putting the handbrake on or leaving in gear. Hope this is clear enough, Regards, :-S B-)

[tonyishuk]

Brian wrote in reply to a response from me,

 

""These are levelling ramps, for God's sake, not nuclear reactors!""

 

I agree :D

 

Rgds

[Bazza454]

ips - 2010-08-09 11:30 AM Have been following this thread but I am now a bit lost and cant be bothered re-reading. So can someone clarify

Nah, can't be bothered..... 

[Mel B]

tonyishuk - 2010-08-09 5:58 PM

 

Brian wrote in reply to a response from me,

 

""These are levelling ramps, for God's sake, not nuclear reactors!""

 

I agree :D

 

Rgds

 

... not for those who have bought them and they don't do the job they're supposed to they ain't!!!! :D

[Brian Kirby]

As to context Ms Bucknell, as to context!  :-)  Besides, even levelling ramps that don't perform as claimed don't have quite that level of complexity, nor do they do quite so much damage in going wrong. 

The one you take back to the retailer, and ask for your money back - the other takes you back to your maker.  :-D

But we digress, I feel.

[Mel B]

... not so sure Brian ... have you seen some motorhome owners trying to use levelling ramps (not necessarily Milenco ones). It can be quite entertaining but admittedly not quite so destructive ... but then again when they drive off the other end they don't have make a clunk!!! :-D

[Brian Kirby]

Ah touché.  How true, how very true! :-D

[tonyishuk]

Mel B - 2010-08-09 7:33 PM

 

tonyishuk - 2010-08-09 5:58 PM

 

Brian wrote in reply to a response from me,

 

""These are levelling ramps, for God's sake, not nuclear reactors!""

 

I agree :D

 

Rgds

 

... not for those who have bought them and they don't do the job they're supposed to they ain't!!!! :D

 

WELL, you just have to careful who you buy nuclear reactors from nowadays !

:-D

 

Rgds

[Derek Uzzell]

ips - 2010-08-09 11:30 AM

 

Have been following this thread but I am now a bit lost and cant be bothered re-reading. So can someone clarify

....

Do the mfrs claim that you dont need chocks or..

You dont need chocks or handbrake or leave in gear ?

 

 

It appears from Milenco’s comments on this forum and in MMM magazine that, having positioned a motorhome on Quattro levellers, they envisage the driver engaging the handbrake AND a gear. This is a procedure I’ve always employed since I took my first tentative motorcaravanning steps and I’ve always assumed it’s what everybody does as it seems like a ‘no-brainer’ to me.

 

If the driver’s seat then needs to be swivelled and the handbrake obstructs this action, then Milenco say (in MMM magazine) that they “…do not expect the vehicle to roll back (if the handbrake is momentarily released to swivel a seat for example) when level and correctly positioned with the tyres pocketed."

 

Based on my own experience and other Quattro users’ comments, this expectation is not unrealistic if a gear has first been engaged,: otherwise (and surely this should be self-evident when you look at side-view pictures of Quattro?) the motorhome will normally start to roll off the levelers.

 

The implication of Milenco’s MMM advice is that they expect the handbrake to be used with Quattro levelers, but this isn’t said in their advertising. Gear-engagement is not mentioned in MMM nor in Milenco’s advertisements. This doesn’t much matter provided that Quattro users employ the handbrake + gear-engagement method as standard practice. However, it becomes important when a motorcaravanner is led to believe by Milenco’s ‘shorthand’ advertising claim that “Pocketing the wheel at every height eliminating the need for chocks” means that his/her vehicle will sit securely on Quattro levelers in all circumstances with no handbrake or gear engaged. Personally, I think it’s overly optimistic to believe this will happen when it’s plain that Quattro, despite its dinky pointy lips, is still basically a steeply inclined plane, but, if Quattros have been bought specifically for a no gear/no handbrake/no chocks capability, encouraged by Milenco’s advertising, then the buyers are going to bel peeved when they discover the Quattros don’t perform as they had anticipated.

 

I appreciate Milenco’s participation in this discussion, but I continue to believe that the company is strenuously trying to defend advertising that is, at best, ambiguous. If a motorcaravanner wants high-lift ‘wedge-type’ levelers that will hold a vehicle with the handbrake off, no gear selected and no mechanical retainer like a chock, then Quattros won’t normally satisfy that requirement. Other wedge-type levelers won’t do this either, but that’s irrelevant as their manufacturers don’t make the ‘no chocks’ claim.

 

I hesitate to say this, but I really wonder about the suggestion in Milenco’s 6 August posting that:

 

“If you look at the postings made by people that have used these Levels they are all positive…”

 

I’m reminded of a critique of a work-colleague’s lecture that complained “He gave me the impression he thought we were all fools. Maybe we were, but he shouldn’t have made it apparent that he knew this.’

 

Come on – if all comments on the Quattro levelers have been positive, this thread wouldn’t exist!

 

[J9withdogs]

Having recently bought these levellers so that I can 'feel' my way up them without help, is there any problem with the way the tyre sits on the pointy bit if I don't move the van for several days?

[Brambles]

J9, there sure is. Now whilst tyres should be able to withstand that kind of treatment it is not good for them and gives stress to the tread plies.

 

Think of tyres like yoru feet, if you had a pebble in your shoe you could walk for bit but you would find uncomfortable and no lasting danmage would be done, stand on teh pebble for a few hours and you will damage your foot.

 

If that is a milenco ramp and you have your wheel where it will only go (ie can it go up a bit higher in the pocket shape?) then I am pretty appauled at the design. I think you should ask both Milenco and a tyre manufacturer the question. Put it this way, because you have to ask means there is doubt....so don't sit the tyre like that then there is no question of a problem.

 

[Tomo3090]

I posted a positive report on page 2 of this thread. We've had them for longer now and used them in quite a few places since that posting. They haven't failed to level the van, the van has climbed on to them without them slipping, the van hasn't rolled off them when the handbrake is applied, no gear selected and no chocks used.

 

I am happy with them and as I have stated before, I still think they are better than the Fiamma ones we had before.

 

Is anyone really daft enough to put their van on chocks without using the brakes or engaging a gear, never mind the chocks? No matter what the advertising says it's basic vehicle safety no matter what vehicle you drive.

[Brambles]

Tomo, all due respect but your post, if in response to J9's query, does not address the query about the tyre distortion. Look at the pic posted. The tyre looks like it is up against the next vertical rise, but has the trailing lip of the recess it is on digging into the tyre as if it is made for a much smaller tyre.

Are there more than one size of these and are J9's maybe the smaller ones, or is the picture deceptive?

 

 

edit - my usual stream of typos. Looked Ok before I posted

:'(

[Harvey]

J9's photo' demonstrates my main concern with the Milenco's which has been discussed earlier in this thread and when a link was posted to the Motorhome Today forum where a picture showed that the 'wheel didn't fit in the hole', although in that case it was just a spare wheel with no load on it.

 

I don't know if sustained periods with the tyre deformed in that way will cause damage but it certainly causes me concern and I would not sit my motorhome on ramps that distorted the tyre like that. This is now beyond the subject of 'the chocks' but is still relevant to the suitability of these levellers for their purpose.

 

As I understand it: Millenco make these levellers with three or four 'steps' but the 'steps' are the same size on both.

 

Someone earlier in this thread reported having shaved off the lower 'lips' ( sorry forgotten who just now ). I would like to see a photograph of how the tyres sit on them ............ please! :-)

 

Harvey

[Brambles]

Have been looking at the pic again and comparing with images on the Milenco site. J9, what tyre pressure to you have, because the deformation may be due to low tyre pressures?

 

 

[Derek Uzzell]

J9withdogs - 2010-08-29 6:25 PM

 

Having recently bought these levellers so that I can 'feel' my way up them without help, is there any problem with the way the tyre sits on the pointy bit if I don't move the van for several days?

 

The possibility of Milenco Quattro levellers damaging tyres when a motorhome sat on them long-term was also mentioned in the MMM May 2010 article (Pages 214 & 216) that provoked this thread.

 

Peter Rosenthal's comment was

 

"As for tyre damage, I can't see this happening - if you're on the ramps squarely the tyres sit neatly in the hollows. Reinforced motorhome tyres are tough constructions of thick rubber, fabric cords and contain many steel wires and cables. You have to try pretty hard todamage them."

 

Me, I'd prefer not to have the levellers' 'pointy bit' dug into the tyre as shown on your photo. I'd want to do as Brambles suggested and move the vehicle a bit futher up the ramp so that the front and rear 'lips' of the pocket dig into the tyre equally and less deeply. Of course, moving the vehicle to cause this to happen may be a bit of a palaver and there's every likelihood that getting the vehicle both beautifully level and with its tyres "squarely...in the hollows" will be impracticable.

 

My own view is that, as long as you optimise where the tyre sits on the 'pocket', the risk of tyre damage is acceptable across a period of a few days. But I certainly wouldn't want to have a vehicle sat on these things for weeks on end.

[Derek Uzzell]

Brambles - 2010-08-30 11:14 AM

 

Have been looking at the pic again and comparing with images on the Milenco site. J9, what tyre pressure to you have, because the deformation may be due to low tyre pressures?

 

 

My 3500kg Transit-based Hobby's Continental Vanco-8 215/75 R16C front tyres are run at around 48psi with a front-axle loading that doesn't exceed 1500kg.

 

If I don't accurately centralise the tyre in a Quattro 'pocket', the lip will dig deeply into the tyre as shown on J9's photo. Even when the tyre has been centralised the lips will still indent the tyre's tread noticeably

 

Obviously, the higher a tyre's inflation pressure the less the lips will indent, and, if you put a lightly motorhome, fitted with 15"wheels and 'camping-car' tyres running at 80si, carefully on Quattro levellers, deformation caused by the lips will be visibly much reduced compared to a larger circumference tyre running at a significantly lower pressure. But Milenco's design of 4- and 3-step levellers makes it inevitable that there will be some tread indentation.

[bigal]

Derek Uzzell - 2010-08-11 8:40 AM

 

ips - 2010-08-09 11:30 AM

 

Have been following this thread but I am now a bit lost and cant be bothered re-reading. So can someone clarify

....

Do the mfrs claim that you dont need chocks or..

You dont need chocks or handbrake or leave in gear ?

 

 

It appears from Milenco’s comments on this forum and in MMM magazine that, having positioned a motorhome on Quattro levellers, they envisage the driver engaging the handbrake AND a gear. This is a procedure I’ve always employed since I took my first tentative motorcaravanning steps and I’ve always assumed it’s what everybody does as it seems like a ‘no-brainer’ to me.

 

If the driver’s seat then needs to be swivelled and the handbrake obstructs this action, then Milenco say (in MMM magazine) that they “…do not expect the vehicle to roll back (if the handbrake is momentarily released to swivel a seat for example) when level and correctly positioned with the tyres pocketed."

 

Based on my own experience and other Quattro users’ comments, this expectation is not unrealistic if a gear has first been engaged,: otherwise (and surely this should be self-evident when you look at side-view pictures of Quattro?) the motorhome will normally start to roll off the levelers.

 

The implication of Milenco’s MMM advice is that they expect the handbrake to be used with Quattro levelers, but this isn’t said in their advertising. Gear-engagement is not mentioned in MMM nor in Milenco’s advertisements. This doesn’t much matter provided that Quattro users employ the handbrake + gear-engagement method as standard practice. However, it becomes important when a motorcaravanner is led to believe by Milenco’s ‘shorthand’ advertising claim that “Pocketing the wheel at every height eliminating the need for chocks” means that his/her vehicle will sit securely on Quattro levelers in all circumstances with no handbrake or gear engaged. Personally, I think it’s overly optimistic to believe this will happen when it’s plain that Quattro, despite its dinky pointy lips, is still basically a steeply inclined plane, but, if Quattros have been bought specifically for a no gear/no handbrake/no chocks capability, encouraged by Milenco’s advertising, then the buyers are going to bel peeved when they discover the Quattros don’t perform as they had anticipated.

 

I appreciate Milenco’s participation in this discussion, but I continue to believe that the company is strenuously trying to defend advertising that is, at best, ambiguous. If a motorcaravanner wants high-lift ‘wedge-type’ levelers that will hold a vehicle with the handbrake off, no gear selected and no mechanical retainer like a chock, then Quattros won’t normally satisfy that requirement. Other wedge-type levelers won’t do this either, but that’s irrelevant as their manufacturers don’t make the ‘no chocks’ claim.

 

I hesitate to say this, but I really wonder about the suggestion in Milenco’s 6 August posting that:

 

“If you look at the postings made by people that have used these Levels they are all positive…”

 

I’m reminded of a critique of a work-colleague’s lecture that complained “He gave me the impression he thought we were all fools. Maybe we were, but he shouldn’t have made it apparent that he knew this.’

 

Come on – if all comments on the Quattro levelers have been positive, this thread wouldn’t exist!

I totally agree with you, and the advertisement is ambiguous and mis-leading. Milenco are afraid to admit having mis-led the motorhoming fraternity even though it may have been un-intentional. :-S B-)