Should MMM and other magazines weigh Test Vehicles to check payload ?

[mike 202]

I and several of my friends have taken our Motorhomes to the local weigh bridge, and guess what ?? Without exception they were all at the upper limit of the 5% manufacturing tolerance allowed.

I took my Motorhome back to the factory where they confirmed that it was at the upper 5%. My User payload as per the brochure was therefore reduced.

So should Motorhome Magazines take their test vehicles to a weighbridge to start to get a representative idea of how much we should trust brochure Technical specifications ?

I realise that Manufacturers would probably claim that a sample of one was not representative, but at least it would give us an idea.

Finally an EX Police friend said that he was caught out once by the weight issue and now will never buy a motorhome unless he can take it to a weighbridge before completing the deal.

 

It has resulted in either re-plating or judicious pruning of what we take.

[spospe]

Good point mike and I think that the answer is "yes". If nothing else it would focus manufacturers minds on the subject.

 

I have often read testers reports where they comment on loading margins and the doubt in their minds as to just what a particular 'van can carry.

[Clive]

YES

 

c.

[LordThornber]

Yes, and if any testers/MMM/Which Motorhome cohorts are reading this, why does it not take place already?

 

Martyn

[duffers]

no brainer :-S

 

it doesn't take long - it is at least as crucial as the testers subjective opinions on the vehicle

at least as important as other factual elements - ie no of berths / no of seat belts

 

of course - it may upset the manufacturer - but you then have to ask why the tests are being done

to help promote the vehicle

or

to provide useful information to potential buyers and magazine subscribers

 

 

[Guest JudgeMental]

YES! German magazines weight EACH axle and each wheel! Then give a very comprehensive weight breakdown with different loads etc.....

 

UK mags a joke in this respect, probably because they are to cosy with manufacturers/advertisers and not to bothered about their paying customers :-S

 

The mags should be advocates for the subscribers best interests:-S This is the only way manufacturers will sit up and listen......until then people will still be charmed/mugged into buying inappropriate campers for their needs *-)

[cronkle]

Yes.

 

I also think that each axle should be weighed as well.

[dikyenfo]

This is why I tow the pretty BV64e trailer from Ifor and with all the relative junk you need to carry plus 25 5lit wine boxes I dread to think how much overweight I would be without it. Coming back that is!!!

[DESCO]

Have not posted now for ages but felt I had to on this thread this is one of the reasons that I no longer buy MMM or any other publication they do not give the information needed to help make an informed decision.

 

I feel that no British publication serves the buyer, only the manufacturer.

 

 

Dave

[Guest Tracker]

I suspect that if they did they would soon incur the wrath of manufacturers when a van is found to be over weight or to have an inadequate payload!

 

Remember that MMM is not there to provide consumer information and facts for buyers and users - it exists only to make money for Warners - and it won't do that by risking alienating any converters with any home truths?

 

Better for MMM to say nowt!

 

Cynical? Moi? You betcha!

[Mickydripin]

Yes! Yes! Yes!

 

[Keithl]

Yes, I agree with all the above, it is information sorely missing.

 

Keith.

[nowtelse2do]

Of course they should, What's a M/H for? to run around empty all the time.

Dave

[Dave Newell]

Tracker - 2010-09-08 5:13 PM

 

I suspect that if they did they would soon incur the wrath of manufacturers when a van is found to be over weight or to have an inadequate payload!

 

Remember that MMM is not there to provide consumer information and facts for buyers and users - it exists only to make money for Warners - and it won't do that by risking alienating any converters with any home truths?

 

Better for MMM to say nowt!

 

Cynical? Moi? You betcha!

 

This is such a load of typical Dickie rubbish! The only test I've ever done on a new van was for MMM (Mobilveta Kimu) and I did take it to a weighbridge and the results were published in said mag. The only reason I haven't done more tests of motorhomes is I don't want to and I don't have the time.

 

For what its worth I agree, road tests should include a weighbridge visit and separate axle weights should be recorded and published.

 

D.

[Mel B]

Yes, as a whole and both axles separately, and this should be done totally UNLADEN and that means no water, gas bottles etc, nowt, and with only the minimal amount of fuel too. That is the ONLY way you can be sure that the figures mean anything. This should be done on ALL articles about NEW straight off production motorhomes.

 

If magazines make reference to payload at all, as they do, then they should give the above FULL information, or not bother at all. If nothing was stated any possible purchasers would have to find out the information for themselves which is not as convienient but is the better alternative than the current situation where some are lulled into a false sense of security by seeing it 'in print' in a magazine article and 'believing' it is totally accurate.

 

As for the magazines not wanting to do this - I suspect its more to do with time etc, than anything else. Many 'comparison' tests, where several vans are checked out at the same time on a dealer's forecourt, are just layout/value surveys, and never move once inch except for photos.

[Brian Kirby]

YES!  Mass in running order, both axles.  Plus give weight/s of any options/extras fitted.  Elementary.  Inexplicable omission.

[Guest Tracker]

Thanks Dave - another typical newel post - wooden inflexible and predictable!

 

[duffers]

wot a punny man eh *-)

[flicka]

I honestly think Dave has hit the point here.

In theory YES & for each axle in a fully unladen state. So there is a level playing field.

Even the Manufacturers can not agree to adhere to a set criteria for stating the MAM/MIRO (Mass in Running Order)/Payload.

When looking at some claims they b*g*er belief.

Typically 3500 KG Gross Coachbuilts appear to be running around 3000 to 3100kg, giving 400 / 500kg payload but then another manufacturer quote >700kg payload. HOW - are the walls & roof made of cardboard ?

 

The problem - of all the manydifferent models on the market only a SMALL % are actually tested by any magazine.

 

Despite Trackers regarding magazines sucking up to the manufacturers to maintain advertising income, the reality is that the manufacturers may reduce the No. of Vans made available to the Magazines for testing. So no one is any wiser or benefits.

IMHO the NCC should demand that manufacturers weigh a continuing % of production vans, not just the prototypes.

Even going to the extent that a Motorhome has a Certified payload, if necessary.

[Dave Newell]

Tracker - 2010-09-08 8:24 PM

 

Thanks Dave - another typical newel post - wooden inflexible and predictable!

 

Cheers Dick, well you wouldn't want a floppy Newel post would you :D .

 

D.

[Poppy]

Yes yes and yes again.

[AliB]

Mel B - 2010-09-08 6:21 PM

 

Yes, as a whole and both axles separately, and this should be done totally UNLADEN and that means no water, gas bottles etc, nowt, and with only the minimal amount of fuel too. That is the ONLY way you can be sure that the figures mean anything.

 

.

 

But this is not how some manufacturers quote MIRO.

Eg. from Swift:

"The Mass in Running Order is the mass of the unladen vehicle including a 75kg allowance for the driver plus engine coolants and 90% of the fuel tank, water tank and gas capacity."

 

So you can only be a vehicle tester for magazines if you weigh 75Kg!

[Guest JudgeMental]

mass in running order is the best bet...and you can easily work out where you are from there.

 

The German mags are all over the latest Fiat panel van conversions WARNING that the 3300kg chassis (probably the most popular) will be overweight on front axle if carrying 4 people. Because of this, and the need to carry our 2 teenagers occasionally I am looking at a 3500kg chassis

 

I feel like our interests are being looked after? and only know this from reading Promobil articles *-) So if they can dish the detail and look after our interests why not mags here I wonder *-)

[mike 202]

Quote : From the Judge.

The German mags are all over the latest Fiat panel van conversions WARNING that the 3300kg chassis (probably the most popular) will be overweight on front axle if carrying 4 people. Because of this, and the need to carry our 2 teenagers occasionally I am looking at a 3500kg chassis. Quote.

Entirely agree that the above info is vital.

On the subject of testers not actually driving the motorhomes and merely looking at them at a dealers etc, this does not stop the vehicle being weighed. There is no need to go to a weighbridge.

A/S for example have a set of sensors, each the size of a set of bathroom scale with a battery powered control box. They were kind enough to weigh my vehicle and the whole operation took about 20 minutes and gave me the weight on each of the wheels. I guess that they are similar to ones used by VOSA or the French Police.

 

So any magazine could buy a set of these scales and carry them to the test vehicle in their car. Apart from cost of the kit there is no reason/excuse in my opinion for the weight not to be included in any test. Motorhomes at dealers or indeed shows are in my experience always empty.

[mike 202]

Just read "The Caravan Club" Design and Drive Awards and SURPRISE SURPRISE, they mark the payload figure with an * and this means and I qoute " * payload figures throughout are supplied by the manufacturers" End Quote.

 

SO do they not believe the figures !!! all of the other figures - Length, Width, height, MTPL, where do they come from a) the manufacturer or B) do they run around with a tape measure in hand.

 

It seems to me that a lot of people out there are aware of the anomolies when it comes to payload, but not prepared to do anything about checking it and publishing the results. Case proven >:-)