240kg load margin anyone?

[Brian Kirby]

Robinhood - 2011-02-04 5:26 PM

Brian Kirby - 2011-02-04 2:55 PM

The way MRO has been calculated is not stated, neither is the gas locker capacity, fresh or waste water tank capacities, nor installed battery size. 

To be fair to Elddis, the situation is somewhat better than this as it does give some details in the footnotes as to how the MRO has been calculated and they appear to have absorbed maximum manufacturing tolerances in the figure. ...................

OK, I accept I'm being a bit picky, and perhaps unfair, in saying they do not state how they arrive at MRO.  :-)

However, what they do say is, IMO, inexcusably vague.  An "allowance for the driver" and a "tolerance for materials variances" doesn't exactly convey what has actually been added in - although "full tank of fuel" is nicely unequivocal.  :-)

But then you get "90% of the water tank and the gas bottles and the auxiliary battery".  What on earth does that mean?  Really?

Logically, that the water tank is 90% full (with capacity unstated).  

But then, are the (unspecified number, type, and size) "gas bottles" full, 90% full, or have they taken 90% of the gross weight of the gas bottles?  One can but guess. 

One must logically assume they haven't taken 90% of the battery weight, but then, by the same token, does that mean that the 90% figure was not intended to apply to the (unspecified as above) gas bottles? 

It is a complete shambles, and I'm afraid I tend to judge this kind of rubbish as representative of the company that puts it up.

Since it is perfectly possible, with a small amount of thought, to construct sentences in English that say what one means, why does a company do contrariwise?

Is the company illiterate and incompetent (in which case can they read and understand the various motorhome component installation instructions?), or are they merely devious and trying deliberately to conceal their true meaning?  So there you have it, incompetent, or dishonest?  Can't have it both ways, can they?  :-D

[Robinhood]

Brian Kirby - 2011-02-04 7:00 PM

Is the company illiterate and incompetent (in which case can they read and understand the various motorhome component installation instructions?), or are they merely devious and trying deliberately to conceal their true meaning?  So there you have it, incompetent, or dishonest?  Can't have it both ways, can they?  :-D

I'm generally a believer in Hanlon's Razor, but it does make you think.

I certainly wasn't intending to disagree with you Brian; as in the rest of my text, I think it verges on criminal to offer such a 'van on the standard chassis even if you put the 'best' interpretation on the stated method of MRO calculation.

The market this is being aimed at doesn't (IMO) envisage pared-down living, and I would think that two (real-world) people (90kg over the assumed 75kg driver allowance), an awning(30kg), a bike-rack and two bikes (60kg), and an additional battery (25kg) would put you very close to the limit without any of the other accoutrements necessary for a good holiday (including the basics of food and clothes).  (205kg of the 260kg payload has disappeared).  Even applying "reductio ad absurdum" to the rest of ones requirements is not likely to suffice.

It really isn't on, and if the EN standards allow such a 'van to appear to be acceptable, then there is something wrong.

Edit: to fix quote

[flicka]

Absolutely spot on Brian

 

Looking at this months MMM Buyers Guide, I extracted the details for the Elddis Aspire range & on a few competing models.

 

Model Length MAM Payload

Elldis Aspire 215 6.47 3300 200

Elldis Aspire 255 7.37 3500 214

Elldis Aspire 240 7.37 3500 240

Autocruise Starspirit 6.47 3500 562

Autosleeper Broadway 6.28 3500 544

Bessacarr E460 6.47 3500 562

Burstner Ixeo IT 645 6.69 3500 455

Dethleffs Globus T11 6.26 3495 475

Hobby Toskana D600FL 6.47 3500 618

Laika X610R 6.59 3500 546

Rapido 646 6.47 3500 660

 

 

There appears to be strong valid argument that all the new Elddis Aspire models should be on larger Chassis. C hanging the 215 to the 3500kg chassis would still leave it at only 400kg payload & still less than the competitors model of similar length & price. The 255 & 240 would need to be on the 3850kg chassis to give a payload similar to their competitors offerings.

 

Elddis , by using the marketing name “Aspire” can be assumed to be targeting a more affluent sector of the market, who usually want more toys, bells & whistles fitted or on-board, which the Aspire will not be able to accommodate.

 

Typically the continental built Motorhomes differ from UK models by not having a full Cooker & maybe a Microwave,, but they alone do not account for the payload differentials. Although how Hobby & Rapido achieve such high payloads, I do have an experience of their models to know.

So do we deduce that the Elddis range are built of very much heavier materials. I would not think so. More a question of trying to produce a model in a higher sector of the market, whilst not exceeding the 3500kg MAM threshold.

 

"to quote Robinhood" It really isn't on, and if the EN standards allow such a 'van to appear to be acceptable, then there is something wrong."

 

Perhaps it is time the EN Standard should be reviewed with minimum payloads applicable to No. of seats/berths, which must be clearly identified in any advertising literature, preferably showing the EN minimums & those applicable to the model.

 

This would also have the benefit of many "new" purchasers not being duped by ommision of information.

Reviewers would not be put in an invideous situation.

[Brian Kirby]

Robinhood - 2011-02-04 8:04 PM [

.............I'm generally a believer in Hanlon's Razor, but it does make you think.....................

Hey, thanks for Hanlon's razor: hadn't come across that one before!  Like it.  :-D

Nooooooo, wasn't taken as disagreement at all - though do feel free if so moved! 

I'm afraid you just gave me the excuse to say what I had really thought about their rather patronising version of technical information, but hesitated to say before.  Maybe its just me, but I got a distinct flavour of someone saying "What's the point of putting all that lot in, they'll never understand it: I mean - I don't!"  :-D

[Poppy]

The other thing is that people new to motorhoming will see this van being praised in the caravan club magazine and think that if a reputavle club like this endorse this product it must be o.k.

[laimeduck]

This is probably a silly question!

I bought my Benimar 2nd hand. The MAM is 3850Kg & I have no figure for the MRO ( We have sketchy documentation on the particular model & Benimar tell me it is a "general" handbook - they don't produce specific ones?).

 

So how do I know what my allowable payload is?

 

(Please don't tell me I've got to empty it, have it weighed (including the allowances for MRO) then subtract the figure from MAM))?

[dikyenfo]

I would not believe anything the Caravan Club says about MH's they just cynically want extra advertising money and their accumulated knowledge could be written on a pin head.

I have been on their sites and although people have stated they were tolerated that was not my experience and being bullied about the pitch and direction to face plus many other piddling rules , they can stuff their mag and their poxy snobby club.

[Robinhood]

laimeduck - 2011-02-05 9:31 AM This is probably a silly question! I bought my Benimar 2nd hand. The MAM is 3850Kg & I have no figure for the MRO ( We have sketchy documentation on the particular model & Benimar tell me it is a "general" handbook - they don't produce specific ones?). So how do I know what my allowable payload is? (Please don't tell me I've got to empty it, have it weighed (including the allowances for MRO) then subtract the figure from MAM))?

I can't give you a definitive answer, but maybe can put your mind at rest.

The Perseo was built as standard on the 3500kg chassis, uprateable as required to 3850kg (I have a copy of the '04 pricelist here, but it doesn't have the weights).

My experience of such Benimars is that they all had an MRO of around 3000kg, so they were slightly marginal without the upgrade (I had an '02 6000ST, and upgraded).

An MMM review of the Perseo 710CRK in March '04 had the MRO at 3040kg, so on a 3850kg upgrade, I would say you have ample capacity. 

Edit:

I note there was also a Dec '04 review of a Perseo 710CC which states the same MRO of 3040kg 

[lennyhb]

laimeduck - 2011-02-05 9:31 AM

 

 

So how do I know what my allowable payload is?

 

(Please don't tell me I've got to empty it, have it weighed (including the allowances for MRO) then subtract the figure from MAM))?

 

But of course (lol)

Providing you have everything loaded on board for your trip & you are under 3850kg & within the axle ratings does it really matter.

 

 

[Derek Uzzell]

laimeduck - 2011-02-05 9:31 AM

 

This is probably a silly question!

I bought my Benimar 2nd hand. The MAM is 3850Kg & I have no figure for the MRO ( We have sketchy documentation on the particular model & Benimar tell me it is a "general" handbook - they don't produce specific ones?).

 

So how do I know what my allowable payload is?

 

(Please don't tell me I've got to empty it, have it weighed (including the allowances for MRO) then subtract the figure from MAM))?

 

Strictly speaking, there is no such thing as an "allowable payload".

 

Your Benimar's VIN-plate carries MAM, axle-load and 'train' data. As long as you operate your vehicle without exceeding any of those figures, then you are legally OK weight-wise.

 

What you are really saying is that, because you haven't got any sort of 'official' MRO figure for your motorhome, you can't subtract the MRO from the 3850kg MAM to obtain a ball-park payload figure that might give you a fair idea of the vehicle's potential load-carrying capacity.

 

In fact, because (presumably) you are already operating the vehicle, this doesn't matter much as you will have already loaded the vehicle with all the 'stuff' you've decided you need to tour with. What is more important is whether or not you are running overweight, and the only way you'll find that out is by weighing your Benimar fully loaded.

 

If you want to know your vehicle's actual MRO and load-carrying capacity, then (even though you don't want telling) the procedure you've described in your final sentence is what you'll need to follow.

 

Best I can offer is a 'yet to be confirmed' payload figure for a Perseo 710CCX in a late-2005 French camping-car magazine. This was 407kg and almost certainly related to a 3500kg MAM version. So, logically, your motorhome should have a MRO around 3100kg and a payload around 750kg. (I did check in a couple of 2005/2006 "Which Motorcaravan" magazines but Perso payload figures were 'not available')

[laimeduck]

Thanks Robin & Lenny

 

- My mind is now at rest - well at least until the sun goes past the yardarm?!

 

Jeremy

[Brian Kirby]

dikyenfo - 2011-02-05 9:48 AM I would not believe anything the Caravan Club says about MH's they just cynically want extra advertising money and their accumulated knowledge could be written on a pin head. I have been on their sites and although people have stated they were tolerated that was not my experience and being bullied about the pitch and direction to face plus many other piddling rules , they can stuff their mag and their poxy snobby club.

Well, that doesn't actually get us any further with payloads, though, does it?  I have used several Caravan Club sites with our vans, and not found them that bad.  Yes they are a bit regimented, and some of the wardens are pillocks, but far from all.  I assume you weren't a member, and hadn't read, or openly resented, the siting rules, if you got such a hard time.  However, condemning out of hand based on (apparently) very limited experience is hardly fair or balanced.

[Brian Kirby]

laimeduck - 2011-02-05 9:31 AM This is probably a silly question! I bought my Benimar 2nd hand. The MAM is 3850Kg & I have no figure for the MRO ( We have sketchy documentation on the particular model & Benimar tell me it is a "general" handbook - they don't produce specific ones?). So how do I know what my allowable payload is? (Please don't tell me I've got to empty it, have it weighed (including the allowances for MRO) then subtract the figure from MAM))?

As replies above, but! 

First, you will be close to the UK tipping point for lower speed limits, based on an unladen weight of 3,050kg.  You may be challenged by the police of exceeding 50mph on ordinary roads.  For that reason alone, it may pay you to take everything out, including gas cyls, tools, water, waste etc and get a weighbridge ticket proving it is below 3,050kg.  Note that this is unladen, not MRO which includes gas, water, etc.

Second, you will be subject to lower speed limits abroad because your MAM exceeds 3,500kg.  See speed limits string for further info.

[laimeduck]

Brian - Thanks

 

I read your reminder on Speed limits in France/Europe which is why I checked my weights etc.

 

Its fairly confusing as the Vin plate under the bonnet says MAM 3500Kg, The Vin plate next to the habitation door says MAM 3500Kg, there is a easily removed sticker (SV Tech) in the passenger footwell that says 3850Kg and the Log book says 3850 Kg. I guess the 3850 on the Log book is the decider, but a self adhesive Vin sticker?

 

If I can find a weighbridge I may just empty her and find out.

 

Jeremy

[lennyhb]

Check your local council website for weighbridges, if you can find a VOSA roadside one they usually free and you can use them 24/7.

 

 

[Brian Kirby]

Jeremy, you should have evidence (correspondence of some kind) from SV Tech, that they have actually issued the "sticker" you describe, somewhere within the documentation supplied with the van.  That may answer most of the following points/queries.

I think it may also be wise to investigate, with SV Tech, the basis on which they revised the MAM.  Their evidence should have been vetted by DVLA before agreeing to modify the V5C, so you are right that the V5C should be the definitive proof.  However, the disclaimer on the V5C basically says it doesn't prove anything!  :-)

The presence of the SV Tech sticker may not convince everyone (for example foreign police, if challenged).  It suggests to me a "desk" exercise, where the manufacturer's data hes been re-assessed by SV Tech (without inspecting the vehicle, by accessing the manufacturer's vehicle data) to permit a higher MAM, but without carrying out any actual modifications.  So, same chassis, same springs, same brakes, same wheels and tyres, and same individual axle loads.  With this method, the increased MAM seems commonly to be achieved by adding together the front and rear axle load limits, and uprating the MAM to, or close to, the resulting total.  This is all perfectly above board and legal, but I have considerable reservations about the process and its results.

If you look at the plates supplied by Fiat and Benimar, they will tell you your MAM, gross train weight, front axle load limit and rear axle load limit.  These should be in rows beneath the VIN, numbered 1, 2, 3 and 4.  The SV Tech plate should have a similar order of weights where "1" will have increased to 3850 (+350 kg compared to the originals), and "2", "3", and "4" will, I suspect, have remained unaltered.

Now, if you subtract the original MAM from the sum of the original axle limits, you will have a surplus of 350kg, or more.  That is so that loading the vehicle to its MAM would not, under normal circumstances, result in overload of either axle.  It is, if you will, a "fudge factor", that recognises that in the real world, loads will never be distributed so as to load each axle in proportion to its capacity. 

If you next repeat the exercise using the numbers on the SV Tech "plate" you will see that fudge factor has been greatly reduced, possibly to zero. 

Many motorhomes overload their rear axle before they actually hit their MAM, some overload the front axle first, and some get to the MAM before either axle is at its limit.  However, of the latter group, many are flirting with overload on one, or other, of the axles by the time they reach their MAM.

Now, reverting to the SV Tech type desk exercise, the MAM has been increased by 350kg but, because that "fudge factor" has been eroded, or even eliminated, it is unlikely that an additional 350kg could be added to the van load, while remaining within the axle limits.  In other words, that you would very probably reach the permissible limit for one of the axles, before you reach the "new" MAM.

From what others have said, your van at least started life with a reasonable payload, in the region of 400kg.  So, not huge, but generally workable, if towards the bottom end of workable.  The previous owner must have found that inadequate, or he wouldn't have turned to SV Tech.  Regarding axle loads, there are two possibilities.  Either he didn't check the individual axle loads when checking his overall weight, or he did, and (hopefully :-)) found his van one of the fortunate ones, with good remaining load margins at each end.  Problem is, it seems he has left you nothing to tell you which.

Under the circumstances, therefore, and before doing anything else, I would be inclined to take the fully laden and populated van, exactly as you would load it for use, to a weighbridge, and check its gross, and individual axle, weights, and then compare these with what that SV Tech plate says.

If all that compares favourably, I would approach SV Tech for a stamped metal plate that should be riveted under the bonnet next to the Fiat plate (which I believe is what is supposed to be done), and a re-issue of the sticker (presumably waterproof!) that can be stuck alongside the Benimar sticker (I had previously been under the impression the sticker was a temporary measure, while they produced the metal version, or the metal plate was optional at extra cost).  They should be able to do this from their records, but will undoubtedly charge for the plates.  You will then have the right evidence, in the right places, to satisfy the police of any EU state, that the upgrade has been properly carried out, and a V5C to prove the UK licensing authority was also properly satisfied.

[Robinhood]

Brian,

there is much in what you say; the following may add some further detail.

RDH, who were the main Benimar dealer and I think were still in business for an '05 'van , did the uprating through SVTech if it was requested at point of sale. (it was a price list option, but not done at the factory). The 'van may well have left the original dealer in the state described.

I think the plate I received was self-adhesive (but metallic), but it was backed up by VIN number specific documentation from SVTech (possibly only one page, which I think was surrounding a photocopied version of the supplied uprated plate) which I filed with the vehicle documentation.

AFAIR, the advice from SVTech at the time was that there was no absolutely prescribed position for the uprated plate, and I think the advice was to stick it in the driver's footwell.

It would appear that (if it is a thin metalic plate) that all is as SVTech would advise. I wouldn't be happy, however, without the accompanying documentation.

FWIW, these vehicles were built on the then maxi chassis, with maximum axle weights of 1850kg (F) and 2120kg ® so there is still a slight margin before exceeding the sum of the axle weights, but care needs to be taken in load balancing.  

[Brian Kirby]

Unusual!  Thanks for that.  BTW, RDH are again advertising as Benimar agents, so maybe they might have some info on Jeremy's van.

Forgot to add this to the above, but I assume Jeremy has checked his driving licence is OK for vehicles over 3,500kg?

It was Jeremy's description of the plate as a "sticker" that made me uneasy, I was imagining a sticky label filled in with Biro!  :-)  However, I do wonder what reaction one might get from a foreign policeperson to a sticker in the footwell, and whether s/he might discount it because of its nature and position.  It just seems logical that a revising plate should go alongside the originals, and be clearly visible.  From what I have seen, where the converter up-rates the chassis, they usually rivet their own plate alongside, or at least near, the original.  To me, that says it is all above beard and legal, whereas "hiding" it in the footwell looks a bit shifty, and seems designed to cause confusion as to its status.

[laimeduck]

Brian & Robin - again thanks

My licence covers me 3500 - 7500 Kg (C1)

 

I have found a "certificate" from SvTech giving :

3850

5500

1- 1850

2- 2120

This is the same as the stick-on printed (black plastic - easily removable?) plate in the footwell

The certificate is signed by SvTech (Stephen Heap) but not by the customer, & is dated 01/04/05. This would suggest that Robin was correct ref "point of sale upgrade"

 

Interestingly the engine compartment riveted plate says

3500

5500

1- 1850

1- 2120

So I can tow up to 2000Kg?

 

But the riveted plate by the habitation says

3500

3500

1- 1850

1- 2120

(so I can Tow 0 Kg?)

 

I have found a local weighbridge - so will invest £7.00 & see what she weighs & see the axle loading - as she is now.

 

Incidentally, while looking for weighbridges I found this site which lists weighbridges throughout the UK. May be usefull to other owners?

http://chrishodgetrucks.co.uk/useful-info/weighbridges.htm

 

Regards

Jeremy

[Robinhood]

laimeduck - 2011-02-05 5:04 PM Brian & Robin - again thanks My licence covers me 3500 - 7500 Kg (C1) I have found a "certificate" from SvTech giving : 3850 5500 1- 1850 2- 2120 This is the same as the stick-on printed (black plastic - easily removable?) plate in the footwell The certificate is signed by SvTech (Stephen Heap) but not by the customer, & is dated 01/04/05. This would suggest that Robin was correct ref "point of sale upgrade" Interestingly the engine compartment riveted plate says 3500 5500 1- 1850 1- 2120 So I can tow up to 2000Kg? But the riveted plate by the habitation says 3500 3500 1- 1850 1- 2120 (so I can Tow 0 Kg?) I have found a local weighbridge - so will invest £7.00 & see what she weighs & see the axle loading - as she is now. Incidentally, while looking for weighbridges I found this site which lists weighbridges throughout the UK. May be usefull to other owners? http://chrishodgetrucks.co.uk/useful-info/weighbridges.htm Regards Jeremy

Well it was 9 years ago since I bought the Benimar, but you're right, an etched black plastic plate now rings a bell.

I also recall being confused by the extra plate riveted to the hab part. Can't remember exactly why, but may well have been the GTW discrepancy as you note. (Incidentally, these vehicles were available from the factory with either a 750kg or 2000kg capable towbar - so towing was allowed for and a bit more confusion for you :-S)

Brian Kirby - 2011-02-05 3:54 PM BTW, RDH are again advertising as Benimar agents, so maybe they might have some info on Jeremy's van.

Different metamorphasis of RDH I'm afraid. The original went into voluntary liquidation sometime around 2005 (which was a great pity because they were the best motorhome dealer I've dealt with - rumours were that they were messed around by Benimar to a  point where they gave up!). Name, but not business, was bought by someone else, and that's been through at least 3 more changes and several locations since then. Despite what is said, AFAIK no-one has imported Benimars in any great numbers since the original RDH, and I believe no-one currently is.

[Brian Kirby]

laimeduck - 2011-02-05 5:04 PM ............ This would suggest that Robin was correct ref "point of sale upgrade" Interestingly the engine compartment riveted plate says 3500 5500 1- 1850 1- 2120 So I can tow up to 2000Kg? .................Regards Jeremy

Re probable RDH upgrade, I agree.  Re retained records, I also agree this seems highly unlikely.  Pity.

Re Gross Train Weight (GTW): not necessarily!  Oh, joy, this is such fun!!  :-D 

GTW is the maximum combined actual laden weight (ALW) of vehicle plus any trailer.  So, as you increase the ALW of the van, the permissible ALW of the trailer will diminish.  However, if there is, in addition, a specified maximum trailer weight (probably imposed by the design of the towbar/towball), that must not be exceeded.

So, in the absence of a specified maximum trailer weight, you could tow up to 5,500kg, less ALW of motorhome.  In this case, if your van's ALW were, say, 3,300kg, you could tow up to 2,200kg.  On the other hand, if your van's ALW were 3,700kg, you could only tow up to 1,800kg. 

But, if there were a trailer limit, say set at 2,000kg, that would limit what you could tow to 2,000kg - but always subject to not exceeding the 5,500kg GTW.  So, in this case, with the van loaded to 3,300 ALW, you could tow only 2,000kg because of the trailer limit, whereas with the van loaded to 3,700kg ALW, you would be limited to 1,800kg because of the GTW limit.  Worth just checking, because these are absolute limits which it is illegal to exceed.

Now, hoping that is (sort of :-)) clear, the twist would come if you go abroad where, in France, under new legislation, it is the MAMs of the van and its trailer that the French authorities will look at.  So, with your van plated at 3,850MAM, any trailer would have to be plated at max MAM of 1,650kg, and must therefore actually weigh 1,650kg or less.

AFAIK, this is not common to other European countries, but for those of us who would have to traverse France to get elsewhere, whether or not their rules are the same as the French becomes a bit academic!

It should be the case that, because our vehicles are UK registered, the UK interpretation would rule wherever within the EU we go - but expecting French traffic cops to carry handy guidebooks to the UK rules is, perhaps, asking a bit much!  We are not helped in this respect by our laws working to ban what is deemed illegal, while leaving what not actually banned to be construed legal, whereas European laws work, in general, the other way, so that what is not specifically authorised is generally deemed illegal.  It is all a question of how long you wish to remain in conversation with the French traffic cop, if you are challenged!  :-)  Me: I'm a coward, and stick with the failsafe approach!

[flicka]

Missed 2 earlier posts that addressed my post :$ :$

[laimeduck]

Brian - It's all academic ref towing - I don't have a tow bar & have no plans to fit onen - but thanks for the info!

Jeremy

[Guest JudgeMental]

Surely when you get the sticker VIN and paperwork back from SV Tech, you send the paper work of to DVLA along with Log book, and get the updated log book back? So everything then in order....

[Brian Kirby]

JudgeMental - 2011-02-06 1:50 PM Surely when you get the sticker VIN and paperwork back from SV Tech, you send the paper work of to DVLA along with Log book, and get the updated log book back? So everything then in order....

I don't know how widely that alone would be accepted.  In UK, probably fine, providing you have all documents with you all the time.  If uneasy, the British cop could always phone SV Tech for confirmation.

But abroad, possibly dealing with a foreign plod who speaks no English, and who is reluctant to accept that the V5C is genuine, and that the "sticker" is proof of a properly authorised change to the MAM, maybe not so easy?

For example, as I understand the French system, if you have air-ride suspension units retro-fitted to a vehicle, it has to be submitted for examination to their equivalent of VOSA for certification of the work, then the CoC has to be re-issued showing the mod (because it changes the Type Approval data), and only then can the registration document be re-issued.  Establishing this paper-trail makes, and is intended to make, carrying out unauthorised DIY mods very difficult.

What SV Tech can do in UK, I doubt can be done to a Type Approved vehicle in France or Germany, but if it can, it seems it must involve a similar paper-trail to the fitting of a suspension aid.  If the suspension were uprated to higher loads, as by fitting VB Air suspension, for example, I strongly suspect that a revised VIN plate would be required in addition to the alteration of the CoC and registration document.

It is against this much more proscriptive background that I think our system would look pretty odd to the foreign cop, and that he may remain suspicious that all necessary checks and approvals had not been obtained.  The odds on actually being stopped or challenged are obviously not high (I've only ever been "pulled" once), but the time that might then be wasted trying to satisfy the suspicious cop - or trying subsequently to reclaim an unjustified on the spot fine - don't seem to me worth the small additional cost of a proper looking stamped metal plate, riveted in place beside the original, to show the uprated values. 

As ever, it is for others to judge whether they want to get such a plate, or not.  I'm only pointing up the possible consequences of not doing so.