Brian Kirby Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 Sundowner - 2011-02-09 6:02 PM HI .............. My post dated 6th. Feb. goes into more detail but the axle weights and MAM are the same on both vehicles,ie.= front 1750 kgs. rear 1900 kgs. MAM 3300 kgs Thanks for your interest rgds. Ernie Agreed Ernie, though I fear you'll find you're flirting with the rear axle limit when laden. Hope not! :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sundowner Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 Hi Brian, It took me 2 years to get round to weighing the Twin -I should have known better. Will weigh the Compact as soon as possible. One of the reasons I went for it was its generous payload compared with some other vans. There was an interesting article in Which-Motorhome about 'van weights, using their long-term test Compact as a test bed. This also influenced me in buying one. I've also just noticed that the 33L and the 35L are identical with the same MIRO- this was in the same article.Unfortunately as I tore it out I do not remember the date it was published, second half of last year I think. The article was - Weight Watchers and written by John Parsons I'll let you know how I get on I'm enjoying the discussion,but thats what this forum is all about. Ernie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mel B Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 Colin Leake - 2011-02-08 4:51 PM I'm never going to live the Bear down am I? Nope ... so don't get all grizzly about it! Thinking of reporting you to the WWF for cruelty ... (lol) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Leake Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 Please be assured the Bear loves his motorhome holidays.Sack Race - Bear.wmfBarbeque - Bear 2.wmfBear Eating Burger.wmf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 Sundowner - 2011-02-09 8:05 PM ............... I've also just noticed that the 33L and the 35L are identical with the same MIRO- this was in the same article.............. Ernie. Just so long as you don't actually believe that! :-D The sods have a habit of quoting just the MIRO of the most basic version, and leaving the rest to be imagined.I had a little punt around Adria's technical e-catalogue, and from that, so far as I could see, you'd end up believing all variants, with or without whatever of the various "packs" are added, all had the same MIRO.Seemingly, if they add it, it comes with anti-gravity properties! :-) Fat chance! Good luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keithl Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 The folks at 'Which Motorhome' must be reading this thread 'cos they've just published an on-line article all about MH weights!!! Which Motorhome Keith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sundowner Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 Hi Keith, I spotted that today on the on-line Which. John Parsons is using some of the original article that I mentioned, in which he used the Compact to illustrate motorhome weights. It was published earlier than I thought-April 2010. He weighed the van in several different stages of loading, to give a practical demonstration of safe, legal practice. Sundowner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bolero boy Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 Keithl - 2011-02-10 6:25 PM The folks at 'Which Motorhome' must be reading this thread 'cos they've just published an on-line article all about MH weights!!! Which Motorhome Keith. Not only that, Michael le Caplain in his review of the Elddis Aspire 215 (March Which Motorhome) specifically refers to its payload issue following 'members of one internet forum in particular getting very hot under the collar' after his 4 star review of the Aspire 240. Chris. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lennyhb Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 In the March MMM they reviewed the Elddis Aspire 215, the pay load is given as 200kg, then if you were to add the options available I'm pretty certain you would be into negative payload & that's without any passengers. Reviewers final comments were "Well only the smaller lounge and limited payload that lose it marks". How can they give it a glowing review when for it's intended use it is unusable! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chudders Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 Reading all this does make me think there is one advantage of a TAG axle van. (Perhaps some would argue not many other advantages). The van is fully loaded ready to go away. Full water tank, full fuel and two passengers. Then went to weighbridge Front axle weighed 1840 Kg,s (Max allowed 2000Kg,s) Rear TAG axle 2600 KG,s (Max 3000 KG,s ) Overall weight on the weighbridge 4440KG,s (Max 5000). First time I have actually weighed and don,t think there is much point in future. I have plenty of capacity left if I ever needed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robinhood Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 bolero boy - 2011-02-11 9:52 AM Not only that, Michael le Caplain in his review of the Elddis Aspire 215 (March Which Motorhome) specifically refers to its payload issue following 'members of one internet forum in particular getting very hot under the collar' after his 4 star review of the Aspire 240. Chris. Well if it is at least getting a mention, then it's worthwhile continuing to publicise the issue here (though if it is simply a byline in MMM, then I'm somewhat disappointed). To be honest, as Brian Kirby has already highlighted, the level of detail published by Elddis makes it difficult to assess the real situation, but what really bugs me is that the whole of the Aspire range is offered with an upgrade to the next higher chassis. This moves it from a payload which (admittedly IMO) is inadequate and misleading to informed buyers, to one which (in each case) is at least reasonably viable. The premium for doing that is around 5% of the purchase price for the 215, and nearer to 2.5% for the other models. Why oh why do they not just offer it on the heavier chassis in each case. (?) I can't believe it would deter too many potential customers, and indeed, properly managed they could make a positive point of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colin Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 Sundowner - 2011-02-09 3:57 PM Thanks Brian, That's what I suspected, if you want to stay within 3500kgs MAM, you gain on the axle loading at the expense of the total payload. The Adria Compact that we have recently bought is available at 3300 kgs. or 3500 kgs. The difference in payload quoted is exactly 200kg., (585/785) This leads me to believe that the axles, tyres etc. are identical. We are in the process of having ours replated by the supplying dealer. From previous experience with our Adria Twin, I am confident that I can take advantage of the increased MAM without overloading either axle. rgds. Sundowner They are not the same, the max axle loads for front and rear are each 100kg differance and it is not a paperwork exisise to uprate them, but if you are ok with upping gross weight and can keep axle loads within limits thats ok. My concern would be that you have gone from a Twin which has a tendancey to over load it's front axle to a Compact that might well overload it's rear axle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colin Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 colin - 2011-02-11 10:39 PM Sundowner - 2011-02-09 3:57 PM Thanks Brian, That's what I suspected, if you want to stay within 3500kgs MAM, you gain on the axle loading at the expense of the total payload. The Adria Compact that we have recently bought is available at 3300 kgs. or 3500 kgs. The difference in payload quoted is exactly 200kg., (585/785) This leads me to believe that the axles, tyres etc. are identical. We are in the process of having ours replated by the supplying dealer. From previous experience with our Adria Twin, I am confident that I can take advantage of the increased MAM without overloading either axle. rgds. Sundowner They are not the same, the max axle loads for front and rear are each 100kg differance and it is not a paperwork exisise to uprate them, but if you are ok with upping gross weight and can keep axle loads within limits thats ok. My concern would be that you have gone from a Twin which has a tendancey to over load it's front axle to a Compact that might well overload it's rear axle. I've just done some 'back of a fag packet' calcs, based on my guess as to your loading of Twin, doing same loading of Compact you will reduce loading of front axle by 150kg with the same rear axle loading, this will give you that 300kg of spare capacity on rear axle, but you will hit max weight just before that, so looks like a winner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sundowner Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 colin - 2011-02-11 11:56 PM colin - 2011-02-11 10:39 PM Sundowner - 2011-02-09 3:57 PM Thanks Brian, That's what I suspected, if you want to stay within 3500kgs MAM, you gain on the axle loading at the expense of the total payload. The Adria Compact that we have recently bought is available at 3300 kgs. or 3500 kgs. The difference in payload quoted is exactly 200kg., (585/785) This leads me to believe that the axles, tyres etc. are identical. We are in the process of having ours replated by the supplying dealer. From previous experience with our Adria Twin, I am confident that I can take advantage of the increased MAM without overloading either axle. rgds. Sundowner They are not the same, the max axle loads for front and rear are each 100kg differance and it is not a paperwork exisise to uprate them, but if you are ok with upping gross weight and can keep axle loads within limits thats ok. My concern would be that you have gone from a Twin which has a tendancey to over load it's front axle to a Compact that might well overload it's rear axle. I've just done some 'back of a fag packet' calcs, based on my guess as to your loading of Twin, doing same loading of Compact you will reduce loading of front axle by 150kg with the same rear axle loading, this will give you that 300kg of spare capacity on rear axle, but you will hit max weight just before that, so looks like a winner. Hi Colin, I'm only having the gross weight upped. According to the weigh-bridge reading with the twin, it was 30kgs. and 80kgs. overweight on front axle and gross weight respectively. Upping the twin, with it's short rear overhang, the 120 kgs. of spare capacity, loaded behind the rear axle, would, possibly not been enough to take the 30 kgs. off the front axle. I did a similar calc. to yourself, and came to the roughly the the same conclusion. In spite of the different wheelbase's of the two vans, the layout in front of the rear axle (water tank, seating and of course, the fuel tank, engine, gearbox etc.), are similar. The MIRO,s (unladen weight) and MAM's (gross weight) of the two vehicles are I think, also similar. The longer rear overhang of the compact, enables me to take advantage, in theory, of the 200 kg, (or 120 kgs. taking into account the 80 kg. overload), Thus also removing the 30 kg. overload from the front axle. The two axle weights added together, equals 3650 kgs. - only 150 to play with above the new 3500 kg. MAM, but I think that will just about manageable. Sorry to be a bit long winded, I think that I'm on the right track, only time will tell!! Thanks for your interest rgds. Ernie (Sundowner) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colin Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 Well I got the Twin loading right, it seems a common problem of over loading front axle on the 3.3t chassis by around 50kg, a fact highlighted in an article in German mag(sent to me by eddie) it's a pity British mags don't weight the vans (NOTE NEW MMM EDITOR) as this is a popular van and many are proboly overloaded., it would be much better if they where on the 3.5t chassis as some other manufacturers use. The reason I had come up with spare rear axle loading was that the specs I have show MIRO as 200kg less, if this is true it will almost all be off rear axle, so the shorter wheelbase gives same load, if they are same MIRO then the rear axle will be close to overloading at 3.4t. All good fun and games *-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Petra Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 How is it possible that the Elddis Aspire 240 can win the luxury rear lounge coachbuilt in the MMM awards in the March issue with only 240kgs payload? It might have shedloads of kit but if you cant take the wife and dog ..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Leake Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 I've just worked out how this payload issue can be taken advantage of. Our new Auto-Trail is not due till early March so I can start sowing the idea regarding the need to keep the payload down now. Then when the time comes to load the new motorhome every time an attempt is made to pack items from the previous motorhome, that we have always taken but never used, I can suck my breath in through my from teeth, like a dealer does when asked for a little more discount, and mutter "I'm not sure love the payloads not that great"! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mel B Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 Yes ... but one question Colin ... do you want to actually live long enough to SEE your new motorhome .... :-D (lol) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.