rear carriers

[derek pringle]

Hi, anybody out there help me please. I am looking to create storage space in my Bessacarr e630- 2009 model and am thinking of having a tow bar fitted and using a tow bar mounted box on to it as and when. Does anybody have suggestions as to a good source for this type of gear, or indeed any pitfalls I have not thought of. Bear in mind there is already a 2 bike Fiamma rack on the back so I do not want anything too high or heavy. Thanks in anticipation of any responses.

derek

[Guest JudgeMental]

Have you the spare payload Derek? you can get a box to put on a fiamma bike rack already....are you saying you want to carry bikes as well as a box below it on a tow bar rack? as that is a lot ofweight strung out back behind the axle.....

 

what camper are we talking about? and what weight have you spare on the rear axle? More info willl help you get more informed advice :-D

 

EDIT: Doh! just reread and saw the van details 8-)

[derek pringle]

thanks for the reply Judgemental. In short not quite sure just know the model--

bessie e630 3ltr auto- 22ft 5 inches long. Bike rack says it will carry 65 kilo, which is well under weight of bikes we carry. Cheers

derek

[Guest JudgeMental]

On plate what does it say? there will be 4 figures let us know please

 

so you have never weighed it? :-S

[Derek Uzzell]

Can't help with advice on the box and towbar, but assuming Swift's data are correct for an E-630 (details on the Swift website) you will really need to beware of going overweight.

 

I believe all E-630s were/are only marketed on a 3500kg MAM 'non-maxi' chassis. If that's correct, then, besides being very tight on overall usable payload (around 200kg for the 3.0litre/auto version) to start, with a not-too-long 3.80m wheelbase and a not-too-short rear overhang (not forgetting your existing 2-bike rack), if you add a tow-bar and storage-box you may well exceed your motorhome's rear-axle limit as well as the 3500kg maximum.

 

Before going any further with this plan, I strongly advise you to weigh your Bessacarr (overall and axle-weights) fully loaded. You may get an unpleasant surprise.

[bobalobs]

Complete rethink taking place following a recent trip to the weighbridge which revealed the limitations of a 3500kg overall limit even on a Ducato Maxi chassis. Have been using a Bak-Rak fitted to the Witter towbar to carry Gazebo etc when catering for tenting friends at weekend motor race meetings . Costs about £80, will carry as much as a bike rack which is also fitted and can easily be removed if not needed.

Have done some research to see if a metal box could be fitted to the bak-rak to use as an outside locker. Bak-rak can supply a box but will not fit under our bike rack. Nj Aluminium Linings have some interesting boxes at a price and I think Solent Plastics have potential cheaper plastic options ( sorry don't have the links ) but we then discovered the problem of overloading !!!

[derek pringle]

Thank you all for the input, good job I asked. Plan B would be to have an underslung gas tank fitted thereby releasing the gas bottle locker for storage. Still have to watch overall weight but overhang should not be a problem. I obviously welcome any thoughts.

derek

[pepe63xnotuse]

On the subject of steel boxes..I fitted one of these to the rear of our first van( '07 Transit Duetto) a few years back.It pivoting from a fabricated steel bumper,so that the rear doors could still be used...

 

http://www.tooled-up.com/SearchBasic.asp?Keywords=sealey+storage+chest&SearchType=2

 

..it swallowed loads of "stuff"(chocks,gas stoves,leads etc) but although "okay" on the Transit,checking the weights again now,I can't see one going on the rear of a coachbuilt!? :$

[THE SHEPHERD]

There is a thread I started on 24 Sept 2008, you might like to follow it through as there is some good advice from members.

The box for us has proved to have been well worth the costs, having done, Eire, France and in particular last year winter camping Jan 15 March 1st.

I put it through the local weight bridge and fully loaded ready to go ,no problem. Anyway worth a look.TS

[Brian Kirby]

derek pringle - 2010-11-26 8:49 AM Thank you all for the input, good job I asked. Plan B would be to have an underslung gas tank fitted thereby releasing the gas bottle locker for storage. Still have to watch overall weight but overhang should not be a problem. I obviously welcome any thoughts. derek

Derek

I think Derek Uzzell offers sound advice.  Before you contemplate anything further, take you van, preferably fully loaded, to the nearest weighbridge, and check its overall weight, but more importantly, the rear axle load.

Like Derek, I'm rather inclined to suspect you may already be exceeding, or at least flirting with, the permissible rear axle load.

There is more to this than mere legalistic correctness, because if the axle is overloaded, it is probable you will also be overloading the rear tyres, increasing the risk of sudden blowout, so that accident, and insurance cover (if found to be overloaded following an incident/claim), are  also considerations.

[Rayjsj]

I'm not sure exactly what your 'set-up' is ? I have a rear Two bike Fiamma carrier, onto which I bolt a Fiamma 500litre back box, this swallows all the bulky (but light) 'stuff' that we like to take with us ; 2 good sized 'Comfortable' outside chairs, electric 'outside' griddle, 4x cut down breadcrate 'snowshoes'( for muddy pitches), dog towels/food/'Stuff',small outside 'coffee' table Etc., all weighed and comes to 50 kg, + box at 10kg.

= 60 kg, max load for bike rack. BUT you can't take bikes as well, Obviously, as my wife is unable to ride a bike anyway, (I get my exercise walking the Labrador). The Box takes about 20 minutes to remove when neccessary. Works for us. Ray

[derek pringle]

Thanks very much to all of you for your sound advice--I WILL FOLLOW IT.

TS I will follow and read the thread mentioned. It looks like I will be off to a local weigh station and have load readings taken on all the necessary points. Thought the gas idea may work though depending on final weight.

cheers

derek

[Keithl]

Derek,

 

If your Bessie is coachbuilt then have you considered BeenyBox's in the side skirts?

Assuming there's room behind to accommodate them.

 

Keith.

[flicka]

derek pringle - 2010-11-26 8:49 AM

 

Thank you all for the input, good job I asked. Plan B would be to have an underslung gas tank fitted thereby releasing the gas bottle locker for storage. Still have to watch overall weight but overhang should not be a problem. I obviously welcome any thoughts.

derek

 

Hi Derek,

Looking at the Swift site technical detail tab, your Bessacarr has a very low payload & on a long overhang & your existing set-up will have a significant impact on the payload available.

Swift's

Wheel Base 3.80m

Overall Length (No Ladder) 6.82m

Maximum Technical Permissable Laden Mass (A) 3,500kg

Mass in Running Order (B) 2 3,231kg

Maximum User Payload (A-B) 269kg

Maximum Recommended Trailer Weight 1,330kg

Essential Habitation Equipment 10kg

Gross Train Weight 3 6,000kg

 

So net payload = 259kg, less your passengers weight & personal effects, food, etc..

 

From the above I would estimate your rear overhang will be around 2m, and with the cantilever effect of a full Fridge & Kitchen storage will already be in excess of actual weight. Then you have a Tow Bar & Bike Rack

 

But it does have a reasonable trailer capacity.

 

IMHO you need to go to a weighbridge, sooner rather than later & with rear end loaded, to determine what (if any) spare capacity overall & rear axle.

[Derek Uzzell]

flicka - 2010-11-26 7:41 PM

 

Mass in Running Order (B) 2 3,231kg

Maximum User Payload (A-B) 269kg

 

 

So net payload = 259kg, less your passengers weight & personal effects, food, etc..

 

In fact, it's worse than that, as Derek's Bessacarr E630 is the 3.0litre/automatic version. Swift's data for that are:

 

Mass in Running Order - 3,298kg

Maximum User Payload - 202kg

 

I presume Swift's 10kg for "Essential Habitation Equipment" relates to a notional luggage allowance for the driver.

 

If I remember correctly, there's a more realistic formula that would add a further 85kg for every designated passenger-seat (that's the weight of a 75kg person + 10kg for that person's luggage), plus 10kg for every metre the motorhome is long (ie. 70kg for an E630).

 

Using that formula, an E630's payload would be:

 

202kg - (10kg + (75kg + 10kg) + 70kg) = 37kg

 

(And that's BEFORE any additional factory options or dealer accessories are stirred into the mix.)

 

 

[derek pringle]

Hi all,

This is like reading a horror story. It is like saying you can have a motorhome but cannot take the things with you to enable you to enjoy your holidays. The figures being quoted indicate that once the wife and I are in the vehicle with basic clothing etc. that is it. Why the suppliers fit a bike rack without explaining these details is beyond me. I simplistically thought that being basically on a van chassis it would carry anything for 2 people. How do people with say 4 berth vans on a 3500t carry gear ( what difference is there that increases their payload)?

We bought this van on the layout and length requirements we had. Next time payload will be right up there alongside these details. Weight aside for one moment, is the gas alteration viable and workable? I really appreciate your responses.

derek

[Guest JudgeMental]

sorry Derek but that is very naive...a dealer will tell you anything to get the van of their forcourt........ it is entirely up to you to make a visit to a weighbridge a part of the purchase deal.

 

But panic not, just go to a weighbridge and see what the situation is?

 

 

I have a 4 berth 3500kg coachbuilt. it has a 450kg payload, I know this because then German manufacturer figures can be trusted. and I took to a weigh bridge myself to check anyway....

[Brambles]

Not so sure the idea for underslung gas tank is a good one if payload is tight. They are much heavier then using cylinders.

Another option might be to consider beeny boxes.

http://www.beenybox.co.uk

 

If positioned in front of rear wheels then would have better weight distribution.

Just a thought or two!

Jon.

[Brian Kirby]

derek pringle - 2010-11-27 9:38 AM Hi all, This is like reading a horror story. It is like saying you can have a motorhome but cannot take the things with you to enable you to enjoy your holidays. The figures being quoted indicate that once the wife and I are in the vehicle with basic clothing etc. that is it. Why the suppliers fit a bike rack without explaining these details is beyond me. I simplistically thought that being basically on a van chassis it would carry anything for 2 people. How do people with say 4 berth vans on a 3500t carry gear ( what difference is there that increases their payload)? We bought this van on the layout and length requirements we had. Next time payload will be right up there alongside these details. Weight aside for one moment, is the gas alteration viable and workable? I really appreciate your responses. derek

Sadly, I think it is almost that bad.  As Derek says, Swift's quoted weights for the E630 160 auto (including the awning [and even a spare wheel!], 75kg driver, plus gas, water, and diesel reservoirs all at 90%), leave a basic payload of 202kg.  This is all in accordance with BS EN 1646-2, which is good.  However, the Standard allows an upward tolerance of 5% on the MIRO, which, if added in, would almost eliminate the payload!  Swift's website does not quote the weights of the Elegance or Winter packs, both of which must add something if specified.  Neither do they state the weights of any other options listed (Roof rack and ladder, and towbar).  The towbar must be quite a weighty lump, so omitting the weight of that on an already wafer thin payload is, IMO, unforgivable. 

The E630 is the only E600 series van on the 3,500kg chassis, and no chassis upgrade is offered.  Both E660 and E695 come on the Maxi 4,005kg chassis, which is clearly what is needed on the E630.  Despite the size of the van, the gas locker is quoted at a niggardly 2 x 7kg.

On the BS EN 1646-1 grade 3 thermal insulation classification, I am indebted to Gerald on MHF, who has kindly quoted from the Standard as follows (the bold is his):

"EN 1646-1 for heating and thermal insulation, the highest is Grade 3

CLASSIFICATION of THERMAL INSULATION and HEATING

Grade 3. A caravan including windows, doors and rooflights in which the average thermal transmittance (U) of the elements of construction shall not exceed 1.2W/(m2K).

An average temperature difference of at least 35K between inside and outside temperatures shall be achieved when the outside temperature is -15C.

Precautions shall be taken to ensure that the fresh water supply can be filled at the end of the stabilising time of one hour according to Annexe M. Then the fresh water service shall operate when the outside temperature is -15C.

..... the average thermal transmittance coefficient (U) shall be calculated in accordance with Annexe L or, for grades 2 and 3, tested in accordance with the method of test given in Annexe M, according to the manufacturer's choice.

In the European standard it says regarding thermal insulation:

‘Thermal insulation will be classified using three grades, the manufacturer must calculate the average ‘U’ value for the product and this will determine the grade. The NCC Certificate of Approval will clearly indicate the grade to which the product will be certificated.  Those manufacturers seeking grade 3 classification (the highest) will need to ensure the water system will still operate when the outside temperature is –15 degrees C’.

Category 2:
The heating system must be able to warm up the interior from outside temperature to 20 degrees C within 2 hours at an outside temperature of 0 degrees C.

Category 3:
The heating system must be able to warm up the interior from outside temperature to 20 degrees C within 2 hours at an outside temperature of -10 degrees C.  In addition it must be possible after one hour to fill and use the water system and the heating must keep it frost free.

The key thing is highlighted:
Those manufacturers seeking grade 3 classification (the highest) will need to ensure the water system will still operate when the outside temperature is –15 degrees C’.

So the need to buy a "winterisation pack" is a nonsense - either it works and complies with category 3, or it doesn't.  That seems to imply that it doesn't comply with category 3."

I'm afraid Derek is far from alone in finding that manufacturers mislead, or at the very least don't effectively lead, their customers in areas where the dealer/manufacturer can be expected to know the implications of what their products offer, and the customer will not, unless he has the requisite experience. 

Why it is that the UK manufacturers seem to be so weak in this area, and particularly, the Germans so much better (though frequently negated by the ignorance of a UK dealer), I cannot understand.

To me, the simple fact of this particular model is that it should have been on the 4 tonne chassis, or not sold as a motorhome because of a woefully inadequate payload.

Next question, what can Derek do?  Once he has weighed the van, and got the axle loads, he will know where to start.  I suggest he weighs it with just the gas, water and fuel reservoirs full, and with himself and Mrs Pringle sitting in the front seats.  The vehicle plate will tell him how much payload they have as a couple, both in respect of each axle, and overall.  He might add the bikes, if they would habitually travel with these, but if doing this I would be inclined to get two sets of weights: with bikes on and with bikes off.

See what results this yields, and then report back.  If he's lucky, the van will have been built light and he'll have slim, but possibly workable payload.  If not, he may need to consider his options, and at the extreme end of the range of possibilities he may find his van is overloaded with just his wife and himself on board, and so illegal.  However, first step: weigh the van!  Sorry!

[derek pringle]

Thanks again everybody.

Hindsight is a lovely thing as they say. Should have joined MMM as soon as we decided to look for a motorhome, guidance and advice would have helped me in our search criteria. It is our first motorhome and learning expensive lessons, as we tend to go for extended periods away obviously need to take stuff. At the moment seems relatively unfit for purpose. This van is equipped with as many cupboards and lockers as any we seen in its class, must be just window dressing if they cannot be loaded. After having the van for just over 12 mths it will be a knock to have to change due to expense of these things, maybe gain some advantage by travelling with water tank less than full etc. but just seems to be skirting with problem.

Next fine day or before we venture again will be a trip to a local diagnostic weigh station for a comprehensive report.

cheers and ta again

derek

 

 

[Brian Kirby]

Derek

I shall get moaned at for saying this, but you may have grounds for legal action against the dealer.  You may even still be entitled to reject the vehicle, bearing in mind that you are only just discovering these facts.  You will need to act quickly if you wish to consider the latter option, because you now know that there are grounds to suspect the payload may be inadequate, and would be required to act without delay once aware.

I would suggest you first look at any catalogues you may have, to see what Swift declared regarding weights and payload at the time you bought.  You are entitled to rely on advertising material as evidence, if it influenced you choice when buying.  If Swift's literature is clear on the payload, I think you may be Paxo'd unless the van turns out to be heavier than it should be, or unless Swift have omitted to declare the basis for their figures.

Your next move should be to get to the weighbridge quickly, with the van as nearly as possible in MIRO trim (as set out on their website/catalogue, so first remove the bike rack), and see how its weight compares with the catalogue figure.  Make sure you get the printed weighbridge certificate. It is not necessary to check axle loads at this stage, though there is no reason why you should not do so.  

If unsure of capacity of gas cylinders/water tanks, weigh with fuel tank full (80 litres: diesel 0.85 kg/litre = 68kg.  90% of 80 = 72 litres, x .85 = 61.2 kg, so deduct 6.8 kg), but no driver, passenger, or water and with gas cylinders removed. 

Then, take 90% of published fresh water capacity x 1kg/litre.  7kg gas cylinder refers only to weight of gas, Calor cylinder should have cylinder weight stated on cylinder, so total is cylinder + 90% of 7kg gas x 2 for two cylinders.  Add the products of the above calculations, plus 75kg for the driver, to the weighbridge figure for the whole van to arrive at the comparable figure for MIRO.

If this is significantly above the quoted 3298kg, it would be wise to talk to your local Trading Standards people with all the facts to see where you stand.

Your van seems to me to present a particular problem.  As above, the BS Swift quote from, BS EN 1646-2, (and my understanding is if they quote from it they are obliged to comply fully with it), allows an upward tolerance of 5% on the MIRO.  5% of 3298 = 165kg.  202 kg (the declared payload) - 165kg (the permitted tolerance) leaves just 37kg payload, which would not allow even one passenger to be carried, let alone food, clothing etc.  This would plainly be unworkable, but would appear to be permissible within the BS limit on weight variance, but would not meet the other requirements of that BS, as Derek Uzzell has pointed out above.  There seems to me a good chance that the van, as supplied, does not comply with the BS (although they appear to be implying it does) and possibly never did.  If that is the case, it would appear it is not what it is claimed to be, so can reasonably be shown not to be of "merchantable quality".  However, that is my unqualified reasoning, which is why I'm suggesting a chat to Trading Standards, because they should be able to advise you on where you stand legally.

At the very least, you should then be able to go back to the dealer, confront him with the facts, and ask him what he intends to do about it.  Then you can see what he offers, and can decide whether you want to deal with him further, sue him, or simply go elsewhere and swallow the cost of changing your van.

[bobalobs]

The sensible advice given to persons like Derek and myself who are concerned about weight limitations is to put the vehicle in MIRO state and attend the local weighbridge so as to calculate the TRUE payload.

However it is a fag to empty all of ones wordly goods so it is tempting to put it off to another day. When vehicles are submitted for roadtests I assume they are empty and it would be a simple matter to fill the tanks to the requisite levels and visit the local weighbridge? We could then have an independant opinion of load capabilities caculated on the same basis in respect of all vehicles tested. I find it frustrating to read comparison articles such as that in this months MMM where the author very helpfully explains what has been taken into account when calculating the payload of the Autocruise Stardream but does not supply the same info in the figures for the Autosleeper Broadway. It is so easy to assume it is calculated on the same basis but from the manafacturers quoted figures for payload on vehicles of a similar size I suspect this is not always the case.

[Brian Kirby]

The payload calculations in both cases should be on the same basis.  Autosleepers say their vehicles conform to BS 1646, while Autocruise state that the payload calculation is based on MAM - MIRO, with MIRO being unladen weight + 75kg driver, and 90% fuel, gas, and water reservoirs, which equates to the BS 1646 requirement.

[Derek Uzzell]

bobalobs - 2010-11-28 1:44 PM

 

The sensible advice given to persons like Derek and myself who are concerned about weight limitations is to put the vehicle in MIRO state and attend the local weighbridge so as to calculate the TRUE payload.

However it is a fag to empty all of ones wordly goods so it is tempting to put it off to another day. When vehicles are submitted for roadtests I assume they are empty and it would be a simple matter to fill the tanks to the requisite levels and visit the local weighbridge? We could then have an independant opinion of load capabilities caculated on the same basis in respect of all vehicles tested. I find it frustrating to read comparison articles such as that in this months MMM where the author very helpfully explains what has been taken into account when calculating the payload of the Autocruise Stardream but does not supply the same info in the figures for the Autosleeper Broadway. It is so easy to assume it is calculated on the same basis but from the manafacturers quoted figures for payload on vehicles of a similar size I suspect this is not always the case.

 

I understand what you are saying about accurate and standardised payload information being provided in motorhome magazine test reports - it's far from the first time this observation has been made.

 

As far as I'm concerned, these reports are primarily written for the readers' entertainment (and their content increasingly reflects this!) Although they won't always "eliminate the negative", they will necessarily "accentuate the positive" and I'm sure most readers take that into account. I'm also sure that motorhome journalists don't anticipate that, having read their reports, people will immediately rush to dealerships to order new motorhomes.

 

Autocruise describes in its brochure how the Stardream's payload of 345kg is arrived at, but presumably Auto-Sleepers (as they've historically done) don't detail in their brochure where the Broadway's 548kg comes from. Dave Hurrell highlights in his MMM article this significant difference in approach - other magazines might not have bothered.

 

While it would be lovely to have motorhome manufacturers standardise on how they presented payload data in advertising literature, there is currently no legal obligation forcing them to do so. If a motorhome manufacturer's brochure provides sketchy information, I believe it's overly-optimistic to expect a journalist to be proactive in filling in the gaps if an article can be written adequately without the missing data. Test reports take a fair bit of effort to produce and their authors will invariably have deadlines to meet.

 

Similarly, I don't believe it's realistic to expect a motorhome journalist to turn up at a dealership to collect a loaned test vehicle, go through the hand-over procedure, and then troll off to a weighbridge to obtain information that (most of the time) can be found in brochures or on-line.

 

There is helpful payload-related advice on Page 219 of December's MMM in the "Buying a Motorhome" section. Payload figures are also given in the Buyers' Guide listings that follow that section and these should help to provide model-to-model comparisons for people seeking a vehicle with plenty of storage capacity.

 

I note that the Stardream is shown in the listings to have a payload of 345kg (as per the 12/2010 report), whereas the Broadway EL Duo's payload is given as 431kg, which almost tallies with the 430kg figure given on the Auto-Sleepers website and that allows for a deduction of 118kg for water and gas.

 

There's no easy answer to this as long as novice motorcaravanners treat motorhomes like big cars. I remember the dealer who services my Hobby asking me what mpg it did. "30-ish - who cares?" I replied. He told me that potential buyers nearly always asked him about a motorhome's fuel-consumption. "How often do they ask about payload?" I inquired. "Almost never," he said.

 

 

 

 

[Brian Kirby]

Derek Uzzell - 2010-11-28 4:55 PM ................... There's no easy answer to this as long as novice motorcaravanners treat motorhomes like big cars. I remember the dealer who services my Hobby asking me what mpg it did. "30-ish - who cares?" I replied. He told me that potential buyers nearly always asked him about a motorhome's fuel-consumption. "How often do they ask about payload?" I inquired. "Almost never," he said.

Which is fair comment.....................but!  The problem is that no-one seems to warn the hapless novice that motorhomes are as different from cars as they are.

Most (all? :-)) buyers of motorhomes will have bought cars, and many will never have had to concern themselves with payloads.  Those who have previously bought caravans should be on their guard, but otherwise, folk seem naturally to assume (often to their eventual cost) that the motorhome, with its aura of self-sufficiency and all those lovely cupboards to fill, will have been built to be capable of taking whatever they throw at it.

Add to this that some people have spent their lives isolated from such things as engineering limits and factors of safety, have never indulged in home DIY, and rely on their annual trip to the garage to keep their car running properly, and its hardly surprising they come a cropper when confronted with the relative complexity of motorhomes.

Is it the buyer who is to be blamed for this, the manufacturer - who undoubtedly knows better but choses to remain silent, or the dealer - who should know better but seemingly often does not, or just keeps mum?

My take is that the fault lies with the industry, in failing to provide the information the novice buyer needs in order to make informed choices.  I suspect, but have no way of proving, that the industry is being short-sighted in this respect, and has scored a number of "own goals", in that disaffected buyers, who have discovered the cost of rectifying their buying mistakes, just refuse to turn up for a second beating.  I have been genuinely taken aback by the evidence from contributors to just this one forum, of the number of vans offered for sale that, on payload alone, are clearly unworkable. 

These are expensive vehicles, and many folk make a heavy commitment to buy them, some with little chance of being able to afford a second go, if the first fails.  Their sense of grievance at having been let down, even cheated, is acutely apparent at times, and it makes me profoundly angry to witness their growing realisation that they have spent a small fortune on something that will never allow them to realise their plans.

It also grieves me, on a different level, that the worst offenders have British manufacturers among them, and that the better performers seem to come mostly from Germany.  This is not because I resent the Germans for generally (but not always) getting it right (quite the contrary, as it was one of the reasons I chose a German van), but because I cannot understand why the British manufacturers simply can't be bothered to take that little bit of extra effort on behalf of their, almost exclusively British, customers.  Then, they ask folk to buy British.  Loyalty, I think, is a two way street!

Here endeth the rant!  :-)