rear carriers

[derek pringle]

Thanks for this latest comment Brian, I certainly do not think it is a rant.

Naive or not, happless or not, on the one hand being told that bikes alone could possibly cause a crossing of the weight threshold flies in the face of the fact that the manufacturer says the anchor points for such a rack are pre- installed in the vehicle to allow fitment. Seems if I put the bikes on her indoors would have to remain indoors(only joking). We seen this model at 2 Birmingham shows and 1 Manchester show before deciding finally. At these shows obviously we spoke to lots of reps on the stands that sold Bessacarrs, no indications of limitations. We then took our choice of MH to a recommended dealer and requested he supplied one to us. I think he did his part well. My basic argument now seems to be centred on the fact that the manufacturer is making a model that clearly does not stack up to the job. Brian, you are correct, if you see lots of nice cupboards you assume these are to put stuff in. My guess would be that probably most if not all owners of the E630 models will be travelling overloaded.

[derek pringle]

sincere apologies, in my enthusiasm I forgot to say cheers all

derek

[Brian Kirby]

Just one last thing Derek, which I will underline although I am sure you already know. 

If you decide to challenge anyone legally about the usability of your van after you have weighed it, it must be the dealer, because it is with the dealer from whom you bought it that you have a contract, and it is only under that contract that you have any rights of redress.

You can say what you like to Swift, but you have no legal right of remedy against them and, if you chose this route, you will in all probability just waste valuable time in slow, and endless, conversations with the manufacturer as they spin you out hoping you will go away.

So, however well the dealer may have performed in other respects, it was the dealer who should have known, and advised you of, the diminished limit, at the time he sold you the van, and he therefore carries the legal liability.

If Swift have a consequential liability to the dealer for supplying deficient goods, that will be for the dealer to fight out with Swift.  If it comes to that, I wish him well!

[Meadows Engine]

Sorry Derek I really don’t agree with your comment that

“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.

 

The information found in brochures or on line in many cases does not really relate to the vehicle being tested or is given in a format that can confuse.. We are well aware that this is to the advantage of the seller/manufacture.

 

The journalist tester has an opportunity not given to the rest of us he can accurately determine the weights of the motorhome before purchase! This is an extremely important piece of information that that potential buyer needs to know, and to miss this out of a test report is letting the reader down.

 

Indeed the Caravan Club, recently tested and endorsed a Morocco that after a passenger and full water had a remaining pay load of 75kg for every thing else! Surely as a club magazine they have a duty of care to their members and should highlight this and any potential problems equally as much as the benefits of its fitments and build quality.

 

The test should include the actual weights of the Motorhome as tested, Overall weight and weights on both axles. Provided the same base (90% fuel, water, gas and driver) is used by all testers then these would be directly comparable from Motorhome to Motorhome.

 

It’s not too much to ask is it?

 

John

 

 

 

[Derek Uzzell]

Meadows Engine - 2010-11-29 1:21 PM

 

...The information found in brochures or on line in many cases does not really relate to the vehicle being tested or is given in a format that can confuse.. We are well aware that this is to the advantage of the seller/manufacture...

 

 

I don't believe the first part of that statement. It could equally well be argued that a motorhome bought from a dealership "in many cases does not really relate to the vehicle being tested" by a magazine and I don't believe that either.

 

I accept that a standardised wording for how a motorhome's payload is arrived at would be a boon in motorhome manufacturers' advertising. However, there is little point having a standard crystal-clear format for describing payload if buyers ignore it.

 

It's not like motorhome payload is a taboo subject. It's regularly mentioned in motorhome magazines and books; long articles have been written about it (I wrote one myself) and it's always been complained about on forums.

 

When people get 'burned' it's normally because they have never considered there might be a payload-related issue with the motorhome they've chosen. And, even those who have thought about payload may well be unable to decide how much payload they will actually need.

 

A Brownhills salesman once told me that, when it came to choosing a motorhome, there were three things that dominated most prospective buyers' shopping-list. These were lay-out, lay-out and lay-out. If people put payload at the very top of the list and refused to purchase any motorhome that had even a hint of payload inadequacy, then perhaps manufacturers would stop making 'RyanAir hand-luggage only' models.

[Mel B]

Brian Kirby - 2010-11-29 12:11 PMIf you decide to challenge anyone legally about the usability of your van after you have weighed it, it must be the dealer, because it is with the dealer from whom you bought it that you have a contract, and it is only under that contract that you have any rights of redress......

So, however well the dealer may have performed in other respects, it was the dealer who should have known, and advised you of, the diminished limit, at the time he sold you the van, and he therefore carries the legal liability.

Brian, whilst I concur that the contract is with the dealer, due to Derek P's actions I don't think he'll be unable to make a 'claim' against the dealer for selling a vehicle which is basically unusable as in his own words he said:

derek pringle - 2010-11-29 8:57 AMWe seen this model at 2 Birmingham shows and 1 Manchester show before deciding finally. At these shows obviously we spoke to lots of reps on the stands that sold Bessacarrs, no indications of limitations. We then took our choice of MH to a recommended dealer and requested he supplied one to us. I think he did his part well.

If indeed, as it appears, he contacted a dealer and asked them to specifically bring in the vehicle for him, then to them he had already made his mind up and they would have no cause to check if it met his needs. If, however, they had advised him that it was suitable for him, that would be another matter.Without knowing the EXACT situation and conversation which took place when Derek P got the van from the dealer, it is very difficult to know if there is any form of redress at all, and I certaily would NOT advocate taking any legal action over it unless this can be established to definitely be the dealers 'fault' beforehand - you have to prove they were at fault, not just think they were.

[Brian Kirby]

Don't disagree with any of that, Mel, and I certainly wasn't advocating legal action, as I had hoped was clear.  However, what I was advocating was weighing the van to see if it complies, within the specified limits, with the implied BS EN 1646-2 methodology.  If it is overweight, that is to say if it exceeds the manufacturer's stated weight + 5%, then I advised Derek to talk to Trading Standards to see if he has a case.

Even if you order something based on the manufacturer's data, and the manufacturer's data is wrong, it is still the seller who is liable under UK law.  It is then for the seller to take up his case with the manufacturer for putting him in the hole in the first place.

I feel for Derek, and would like him to at least have an argument, though I'm inclined to agree with you that it is a slender possibility, and in reality he's probably Paxo'd.

[Meadows Engine]

Derek

I can see were you are coming from but not every one has your depth of knowledge or experience to know the problem exists, and its difficult to look for one if you don’t know what it is your looking for. Neither of us can do any thing about people who just ignore it. But the rest could do with a better deal.

 

My own Motorhome quoted 500kg payload on road tests, literature, hand book and web site. I eventually found out too late that it was a lot less.

 

I think we both agree that it would be our advantage if it was made a lot more transparent up front .

Perhaps a graded pay load scale A = 250kg, B = 350kg, C = 450kg etc all figs after the BS allowances and that had to be given for each motorhome.

 

Even if you didn’t know exactly your pay load requirements you would at least know the

“B” “scale motorhome you were considering had a truly available payload of 350Kg, a better situation than at present.

 

Yes our payload requirements are all different, but in some ways they are all similar, would it not be possible to establish a set of bench marks for those just starting off to at least supply some reference points from which to make a decision.

 

John

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Derek Uzzell]

John

 

It took approaching two years between us deciding that buying a motorhome might be a good plan and actually purchasing our first one in 1998. During that period I read MMM and Which Motorcaravan religiously, obtained John Wickersham's "The Motocaravan Manual" book, joined the Auto-Sleepers Owners' Club (as an A-S motorhome was a possibility) and acquired various test-report articles. I never considered payload, however.

 

Eventually we bought a Herald Templar (still without considering payload) and only bothered to weigh the thing a couple of years later when we chanced on a free weighbridge in France. The Templar proved to be within its 3300kg MAM fully-loaded, but not by much. Significantly for me was the strong likelihood that the larger Heralds (eg. Valencia, Aragon) on identical chassis were likely to be well overweight and I'm pretty sure I warned of this in the Herald club news-letter. I do recall mentioning it to a Herald Insignia owner who had told me he had added a host of accessories (many of them heavy) to his vehicle. He told me that he thought it probable that his motohome was overweight, but he would prefer not to confirm this for 'ignorance is bliss' reasons.

 

As there's is no legal pressure to introduce your 'A/B/C' payload scale for motorhomes, if motorcaravanners think it's a good idea then they are going to have to pressurise the industry themselves.

[Brian Kirby]

Sadly, John, I think the problem is that reality is too complex to allow such simple solutions.  It is similar to the frequent comment that motorhomes should be weighed by testers.  I do not think either would provide the protection against buying motorhomes with insufficient payloads that is sought.

Why?  Primarily because the payload is particular to the individual motorhome.  The base vehicles are vans, and vans do not come with standard specifications in the same way that cars do.  Much more of the equipment in a van is subject to choosing options.  Cab air conditioning - whether manual or automatic, engine size, transmission type, chassis type and MAM, passenger's airbag, types of seats, alternator size, radio specification, electric or manual windows, etc etc, all affect the weight of the chassis, before the conversion is commenced.  Then there are conversion options, the various "packs", but also items such as rear heaters, tank heaters, alternative fridge capacities, possibly drop down beds or not, etc etc.  Even after these are taken into account, there are the various dealer fit extras, satellite dishes, solar panels, additional batteries, awnings, the ubiquitous bike rack etc etc.  All of these add to the unladen weight of the vehicle, and must be deducted from payload, so reducing it.  They also get fitted in different places in the vehicles, and so affect the load margin available at each axle.  What emerges is that each motorhome, even if of the same make and model, will be liable to end up with a different payload, and will almost certainly have differing axle load margins.  Quoting one, or another, as indicative of what the unguarded buyer may expect would, IMO, be as liable to mislead as to help.

What seems to be missing, in far too many cases, is firstly the basis on which payload has been calculated by the manufacturer, but also information on the weights of these various options, and their consequent affect on payload.

It can be done.  Hymer and Burstner, for example, produce (at least did produce, I have not looked at the latest editions) technical supplements to their catalogues in which all the factory fit options, including base vehicle options, are listed and the weights stated.  The warning is given that the weights of the options deduct from payload, and the method of calculating payload, and the value of the payload, are clearly stated.

The only thing missing is advice on the weights of the ancillary equipment typically carried, and a guide the the per-person load, in terms of clothing, food, cooking equipment etc that is likely to be needed.  Even this information is available to any member of the Caravan Club, and can be found in the members' handbook.  There is no reason why that could not be repeated in brochures, or magazine articles.  Beyond that BS EN 1646-2, as Derek has said above, includes further guide calculations on how much to allow per person, for exactly such items, in calculating payload.  This calculation too, could easily be repeated in brochures and/or magazine reviews.  It is not really realistic to expect the individual buyer to get his own copy of the BS at about £80 per pop, but public libraries should have the standard in their reference section, or be able to get hold of a copy, possibly even a loan copy, so that advice could easily be given.

What Derek says is undoubtedly true, few novice motorhomers consider payload as an issue: we discovered it as novice caravaners while trying to match small, lightweight caravans, to small lightweight cars.  Tricky!

The further problem is that people seem just to buy on impulse, going to a show or a dealership smitten by the idea that a motorhome offers them wonderful opportunities for travel (true! :-)), see what they like, talk to a salesman who has never used a motorhome in anger, has scant knowledge of the technical issues, and who is probably on commission, and buy.  If they are lucky, they get one of the ones that work.  If not, they either run it overloaded and never discover their error, or get stopped at a roadside check and face the ensuing problems of being found overweight, or someone mentions the possibility to them, or they pick up the possibility from a forum such as this, and then go and check.

The consequence may just be that they need to reduce what they carry, but it can be, as we have seen, that adaptation of their van, sometimes at considerable cost, or a change of van at great expense, are the only remedies.  For some, the result is tragedy, because they have spent their available capital, and have no further reserves to accommodate these further costs, perhaps being forced to sell their unworkable van, and forgo their planned travel opportunities.

The whole business is unavoidably complex, but the present situation is an entirely avoidable rogues charter, and there seems no shortage of rogues prepared to exploit it.  The answer is tighter regulation, and a genuine right of legal redress when things go wrong.  I already hear shrieks of anguish from the industry, and howls for less "red tape" not more, and yet I firmly believe if they were forced to deal completely honestly and transparently with the public, they would stop producing these silly "sham" vans, would better suit the van to the buyer, and in the process do themselves, and their industry, no end of good.

[Derek Uzzell]

I notice that Auto-Trail's website will have a 'Weight Calculator' on it some time in the future. It will be intriguing to see how that works.

 

If you want to identify a selection of motorhome models currently being marketed in the UK that will almost certainly be overweight when operated normally, all you have to do is turn to the "A-Class" part of MMM magazine's Buyers' Guide and check the figures in the Payload column. Where the Payload figure is below 400kg, read the vehicle's length and, if that's above 7 metres, there's not a cat-in-Hell's chance that motorhome will stay inside its maximum weight limit.

 

Take the Rapido 9M-Series - 3500kg MAM, Mercedes RWD chassis, 7.40m long, 4 berths, 4 belted-seats and payloads not exceeding 270kg. These are large motorhomes to begin with and, with an asking-price over £70k, you can bet your life that new owners won't stint themselves when it comes to adding accessories. And let's not overlook Burstner, Esterel, Frankia and Pilote.

 

Similar criteria can be applied to the other motorhome categories in the Buyers' Guide. If the vehicle is clearly bulky and its quoted payload is below 400kg, then that should set off alarm bells. And if the payload's below 300kg, then you'll really need to beware.

 

This isn't rocket science and the basic information is availabe for all to see. But if there's no general awareness amongst motorcaravanners that there are lots of motorhomes in the payload featherweight division, or they allow their hearts to rule their heads when buying motorhomes, then nothing is going to change.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[derek pringle]

Hi

Sorry for the delay in responding but we have obviously had a lot of thinking to do.

Really appreciate your help, especially yours Brian as it has been in my opinion very balanced and supportive. On a funnier note, Derek seems to think we have had a labotomy, but looking through the mags. since I became aware of the issue

it is a minefield as lots of vans have woeful payloads. 4 berths with very little more alowance than ours. Seems instead of issuing anybody interested in buying a motorhome with an awareness kit it would be much easier to regulate and standardize the system, even if it was just the clarity that was standardized.

Just doing the easy way and calculating roughly what we take we know now that we will be grossly overweight in the payload. Decision made is to change and take the financial knock.The 660 model has 560 kg even with the auto.

thanks very much indeed to everybody

derek and lyn

off tomorrow to place order for the 660

[Brambles]

derek pringle - 2010-12-05 9:18 AM

 

Hi

Sorry for the delay in responding but we have obviously had a lot of thinking to do.

Really appreciate your help, especially yours Brian as it has been in my opinion very balanced and supportive. On a funnier note, Derek seems to think we have had a labotomy, but looking through the mags. since I became aware of the issue

it is a minefield as lots of vans have woeful payloads. 4 berths with very little more alowance than ours. Seems instead of issuing anybody interested in buying a motorhome with an awareness kit it would be much easier to regulate and standardize the system, even if it was just the clarity that was standardized.

Just doing the easy way and calculating roughly what we take we know now that we will be grossly overweight in the payload. Decision made is to change and take the financial knock.The 660 model has 560 kg even with the auto.

thanks very much indeed to everybody

derek and lyn

off tomorrow to place order for the 660

 

Hi,

I do not know much about this but is it may be possible to uprate your chassis to 3800 kg or whatever so you increase yor payload. I also believe there are other things to consider if driving a vehicle rated over 3500kg. Are you aware of the differences between driving a vehicle under or over 3500 kg.

I am not familiar in detail off the top of my head but am sure Brian , Derek U, and others are and can explain the important points. For example driving in Austria will require a Go box not a vignette??, you are no longer classed as a car??. What about Driving licence restrictions???

Obviously this applies both if you change vehicle or uprate existing but I shall leave in hands of others to hopefully answer as to whether my concerns are founded or not.

The point is , have you researched fully the implications of driving a vehicle over 3500kg?

Jon.

 

 

Edit - spelling and typos

 

[Derek Uzzell]

Lots of discussion about uprating beyond 3500kg on

 

http://www.outandaboutlive.co.uk/forums/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=21602&start=1

 

Driving-licence and brief foreign-use advice in the "Watch Your Weight" section of MMM magazine's Buyers' Guide.

[Derek Uzzell]

derek pringle - 2010-12-05 9:18 AM

 

...Derek seems to think we have had a labotomy...

 

No, I don't think that, but I do believe there's absolutely no chance that the motorcaravan industry will regulate itself regarding the production of 'light-payload' motorhomes, or standardise/clarify how payload data are presented beyond the system that's currently in place.

[Brian Kirby]

Derek Uzzell - 2010-11-30 6:58 PM ............. This isn't rocket science and the basic information is available for all to see. But if there's no general awareness amongst motorcaravanners that there are lots of motorhomes in the payload featherweight division, or they allow their hearts to rule their heads when buying motorhomes, then nothing is going to change.

In fairness, Derek, I think the problem is that first time buyers aren't yet motorhomers, and simply don't know, or underestimate, the weight of all their clutter, and so what payload they will require. 

IMO, this is far more a problem of a lack of (rather specialised) knowledge, than of ignorance.  For many (I would guess a substantial majority) first timer buyers, buying a motorhome is the first time they come into contact with the concept of payloads.  Unfamiliarity with metric measures can also cause confusion and, even if converted to Imperial measures, 6 to 8cwt still sounds an awful lot - until you know!

Add that not all manufacturers stick to the EN 1646 formula, and it is easy to understand how the uninitiated can fall into comparing apples with pears, in terms of what has been included by different manufacturers in their definitions of unladen weight, or mass in running order (or even what the distinction between the two is), and the confusion is complete.

Then there is your nice, friendly, salesperson, who seems too often uninclined to point out the pitfalls, even if s/he knows or understands what they are.  Given the price of these vehicles, and the sums spent by dealers and manufacturers in promoting them, the first time buyer really should not be suckered the way some are.  It really is a very poor, and very expensive, level of service to the buying public.  It is not beyond rectification, but the first time impulse buyer will always be a prey to the "heart ruling" scenario, because their head has not yet been primed to rule.

[grahamw]

Brian Kirby - 2010-12-05 4:55 PM

 

Add that not all manufacturers stick to the EN 1646 formula, and it is easy to understand how...........

 

A review recently appearing in the Caravan Club magazine regarding the Murvi Morello and a worryingly low payload figure after the tester had visited a weighbridge encouraged me to write to the Club and seek clarification on the basis of the figures presented by Murvi to the reviewer. No clarification was given and I can only assume that Murvi were never questioned. I did suggest that as this was a rather worrying trend regarding inadequate payloads that the Club ought to be paying more attention to in reviews if only to publicise it as crucial information for buyers. If reviewers are not asking for this information then why would manufacturers feel the need to be more up-front about it. I feel the press should now have an expectation that this information should be readily available and if not why not. It's certainly true that european manufacturers are more up-front about payload simply because the press there ask the question.

 

Graham

[Guest JudgeMental]

Derek just be cautious this time? and take nothing for granted? have the thing weighed as part of the contract?

 

If the Germans can produce a 3500kg van with a 450kg payload I would except nothing else, because they are out there, and I have one for sale! :-D

[grahamw]

JudgeMental - 2010-12-05 9:09 PM

 

If the Germans can produce a 3500kg van with a 450kg payload I would except nothing else, because they are out there, and I have one for sale! :-D

 

I don't think the main issue is about producing basic vehicles with an acceptable payload (please I'm not saying your current vehicle is basic, I've no idea). The issue is about manufacturers being up-front with payload figures when very popular "extras" have been added such as a 3.0 litre engine and automatic gearbox. However, I do believe that the Germans are more on the ball with this simply because the press there ask the question and report the answers given. This often clarifies the criteria being applied when manufacturers state their payload figures.

 

Graham

[Derek Uzzell]

grahamw - 2010-12-06 9:24 AM

 

JudgeMental - 2010-12-05 9:09 PM

 

If the Germans can produce a 3500kg van with a 450kg payload I would except nothing else, because they are out there, and I have one for sale! :-D

 

I don't think the main issue is about producing basic vehicles with an acceptable payload (please I'm not saying your current vehicle is basic, I've no idea). The issue is about manufacturers being up-front with payload figures when very popular "extras" have been added such as a 3.0 litre engine and automatic gearbox. However, I do believe that the Germans are more on the ball with this simply because the press there ask the question and report the answers given. This often clarifies the criteria being applied when manufacturers state their payload figures.

 

Graham

 

Were you referring to this test report, by any chance?

 

http://www.caravanclub.co.uk/media/6551992/motorcaravantest.pdf

 

I haven't got a current Murvi brochure, so I don't know how (or even if) Murvi provides weight data for its products, but it's worth noting that the vehicle George Hinton tested for the CC wasn't the base model.

 

CC's Morocco had over £6k of extras including the 3.0litre motor/ComfortMatic gearbox option. The majority of optional extras will add to a motorhome's basic weight, so the apparent conflict between the test's/manufacturer's MRO and User Payload data may just be down to the test-vehicle's enhanced specification and not to any subterfuge on Murvi's part. (For what it's worth, "Which Motorhome" reported on a Morocco in 09/2010 - quite possibly the same vehicle as used for the CC review - and quoted a payload of 500kg.)

 

In fact, given the likely high specification of the CC's Morocco, a User Payload of 185kg may well be adequate for many couples (Morocco is a pure 2-person design) - I believe my wife and I could live with it.

 

George Hinton said "Provided you examine the payload issue carefully, the Morocco conversion is a useful addition to the range, and is bound to win many friends". This seems fair enough to me, as I think 185kg payload is 'workable' in this particular case.

[flicka]

Hi Derek

If you are looking at the Bessacarr E660 it is on the 4 tonne chassis and a different layout to your E630. I am also assuming your licence included C1/C1E categories. (upto 7.5 tonne)

So if the E630 meets your requirements in all but payload, why not investigate the possibility of uprating the MAM to 3850kg, giving you in excess of 500kg payload.

If this is possible it would be a relatively cheap way of achieving the extra capacity you require and without taking a big double financial hit of changing the Van.

i.e. loss on the E630 & the higher cost of the E660.

Depending on the E630 plating, they can often increase the MAM to the total of the Front & Rear Axle weights.

[Meadows Engine]

Derek

The Morocco tested in the recent Caravan Club test had an MIRO of 3315kg with no passenger and only a half full water tank, allowing 75kg for the passenger and filling up the water leaves an available pay load for everything else of only 74kg!! (not 185kg)

 

From my experience with my similar spec’d Morello , the front axle is likely to be very close on its maximum and even if it was given a “ paper” up rating to 3700kg the question has to be asked how could you use the 200kg gained, if placed mid-ships 100kg would be put on the front axle, just not viable.

 

I like Graham was disturbed that the Caravan Club seemed to be recommending this as a motor home for two people with out really addressing its weight issues. Bearing in mind that it was being tested and marketed as a motorhome within the 3500kg class. I have no doubt that if built on the Maxi chassis it would be a fine vehicle and give many hours of pleasure as mine does but you must be willing and able to step into the Private Heavy goods class to achieve this.

 

I have discussed this at length with the CC’s technical manager and in fact referred him to the recent posts on this forum which high light this problem, and he has promised to look into it. Indeed it is good to note that their latest test of a motorhome does include its actual weight as tested, a step in the right direction.

 

As a club magazine they do have a duty of care towards their members and in particular those without our experience who may be new to the motorhome market and its complexities.

 

Kind regards

John

 

 

 

 

[Derek Uzzell]

Meadows Engine - 2010-12-06 11:21 PM

 

Derek

The Morocco tested in the recent Caravan Club test had an MIRO of 3315kg with no passenger and only a half full water tank, allowing 75kg for the passenger and filling up the water leaves an available pay load for everything else of only 74kg!! (not 185kg)

 

 

I'm was aware of that, but my wife and I are each well below the notional 75kg driver/passenger weight. This would allow your 74g figure to rise to around 100kg. It's also likely that George Hinton loaded his personal 'kit' on to the Morocco before taking the vehicle to be weighed, which would impact on the quoted 3315kg MIRO.

 

Given the specification of the Morocco tested by the CC, once my weight, my wife's and and an extra 35kg of fresh-water have been taken into account, I'm confident that the remaing 100kg of payload would be sufficient to allow me to operate that motorhome without exceeding its 3500kg MAM. I have no difficulty imagining holidaying in the Morocco without continully worrying that I'd have to watch out for it going over 3500kg. Plainly that might not be true for a couple who weighed considerably more than us, or chose to add furher heavy accessories (eg. a tow bar). But, just because the Morocco has an on-paper very low payload, this doesn't automatically make it unfit for purpose.

 

I think it's excellent that motorcaravanners like yourself and Graham are contacting leisure-related organisations such as the CC regarding light-payload motorhomes. But I still say that you can't remove from the buyer (inexperienced or veteran) the onus to establish whether or not a motorhome has adequate payload for their planned usage of it.

[pepe63xnotuse]

...but I dare say that any "extras" (towbars,windout awnings,cycle carriers etc)would be fitted by dealers,without a word from them about the legal implications..which surely can't be right?... :-(

 

..as has already been mentioned on this thread,how can you be mindful of a problem that you didn't know existed in the first place..?

 

Not all MH owners spend the same amount of time that we do trawling through mags and online forums...

[Guest JudgeMental]

when you get a brochure from a German manafacturer it will have the mass in running order(MIRO) driver + gas + water + fuel. Then the list of extras in brochure will have the weight next to it in Kg of each item......Now how hard is that! *-)

 

My van is a 4 season 4 berth double floored fully winterised camper. it has a lot of extras. but the MIRO is 3050 if you travel with 50kg water you have a respectable 500kg payload? mine with extras is nearer 400kg which is just about enough for my aduly size family........

 

I think this hides a fundemental truth that a lot of UK campers are poorly constructed, low tech, wooden framed and heavy...there can be no other answer :-S