rear carriers

[Brian Kirby]

Derek Uzzell - 2010-12-07 8:38 AM ........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 remaining 100kg of payload would be sufficient to allow me to operate that motorhome without exceeding its 3500kg MAM. ..............

But that is also part of the problem, is it not?  This was a test of a motorhome by the CC mag.  In part the test is for reader interest, part for information, and part for promotion of the product.  It seems the tester must have weighed the van to be able to contradict the manufacturer's figure. 

The shortcoming is that nowhere does the piece state the basis on which Murvi's payload figure of 320kg was arrived at, nor - so far as I could see - which options were fitted to the van as tested, so no way of knowing what fixtures might account for the difference.  Neither does George Hinton state the basis on which his contradictory payload of 185kg was arrived at.  His only clue is that the fresh water tank was 50% full (incidentally, the stated 18 gallons capacity should equate to 90 litres, so 50% should be 45, not 35 litres) and that filling it from a container rather than a hose is very awkward.  Yes, George, quite, it's a motorhome! :-)

Did he add anything else before weighing?  He is silent, so we don't know.  This leaves even Derek to comment, as above, that he considers it "likely" George had loaded his (weight unknown) personal stuff, leaving him "confident", but not knowing as a matter of fact, that he could operate the van within a (possibly) remaining 100kg payload. I think Derek is being (as he is :-)) very generous. 

Personally, I don't think it is too much to expect greater clarity from Hinton, or the magazine.  Both are, to the extent they earn their shekels from publication, professionals.  These reviews are influential among CC members, which is why firms like Murvi put vans forward for review. 

IMO, this was a rather shallow, poorly presented, report that lacked the basic information for readers to arrive at informed opinions.  And no, I do not expect such reviews to be of a quality where a reader can just rush out and buy blind on the strength of what is said - more fool them if they do!  However, it is a report to caravaners on a motorhome.  Gradually, the market is turning to motorhomes from caravans, and many caravaners will trust the CC to have given a reliable appraisal of the sort of van many might consider an attractive alternative to their caravan.  In this case, I think they were left inadequately briefed.

[Derek Uzzell]

Brian Kirby - 2010-12-07 12:00 PM

...His only clue is that the fresh water tank was 50% full (incidentally, the stated 18 gallons capacity should equate to 90 litres, so 50% should be 45, not 35 litres)...

 

I think John (Meadows Engine) and I have chosen to use MMM's datum of 70 litres for a Morocco's fresh-water tank capacity rather than George Hinton's 18 gallons. 18 gallons is near as dammit 80 litres, so (even if Hinton were correct) we would only be talking about a 5kg difference on a half-tank-full basis. (Out of interest, does anyone have September 2010 "Which Motorhome" to check what their report says, please?)

 

Anyway, if my wife and I had that Morocco and only 95kg of 'spare' payload to play with, rather than 100kg, I still believe we could live with that. OK, I'm not claiming we'd be able to carry what we do in our Hobby, or use the vehicle as we do the Hobby, but that's academic. We wouldn't be buying a Morocco in the first place as it would be unsuitable for our requirements, but if, say, Murvi loaned us for a couple of weeks the Morocco in the CC test, I'm certain its 3500kg MAM would not present a problem.

 

I quite like Caravan Club motorcaravan reports, mainly because they are short and, as a consequence, lack the make-weight dross that now seems to be a standard feature of much longer articles in other magazines.

 

I rate George Hinton's article pretty highly. It covers a lot of ground and, as far as the Morocco's payload is concerned, the relevant figures are provided in the data panel for all to read and Hinton does refer to it in his final summary.

 

While it might be exciting for motorhome 'techies' to have a blow-by-blow account of the (presumed) weighing exercise and an in-depth analysis of why Murvi's and the real-iife weights differ, this would hardly thrill the Caravan Club Magazine's target readership and would be most unlikely to make it through the editing stage.

[grahamw]

Derek Uzzell - 2010-12-07 6:03 PM

 

While it might be exciting for motorhome 'techies' to have a blow-by-blow account of the (presumed) weighing exercise and an in-depth analysis of why Murvi's and the real-iife weights differ, this would hardly thrill the Caravan Club Magazine's target readership and would be most unlikely to make it through the editing stage.

 

When I wrote to the Caravan Club regarding the review some of George Hinton's views were relayed back to me. He was uneasy, I think it's fair to say, that the payload issue rested only in one final sentence as he had discussed it a little more thoroughly in his submission but in order for the article to fit the space available various bits had been edited out. What you say therefore may well be true that certain parts were deemed of little interest to the readership and were cut. The interest of people in this thread, including yourself, may well suggest that the CC editorial team is not entirely in tune with its readerships ability to consume fact.

 

I don't think most peoples concerns are anything to do with being a 'techie' and wanting a blow by blow account of payload issues. I purchase magazines for information in the same way that I value contributions to this forum because I'm keen to learn. Why are we bothering to discuss this issue at all? Simply because to have the knowledge is to have the power and that's important to consumers.

 

Graham

[Derek Uzzell]

grahamw - 2010-12-07 9:27 PM

 

....Simply because to have the knowledge is to have the power and that's important to consumers.

 

Graham

 

I agree wholeheartedly with that. I've just tried to emphasise that, with no legal regulations preventing motorhome manufacturers from producing vehicles with questionable payload, with no particular motivation for dealers to stop selling them, with no particular motivation for leisure magazines to really put the boot in, and a buying population that generally puts payload considerations well down the priority list, I just can't see how things will change for the better unless motorcaravanners themselves decide to do something about it.

[Guest JudgeMental]

or the police clampdown on overloaded vehicles they are so obvious wallowing around all over the place.....

 

the worse case I have ever seen was in the eurotunnel car park where a camper body had collapsed through/over rear axle and was sitting on the ground!

[Meadows Engine]

Derek

I am surprised that you feel that you can tour successfully with only100kg available to you.

 

When I was researching why my Morello was over weight and close on its front axle limit I weighed every thing (removable) that I had on board, the total was 224 kg and I must say I don’t feel that that is excessive.

 

Here is how that breaks down…

 

personal effects Kg

o/h bedding 12

under seat bedding +trolly& cushions 10

OS over head lockers - clothing 11

fixed seat contents-essential kit hoses etc 21

floor mats 10

FNS cupboard lower,towels,books,romoska 11

FNS oh locker 3

Wardrobe clothes/shoes 10

os chairs,table,s/screen,electronics 27

kitchen NS lower cupboards pans etc. 20

kitchen NS lower cupboards food 29

kitchen NS oh lockers 3

Kitchen rear oh locker 3

fridge contents 8

bath room 10

Misc, silver screens,, camera etc 36

total 224

 

I don’t really see how I could loose124kg from this list and go touring I would be interested to hear what your list would comprise of, or how you would prune this list by 124 kg. Which by pure coincidence is the amount I to would have needed to reduce by to bring the van within its 3500kg weight limit and take my good lady with me.

 

I did of course still have further issues with the front axle being virtually right on its limit with my wife in the front passenger seat. Not something I could do anything about as the weight distribution of these personal effects puts only 48 kg on the front axle and so is not a main contributor to that problem.

 

Perhaps we could compile several of these “what I carry lists” so that those coming new into our hobby could select one close to their requirements to gain some idea of what payload they may need.

 

I like your idea of Motorcaravanners doing something about it, any suggestions.

 

John

 

[derek pringle]

Derek,

This is not about the fact that you and your wife are within the weight limits and you know about payloads and all the consequences and ramifications, or even that you seem to be able to manage with no payload at all. You seem to miss the point that we are making, which is basically that the buyer should be looked after. Your philosophy seems to me that if the customer is sucker enough to fall for it then its down to him, I think more clarity at least should give more protection or enlightenment.

As you say if the Germans can be more proactive why cant we.

You may be pleased to know that through my beginners ignorance we have just ordered a 360 version for delivery beginning April which is a very expensive lesson. Continually hearing smug comments that we and any other buyer who makes the same mistake are to blame does not help.

Other contributors are supporting the need to take the "raffle effect"out of the buying process so the customer can clearly purchase what he/she requires without hidden or concealed potholes.

cheers

derek

[Guest JudgeMental]

Probably Just another heavy old fashioned van. Have you weighed the new van?How do you know it will be OK and as over 3500kg has its own set of expensive limitations in use in Europe. You have done it again as far as I can see...and bought a van blind, based on what exactly?......... Like I said earlier there are 3500 kg vans out there with decent payloads, I know I have one :-D

 

 

[derek pringle]

Hi,

Just think that a560 kg payload against 202 kg payload will do the job no problem.Costs seem to be borne by a lot of present motorhomers with 4t chassis and I realise peace of mind probably carries a premium.

Until some uniformity is put in to the system it will remain a bottomless pit.

Could not see how a dealer would get a model in for you to buy on the understanding of no deal if the weight was not 100% accurate, this is where I think magazines should carry a bit more weight, even if supported by higher subs.

Surely a contract with a firm of solicitors would not be too expensive and it would help enormously in dealing with Trading Standards etc. Would be surprised if manufacturers ignored this as approach as easy as ignoring individuals approaching them. Any comment from Magazine heads?

cheers

derek

[Guest JudgeMental]

It is not a magazines responsibility it is yours?? Just choose a decent modern manufacturer. instead of, like an abused puppy, going back to the same one to be kicked in the teeth again*-)

[derek pringle]

seems to me reading all the comments on this topic that it could be a very long search to find a manufacturer above reproach in one way or another.

My point was that if magazines added their pressure to manufacturers then possibly the manufacturer would take a bit more notice. If you take Swift out of the picture then that is an awful lot of choice gone from the market place. It is easy to say I made the wrong choice and ultimately I accept that and I am paying the price. However , that still no doubt leaves future customers no better off.

There must be people awaiting delivery of vans from a multitude of makers that may well find themselves in the unfortunate position we are talking about.

One contributor to this theme said more information could be passed on when test reports are written,this may help. We still like the Bessacarr and are happy that we will be ok with what we carry for the time we own this van.

derek

[Guest JudgeMental]

The answer I suggest is not to just for a heavier more expensive van? And if Swift! are your only choice then God help you*-)

 

what about the likes of:

 

Hymer/dethleff/euramobil/knaus/adria/burstner/chausson/Rapido/ Karmenn/TEC/Carado/challanger/Frankia/Laika/Hobby etc.....

 

 

So you drive an English car do you? and the choice there is between? :-D

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest JudgeMental]

Oop's :-D

[derek pringle]

No, I do not suggest Swift are the only choice, merely we bought the Bessacarr because we liked the look and layout,lots of buyers probably have done the same with whichever manufacturer they chose. Not saying anything wrong about the companies you mention but I am sure we could find similar instances amongst them where payload should be larger for the size and occupancy of some vans.

I am also not suggesting that magazines/ organizations should take everything up on behalf of individuals, just that I feel manufacturers would baulk more at the adverse publicity from this source than merely isolated customers. I also do not agree that everything should be down to the customer, if he/she get it wrong, tough. This to me will encourage makers to continue with the smoke and mirrors surrounding the issue to the point that establishing correct weights could be even more complicated than this forum suggests it is already. People far more experienced in motorhoming than me have made varied comments supporting that the system really is not good.

cheers

derek