An adequate payload?

[Brian Kirby]

This is a rework of an item I posted about four years ago.  Nothing changes, does it?

From time to time people post about loading their motorhomes, and about why they seem to have so little payload.  I have done a bit of digging, and hope this may clarify what to be aware of when confronting what is, in reality, a quite complicated issue.

Many manufacturers declare the loadings of motorhomes in accordance with BS EN 1646-2.  This is a European Standard, adopted by the British Standards Institute.  It lays down the test loading criteria for motorhomes.  (You may be able to access this document via your local library, possibly on-line, via a link to British Standards on-line (BSOL)).  The catch is that compliance with the standard is not mandatory, although if a manufacturer claims to comply, he must reasonably do so.  If a motorhome is stated to be National Caravan Council approved, it is deemed to comply with the standard: if it not NCC approved, check whether compliance is claimed, and how payload has been calculated.

Under the BS, the payload for a motorhome is calculated by deducting its Mass in Running Order (MIRO), from its Maximum Allowable Mass (MAM).

The MAM is the maxim weight to which the vehicle may legally be loaded, and is stated on a plate attached to the chassis by the manufacturer of the base vehicle.  Consult the motorhome and/or base vehicle handbooks for where to find the plate, and what the numbers on it mean.  Note also that the plate gives maximum permissible loads for the front and rear axles.  These are absolute limits, and must never be exceeded.

To comply with the BS, the MIRO must be the weight of the vehicle with just coolant, lubricant, spare wheel, tools and driver (at 75Kg) present, and with the fresh water tank, fuel tank, and gas cylinder, all 90% full.  A manufacturer’s catalogue will almost invariably quote MIRO for the most basic version of the ‘van.  The weights of any options (engine/chassis upgrades, equipment “packs”, awning, solar panel, satellite dish, bike rack, etc) must be added to this.  Thus, MIRO (and so payload) will vary depending on the chosen specification, but MAM will not.  The weights of options, packs, etc, can be found in the brochure, or from the dealer.  Final warning: the ex works MIRO may vary within ± 5%.  In assessing adequacy of payload, therefore, it is prudent to assume your van may turn out 5% heavier than the catalogue figures.  The only way to be certain is to take it to a weighbridge.

The resulting payload has to suffice for all your camping gear, clothing, food, bikes, toys, etc; but will it?

There is a “rule of thumb” calculation you can be use to give a rough check on whether this payload will be adequate.  This takes 75Kg per belted passenger seat (for weight of passengers, so excluding driver), plus (10 kg × L) + (10 kg × N), where 'L` is the total length of the motor caravan in metres, and 'N` is the total number of people for whom seatbelts are provided.  Note that it is the number of belted passenger seats that count, and not the actual number of passengers, and that sleeping berths in excess of belted seats gain no allowance.  The calculation merely allows you to check whether a given motorhome has a reasonably adequate payload, by suggesting a minimum value.  It does not, and cannot, guarantee that it will be adequate for you, or for how you intend using it.  It gives a rough check, and will only cater for the basics, so bicycles, scooters, etc, should be treated as extras.  Having said that, how might it work out in practise?

Some actual values, from personal experience, may help.  Our actual MIRO, from a weighbridge, was 2,976Kg.  (This was only a little above the manufacturer’s figure, but could have been up to 140kg greater and still within the +5% margin allowed.)  The van was a two berth, 6 meters long, with four belted seats; MAM 3,400Kg, giving a maximum available payload (MAM – MIRO) of 424kg, which looks quite favourable at first sight.

Applying the rule of thumb calculation to this van: 3 x 75kg (belted passenger seats) + 6 metres (length of van) x 10kg + 4 (total belted seats) x 10kg, suggests a minimum required payload of 325kg.  424kg available, 325kg required, so 99kg spare.  Adequate, you might think?  Well, read on!

The following actual figures are based upon 10-12 weeks trips to southern Europe, spring and autumn, so include a variety of clothing and footwear.  The apparently high weight of food is mostly due to liquids: we do not “live off our hump”, generally buying food as we travel.

Our actual added load was made up of one passenger at 65kg, 45Kg of clothing (including waterproofs, fleeces, pullovers and walking boots, as well as the usual under and outer wear), 40Kg of food and drink (fridge contents, long-life milk, bottled water, some wine, fruit, vegetables, some tins, plus the usual dry packaged foodstuffs), 70Kg of general goods (towels, washing kit, cosmetics, soaps etc, general cleaning materials, laptop, books, guides and maps), and 80Kg of general camping kit (electric cable, water hose, tools, cleaning materials, levelling ramps, windscreen wash, cab screen cover, camping table, and chairs) and, usually, 36 Kg of bicycles and rack: 336kg in total, 424kg available, 88kg spare.  So, comfortable?  Generally, yes, and within the rule of thumb figure if the 36kg of cycles plus rack is deducted.

In practise, actual laden weight fluctuates as you travel, due to consumption of water, gas, food, wine, etc, and the filling and emptying of the toilet cassette.  Our van varied between 3,150Kg and 3,325Kg, leaving 75kg - 250kg of spare payload.  We thought this might prove tight, especially if returning home with a stock of wine.  In practise, this proved not to be the case, because neither water tank, nor gas cylinders, were ever full on the return leg.  So, if buying wine to bring back, we invariably had over 100kg spare payload available, and we can’t drink that much wine (80+ bottles) in six months!

I would therefore suggest this.  For two people, calculate MIRO plus 5% tolerance, plus weights of all options.  Deduct this figure from the MAM, to arrive at the available payload.  If over 500Kg, the van should be comfortably viable.  If much less than 450kg, or if there will be more than two people using the ‘van, do your homework very carefully, and try to check actual MIRO, before buying.  On the above basis, it should be possible to accommodate four people within a 650Kg payload, but less than this should be approached with caution.

I hope this helps a bit.

[flicka]

Good post, Brian.

Now we could do with the Moderator making it a "sticky" so any newcomers will see it at the top.

Hopefully averting some of the mistakes commonly made.

[Vernon B]

 

All of which makes the new Hymer B544 in standard trim unfit for purpose, despite rave reviews in PM.

 

V

[Guest JudgeMental]

I think a van at 3500kg needs an MIRO of between 3000 - 3150 at a push, leaving a respectable IMO 350 -500 kg payload which can be increased by approx 100kg by carrying less water, and leaving spare wheel behind (and using puncture seal)

 

If we are flying somewhere we can take 15-20 kg for a 2 week holiday each? Now for a motorhome trip, if we are going for a week or 4 weeks we carry a weeks worth of clothing. We have learnt over the years! gone are the days of suitcases full of stuff......

 

Food we pickup along the way, starting of with a reasonably stocked fridge. gone are the days of carrying beans all the way to Spain and back again? :-S

 

there are 4 of us so a large Ikea bag of shoes (12 pair) goes in garage 2 e bikes, BBQ, outside chest fridge, 4 chairs & table etc.... etc....... and we still manage within 3500kg and most European family's have to as well. For the life of me I just cannot see how a couple can struggle within 3500kg, with a properly constructed and fit for purpose camper mind *-)

 

 

[Poppy]

Thank you Brian.It should be made a sticky post.This is an obsession of mine given that many motorhomes have QUOTED payloads of under 300 kgs.The last review I read of that 544 the journalist did actually comment on the tight payload and said that the uprated one was much more realistic.

[w1ntersun]

I am glad I had the upgrade to 3850kg. This gave me a payload of 970kg. After all the mods on the van and what we carry ( inc wine back ) I only have 100kg spare.

 

Richard

[pepe63xnotuse]

Ours' had been "replated" to 3.85t by the previous owner..and although the payload increased by the 350kg,the axle loadings only increased by 20kg front and 40kg rear.

So in many cases,it would still be worth keeping an eye on how the actually axle loadings are going(..especially with garaged models..)

 

...I dread to think of the amount of "stuff" I'd be lugging about,if we had a "garage".... :$

[cronkle]

pepe63 - 2010-12-09 9:26 AM

 

Ours' had been "replated" to 3.85t by the previous owner..and although the payload increased by the 350kg,the axle loadings only increased by 20kg front and 40kg rear.

So in many cases,it would still be worth keeping an eye on how the actually axle loadings are going(..especially with garaged models..)

 

...I dread to think of the amount of "stuff" I'd be lugging about,if we had a "garage".... :$

 

Agreed. It needs to be stressed that most vans are more likely to be overloaded on their rear axle rather than their overall capacity. It's not only the 'garage' models but the vans with large rear overhangs that are likely to be caught out.

 

Personally when I look at vans now-a-days I want to know the weight overall and on each axle as it stands in front of me. That gives me a rough idea of how much else I can put in it and where.

 

The other thing to do would be to load it up in holiday order and off down to the local weigh bridge and have it split weighed. I can then be sure about being within the plated limits of the van.

[Usinmyknaus]

A scholarly post, as usual, from Brian and with just 3 years' experience in motorhoming I lack the technical knowledge to comment on it. I do, however, wonder how many 3500 Kg MAM motorhomes leaving dealer forecourts in the next 12 months would meet Brian's specification? From my recollection of looking at many different models when buying my own van, I suspect it's going to be a rather low percentage of the total........

 

Bob

[lennyhb]

JudgeMental - 2010-12-09 8:32 AM

 

I think a van at 3500kg needs an MIRO of between 3000 - 3150 at a push, leaving a respectable IMO 350 -500 kg payload which can be increased by approx 100kg by carrying less water, and leaving spare wheel behind (and using puncture seal)

 

 

A realistic target M'Lord.

Our payload ex works was 350kg a bit on the low side but lost a 100kg over a standard version due to the extras on our special edition.

With the extras we added, Awning, bike rack, 2nd leisure battery we were down to 270kg.

We usually travel with approx 75% water 75% fuel & enough clobber on board for 3 weeks + bikes then we weigh in around 3500 - 3520kg. Check our weight regularly as there is a free weighbridge 2 miles from home.

 

A lot of owners forget how much the extras they have fitted weigh, in our case 180kg over the basic model.

 

 

[rupert123]

pepe63 - 2010-12-09 9:26 AM

 

Ours' had been "replated" to 3.85t by the previous owner..and although the payload increased by the 350kg,the axle loadings only increased by 20kg front and 40kg rear.

So in many cases,it would still be worth keeping an eye on how the actually axle loadings are going(..especially with garaged models..)

 

...I dread to think of the amount of "stuff" I'd be lugging about,if we had a "garage".... :$

 

I cannot see how this can possibly be correct, or am I misunderstanding you.

[lennyhb]

rupert123 - 2010-12-09 12:21 PM

 

pepe63 - 2010-12-09 9:26 AM

 

Ours' had been "replated" to 3.85t by the previous owner..and although the payload increased by the 350kg,the axle loadings only increased by 20kg front and 40kg rear.

So in many cases,it would still be worth keeping an eye on how the actually axle loadings are going(..especially with garaged models..)

 

...I dread to think of the amount of "stuff" I'd be lugging about,if we had a "garage".... :$

 

I cannot see how this can possibly be correct, or am I misunderstanding you.

 

Quite common, probably limited by the wheel/tyre combination, 3500kg chassis usually have 15" wheels & tyres which will have a lowish load rating. e.g Rear axle load for a 3500kg Fiat X250 with 15" wheels 2000kg, for a maxi chassis with 16" wheels 2400kg.

If you are going to uprate make sure your wheels/tyres are suitable.

 

 

[Derek Uzzell]

Dunno if this file will transfer.

 

(Well, clearly it will!)

[pepe63xnotuse]

rupert123 - 2010-12-09 12:21 PM

 

pepe63 - 2010-12-09 9:26 AM

 

Ours' had been "replated" to 3.85t by the previous owner..and although the payload increased by the 350kg,the axle loadings only increased by 20kg front and 40kg rear.

So in many cases,it would still be worth keeping an eye on how the actually axle loadings are going(..especially with garaged models..)

 

...I dread to think of the amount of "stuff" I'd be lugging about,if we had a "garage".... :$

 

I cannot see how this can possibly be correct, or am I misunderstanding you.

 

As well as any tyre limitations,it also comes about because the sum of the axle loadings is always(usually?) greater than the vehicle's GVW,so as to decrease the chance of overloading an axle due to "uneven" weight distribution..

 

Even when in 3500kg trim, the axles were rated as:

Front-1850kg,Rear-2060kg...Giving 3910kg

So really,all the replate did was to use up some of this "spare capacity"...

 

Chris

[ron.]

A good post Brian. If anything needs more tighter regulating it is motorhome payload. Some of the new van payloads are a disgrace and I feel very sorry for newcomers to our hobby who will no doubt buy them in ignorance of the facts. It also might help if the so called expert testers concentrated more on the basics, such as payload, rather on the colour of the upholstory and such.

 

Ron

 

 

[trooper]

As I have said before, Payload should be the first consideration when bying a Motorhome, whats the use if it wont do what you want.

Good reminder brian

[Brian Kirby]

pepe63 - 2010-12-09 2:14 PM ............ Even when in 3500kg trim, the axles were rated as: Front-1850kg,Rear-2060kg...Giving 3910kg So really,all the replate did was to use up some of this "spare capacity"... Chris

Just to be clear Chris, is it the case that the permissible loads for the axles were increased, and are now shown on the new plate, at 1870kg front and 2100kg rear?  I'm intrigued, because an extra 20kg seems hardly worth the effort.  Do you happen to know what were the actual limiting factors on the axles?  It would also be interesting to know what van/base combination you are referring to.

[Mel B]

As a slight aside to all of this, if you're going for a fixed rear bed model that has either electric or manual height adjustment, check the permitted weight for the bed.

 

We have manual height adjustment with our Chausson and it is rated at 150kg which equates to 330lb = just over 23 stone, the electric version at 180kg equates to 396lb = just over 28 stone. This would include the weight of the bedclothes and if your dogs decide to snuggle on the bed with you in the night!!! So if a couple of 'large' people were thinking of getting one they could find things going 'bump' in the night! I know there'll be some tolerance but worth thinking about ...

 

Is there a weight limit on overcab beds I wonder? :-S

[rupert123]

Brian Kirby - 2010-12-09 3:30 PM

pepe63 - 2010-12-09 2:14 PM ............ Even when in 3500kg trim, the axles were rated as: Front-1850kg,Rear-2060kg...Giving 3910kg So really,all the replate did was to use up some of this "spare capacity"... Chris

Just to be clear Chris, is it the case that the permissible loads for the axles were increased, and are now shown on the new plate, at 1870kg front and 2100kg rear?  I'm intrigued, because an extra 20kg seems hardly worth the effort.  Do you happen to know what were the actual limiting factors on the axles?  It would also be interesting to know what van/base combination you are referring to.

I understand this Chris but like Brian I find it very strange someone goes to the trouble of uprating, which probably cost around £250 to gain not much. I wanted some more load for my rear axle, I carry a scooter, so asked SV Tech about this and they said I could uprate to 3500kg of which a 100kg would be added to rear axle, usefull in my case as it means I could fit a spare wheel and carry some water. Out of interest my current Swift had a bit more payload than Swift quoted in their brochure.

[Brian Kirby]

JudgeMental - 2010-12-09 8:32 AM I think a van at 3500kg needs an MIRO of between 3000 - 3150 at a push, leaving a respectable IMO 350 -500 kg payload which can be increased by approx 100kg by carrying less water, and leaving spare wheel behind (and using puncture seal) ................

Agreed, with the proviso that the MIRO is the actual MIRO of the van in question, and not just that quoted in the manufacturer's catalogue for the base model without extras.

Even if no extras are added and the van bought is that base model, don't forget that +/-5% margin on MIRO.  If the catalogue MIRO is 3,000kg, and the van you get happens to weigh 3,150kg at a weighbridge, the manufacturer is still within his permissible margin, but you lose 150kg payload.  That is what makes it so difficult for buyers to know where they stand.

Personally, I think the MIRO as stated in the catalogue should be a guaranteed maximum, so that customer does not bear the risk (which he is unlikely to know of, or understand) of lost payload if the catalogue MIRO is overshot.

[Poppy]

Ah Brian but you don't sell motorhomes by talking about payloads do you.You put in ovens, large fridge freezers, make them as large as you dare and beautifully decorated and hope that no one talks about payloads or their implications.

[LordThornber]

Poppy - 2010-12-09 4:00 PM

 

Ah Brian but you don't sell motorhomes by talking about payloads do you.You put in ovens, large fridge freezers, make them as large as you dare and beautifully decorated and hope that no one talks about payloads or their implications.

 

This is true. We've bought 2 vans from new and neither dealer even mentioned payload.

 

OK our last purchase was in '03 and since then maybe dealers have tightened up on this very important matter. But I wouldn't be surprised if they haven't.

 

Doubtless some will argue that it's the buyers responsibility to be aware, and they'd have a point, but I pity the novice who goes in eyes closed to it. And there'll be plenty of them I'm sure.

 

Martyn

[Guest JudgeMental]

Brian Kirby - 2010-12-09 3:47 PM

JudgeMental - 2010-12-09 8:32 AM I think a van at 3500kg needs an MIRO of between 3000 - 3150 at a push, leaving a respectable IMO 350 -500 kg payload which can be increased by approx 100kg by carrying less water, and leaving spare wheel behind (and using puncture seal) ................

Agreed, with the proviso that the MIRO is the actual MIRO of the van in question, and not just that quoted in the manufacturer's catalogue for the base model without extras.

Even if no extras are added and the van bought is that base model, don't forget that +/-5% margin on MIRO.  If the catalogue MIRO is 3,000kg, and the van you get happens to weigh 3,150kg at a weighbridge, the manufacturer is still within his permissible margin, but you lose 150kg payload.  That is what makes it so difficult for buyers to know where they stand.

Personally, I think the MIRO as stated in the catalogue should be a guaranteed maximum, so that customer does not bear the risk (which he is unlikely to know of, or understand) of lost payload if the catalogue MIRO is overshot.

Why be so pessimistic, no need unless you buy British apparently.....mine actually weighed less, so was slightly better then expected.and I normally only buy vans that have been reviewed in Germany, with extensive weight data. Up to now, I have never seen one out by anything much that I can remember your notional "ideal" 600 + Kg figure for 4 is unrealistic in a van at 3500kg. I cant think of many 4 berths with an MIRO approaching 600kg. only a decent 3500kg panel van or van style coachbuilt (all 2 berth really) offers this kinda loading flexibility dont you fink?By example: the german dealer I have been talking to refuses to order 3500kg panel vans as stock, as they are unnecessary and expensive (his words) all but a handfull of the 150 odd panel vans for sale in germany at the moment are 3300kg chassis. with a MIRO of approx 2850 leaving approxa 450kg loading for 2 people. he says paying 1000 euro more for the larger chassis is not necessary and these vans weigh around 2500 kg empty.

[Brian Kirby]

Usinmyknaus - 2010-12-09 10:36 AM ............... I do, however, wonder how many 3500 Kg MAM motorhomes leaving dealer forecourts in the next 12 months would meet Brian's specification? .................. Bob

In retrospect, I did not make clear the source of that rule of thumb.  It is not mine, it comes from BS EN 1646-2, following the definition of MIRO.

It has been pointed out elsewhere, in respect of BS EN 1646-1, that if a van is stated to meet the Grade 3 heating requirements (capable of maintaining an internal temperature of 22C when the external temperature is -15C), but needs a fresh water tank heater to maintain the water supply under these conditions, it must be supplied with one.  If the heater is an optional extra, the standard van will only meet Grade 2.  It cannot then be Grade 3 and not have the water heater.

So, any vans claiming to comply with BS EN 1646-2 must also comply with, or better, that rule of thumb calculation as regards payload.  Maybe this is why so few actually claim to fully meet either the EN, or the BS, or to be NCC approved.

[Brian Kirby]

JudgeMental - 2010-12-09 4:12 PM  Why be so pessimistic, no need unless you buy British apparently.....mine actually weighed less, so was slightly better then expected.

Not really pessimism, but before the van is delivered it is difficult for anyone to know what it's MIRO may be so, if a specific payload is critical for them, their only wise option is to assume the 5% tolerance will work against them.  Vans sold in the UK may, as you pointed out elsewhere, be made in France, Spain, Italy, Slovenia, Belgium, or Germany, as well as the UK, and some makers, and countries, are better at accurately, and unambiguously, declaring their MIRO, and then sticking to it, than others.  So, it is just intended as a fail-safe strategy, not a pessimistic expectation.

your notional "ideal" 600 + Kg figure for 4 is unrealistic in a van at 3500kg. I cant think of many 4 berths with an MIRO approaching 600kg. only a decent 3500kg panel van or van style coachbuilt (all 2 berth really) offers this kinda loading flexibility dont you fink? .........

Agreed that there may well be few 4 berth vans with MIRO of 2,900kg and MAM of 3,500kg.  Try the rule of thumb calculation on yours, and see what you get.  If it shows you need more payload than the van provided, even Eura Mobil didn't comply with EN 1646-2!  It is an illustration of the problem, not a criticism of this, or that, van.  You have said yourself that your van is "tight" four up.

But then look at all the 7+ metre vans being offered on 3,500kg chassis.  Of course they don't really work.  They can be made to work, by travelling without much water etc but, IMO, if you have to make those kinds of concessions the van is fundamentally flawed, and should be on, or at least available on, a heavier chassis. 

The manufacturers are stuck up a gum tree they have grown.  They realise the vans people like at first sight tend to be large and luxurious looking, and that space and luxury on a 3.5 tonne chassis comes at the expense of payload - or driving licence entitlement.  So, they make the vans (because everyone else does), and the customers buy them, and are happy until they realise that what they have bought can't be used as it appeared possible to use it. 

IMO, the manufacturers would do so much better if they just stated that the figure they quote for MIRO is the maximum, i.e. there is no upward tolerance.  Eliminate that risk to payload, and a number of vans would begin to look viable and the number of disappointed owners would reduce.

Re "Vans", ours is (catalogue) MIRO 2,817kg and MAM 3,500kg.  True MIRO is 2,831kg with 130PS engine, flex pack, and awning (options), for a nice comfy (rounded) payload of 660.  But that, and its sylph-like exterior, is why I got it!  :-)

The likelihood of MIRO variation with a PVC is reduced because there is less timber in the construction.  It is the moisuture content, and density, variation in timber (natutal product and all that) that accounts for most of the need for tolerance on weight.