An adequate payload?

[rupert123]

Rosbotham - 2010-12-13 9:13 PM

 

rupert123 - 2010-12-13 9:08 PM

 

OK fair enough but it could equally be the other way, I find it difficult to believe any maker would be this far out.

 

So if they're not going to be that far out, why not specify e.g. +/- 2%? They don't. Says it all.

 

The maker is not setting the rules they simply try and comply with them.

[Brian Kirby]

The ±5% tolerance applies to MIRO (also now called empty), as now specifically defined for motor caravans (i.e. without a 75kg driver).

[lennyhb]

Brian Kirby - 2010-12-14 12:36 AM

 

The ±5% tolerance applies to MIRO (also now called empty), as now specifically defined for motor caravans (i.e. without a 75kg driver).

 

What about fuel, water & gas then, the way they are setting the new standards does it mean we will have negative payload?

 

German vans generally quote the ex work weight (don't like the new terminology) with 75kg Driver + 90%Fuel + 90%Water + 90%Gas.

 

 

[lennyhb]

Brian Kirby - 2010-12-13 8:57 PM

lennyhb - 2010-12-13 11:02 AM All these figures are on the Certificate of Conformity, on my COC the Ex works weight is given as 3070 - 3140 kg, axle weights and all other relevant weights dimensions are given. Interesting point the Ex works weight on the sales brochure is given as 3150 kg.

This is true Lenny, but..................

You only get a CoC with a Type Approved (TA) van and in UK, hitherto, and until 29 April next, TA has not been obligatory.  The payload calculation has to be carried out as part of the TA procedure, and TA has been mandatory in Germany for some years.  That, in part, is the reason you know far better what the weights will be on German vans than has previously, and rather shamefully, been the case for UK manufactured vans.  Nothing prevented the manufacturers voluntarily observing the requirement.  The methodology, and the formula, are both in BS EN 1646-2, and have been for years.  They chose not to do this, the decision was not imposed on them. 

One may perhaps be forgiven for wondering why.  If any UK manufacturers are reading this, they may care to comment on why they chose to hand the advantage to German manufacturers, rather than gain it for themselves and benefit the UK economy, and their UK customers, into the bargain.  Difficult one, eh?  Economic myopia is my diagnosis.  Now there's a new phenomenon!  :-)

Nothing to stop the customer asking for a CoC after all he would only be asking the dealer to confirm the van meets the relevant standards & if they won't supply one walk away & buy German.

[Brian Kirby]

lennyhb - 2010-12-14 8:37 AM ...........Nothing to stop the customer asking for a CoC after all he would only be asking the dealer to confirm the van meets the relevant standards & if they won't supply one walk away & buy German.

As I said, if the van is not Type Approved, it will not, and cannot, have a CoC - so you can ask 'till you are blue in the face: no TA = no CoC!  Simples!

[Brian Kirby]

lennyhb - 2010-12-14 8:35 AM

Brian Kirby - 2010-12-14 12:36 AM The ±5% tolerance applies to MIRO (also now called empty), as now specifically defined for motor caravans (i.e. without a 75kg driver).

What about fuel, water & gas then, the way they are setting the new standards does it mean we will have negative payload? German vans generally quote the ex work weight (don't like the new terminology) with 75kg Driver + 90%Fuel + 90%Water + 90%Gas.

Please see the "An adequate payload - 2? Correction" post, where the calculations are set out.

You are quoting from present usage, and I am talking about future (Post 29/4/2011) usage.

The terminology is changing, because the definition in the TA requirement has changed, so you may find sticking to the old terminology results in confusion between apples and pears.

[lennyhb]

Brian Kirby - 2010-12-14 11:18 AM

lennyhb - 2010-12-14 8:37 AM ...........Nothing to stop the customer asking for a CoC after all he would only be asking the dealer to confirm the van meets the relevant standards & if they won't supply one walk away & buy German.

As I said, if the van is not Type Approved, it will not, and cannot, have a CoC - so you can ask 'till you are blue in the face: no TA = no CoC!  Simples!

I don't see that, you can ask for CoC on any product you buy, weather they are willing to supply one is another matter.It does not have to be one stating it meets T/A you could ask for one stating it meets the relevant EN standards and weight/payload information.

[Brian Kirby]

lennyhb - 2010-12-14 11:35 AM ............I don't see that, you can ask for CoC on any product you buy, weather they are willing to supply one is another matter. It does not have to be one stating it meets T/A you could ask for one stating it meets the relevant EN standards and weight/payload information.

I don't understand, Lenny.  A ECWVTA Certificate of Conformity is official certification that a vehicle meets European Whole Vehicle Type Approval standards.  If it does not meet the standard, it will not get a Certificate of Conformity (CoC).  If it has not been tested, it cannot get a Certificate of Conformity.

Willingness to supply is irrelevant, the seller, and through him the manufacturer, is legally obliged to supply the CoC to the buyer.  I think you must be confusing these CoCs with something else.  A CoC knocked out by Joe Soap on a John Bull printing outfit would be about as much use as a chocolate teapot.

[Rosbotham]

rupert123 - 2010-12-13 9:22 PM

 

Rosbotham - 2010-12-13 9:13 PM

 

rupert123 - 2010-12-13 9:08 PM

 

OK fair enough but it could equally be the other way, I find it difficult to believe any maker would be this far out.

 

So if they're not going to be that far out, why not specify e.g. +/- 2%? They don't. Says it all.

 

The maker is not setting the rules they simply try and comply with them.

 

The rules set out the minimum accuracy with which the manufacturer has to provide figures. It does not preclude a manufacturer providing more accurate numbers. Pity that none seem to...if they did at least some of this issue would go away.

[rupert123]

Rosbotham - 2010-12-14 8:24 PM

 

rupert123 - 2010-12-13 9:22 PM

 

Rosbotham - 2010-12-13 9:13 PM

 

rupert123 - 2010-12-13 9:08 PM

 

OK fair enough but it could equally be the other way, I find it difficult to believe any maker would be this far out.

 

So if they're not going to be that far out, why not specify e.g. +/- 2%? They don't. Says it all.

 

The maker is not setting the rules they simply try and comply with them.

 

The rules set out the minimum accuracy with which the manufacturer has to provide figures. It does not preclude a manufacturer providing more accurate numbers. Pity that none seem to...if they did at least some of this issue would go away.

 

Who said they do not, the figures they give may be 'spot on', the manufacturor does not make the rules about this. The British maker Swift for example has had all their vans type approved for some time but still quote the standard 75kg driver 90% tanks etc thing with no mention of any new way of doing things. Personally I think this is the best way and the new rules as quoted by Brian are far to complicated. I found the 75kg plus 90% tanks bit easy to understand and compare, I also found it easy to sort out if the van would have the capacity to carry what I wanted. If I can do it anyone can, what is the problem here, are people really this stupid?

[derek pringle]

Swift say they are making model changes for 2012, but the new regulations have no requirement on Swift.

[rupert123]

derek pringle - 2010-12-15 4:19 PM

 

Swift say they are making model changes for 2012, but the new regulations have no requirement on Swift.

 

Not sure what you mean here Derek, explain please.

[derek pringle]

Hi Stalwart,

Having asked Swift techs (swift talk forum) about my Bessacarr 660 due for delivery end March/Beginning April was told the following.

My van will meet Directive 2001-116EC. Also state they are in the process of changing some models over to 2007-46EC.for 2012. They confirm there are no requirements for them in the new Directive.

Seems the models they are not changing will continue and the C.O.C. situation will remain for the rest, which may not make things clearer in lots of cases.

This exchange can be seen on Swift Talk.

cheers Stalwart

derek

[Brian Kirby]

rupert123 - 2010-12-15 12:08 PM ............. Personally I think this is the best way and the new rules as quoted by Brian are far to complicated. I found the 75kg plus 90% tanks bit easy to understand and compare, I also found it easy to sort out if the van would have the capacity to carry what I wanted. If I can do it anyone can, what is the problem here, are people really this stupid?

If you re-read the post Rupert, I think (hope :-)) you will see that the calculation is essentially unaltered.  All reservoirs are taken at 90% full, as before.  The luggage load is calculated as before at 10kg per person.  The equipment load is calculated as before at 10kg per metre of motorhome body length.  The only difference is that MIRO is calculated minus the driver, but the driver's 75kg gets added back because he is now treated as a passenger.

The difference is not the calculation, but that from 29/4/2011 motorhomes will have to be Type Approved, and to gain Type Approval, and so a CoC, they will have to demonstrate compliance with the calculation.

[Derek Uzzell]

There is a lot of useful background information on

 

http://www.vca.gov.uk/vehicletype/motor-caravans.asp

 

There is nothing revolutionary about the revised weight calculations. The significant thing is (as Brian explains) that new "motor caravans" that are currently exempt from Type Approval (TA) when sold in the UK will lose that privileged status. If this, together with the amended formulae relating to payload, kills the production of 'heavyweight' motorhome models like the Bessacarr E-630 that Derek Pringle innocently purchased, then that's surely got to be a significant leap forwards.

 

Putting aside the payload issue, I do wonder what other effects the removal of the UK TA exemption will have. This exemption currently allows USA-sourced RVs to be sold easily in the UK. Also, VED ('road tax') based on vehicle emissions is not applied to motorhomes.

 

Will the present arrangement, where new motorhomes fall into the anachronistic P/LG or PHG VED categories, still continue after 2012? If a new motorcaravan has to have TA to be marketed in the UK and the TA documentation were to carry emissions data that could be linked to the UK VED 'banding' system (which still isn't the case I believe), there's no reason why a motor caravan shouldn't attract the same VED rate as, say, a large thirsty 4x4 with a high-emissions motor.

[Brian Kirby]

derek pringle - 2010-12-15 6:01 PM Hi Stalwart, Having asked Swift techs (swift talk forum) about my Bessacarr 660 due for delivery end March/Beginning April was told the following. My van will meet Directive 2001-116EC. Also state they are in the process of changing some models over to 2007-46EC.for 2012. They confirm there are no requirements for them in the new Directive. Seems the models they are not changing will continue and the C.O.C. situation will remain for the rest, which may not make things clearer in lots of cases. This exchange can be seen on Swift Talk. cheers Stalwart derek

I can't find that particular exchange on Swift Talk, though I can find others of yours, Derek.  Could you either post a link to it, or copy over Swift's response?  I'm intrigued by aspects of what they appear to be saying.

[rupert123]

Brian Kirby - 2010-12-16 4:30 PM

derek pringle - 2010-12-15 6:01 PM Hi Stalwart, Having asked Swift techs (swift talk forum) about my Bessacarr 660 due for delivery end March/Beginning April was told the following. My van will meet Directive 2001-116EC. Also state they are in the process of changing some models over to 2007-46EC.for 2012. They confirm there are no requirements for them in the new Directive. Seems the models they are not changing will continue and the C.O.C. situation will remain for the rest, which may not make things clearer in lots of cases. This exchange can be seen on Swift Talk. cheers Stalwart derek

I can't find that particular exchange on Swift Talk, though I can find others of yours, Derek.  Could you either post a link to it, or copy over Swift's response?  I'm intrigued by aspects of what they appear to be saying.

Bit mystified over this still. I thought the 2007 directive was the COC for M/H, now most if not all Swift models already conform to this.

[Brian Kirby]

derek pringle - 2010-12-15 6:01 PM Hi Stalwart, Having asked Swift techs (swift talk forum) about my Bessacarr 660 due for delivery end March/Beginning April was told the following. My van will meet Directive 2001-116EC. Also state they are in the process of changing some models over to 2007-46EC.for 2012. They confirm there are no requirements for them in the new Directive. Seems the models they are not changing will continue and the C.O.C. situation will remain for the rest, which may not make things clearer in lots of cases. This exchange can be seen on Swift Talk. cheers Stalwart derek

Be a little bit cautious Derek, and check exactly what they mean.

The actual rules for calculating payload are contained in a third EC Directive, 92/21/EEC.

Adherence to this method of calculation was not mandatory under 2001/116/EC, which is why motorhomes made in UK did not have to comply with it.  At that time, in UK, compliance was voluntary.

It is 2007/46/EC that makes compliance with the 92/21/EEC method mandatory for all manufacturers, including in UK. 

Directive 2007/46/EC sets out the timetable for compliance with its provisions.  Under that timetable, existing models do not have to comply until 29/4/2012, so your new van, being an existing model with Type Approval under 2001/116/EC, does not have to be brought into compliance with 92/21/EEC until that date.  At least that is my understanding.

It would be a good idea to press Swift specifically to confirm whether or not your new van will comply with the method of calculating MIRO and payload as set out in 92/21/EEC, and if it does not, to state where, in their opinion, it fails, and to what extent.

[derek pringle]

Andy Spacey has sent you a message on SwiftTalk

 

Subject: type approval.

 

------------

Derek,

Your Motorhome will meet the TA Directive 2001-116 EC.

We are in the process of changing some models over to 2007-46 EC, but the requirement is to changeover fully in 2012.

 

I can confirm there are no new requirments for us in the new directive.

Regards

Andy

> Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 18:50:48 +0000

> From: derek pringle

> To: Andy Spacey

>

> Hi Andy,

> Point of clarification please.

> Will a Bessacarr e660 (current production model) built and delivered end March /beginning April 2011 be covered under the present rules of TA or the incoming new rules.

> cheers

> derek

>

> > Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 10:44:51 +0000

> > From: Andy Spacey

> > To: derek pringle

> >

> > Derek

> > All our Motorhomes are European Whole Vehicle Type Approved and therefore meet all the European Directives, Norms and Standards, this includes the European Payload Directive for Motohomes BS EN 1648 -2.

> > As a EWVTA vehicle it does come with a COC.

> > Regards

> > Andy

> > > Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 09:30:07 +0000

> > > From: derek pringle

> > > To: Andy Spacey

> > >

> > > Hi Andy,

> > > Could you tell me if a motorhome that is due to be delivered new from Swift at end of March/ Early April 2011 will be covered by the new EU regs on payload and will it carry the requisite C.O.C.

> > > thank you

> > > derek

------------

 

[derek pringle]

forgot to mention that Andy is one of the Techs from Swift who participate and try to help people on Swift Talk.

derek

[Brian Kirby]

Well, even with the 160 auto you should still have around 550kg payload.  It will depend a bit how you load it but, unless you want to carry a couple of motor scooters or similar, it should work. 

[derek pringle]

No Brian, just a couple of e-bikes and a fishing rod or two.

Will obviously be more mindfull now. I am sorted now but concerned about folk presently in a bad situation or about to take delivery. Taking a knowledgeable experienced motorhomer with you when searching for a van seems a good idea until you get to know your way around things. The more things can be improved the better.

cheers

derek