Jump to content

Practical Motorhome Eldiss Aspire and loading margins


Poppy

Recommended Posts

Read a good write up on the Eldis Aspire in the Practical Motorhome.While it praised its strong points it drew attention two or three times to the poor loading margins and sugested that it was really only viable on a 4000 kg chassis.In answer to a readers query they STRONGLY advised that no one bought a motorhome without allowing on average 75kgs for every adult regularly travelled, water gas etc and a further 400 kgs useable payload above that.Very responsible.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I note that the review of the Aspire 215 in the current MMM referred to the fact that they (Elddis) should consider building it on the 3500kg base, rather than the 3300kg one.

The way it was written implied that it was not a documented option (and on my initial look at the website some time ago, I didn't see it either).

It is, however, an option at an extra £1,920, and as the basic model is £43,899 I just cannot see the point in even offering it on the lower-spec chassis.

Yes, I know items are price-sensitive, but surely not to that extent - and it must be better to avoid the bad publicity that is most certainly going to arise when your "uninformed punter" realises they've bought something that is virtually unusable. :-( 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I swopped vans the payload was an important factor.

 

Two bikes, bike rack, tank of water, extra battery, solar panels, food clothes etc. and many vans were going to be well overweight.

 

Some might manage with a 300 kg payload but take 150 kgs off for two people and there is little left.

 

Try getting a dealer to actually weigh any van you are interested in, they are all heavier than the published weight.

 

My own requirements were for at least 500kg payload excluding the driver and passenger, I managed to get this plus a good good margin.

 

Do not under estimate the importance of getting the figures right, the French Police (and here) will stop vans that look overweight and weigh them there and then. Plus the handling of an overweight van suffers badly fuel consumption goes up and mechanical parts are subject to loads they are not designed for.

 

You might notice mine is on a Transit.

 

H

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There appears to be another Weight that neither MMM, CC or PM magazines have picked up on regarding the Aspire models.

MAM = 3300kg with Payload 200kg ofor the smaller model or MAM = 3500kg with Payload 240kg for the other two.

 

All models will exceed the 3050kg Unladen weight restriction (previous post by Brian Kirby, details the imminent changes) that will limits speed to 60mph on Motorways, etc..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

flicka - 2011-02-17 2:21 PM

 

There appears to be another Weight that neither MMM, CC or PM magazines have picked up on regarding the Aspire models.

MAM = 3300kg with Payload 200kg ofor the smaller model or MAM = 3500kg with Payload 240kg for the other two.

 

All models will exceed the 3050kg Unladen weight restriction (previous post by Brian Kirby, details the imminent changes) that will limits speed to 60mph on Motorways, etc..

 

I think you mean:-

 

50mph single carriageways

60mph Dual Carriageways

70mph Motorways

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

flicka - 2011-02-17 2:21 PM There appears to be another Weight that neither MMM, CC or PM magazines have picked up on regarding the Aspire models. MAM = 3300kg with Payload 200kg ofor the smaller model or MAM = 3500kg with Payload 240kg for the other two. All models will exceed the 3050kg Unladen weight restriction (previous post by Brian Kirby, details the imminent changes) that will limits speed to 60mph on Motorways, etc..

I'm not so sure that this is true, John, since the definition of unladen weight is unlikely to equate to the Mass in Running Order, as used for motorhomes.

There is some debate about what "unladen weight" really means, but, if you follow DirectGov documented principles, then all the allowances included in the MIRO, (e.g. driver, gas, water, fuel, etc.) can be discounted, and I suspect that the unladen weight of at least the 215, (and possible the others as well), would fall below the limit.

Unfortunately, as the water tank size doesn't appear to be published, a quick back-of-fag-packet calculation isn't possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robinhood - 2011-02-17 6:37 PM
flicka - 2011-02-17 2:21 PM There appears to be another Weight that neither MMM, CC or PM magazines have picked up on regarding the Aspire models. MAM = 3300kg with Payload 200kg ofor the smaller model or MAM = 3500kg with Payload 240kg for the other two. All models will exceed the 3050kg Unladen weight restriction (previous post by Brian Kirby, details the imminent changes) that will limits speed to 60mph on Motorways, etc..

I'm not so sure that this is true, John, since the definition of unladen weight is unlikely to equate to the Mass in Running Order, as used for motorhomes.

There is some debate about what "unladen weight" really means, but, if you follow DirectGov documented principles, then all the allowances included in the MIRO, (e.g. driver, gas, water, fuel, etc.) can be discounted, and I suspect that the unladen weight of at least the 215, (and possible the others as well), would fall below the limit.

Unfortunately, as the water tank size doesn't appear to be published, a quick back-of-fag-packet calculation isn't possible.

Agreed RobinhoodI had not taken into consideration how the MIRO & Unladen Weights are calculated.AND I guess 99.9% of first time buyers won't know the difference either, same for a lot of the Police or VOSA.The only C of C document, I got on purchase states the MIRO. No mention of U/W.Got me wondering now, how many forum members know their actual Unladen Weight. (?)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi,

Just been watching "Emergency Bikers" on telly (I know need to get a life but its pouring down here) anyway evil knieval stopped what looked like a bog standard Transit for going over 60mph on a dual carriageway (O.K. the pratt was doing 89mph so he deserved it), but with this white van man and the next in a swb Mercedes he stressed the 60mph limit for these commercial vehicles on dual carriageways. The first guy thought the limit was 70 but the Merc driver knew it was 60.

Cop didn't ask MIRO or MAM just used the speed gun.

Can anyone explain to a poor simple guy what the actual rule is?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's been done before on here, but I can't be bothered to search.

 

The following (second table) gives the detail:

 

http://www.dcsafetycameras.org/education/carDrivers/index.aspx

 

Commercial (non-car derived) vans are subject to lower limits than a car.

 

Motorhomes, as long as their unladen weight does not exceed 3050kg are subject to the same limit as cars.

 

(UK only, of course)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lennyhb - 2011-02-18 12:54 PM

 

Me too, 3140 kg

 

 

My guess Lenny - that is your MIRO ? - or your payload will be miniscule.

 

My MIRO is 3025kg as stated on my C of C - but, I would have to calculate actual Unladen weight.

- 75kg Driver -90% fuel - 90% Gas - 90% Water, etc..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Been having a rummage thorugh my paperwork and found a 'Certificat De Conformite'. :-D

 

This is what is says about weights:

 

masse en charge maximale techniquement admissible

Permitted maximum laden mass = 3500kg

 

masse en charge maximale de l'ensemble en service dans l'etat

maximum laden mass including trailer, ie maximum train weight = 4500kg

 

masse en service (G1 + 75kg)/ masse du vehicule avec carrosserie en ordre de marche

operating mass / mass of the vehicle with bodywork in running order = 2788kg

 

poids a vide national

Kerb weight = 2713 kg

 

repartition de cette masse entre les essieux

axle weight distribution = 1504 (front) 1996 (rear)

 

masse maximale techniquement admissible sur chaque essieu

technically permissible maximum mass on each axle = 1750 (front) 2250 (rear)

 

masse verticale maximale au point d'accouplement de la remorque

mass at the point of maximum vertical coupling of the trailer (ie nose weight) = 75kg

 

masse maximale de la remorque

maximum mass of trailer = 1000kg braked, 750kg unbraked

 

So we have an unladen weight of 2788kg, leaving a payload of 712kg, less the weight of the fixed awning, bike rack, solar panel and tv aerial, so say we're left with 600kg after the've been taken into account.

 

What is interesting though is the maximum axle weights which add up to 4000kg! I suppose that means that if we really needed more payload we 'may' be able to uprate, not that I anticipate we'll ever use the full remaining 600kg we have, no matter how may pies we scoff!!!!

:D :D (lol) (lol)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably not that significant, but that 2,788kg includes the driver at a nominal 75kg.  Might be better to aim at the 2,753kg figure, add actual weights of driver and passenger to that, and deduct from MAM.  However, your MRO is higher, because of the fixed items you've added, and you need to allow for the ± 5% tolerance on MRO.

Weighbridge check desirable in unladen state, if you really want to know payload!  :-)

BTW, the sum of the axle maxima will always exceed the MAM, otherwise loading the vehicle within the load restrictions would become almost impossible.  Re-plating to the sum of the axle maxima is possible, but it is almost invariably one, or other, of the axles that reaches its load limit before MAM is reached, so any payload gain is liable to be illusory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excuse any ignorance here, but the terms MTPLM and MAM seem to be used to describe the same thing: the maximum allowable mass of the vehicle, is this correct? And, if so, are the terms interchangable?

 

If not, what are the differences and when would you use one over the other?

 

Thanks for any clarity.

 

Rgds,

Chris.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

bolero boy - 2011-02-20 3:20 PM

 

Excuse any ignorance here, but the terms MTPLM and MAM seem to be used to describe the same thing: the maximum allowable mass of the vehicle, is this correct? And, if so, are the terms interchangable?

 

If not, what are the differences and when would you use one over the other?

 

Thanks for any clarity.

 

Rgds,

Chris.

 

MAM = maximum allowable mass (as you posted)

Which was preceeded by MTPLM

MTPLM =maximum technical permissible laden mass

Which, itself was pre 1998 known as MGW maximum gross weight)

 

Definition:-

Civil Servants running out of work, so let's change some definitions - that will cause some confusion & keep us in a job :D :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a little tip on public weighbridges. Most charge for each weight recorded so if you want to know the total weight plus front and rear axle loadings pay for only the front and rear axle loadings and add the two to give total weight or have the total weight read and only one axle getting the reading for the second one by subtraction.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...