Rocking Ron Posted July 3, 2011 Share Posted July 3, 2011 Hi Well it did While traveling down the M1 we were pulled over for a weight check. Only to be told we were over weight by 84 Kg. At the time we were touring and carrying a full tank of water. On explaining this to the constable I was allowed to drain off and continue our journey My question is as follows When the constable was explaining the data plate to me it did nt seem right, but because he was about to let me drive on I didnt question him on the subject. The plate is as follows Top line 2655Kg 2800Kg all his calculations based on 2655Kg Next line 4155Kg 4300Kg towing N.A. F axle 1460Kg R axle 1460Kg F + R axle = 2920Kg ??? Could someone please explain the above data to me Thank in antisipatoin Rocking Ron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JudgeMental Posted July 3, 2011 Share Posted July 3, 2011 It might help if you tell us year and model of van....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lennyhb Posted July 3, 2011 Share Posted July 3, 2011 Don't understand the top line unless the higher weight is an option and one of the figurers should have been deleted by the converter, has a sticker that should have covered one figure dropped off. The correct figure will be the one in your V5. It's normal for the total of both axles to exceed the gross weight but you mustn't exceed either the axle weights of the total gross weight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 Can you post a pic of the plate? It doesn't make sense. What is the make/model and year of the base chassis? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 Rocking Ron - 2011-07-03 9:55 PM Hi Well it did While traveling down the M1 we were pulled over for a weight check. Only to be told we were over weight by 84 Kg. At the time we were touring and carrying a full tank of water. On explaining this to the constable I was allowed to drain off and continue our journey My question is as follows When the constable was explaining the data plate to me it did nt seem right, but because he was about to let me drive on I didnt question him on the subject. The plate is as follows Top line 2655Kg 2800Kg all his calculations based on 2655Kg Next line 4155Kg 4300Kg towing N.A. F axle 1460Kg R axle 1460Kg F + R axle = 2920Kg ??? Could someone please explain the above data to me Thank in antisipatoin Rocking Ron Having got into this subject lately *-).......I think you will find the 2655kg is your GVM, ie the total your vehicle must weigh with everything and everyone onboard,,,,,,,,,,,,,which I assume you were over by 84k ;-)..................unfortunately adding the 2 axles together will not give you your maximum weight :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scramblers Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 Using a picture of the plate from a Ford vehicle. Gross vehicle weight (GVW) is the maximum legally permitted weight of the vehicle plus load (not to be confused with design weight, which is usually higher). Gross train weight (GTW) is the total weight of the tractor unit plus trailer plus load (sometimes called gross combination weight (GCW)). Hope this is helpful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocking Ron Posted July 4, 2011 Author Share Posted July 4, 2011 Sorry about the lack of detail this is as follows 1998 Fiat dugato 1900 TD Could my theory be correct 2655Kg = unlaiden weight .......................... 2800Kg = M A M No M A M weight on V5 yours Rocking Ron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robinhood Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 Without the detail from the VIN plate, it's very difficult to tell what the numbers are. However: The 1.9TD Ducato of that vintage certainly came in a 2.8tonne version. This would clearly match with the 2800kg figure you are quoting. (I'm pretty sure there wasn't a factory standard 2655kg version) This leaves us with the mystery of the 2655kg figure, which, IMO, looks far too high for an "unladen weight" (in any form). I've never seen a vin plate with two figures for both GVW and GTW, as your post implies, but it is interesting to note that the difference in both cases is 155kg. Do the two figures in each case appear alongside each other? It could be that the 2800kg figure has been downrated, but I can think of no (common) reason why that would be desirable, and it would also seem to be an odd way of recording it. edit: ....it's interesting to note, however, that the question has been asked before: http://www.motorhomefacts.com/forum-printtopic-1-74379-0-0-asc-viewresult-1.html Whilst we now know the basis of the 'van, what motorhome is it (i.e. converter and model name). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mel B Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 After having a little mooch round the internet, I think it's the following: Top line: 2655Kg = kerbweight/unladen mass OR mass in running order 2800Kg = I assume this is your MAM? Do you really only have a 145kg payload????? Next line: 4155Kg = unladen mass whilst towing, 4300Kg laden mass whilst towing F axle 1460Kg = front axle max weight R axle 1460Kg = rear axle max weight F + R axle = 2920Kg = total of front and rear maximum axle weight (always greater than your MAM) What does the converter's plate say???? I did read on the internet that in Ireland there may be differences in the amount of VAT/tax paid depending on the unladen mass, maybe that's part of it???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 Mel B - 2011-07-04 6:37 PM After having a little mooch round the internet, I think it's the following: Top line: 2655Kg = kerbweight/unladen mass OR mass in running order 2800Kg = I assume this is your MAM? Do you really only have a 145kg payload????? Next line: 4155Kg = unladen mass whilst towing, 4300Kg laden mass whilst towing F axle 1460Kg = front axle max weight R axle 1460Kg = rear axle max weight F + R axle = 2920Kg = total of front and rear maximum axle weight (always greater than your MAM) What does the converter's plate say???? I did read on the internet that in Ireland there may be differences in the amount of VAT/tax paid depending on the unladen mass, maybe that's part of it???? I can't find any reference to alternative MAMs etc being indicated. The first figure, as stated above, is usually (I think invariably) the MAM.. Second is GTW. 1 (or simply next listed) is front axle. 2 (or again, next listed) is rear axle. On a two axle vehicle, that's yer lot! I don't think any plate ever quotes unladen, or any variation of unladen. It is not a legal requirement. As asked above, is there a converters plate. If so, it will supersede the Fiat plate. Otherwise, is this the original/correct plate? Do all the stamped numbers look the same, or has the plate possibly been tampered with? For such a small difference there must be a reason. Have you tried contacting Fiat customer services? One of their technical bods may be able to assist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mel B Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 On one article I found, written for MMM, about a Pioneer Raleigh motorhome based on a Peugeot, it clearly stated that the motorhome's unladen weight was 2655kg, and the MAM, for that particular vehicle, was 3300kg, so I think that the 2655kg is definitely the 'unladen weight' which in reality means the unladen weight of the vehicle in running order: http://www.outandaboutlive.co.uk/userfiles/file/MMM%20historic%20road%20tests/Pioneer%20Raleigh%20on%20mwb%202.0%20HDi%20Peugeot%20Boxer%20.pdf These are interesting too: http://www.motorhomefacts.com/forum-printtopic-1-94349-0-0-asc-viewresult-1.html http://www.motorhomefacts.com/forum-printtopic-1-20565-0-0-asc-viewresult-1.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Madge Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 This is my uprated vin plate the details a very clear. Don Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mel B Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 Rocking Ron - 2011-07-03 9:55 PM When the constable was explaining the data plate to me it did nt seem right, but because he was about to let me drive on I didnt question him on the subject. The plate is as follows Top line 2655Kg 2800Kg all his calculations based on 2655Kg IMV the constable was wrong anyway, the weight he SHOULD have been working out his calculations on was 2800kg, ie the MAM on that plate, so he had you dump the water for nothing. If you have his details it might be worth contacting the police station he is attached to and speaking to the desk Sargeant there, if the constable isn't told how to do the check correctly, he could land some other poor soul in trouble unnecessarily. I still can't believe though that this is the correct MAM for your vehicle, it is more likely to be 3200, 3300, or 3500kg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Madge Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 Mel B - 2011-07-04 7:51 PM I still can't believe though that this is the correct MAM for your vehicle, it is more likely to be 3200, 3300, or 3500kg. Mel, We had one from 92 to 95 and the MAM's about right for a 98 1.9 TD. Don Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robinhood Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 Brian Kirby - 2011-07-04 7:10 PM I can't find any reference to alternative MAMs etc being indicated. The first figure, as stated above, is usually (I think invariably) the MAM.. Second is GTW. 1 (or simply next listed) is front axle. 2 (or again, next listed) is rear axle. On a two axle vehicle, that's yer lot! I don't think any plate ever quotes unladen, or any variation of unladen. It is not a legal requirement. I can managage to find several references to weight plates that carry two figures for the two particular categories under discussion (GVW/MAM, and GTW). The first column (lower figure) defines the maximum weight relevant to the use in the UK, whereas the second figure defines the design weight. The first figure is that which is used for the legal road limits, the second can be used for various testing calculations. The problem I have is that the brief details I can find would lead me to believe that this is generally in use for HGV plating. However, if there is no other explanation, and this does apply in HGV plating, then one can understand why the lower weight was applied, even if there was an error made somewhere. As per my previous post, the example obviously isn't isolated (as we have reference to a very similar plate, with essentially the same figures). I suppose coincidences could happen, and it might just be the same vehicle, and therefore a one-off; but it seems unlikely. Whilst I'm very cynical about the payloads currently available, I simply cannot believe the two figures represent MIRO and MAM. (whatever method is used to define MIRO). Despite Mel's misgivings about the low MAM, Swift were quite happy to build coachbuilt 'vans on the 2800kg SWB 1.9TD Ducato of that vintage, so I am pretty sure it is a 2800kg base vehicle, but maybe with a plate downrated for the UK market??. All very peculiar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keithl Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Ron, As you say your log book (V5) doesn't quote a figure for MAM could you blank out the lower figure, say with a small piece of black tape, and then use the 2,800kg figure as your MAM? You wouldn't be doing anything illegall and could always say that was how you purchased it! And anyway, who could prove anything any different? Or do you have a sales brochure for the correct year with a figure in? Just a thought or two. Keith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocking Ron Posted July 8, 2011 Author Share Posted July 8, 2011 Hi Sorry for the delay, been away for a few days. First let me thank all of you for your contributions and allow me to provide further info. chassis No ZFA 23000005357213 convertor Granduca 4 C.I stable I think ? L 5. 50 W 2.29 H 3.05 Double leaf springs on rear axle Further to your replies Can not see any sign of numbers being covered up No tec. for photo Plate looks genuine Can not find a convertors plate looked behind the covers in the foot well one contains chassis No. the other is a set of No. 836 13 117 Once again thank Rocking Ron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian81 Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 On a wider point I do question what is happening in the UK!!!! Haven't the police got better things to do given the number of uninsured cars on the road and the amount of crime / antisocial behaviour. Travelling about and based on the continent I suspect that the vast majority of mh's are overweight which one blames in part on the regulations plus manufacturers who make push out mh's with very little addional payload. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robinhood Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 ian81 - 2011-07-08 9:53 PM On a wider point I do question what is happening in the UK!!!! Haven't the police got better things to do given the number of uninsured cars on the road and the amount of crime / antisocial behaviour. Travelling about and based on the continent I suspect that the vast majority of mh's are overweight which one blames in part on the regulations plus manufacturers who make push out mh's with very little addional payload. ....ah, the regulations and the manufacturers! That would make it all right to be overweight (and thus potentially unsafe) then! Funnily enough, I thought the regulations comprised the major part of the law, much like those that relate to compulsory insurance. Frankly, I'd rather have more police on the road enforcing the laws in an advised manner, rather than relying simply on speed cameras etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Brown Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 It's always the cry - don't the police have better things to do? The laws of the land are not made by the police, they are made by our government (as instructed by the EU) The police have the task of enforcing the law. They cannot, in my opinion, deal with every bit of legislation all of the time so for them to deal with some of it some of the time is a step in the right direction. I want to see more police on the roads stopping everyone who is visibly committing an offence. They can then exercise their discretion by giving offenders a verbal warning. The point of all this is that many people do not realise they are committing offences and when they do get stopped feel the police should be 'catching criminals' By definition, all those who transgress the law are criminals. Over weight vans are a potential danger and if truth be told owners should know better or accept the consequences of their ignorance. Is it not time we supported the police in the very difficult task they have? In this instance justice was done and the offender allowed to continue his journey probably because of the confusion relating to the figures on the plate. I suspect the police may have got it wrong on this occasion but what the hell, they are doing their job!!! Long may they continue. As regards the cameras mentioned above - I think they cause as many accidents as they prevent. We have all followed vehicles where the driver has just seen the camera and slammed the brakes on causing following vehicles a bit of trauma. Art Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BGD Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 "We have all followed vehicles where the driver has just seen the camera and slammed the brakes on causing following vehicles a bit of trauma." But only if you are speeding too, and are travelling too close to the vehicle in front of you. There's a REALLY easy way to avoid that problem.........................don't speed; and leave a LOT more room between yourself and the vehicle in front of you. YOU are in control of and responsible for, both those two things, NOT the vehicle(s) in front of you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robinhood Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 Rocking Ron - 2011-07-08 8:26 PM Hi Sorry for the delay, been away for a few days. First let me thank all of you for your contributions and allow me to provide further info. chassis No ZFA 23000005357213 convertor Granduca 4 C.I stable I think ? L 5. 50 W 2.29 H 3.05 Double leaf springs on rear axle Further to your replies Can not see any sign of numbers being covered up No tec. for photo Plate looks genuine Can not find a convertors plate looked behind the covers in the foot well one contains chassis No. the other is a set of No. 836 13 117 Once again thank Rocking Ron ...well, after a short diversion, back to the chase. Fiat ePER confirms the identity of the vehicle, (as a SWB 1930TD Ducato 10), but is less than forthcoming about any further weight data. One thing, I've not seen before is that it gives two possible descriptions for the VIN as below: 230.436.0(0) CABINATO 1930 TD 10Q PASSO CORTO 230A3.000 230.436.0(1) CABINATO CARRO 1930 TD 10Q PASSO CORTO 230A3.000 ...which, though I'm not au fait with all the vagaries of the ePER system makes me wonder whether it has been modified in, or at the end of the production line. Headline details are (other than the slight difference in description noted above) the same for both: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 Cabinato carro translates literally as cabin cart. Googling cabinato carro suggests cabinato is a flatbed, or chassis cab, while cabinato carro is possibly with a boxvan body. Doesn't explain either way why the MAM and GTW should vary. This seems just to be Fiat's ex-works plate, and the converter's plate is missing or hidden. CI's plate might be an adhesive transfer on the side of the van body, stuck on the front door slams, on the front wing inside the footwell, etc. Is there a manual or handbook with any clues as to where they hide it? Anyone got a Granduca, and knows where the converter's plate hides? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocking Ron Posted July 13, 2011 Author Share Posted July 13, 2011 Hi Thanks Brian and every one for there research/comments Please to say I found the missing convertors plate.Went to get it weighed yesterday and with the help of the chap at the weigh bridge we found it on the engine bay bulk head.It was behind some sound proofing I fitted years ago (ups) Plate as follows 2800 3600 1460 1460 At the weigh in I had on board the boss +every thing needed for a trip out with the exception of food,clothing and water I weighed in at 2700Kg not much room for manoevure. Is it possible to up grade the M A M ? if so how Sorry if I caused you all a lot of agro. Yours Rocking Ron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JudgeMental Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 Well Ron at least you had the decency to come back and tell us whats happening......many dont You can try SV Tech they will tell you over the phone if you can uprate the chassis here is a link: http://www.svtech.co.uk/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.